[aabeshou]

how about the history of imperialism where some countries came in, exploited the local population and their natural resources, and reaped the benefits of historical, compounding wealth?

how about the history of how those wealthy countries then turned around and squashed democratic uprisings in order to install oppressive, right-wing regimes that were more friendly to their interests?

how about the history of trade sanctions which further cripple countries which are already disempowered and exploited?

these social darwinist explanations always seem to miss the simple facts of history

[mc32]

So Cuba must very rich having sent its armies and advisors throughout the world fomenting revolution, overthrowing governments and installing puppet governments.

[aabeshou]

My comment describes the damage that imperialism has done and the consequences it's had for global wealth distribution.

You say that Cuba has done bad things too.

Therefore imperialism doesn't have consequences?

Can you fill in the blanks for me in your nonsequitur?

[asdf21]

Have you tested this hypothesis? It seems that South Africa is wealthier than neighbors, for instance.

[aabeshou]

South Africa has the single worst inequality in the world [0], and up until very recently there was apartheid ruled by the descendents of dutch colonizers. This still fits the pattern of imperialists coming in, and enriching themselves at the expense of local populations. It's just that in this case the occupying population hung around permanently. But they're still hoarding the wealth.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/africa/south-africa-elections...

[ianleeclark]

The cape was literally a restocking hub for the global trade hegemon (Dutch) and later served similar purposes for the following hegemon (British). Of course it had higher rates of capital accumulation. This was seen even into the 60s

[addicted]

Because South Africa and its neighbors were not all colonized?

I’m not sure what SA being relatively wealthier is supposed to tell us.