this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
826 points (98.2% liked)
Memes
45729 readers
1333 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lol, what? Do you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don't end up in post-soviet countries? Do you think they still drive Ladas there? Those countries ABSOLUTELY have cheap commodities imported in to subsidize their developed country lifestyles. Not to the same extent as the big players, but we'll get to why that is.
Are they? They are worse, but depending on the region not by much. Take a look yourself, The same report that puts Nordic countries at the top has Czechia (formerly a part of Czechoslovakia) just a smidge below US and UK and actually above Belgium and France. Now you can argue "that's a satellite state and not an actual USSR aligned country" but it's not like Estonia is that far behind and according to the CCCP Estonia was hardcore in the CCCP, you know ECCP.
Well, kinda. Most of those countries have issues with a Russian minority who refuse to integrate into the local culture. It creates tensions in their societies which then hinders their progress. It's going to take at least another generation or two before that issue essentially "solves itself". And remember, that's an issue only because the CCCP did deliberate mass deportation of locals into foreign lands. You can still find some Baltic people in Siberia, not because they want to be there but because they were forced to be there.
Unlike you I actually know how thing were before and things were pretty shit before the collapse, it's literally one of the reasons the Soviet union collapsed. Sure things right after the collapse were worse but guess what, in less than 10 years it was already better than the end of union. The "shock therapy" didn't destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.
The fuck kind of a stupid question is this? Obviously US wouldn't allow it, but it's not like the EU would allow it either. And it's a stupid question because Sweden (and most neighbors of Russia) wouldn't even need the umbrella of protection if Russia wasn't such a fucking asshole towards its neighbors. Just to prove that point Finland and Russia had normal relations, until Putin decided to threaten them out of nowhere and now Finland is in NATO because Russia acted like an asshole. The umbrella of protection point has literally nothing to do with how well Nordic countries are doing. You could argue that the umbrella would mean they don't have to spend that much on defense, but guess what else would make them spend less on defense? If Russia wasn't such a fucking prick. Regardless they're still doing well.
I think they don't benefit from it. Products made from the resources from southern countries end up in southern countries too! That's not the point.
The benefit of superexploitation is being able to make commodities artificially cheap in the imperial core relative to wages in the imperial core. In post-soviet countries these products aren't actually cheap relative to their own incomes, they have to pay a significant portion of their wages to afford them.
I'm working my way through Red Hangover, and that really doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe 1 in 10 people living in the post-soviet sphere have benefitted. Neoliberalism is nightmare.
So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.
Have you lived there? Because it sure as shit talk about it like you have, except you clealy haven't because if you did you'd know how disingenuous your point is. Obviously post-soviet countries don't have the buying power of countries that generally have existed for more than a century. Like you should be aware, post-soviet countries had to restart their economy following the collapse of the union. You're rubbing in the fact that people had to live through the collapse. But it doesn't mean you couldn't afford those cheap products. I was able to buy Coke and Mars back in 1994 despite the economy being probably in its worst state ever and most people probably could until the start of this year. The looming recession is killing buying power right now, so this year really isn't a good comparison on how big part of the wage goes into actually living.
I guess my parents, me, my friends and most people I know just happen to live in some magical bubble where we're the 1 in 10? I know not everyone is well off, but it's not like everyone in the Nordic countries are well off either. It's definitely not 1 in 10 who have benefited.
Maybe the only statement we mostly agree upon. I wouldn't call it a nightmare but I agree that we could do better. However soviet era socialism is definitely not better.
And this is where you go off the deep end. At no point was western militarism even a point of discussion. The discussion was the welfare state of Nordic countries and western militarism has nothing to do with that.
lol wtf is this how you measure prosperity? Mexico drinks 7 times more Coke than the rest of the world, would you call them prosperous? I think I remember something about Coke being more readily available than baby formula there?
Only 1 in 10 saw improvement from before, and specifically in ways unrelated to technological development.
Is your water cleaner? Are you healthier? Do you have more free time? Maybe! Not most people, though.
It has a lot to do with it! It's easier to spend money on welfare when you don't have to spend it on defense.