this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
549 points (90.2% liked)
Memes
49848 readers
2039 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I haven't met any soc dems who think capitalism can be saved. Most agree that it can only be contained. Just look how successful the Nordic countries are. They have successful companies and still have billionaires, but the rich are heavily taxed. And if the rich threatens to leave with their assets, they will still be taxed heavily for doing so.
The Nordic countries are importing cheap Labour from the global south and then whining about the people not being white enough.
The Nordic Model has Private Property as its principle aspect, ie in control of large firms and key industry. As a consequence, Private Capital has a dominant role in the state, and though labor organization slows this process, there has been a steady winding down of Worker Protections, gradually.
More damningly, though, is the fact that the Nordic Countries are reliant upon the same Imperialist machine of extraction from the Global South as the rest of the West. The Nordics enjoy their cushy lifestyles on the backs of brutal labor in the Global South, almost like an employer-employee relationship at an international level.
That is a good point usually raised. But, developed countries do not have jurisdiction on developing countries on how to treat their workers and what wages to set, and vice versa. Unless there is harmonised and legally binding rules and regulations for everyone in the world to follow, then this issue won't even exist.
Imperialist countries absolutely dictate policy of countries they imperialize. "Aid" and other mechanisms come with stipulations surrounding a reduction in economic sovereignty. The goal of Imperialist countries is to extract, they aren't just taking what's being offered, but directly stacking the deck in their favor as much as possible, and doing so with vast millitary and financial leverage. That's the entire purpose of the IMF and WTO.
Michael Hudson's Super-Imperialism is a good read, even if I don't agree with everything in it, it does a good job of laying out some of the mechanics of Imperialism.
But the Nordic countries are not imperialists. The last time that Nordic countries had an empire was like, 600 years ago, long before the invention of capitalism. Some wealthy countries now like Poland and Ireland did not even have empires and were in fact colonial subjects. Dominican Republic is on track to achieved developed status in 2030 if things go right.
You're confusing Imperialism as the modern development in Capitalism with older Colonialism. To put it in another way, the lives of citizens in the Nordics are funded through the hyper-exploitation of the Global South.
You are just making up definitions now but that is irrelevant because, like I said, unless there is legally binding global rules then this won't be a problem. But there aren't any. You obviously never heard, nor have been in a corrupt, poor country whose government abuse human rights. And then when the international community condemn the offending government, that government typically say other countries don't have jurisdiction or to respect their own sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is the reality of lawless and anarchic international relations.
I'm not making anything up, definition or otherwise. I'm following Lenin's outlining of Imperialism as explained in Imperalism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. However, given that you aren't going to read Hudson's Super-Imperialism that outlines the mechanisms by which Imperialist countries exert sovereignty over Imperialized ones, I'll offer a brief explanation:
Imperialist countries export Capital to Imperialized countries, with "aid" in the form of loans with specific policy stipulations. These stipulations include mechanisms like only going to projects that are directly profitable, meaning these countries are forced into exporting their raw materials like rare earth or cash crops like coffee.
At the same time, agriculture is left underdeveloped, and there is labor flight from the rural to the urban areas in order to produce enough profitable goods to pay back the loans, forcing these countries to import food, usuallly from countries like the US that subsidize their agriculture to undercut developing countries. All of their output goes into Imperialist pocketd, rather than their own, and they pay the same Imperialists for the food they need and can't develop.
It's this unequal exchange that leads to political strife and underdevelopment. It is not the fault of the underdeveloped countries, but the Imperalist countries for holding back development and leveraging their financial and industrial Capital to carve out of the Global South.
The Nordics, as willing Imperialists in this equation, could not exist as they do without being ruthless exploiters of the Global South. They directly perpetuate this process because they need to, like all Imperialist countries they are parasitic.
I appreciate being provided insight from Marxist-Leninist pov. But you also have to realise that developing countries also mutually signed trade deals with developed countries. Jobs have been outsourced to poorer countries (at the detriment of working class in rich countries but that is another topic); the result for these countries is the growth of middle class and millions being uplifted from poverty. No one can deny that. But no one can deny either that the poor in developing countries had been exploited for labour. However, if we follow Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs, people tend to prioritise economic and physical security first before other needs. Once these are secure, people explore more what transcends than just living to work-- such as social, personal goals and self-actualisation. As we speak, many people in developing countries are starting to question the exploitative working culture. Improved social mobility widens someone's perspective both personal and social. Countries that offered themselves to be world's cheap manufacturers are starting to become expensive because of higher demands for better wages and working standards.
Going back to the main topic at hand, it is not that poor countries did not have a choice to be hoodwinked, they agreed to be cheap manufacturers. But not all of these countries are on level with each other in terms of wealth growth and distribution because of individual government policies, which is exactly what Nordic countries do not have control over because of they do not have jurisdiction.
