[baybal2]

> 1976 soviet TV docco about New York:

Even such documentaries were curtailed, nor aired, or aired only in Moscow and very later, or screened privately.

This particular ones seem to be aimed not on your average union's citizen, and it feels much more like "internal propaganda." Such things were screened to lower level CPSU members, and whomever amounted to social elites as prophylaxis exactly against such scenario as above,

[082349872349872]

I've also run across a few major US cities in filmstrips on https://diafilmy.su , were those censored as well?

[baybal2]

I never saw USSR myself, but for few very blurry memories of my first years of life I barely recall.

But from my lifelong interest studying how countries work, and fail, I would tell that an average union's citizen would be given a chance to see such inoculatory dosages of "truths" a dozen or so times in his life, the more the higher the rank the person has in the society. And that for most, the exposure to it will pass more or less without consequences, given how watered down it was.

I believe their rationale for engaging in the later was to influence their own elites as much as they can until the level where the benefit from it comes close to the harm from truth stirring up "proles."

I'd say a half of all adult, moderately intellectually developed, working age people by eighties had an idea in principle that:

1. USA is more well off than the union, some even knew by how much from smuggled Western press.

2. That all communists are liars, and that the CPSU is now corrupt beyond salvation.

3. That Radio Liberty is probably not all lie.

4. USA is probably less corrupt than USSR, or at least their bosses don't steal more than half of worker's salary.

5. That it's possible that not all Americans were millionaires, but nevertheless, even some non-millionaires may be able to afford a car in USA...

6. That CPSU keeps microdosing them with much distorted, and watered down depictions of reality in, and outside of the union, in just enough dosage as to preserve CPSU's last vestiges of credibility, as to make what they say not entirely silly.

[082349872349872]

Thank you. That seems to confirm the first half of my hypothesis for the rise of ЕР in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24698473 , do you have any opinions on the validity of the second half?

> "neo-feudalism is what one gets when russians spend the 1980's deciding the capitalists had valid criticisms of communism, then the 1990's deciding the communists had valid criticisms of capitalism."

where by neo-feudalism I mean I believe the basic deal Putin has with the populace is: (1) living standards will increase, (2) what corruption there is will keep its ill-gotten gains at home and not flee to London, and (3) governors may fleece their region according to taste but if they're so blatant as to cause a major scandal they'll be out.

[baybal2]

> where by neo-feudalism I mean I believe the basic deal Putin has with the populace is: what corruption there is will keep its ill-gotten gains at home and not flee to London, followed by governors may fleece their region but if there's a scandal they're out.

Somewhat remotely close to truth. The trick of Putin's ascension to power was him being completely pliant when it comes to crimes of regional elites, mafias, and governors. He did pretty much everything, but saying it out loud that "I will let you steal as much as you want if you just don't touch me"

1. It didn't anywhere, but in Moscow, and their imagination

2. A majority did flee to London, as mafias went out of all bounds killing each other when Putin gave them that carte blanche

3. There were, and are governors who are scandalised more than Jerry Springer

[srtjstjsj]

> . USA is probably less corrupt than USSR, or at least their bosses don't steal more than half of worker's salary.

The US is working hard to close that gap.