The issue as I see it is that people have this conception of quality of life for the "third world" that is at least 30 years out of date. That you can go to a grocery store in a "poor country" and have about the same experience as if you do so in the US. Yes it is the Capitol City* and therefore wealth and infrastructure is concentrated there. Even so, that is something I believe a lot of people in the West don't expect.
That affluence was one of the big selling points to Western Liberal Democracy™, and we we were told that affluence made the downsides worth it. Well now we see that certain other countries have that affluence available but without the downsides. So now we start to wonder why exactly we have to put up with all these downsides when other countries get the affluence (albeit to a lesser extent) without the downsides.
If we're so much wealthier than Russia, how much more able ought we be to "have our cake and eat it, too"?
Those downsides apparently don't include "Someone tries to push you in front of a subway train while you're waiting for it in a graffiti-filled station that smells like piss and shit" while in one of their major cities.
But again, why can't in these regards we do these things at least as well as Russia does them, without their downsides? Western Liberal Democracy™, we are told, is supposed to enable this. But it clearly doesn't.
I don't pretend to know much about Moscow's metro but I've ridden the trains in some American cities and compared to that it seems like night and day. (and that's ignoring their glorious architecture)
The issue as I see it is that people have this conception of quality of life for the "third world" that is at least 30 years out of date. That you can go to a grocery store in a "poor country" and have about the same experience as if you do so in the US. Yes it is the Capitol City* and therefore wealth and infrastructure is concentrated there. Even so, that is something I believe a lot of people in the West don't expect.
That affluence was one of the big selling points to Western Liberal Democracy™, and we we were told that affluence made the downsides worth it. Well now we see that certain other countries have that affluence available but without the downsides. So now we start to wonder why exactly we have to put up with all these downsides when other countries get the affluence (albeit to a lesser extent) without the downsides.
If we're so much wealthier than Russia, how much more able ought we be to "have our cake and eat it, too"?
Pretty sure Russia has a lot of downsides as well. ;)
Those downsides apparently don't include "Someone tries to push you in front of a subway train while you're waiting for it in a graffiti-filled station that smells like piss and shit" while in one of their major cities.
But again, why can't in these regards we do these things at least as well as Russia does them, without their downsides? Western Liberal Democracy™, we are told, is supposed to enable this. But it clearly doesn't.
Pretty sure the subways in Moscow or other metropolitan areas are also shit shows. ;)
Why are you talking like that?
I don't pretend to know much about Moscow's metro but I've ridden the trains in some American cities and compared to that it seems like night and day. (and that's ignoring their glorious architecture)