The US continued, the Soviet Union fell, and the successor state transitioned to a corrupt oligarchy. How’s that not winning?
The Cold War wasn’t about a clash of ideologies. And if it was then Russia becoming a corrupt capitalist nation rather than a corrupt communist one would be a win for the other side.
I think we're sorta talking about a couple different (but related) things. One "feature" of many corrupt oligarchies that US doesn't have (yet?) is the totalitarian or authoritarian nature of the executive government, which leads to persecution of critics of the system and especially of critics of the oligarchs.
While I'm not comfortable with the wealth concentration in the US, at least people aren't getting rounded up and "disappeared" when they talk about it.
Corrupt oligarchy is a bit redundant in this context. America is an effective oligarchy, and that in itself is a corruption since it’s a nominal democracy. And that’s all that it takes to be an (corrupt) oligarchy in this context.
As to the grand parent: that’s just whining about relative privation.
> While I'm not comfortable with the wealth concentration in the US, at least people aren't getting rounded up and "disappeared" when they talk about it.
All that reveals is that "talking about it" doesn't threaten the system, which isn't something to be proud of. Instead of destroying dissent, it is hushed, polarized, deflected, diluted. I guess polite totalitarianism is better than impolite totalitarianism? It's certainly more durable.
The Cold War wasn’t about a clash of ideologies. And if it was then Russia becoming a corrupt capitalist nation rather than a corrupt communist one would be a win for the other side.