This is a pretty open question of course, as there will be different answers for different groups of people, and different kinds of ways in which a country can be good/bad.
I live in Germany, and while it's a country with many, many flaws, I can't say that I hate the country because, frankly, there's not many places I'd rather live. But of course, I'm a middle-class suburban white girl, the systems here largely exist to benefit me. For other groups of people it might be different. If I had to move to another country right now, Finland would probably be my first pick. I'm interested in China for a number of reasons, but I doubt that living there would ultimately be better for me.
So yeah, it's kind of a purposely vague question, I'm curious on what you think.
Iceland arrests their bankers once in a blue moon, has breathtaking nature, as well as a state-sponsored app that makes sure you don't accidentally fuck your relative
yet, you must have a name from a special list of approved icelandic names
renouncing my icelandic citizenship so I can name my child "brayden" to own the libs
haha, wtf they have an anti-incest app lmao https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-incest-app
At least prior to their new liberal reforms, absolutely the least problematic country. Maybe still are.
I can't tell if this is a joke
Not meant to sound aggressive but pls explain
ok dumb question but what does "pmc" actually mean i always just kinda thought it was roughly the same as bourgeoisie
Aren’t their conditions rapidly eroding though? Or are they still all Gucci in the UK?
People who are bourgeois except their class reproduction relies not on the inheritance of actual capital (i.e. your standard bourgeoisie) but on the transmission of credentials — hence the importance of "culture," consumption, academia, professional knowledge, network.
You are right – they are not bourgeois because they do not receive revenue from owning the means of production, and in fact their credentials are largely worthless unless they sell their labor (or perhaps enter in some kind of debt arrangement to "start their own practice"?) with someone who does own the means of production. I'm probably still recovering from all the "cultural capital" jargon that gets carelessly thrown around when I went to college.
Thanks for the explanation! :sankara-salute:
Don't people fetishize New Zealand for its insignificance/lack of greater participation in Western exploitation and its relatively high living standards ? It's likely why the wealthy are seeking to build shelters there.
My answer to your question: Mexico, Tunisia. Perhaps a few other semi-peripheral states in the imperial core
Any western state is probably better to live in than the developing world, but that is because of its parasitic relationship with those regions. Socialism and the social and economic equality it would spring throughout the world would mean a drastic improvement for humanity at large while diminishing the West's standard of living and consumption.
It's the same question that Matt said in the Chapo episode "Antifap" that will emerge: Do you take a cut in living standards to save everyone or choose exclusion and barbarism.
Equality means a haircut for Europeans and Americans.
Worth noting that the drop in living conditions would likely be temporary. FALGSC is not utopian.
Don’t people fetishize New Zealand for its insignificance/lack of greater participation in Western exploitation and its relatively high living standards ? It’s likely why the wealthy are seeking to build shelters there.
NZ has good PR and generally keeps its head down about its own shittyness. For example, the NZ Army is also alleged to have committed war crimes in Afghanistan but the news never really made it internationally because nobody was motivated to air that dirty laundry like the Chinese suplexing the Australians over their crimes.
Besides, the way I see it the very fact that NZ is a settler colony makes its existence an act of Western exploitation.
As for living standards, housing is a massive issue both in regards to cost and quality. Auckland is consistently one of the least affordable places in the world when comparing rents against wages. Also, many existing buildings are uninsulated, damp, moldy, and of questionable sturdiness in earthquakes.
Also, racial discrimination is rife but is downplayed because its generally not violent. More of a casual racism than lynch mobs, but still its still extremely common for POC to be held down career wise.
Norway is the least bad to live in, objectively.
Will edit this comment with stats.
-
#1 on democracy index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index [INB4 DEMOCRACY IS BAD REEE]
-
#1 on both HDI and inequality-adjusted HDI
-
#3 on the 2013 Where-to-be-born Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index#2013_rankings
-
#6 by GDP (PPP) per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
-
#5 on the happiness report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2018_report
-
#7 by life expectancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
fucking lib shit, yes DemOcRaCy bAdD, because the "democracy index" is from The Economist. It's complete horseshit.
edit: its a bit, you're doing a bit
China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia are all bad bad bad on that index while the United States is like one shade below perfect
Norway is a pretty good pitch, Scandinavia in general is just pretty solid I think.
But yeah, "Democracy Index" is compiled by the "Economist Intelligence Unit" which is not exactly a title that inspires confidence in me lmao.
I’ve always thought Norway would be cool to visit but the big downside seems to be the lack of good food. I live in Canada so I’m not exactly expecting a ton in the cuisine department but everything I hear about Scandinavian food just makes it sound bland or odd, even for Europe. Am I way off base here?
A traditional dish in Norway is fårikål, which translates to sheep in cabbage.
Have a guess at what the two main ingredients are other than water.
Our traditional food is absolutely terrible, which is why the more popular foods are the foreign ones, like Thai, Italian, Indian and Tex-Mex.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/Scandinavias-Covert-Role-in-Western-Imperialism-20170320-0022.html
Norway also has their social wealth funds, which are commonly owned funds used to pay for various things that contribute towards the common good. I wouldn’t call it socialism, of course, but it is a little further in that direction than what other Scandinavian social democracies are doing.
-
Cuba, Iceland , maybe those islands with no contact to the outside world in the pacific
Like, morally? Either Cuba or maybe the DPRK, but I don't know enough about it to really say.
For the most comfortable conditions? Probably Northern Europe. I live in Ireland, and supposedly its one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but there's massive problems with housing and the cost of living is very high. I'd like to see Iceland. Also, I want to live somewhere with real wilderness. Ireland mostly has fields in the countryside, I'd love to get lost in a massive forest in Canada or something
Least bad for what? The scandinavian countries are good for providing a standard of living, but are lowkey racist, and the people are not super open to making new friends, especially if you arent very good with the language. Ive heard a lot of good things about the Netherlands, especially for LGBTQ people. Eastern Europe should be nuked.
I live in The Netherlands and I like it. We used to be exploitation champions though, if you rank per capita. I like that everyone bikes here. Why does everyone have a train obsession on this website and not a bike obsession.
