A Czech playwright predicted the Soviet collapse 11 years before it happened.
While CIA analysts studied missile counts and economic indicators, Václav Havel explained why communist regimes would fall from moral exhaustion, destroying itself from the inside.
The experts dismissed him. History proved them wrong. 🧵
In 1978, The Soviet System Looked Permanent
Western analysts treated communist rule as unchangeable fact. Military power. Total surveillance. Complete control.
Political scientists predicted gradual reform at best. Revolution seemed impossible.
But they were missing one important factor.
Havel Understood What The Data Couldn't Capture
In his underground essay "The Power of the Powerless," written in 1978, Havel identified the regime's hidden fragility.
Communist systems didn't survive through force alone. They required mass participation in obvious lies.
Every citizen had to pretend the system worked. Every worker had to attend celebrations for policies they knew were failing. Every student had to repeat slogans contradicting observable reality.
This created exhaustion that military strength couldn't cure.
The Greengrocer's Dilemma
Havel described a shop owner displaying "Workers of the world, unite!" in his window.
Not because he believes it. Because refusing marks him as dangerous.
The regime demanded millions of these small moral compromises daily. Attend the rally. Sign the petition. Applaud the speech. Affirm the obvious falsehood.
Each compliance corroded something in the person performing it.
"Living In Truth" As Political Strategy
Havel argued that simply refusing to participate in required lies would expose the system's weakness.
Not organizing militias. Not plotting coups. Just refusing to affirm things you know are false.
He called this "living in truth": treating obvious contradictions as if they were obvious.
The intellectual framework mattered. This wasn't naive idealism. It was rigorous analysis of how systems requiring mass pretending eventually exhaust their participants.
The Missing Variable In Expert Analysis
Western analysts weren't wrong about economics and military competition. The Soviet bloc was losing the arms race and facing severe economic stagnation.
But they missed the compounding factor: systems requiring daily betrayal of observed reality eventually produce populations incapable of defending anything, including the regime itself.
When economic pressure meets moral exhaustion, collapse accelerates.
November 1989 Proved The Dissidents Right
Communist regimes across Eastern Europe collapsed within weeks. Havel went from imprisoned dissident to president of Czechoslovakia in months.
Every expert who dismissed his analysis as naive idealism watched him lead a nation while they revised their theories.
The dissidents had understood the system better than the analysts. Because they lived under the required lies. The experts just theorized from comfortable distance.
Your Generation Recognizes The Pattern
You grew up watching institutions demand you accept obvious contradictions.
Celebrate declining standards as progress. Say the economy works while you can't afford rent. Treat ideological conformity as intellectual sophistication. Affirm narratives that contradict what you can observe.
Havel proved that systems requiring mass participation in obvious falsehoods become fragile over time.
The Exhaustion You Feel Isn't Weakness
Your generation's refusal to participate in institutional demands for conformity isn't cynicism. It's pattern recognition.
The exhaustion from being asked to ignore observable reality isn't a character flaw. It's the same moral fatigue Havel identified as the precursor to institutional collapse.
And refusing to say things you know are false isn't being contrarian. It's maintaining the capacity to think clearly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ronald Coase set out to prove that Socialism was superior to the chaos of the market.
So he went to America to see how giant industries were actually managed.
What he found destroyed his worldview. And won him a Nobel Prize.
This is the story of how a young socialist became one of the most important economists of the 20th century by following evidence over ideology. 🧵
London, 1929. A 19-year-old economics student at LSE calls himself a "soft socialist."
The intellectual consensus seemed obvious: markets were chaos, central planning was science.
His professors had a compelling argument: businesses are already mini-planned economies. If planning works inside firms, why not scale it to entire nations?
For young Coase, the logic felt inevitable. Scientific management promised order. The invisible hand looked like randomness.
But in 1931, he won a scholarship that would change everything: a chance to study American industry firsthand.
He went expecting to document techniques for improving socialist planning. He found something that shattered his worldview instead.
Everyone Wants Democratic Transition for Venezuela
But how do you restore democracy in a kleptocratic state captured by criminal elites?
To understand the problem, you need to understand how Venezuela got here. This story is a stark reminder that freedom isn't lost overnight, but slowly dismantled, one piece at a time. 🧵
The Liberation Myth: Venezuela Started With a Promise
In 1811, Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He dreamed of a unified, free South America built on republican ideals.
But Bolivar's revolution created a nation, not stability. What followed was a century of chaos.
A Century of Strongmen: The 19th Century Belonged to Caudillos
After independence came civil wars, military coups, and regional warlords fighting for control. Venezuela cycled through dozens of governments.
Power didn't come from elections. It came from controlling enough armed men to take Caracas. Whoever seized the capital claimed to speak for the nation.
“I'm against Maduro, but I think what Trump did was wrong.”
This sentence sounds reasonable, balanced, and mature. The kind of thing a serious person would say to avoid seeming radical.
The problem is that this sentence is, morally, one of the worst possible positions on Venezuela. 🧵
Not because it's moderate. But because it's a conscious escape. That "but" isn't prudence. It's a silent plea for moral exoneration.
The attempt to appear sophisticated while avoiding the thing that morality often demands: to hierarchize evil. To say what is worse. To choose.
Let's be clear about what we're "balancing" here.
Under Maduro's "socialism of the 21st century," Venezuela collapsed into hyperinflation exceeding 1,000,000%. Systematic scarcity created mass starvation. Venezuelans resorted to eating dogs and scavenging trash to survive.
These aren't political talking points. These are documented atrocities.
They predicted the Great Depression. Then the 2008 crash. Then 2020's inflation surge.
A group of economists spent 150 years warning about the same pattern.
Nobody in power listened.
And every time, they were proven right.
This is the story of the Austrian School. 🧵
Modern economics had a fatal flaw.
For decades, mainstream economists treated the economy like a machine. Pull this lever, push that button, adjust interest rates here; boom, everything works perfectly.
But economies aren't machines. They're millions of people making billions of decisions every single day.
You can't predict human action with mathematical precision. The Austrian School understood this from day one.
It started in Vienna in 1871 when Carl Menger published Principles of Economics and asked a deceptively simple question: Why do people value things?
His answer shattered centuries of economic thinking.
Value isn't objective. It's subjective, based on individual human needs and desires.
Not labor hours. Not production costs. Human preferences.