𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

  • 0 Posts
  • 1.76K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • Life expectancy rose before the end because that’s when the USSR focused on curbing the rampant alcoholism, which causes cardiovascular diseases (the notable weakpoint in the USSRs healthcare system and a major reason why life expectancy failed to rise further under the USSR). This wasn’t a temporary stall, that wouldn’t last that long, there’s systemic reasons for it. The USSR lagged behind quite significantly compared to its capitalist peers.

    The skyrocketing problems the USSR experienced post-dissolution are obviously triggered by the switch, but it becomes hard to argue that capitalism as a system caused it, since capitalist peers don’t actively suffer the same issues, and Russia since its recovery doesn’t either (as it is still very much a capitalist world power). It’s clear the switch was bad (horridly mismanaged), but the final result is that life expectancy rose above what the USSR ever achieved, finally reaching an on-par status with its peers.

    To be clear, I’m not arguing that socialism couldn’t achieve this, or that capitalism is the better system or anything. But I am challenging the assumption that capitalism is the cause of a lowered life expectancy, since the graph you presented didn’t exactly support that statement (given that under capitalism Russia’s life expectancy rose well above what the USSR ever managed).



  • There was an increase up until 1970-ish, after which it stagnated. In western countries the life expectancy did better and kept rising. There’s a brief bump around 1985, right up until the fall of the Union (which crashed it). Still, it was only after the fall of the Union that life expectancy started rising again, well above the earlier figures that were achieved under the Union.

    The stagnation was due to the so-called “cardiovascular revolution” (or rather the lack of one): treatments for many cardiovascular related diseases developed in the west, didn’t reach the Soviet Union well. The Union focused on more general diseases, which helped younger people. This, combined with the severe disbalance in age groups post-WW2, caused life expectancy to stagnate. Healthcare in the USSR wasn’t bad in general, just bad at dealing with diseases older people tend to get.

    Traumas and injuries from WW2, plus a somewhat stagnating Soviet economy then saw a significant rise in alcoholism (which in turn causes liver and cardiovascular diseases, for which the treatments lagged behind). So much so that in the 80s they tried to limit access to alcohol (likely causing the brief rise around 1985). Post-collapse life expectancy again fell due to the economic hardship suffered.

    The increase and gradual rise post-collapse is not due to “imperialists being kicked out by nationalists”, but due to a slowly improving economic situation (compared to the poor state immediately after the collapse) and most importantly: a slowly balancing age demographic and finally significant improvements in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases spreading through the former Soviet states.











  • If he was supposed to be Orban’s successor, they wouldn’t have had him start a new party or run a heavily pro-EU campaign. That makes no sense. You’d just have Orban step down and have the new guy take over in the next election cycle. Keeps momentum for the main party and all the installed cronies, no expectation of change from the population, no need to stir the hive. If Magyar backtracks on his promises now, you’ll end up with a lot of unrest among the people, exactly what you want to avoid when planning your succession.

    Magyar’s been communicating very effectively with the people for years. Opposition rallying behind the best chance at unseating an autocrat who threatens to establish indefinite single-party rule only makes sense.