Bad news, Uncle Sam: This is how we think the Olympics medal table should be understood
As the 2012 Olympic Games finally draw to an end, it's time for us the check the final medal count and see if there's any surprise at all. At first sight, one could say that things went all smooth and according to the plans for the United States: after being overwhelmed by China in the last edition of the Games in Beijing 2008, Americans seem to be back on the successful track, claiming the top of the table again by winning an impressive number of 46 gold medals. They reached the glory in pretty much all disciplines, but especially reigning over Swimming and Athletics (55% of the US golds were fetched here). And even though their results were rather poor in some other minor sports like Weightlifting, Taekwondo and Judo, their overall performance was good enough to defeat the Chinese, who came second in the table with 38 gold medals. Playing as the home team this time, the British can be proud of an outstanding third place with 29 gold medals. This is what can be seen in the Official Medal Count right here. However, this is not how we socialists see it.
Since the Superpowers decided that the Olympic Games were a good occasion to show each other —and the rest of the world, of course— how powerful their systems could be, the Games became nothing but a contest between American and Soviets. Back in the day, when the U.S.S.R. used to prove every four years that education and human development, and therefore sports, were not only possible but also much better in socialism than in capitalism (the Soviet Union dominated the Olympics since the post II World War until 1992, even after it was dissolved), it was a only question of overpowering and showing excellence one another.
Now that the U.S.S.R no longer exists, it's well known that all its former republics became independent and turned to capitalism. But did they, really? Who could say today that countries like Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus, among many others, would have the performance they have just had without all those years of socialism to prepare these nations structures, health and education systems, in order to be what they are now? No one will deny it: these countries are what they are because they were socialists in the first place, otherwise (and maybe with the exceptions of Ukraine and Russia, that are huge) they would be experiencing levels of human development compared to some Asian countries that were not so lucky.
We believe that the Soviet Union is still being represented by these countries. Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Latvia, Armenia, Estonia, Moldova and Tajikistan. And this is how the medal table for these London 2012 Olympic Games should look like if they were competing together:
Not to mention the medals achieved by the socialists of the day. China (2nd place), Cuba (15th place) and North Korea (20th place). Bad news, Uncle Sam: the future belongs to socialism.
Since the Superpowers decided that the Olympic Games were a good occasion to show each other —and the rest of the world, of course— how powerful their systems could be, the Games became nothing but a contest between American and Soviets. Back in the day, when the U.S.S.R. used to prove every four years that education and human development, and therefore sports, were not only possible but also much better in socialism than in capitalism (the Soviet Union dominated the Olympics since the post II World War until 1992, even after it was dissolved), it was a only question of overpowering and showing excellence one another.
Now that the U.S.S.R no longer exists, it's well known that all its former republics became independent and turned to capitalism. But did they, really? Who could say today that countries like Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus, among many others, would have the performance they have just had without all those years of socialism to prepare these nations structures, health and education systems, in order to be what they are now? No one will deny it: these countries are what they are because they were socialists in the first place, otherwise (and maybe with the exceptions of Ukraine and Russia, that are huge) they would be experiencing levels of human development compared to some Asian countries that were not so lucky.
We believe that the Soviet Union is still being represented by these countries. Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Latvia, Armenia, Estonia, Moldova and Tajikistan. And this is how the medal table for these London 2012 Olympic Games should look like if they were competing together:
Not to mention the medals achieved by the socialists of the day. China (2nd place), Cuba (15th place) and North Korea (20th place). Bad news, Uncle Sam: the future belongs to socialism.
Post a Comment