Nothing you said really contradicts what I had said. Life expectancy did begin to climb before the dissolution of socialism, then it collapsed along with the dissolution of socialism, and then kicking out the western imperialists brought economic improvements that helped end the disastrous plundering. The nationalists managed to improve economic conditions by kicking out the plunderers.
You’re ignoring that life expectancy stagnated under the Soviets and primarily started rising post-collapse due to the spread of treatments for cardiovascular diseases. It’s why post collapse life expectancy finally rose above what the Soviet Union achieved. It’s why “lowered life expectancy” is an odd claim to make if it’s now higher than it ever was before. Short term, sure, but long term a higher life expectancy was reached.
Life expectancy rose towards the end before the dissolution of socialism. By all indication it was a temporary stall before climbing again. Capitalism brought with it sheer devastation, and it took a good deal of time to manage to recover to where they were before the dissolution. My point has never been that life expectancy cannot grow under capitalism, but that socialism brought with it a massive expansion while capitalism brought skyrocketing problems, many of which are still unresolved.
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).
The transition from socialism to capitalism caused a dramatic drop, which for all we know likely would have never dropped had they remained socialist. We also know that socialist countries like Cuba continue to have excellent life expectancies. There is no reason I am aware of that we would believe that, given a similar timeframe, continuing socialism would have not achieved similar or better life expectancies. The switch was bad, but it was not merely “mismanaged.” Rather, it was managed exactly the way it was intended, as a free for all looting spree for western countries, which is why the nationalists taking charge actually did help, compared to the looting.
Nothing you said really contradicts what I had said. Life expectancy did begin to climb before the dissolution of socialism, then it collapsed along with the dissolution of socialism, and then kicking out the western imperialists brought economic improvements that helped end the disastrous plundering. The nationalists managed to improve economic conditions by kicking out the plunderers.
You’re ignoring that life expectancy stagnated under the Soviets and primarily started rising post-collapse due to the spread of treatments for cardiovascular diseases. It’s why post collapse life expectancy finally rose above what the Soviet Union achieved. It’s why “lowered life expectancy” is an odd claim to make if it’s now higher than it ever was before. Short term, sure, but long term a higher life expectancy was reached.
Life expectancy rose towards the end before the dissolution of socialism. By all indication it was a temporary stall before climbing again. Capitalism brought with it sheer devastation, and it took a good deal of time to manage to recover to where they were before the dissolution. My point has never been that life expectancy cannot grow under capitalism, but that socialism brought with it a massive expansion while capitalism brought skyrocketing problems, many of which are still unresolved.
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).
The transition from socialism to capitalism caused a dramatic drop, which for all we know likely would have never dropped had they remained socialist. We also know that socialist countries like Cuba continue to have excellent life expectancies. There is no reason I am aware of that we would believe that, given a similar timeframe, continuing socialism would have not achieved similar or better life expectancies. The switch was bad, but it was not merely “mismanaged.” Rather, it was managed exactly the way it was intended, as a free for all looting spree for western countries, which is why the nationalists taking charge actually did help, compared to the looting.