'Soft power' is more a matter of personnel than skill. America's 'soft power' comes from the presence of its apologists in other countries, who repeat its message, attack its enemies, etc. This has two important consequences: (1) it's adversarial; (2) it can decline rapidly.
'Soft power' is adversarial because it's about getting your view of events heard over others, but if your position becomes increasingly practically untenable (as your power declines), then your advocates increasingly just become loudmouthed liabilities.
This is why 'soft power' can decline rapidly: as other forms of (relative) power decline, your advocates around the world become liabilities to their hosts rather than assets. All that has to happen then, for a widespread collapse, is for those countries to switch personnel.
This kind of 'soft power collapse' is more likely to happen if you harden rather than moderate your position in the face of relative decline, particularly if you harden your position against your main competitor. Other countries will promote people who support the competitor.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've been saying for a long time that censorship will get stronger as US relative power declines, since the West has less overt censorship solely because it is hegemonic, and that has obviously been happening. But Western propaganda is also getting cruder for the same reason.
Since it's getting easier for other countries to tell their own stories, both because of declining US relative power and lower costs of entry, it's no longer possible for the US and allies to rely on being the world's de facto source of truth. The result is cruder narratives.
Given these dynamics, the obvious play for countries like China and Russia is to push the message that the US and its allies aren't exceptional. They aren't especially free or trustworthy. They're just regular countries. This is now difficult to counter without proving the point.
Under capitalism, society is organized into what you might call ‘consumption brigades’. These are various organized hobbies, fandoms, lifestyles, etc, that people can subscribe to. Membership of one often predicts likelihood of membership of another, forming clusters.
Consumption is highly organized under capitalism, usually at the ‘industry’ level (e.g., video games) but sometimes individual enterprises operate their own ‘consumption brigades’ (Apple, Disney-Marvel, etc). Products are often updated annually or released according to schedule.
Much attention is given to advertising, but the real work is done in the magazines, websites, YouTube channels, etc, that serve each consumption brigade. The ‘informed‘ consumer regularly gorges himself on such materials in order to know what purchases he should be making.
The most important question in economics is why the nation-state isn’t just organized as one big, administered enterprise (i.e., a form of state socialism). The usual answers take ‘the market’ to be normative and talk about ‘inefficiencies’, but this is misguided.
You can flip the issue around and avoid taking ‘the market’ as the default: every economy would be one big, administered enterprise; the convoluted structure we call the ‘market economy’ appears due to ‘state intervention’; specifically laws of property, trust, etc.
The ‘varieties of capitalism’ are actually varieties of (state) socialism. Different countries have more or less convoluted administrative structures (i.e., further from default managerialism) depending the degree to which policy has been informed by the discipline of economics.
The idea that America ‘has no culture’ and that it’s culture is merely the result of commercialism or naturally-occurring hedonism is employed to mask the sheer quantity of violence and coercion it has taken to spread that culture worldwide.
The presence of American culture is often taken to be the mark of freedom in other countries. “Before the authoritarians came, people were listening to American music and wearing American style dress and observing American mores.“ Because what else would free people do?
‘Freedom‘, then, merely means creating the kind of environment where American corporations and media can dominate. Free trade, free markets, the free press, etc, are all legal constructs that favor large American incumbents over local suppliers of goods and services.
Academia in the liberal West is controlled by appeals to ‘agency’, ‘pluralism’, and ‘political relevance’. These are every bit as dogmatic as the ideological demands placed on academia by ‘authoritarian’ societies. ‘Academic freedom’ is the project of imposing them.
The concepts used to control discourse, to ensure its liberal content - that it must make space for agency, pluralism, and political relevance - are also realized within the academy itself, so that the academy is expected to exemplify these concepts, rendering them incontestable.
This is the circularity of ‘academic freedom’. It is defined as the academy exemplifying liberal values, which ultimately amounts to it enforcing liberal ideology on its members. This is no different from the academy enforcing any other ideology, it just has better branding.
The purpose of liberalism is to control technology and technical knowledge. 'Private corporations' are silos for technical knowledge. 'Free trade' is about using power asymmetries to keep other states underdeveloped. 'Intellectual property' is used to stop knowledge transfer.
The international system works like this: You must adopt core liberal tenets for isolating technical knowledge before we can share it with you. That means 'free markets', 'intellectual property', etc. You must adopt the containment system before gaining access to the knowledge.
The rest of the liberal system is about how to view technology (and science) and how to use it. You must not read any kind of teleology into science and technology. Technology is all 'happy accidents' created in the 'pursuit of profit'. Science exposes the world as meaningless.