• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don’t end up in post-soviet countries?

    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.

    The “shock therapy” didn’t destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.

    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.

    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.

    So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      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’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.

      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.

      Neoliberalism is nightmare.

      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.

      So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.

      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.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        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?

        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.

        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.

        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.

        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.