baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
1/ Well aware of that, but it was US policy to run the USSR into the ground economically by ramping up the space race under Reagan (and the economic spoils of that were v clear from 1992 onwards, even setting aside the huge political victory). It was hubris on the part of Soviet leaders that enabled that, and nothing to do with any presumed socialist ideology. As under any system, too much power in too few hands goes very wrong.
2/ Well, the Scandinavian countries were never systematically looted and plundered, as far as I know. No-one invaded Norway to take its oil or forced it into a pitifully one-sided neocolonial relationship. As to the general question of why European countries contiguous to colonial nations are (almost?) without exception richer than African countries, what do you think?
3/ Well exactly, it's supposed to supersede capitalism across the world once the fatal flaws of capitalism are exposed, not compete with it while most of the world still thinks that planet-destroying and 95%-impoverishing capitalism is y'know, fine. Of course any other ideology is going to struggle to coexist with an ideology/approach whose modus operandi is to accumulate by any means necessary - usually foul means, of course.
4/ That's a kind of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary line -"Well yes, there are other factors of course, but really, these countries are poor because they're badly run". That's ahistorical, and totally ignoring what is still happening. You do realise how many coups and assassinations were carried out against leaders in the developing world who were running their countries pretty well, and therefore not to the liking of the West (or indeed the USSR or China), because they did not open up resources as a free-for-all, or were too socialist?
What state do you think Britain would be in had it been the subject of colonialism rather than its perpetrator? It's in a pretty appalling mess right now given its advantages, and yet it is still one of the wealthiest countries on the globe.
How Europe Underdeveloped Africa is a very decent read by a historian from Guyana, Walter Rodney. From a UK journalist (apparently for the Financial Times, not known for its leftist politics), The Looting Machine clearly sets out how neocolonialism operates, and thus how poor resource-rich countries are kept poor (and chaotic).
2/ Well, the Scandinavian countries were never systematically looted and plundered, as far as I know. No-one invaded Norway to take its oil or forced it into a pitifully one-sided neocolonial relationship. As to the general question of why European countries contiguous to colonial nations are (almost?) without exception richer than African countries, what do you think?
3/ Well exactly, it's supposed to supersede capitalism across the world once the fatal flaws of capitalism are exposed, not compete with it while most of the world still thinks that planet-destroying and 95%-impoverishing capitalism is y'know, fine. Of course any other ideology is going to struggle to coexist with an ideology/approach whose modus operandi is to accumulate by any means necessary - usually foul means, of course.
4/ That's a kind of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary line -"Well yes, there are other factors of course, but really, these countries are poor because they're badly run". That's ahistorical, and totally ignoring what is still happening. You do realise how many coups and assassinations were carried out against leaders in the developing world who were running their countries pretty well, and therefore not to the liking of the West (or indeed the USSR or China), because they did not open up resources as a free-for-all, or were too socialist?
What state do you think Britain would be in had it been the subject of colonialism rather than its perpetrator? It's in a pretty appalling mess right now given its advantages, and yet it is still one of the wealthiest countries on the globe.
How Europe Underdeveloped Africa is a very decent read by a historian from Guyana, Walter Rodney. From a UK journalist (apparently for the Financial Times, not known for its leftist politics), The Looting Machine clearly sets out how neocolonialism operates, and thus how poor resource-rich countries are kept poor (and chaotic).
And vice-versa, don't forget. The two superpowers were engaged in an entirely reciprocal arrangement of proxy wars, propaganda, espionage and all kinds of black ops, to say nothing of the space race (in which the USSR had a big head start on the USA) and the nuclear arms race (the USSR's warhead stockpile overtook the USA's in the 1970s and Russia maintains about the same number of nukes as the USA does today, despite having an economy less than a tenth as big).
Not convinced by this at all. Why did so many people try to get from one half of Germany to the other half, when they obviously shared an imperial history? Ditto Austria and Hungary, neither of which ever had an overseas colonial empire. Come to that, how come the Scandinavian countries are so wealthy and developed?
Well communism is supposed to supersede capitalism, isn't it? It doesn't say much for communism if communist countries are dependent for their prosperity on trade with capitalist countries.
Conversely, you're surely not seriously suggesting that this doesn't have a pretty big impact?!