• Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Russia started out in a terrible position (with no small thanks to the late abolishment of serfdom). But it isn’t particularly surprising that it improved when or as much as it did with the arrival of new technology, urbanisation trends, better sanitation and health care (especially pre-natal care), and of course its location. The world was changing fast, and russia was well primed to change with it.

    • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I think that the fact that the capitalist world achieved the rapid 20th century development from the plundering of the global south, while the USSR managed comparable growth as they lost 27 million people in the fight against fascism (and were later forced to spend ridiculous amounts of resources developing weapons to maintain MAD against the US) should also count for something. Capitalist development isn’t very impressive in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile (despite the Allende admin), Argentina, Egypt, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, etc. Even with some jumps in life expectancy and literacy rates, uneven capitalist development is undeniable and a much graver problem than its analogue in the former second world.

      • Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Recovering from WW2 losses was indeed a challenge for many soviet bloc countries. My suspicion is that without the cold war, W.Europe would also have recovered much slower as US investment and interest could have taken quite a different form.

        Latin America is a different beast, worthy of its own discussion separate to this one.