Why do you think the US has hundreds of millitary bases? Why are countries that refuse to play ball decimated and destroyed, like Iraq? Sanctions and millitary intervention for those who refuse to play ball are what forces countries into this.
???
Propped up by the underpaid labour and stolen resources of the global South and rapidly sprinting towards fascism like the rest of the West?
Capitalism is in its original inception advocate in self-regulating market. Soc dems don't believe this and recognise the bad aspects of capitalism (and of pure socialism in relation to economy), so we tend to advocate for regulation.
Like I mentioned to other commenter, unless developed countries have jurisdictions on developing ones, and vice versa, there is not much that richer countries could do. There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow. Try advocating that and let me know how people will react.
Source?
Yeah, but you're still supporting a system where the people you advocate regulation to are the people who have a material interest against regulation (or, more accurately, have a material interest in regulations that give them a monopoly.)
They sure act like they do, with the way they use their military, intelligence services, and international bodies they control to enforce their will on the global South.
I would encourage you to learn even the smallest amount of history. Generally its respectful to actually have some knowledge of a subject before trying to talk on it.
Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.
Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?
Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India? Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?
No? They're experiencing the same right-wing slide into austerity and neoliberalism as everyone else.
Yes. But they also benifit just as much when other western countries do. If the USA overthrows a government to stop it nationalising state resources that are currently controlled by western corporations, the Nordics benifit just as much as if they'd done it themselves.
Whataboutism
Trying to nationalise resources that are currently controlled by western interests.
Their left wing parties are still dominant. Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden's far right in coalition government lost support. Nonetheless, even though the far right reared its ugly in the region, the economic policies is not fully to blame.
In what way?
Have you tried answering the questions specifically and directly? Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren't any global rules to follow? Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.
No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.
Mate, you're literally describing what I was talking about.
Yes it is.
Because they retain access to those cheap resources.
Learn what a non-sequitor is before throwing the term around. I don't want to have to ask a third time for you to actually learn the basics about things before talking about them.
Oh, so you acknowledge now that western countries can impose their will on the global South? I thought you said that their "lack of jurisdiction" meant they weren't allowed to? Are you now saying western countries can don't actually have to follow the rules and can just do it anyway? Because if so, I will only be able to conclude that you were being deliberately dishonest when you said otherwise.
Looks like you are having cognitive dissonance.
How has the Nordics been more neoliberal? They still tax billionaires. They enjoy high standard of living and little wealth inequality. These are the balance that neither the US nor USSR could achieve.
Which contradict your initial claims that Nordics are becoming more right.
You claimed that throughout history, there has been international laws and standards. I asked you what they are and gave me a non-response to a previous statement that does not have to do with what I asked or my point. Just because a word is too big for you, doesn't mean you can make accusations on a mirror. You did not even address when i asked you as to how the Nordics benefit from American imperialism when you said they do.
When it is Saudi Arabia and Gulf states violating human rights, you brushed it aside as whataboutism. But when it is specifically about an entity you hate that is just as guilty, you give it a pass. That is called double standards.
To go back to the point you are trying to derail, these countries act with impunity because they know they could not be held accountable. When it comes to trade, no country has jurisdiction on another on how to treat and pay their workers even if the more developed countries want to tell poorer nations to do so. More often, governments in developing countries would cite sovereignty as thought terminating response to criticisms of human rights violations by the international community. That is why the Nordics, with very little to no colonialist past compared to major Western European countries, have no power to tell the global south how to treat their workers. Because the nation state is given supremacy over international rules, which is why in practice there are no rules. The fact that there are none is why you can't cite any legally binding international laws when I asked you upon initially insisting there are. So, the accusations of social democratic countries exploiting the global south do not make sense given the current international paradigm. Because social democratic countries have no power and right.
I see we're breaking out the big book of meaningless redditor buzzwords.
"Neoliberalism is when no tax billionaires"
And both metrics are moving in the wrong direction.
???
Show your working.
No... They literally support it.
No, that was you.
No, I gave you an answer that you didn't like, so you are now having to childishly pretend I didn't.
You should go back to Reddit, you'll be happier there.
I literally did actually. So, given that you're now electing to not read what I said and then pretend I didn't say it, I'm not going to read anything more you say until you go back and address what I factually did say
I'll also point out that it really is damning of the viability of your position that you have to resort to deliberate and obvious dishonesty to defend it. What even is the point of holding a position that you yourself don't think is seriously defendable?
It never gets old when someone's having cognitive dissonance.
Are you 12? Otherwise you're way too old to be using five dollar phrases you don't know the meaning of after you've prattled off on a bunch of shit you clearly don't have even a YouTube infographics-level understanding of.
Your arguments literally were addressed, to the point that you had to put your fingers in your ears and go "lalala I can't here you" to avoid admitting as much.
You should also probably learn what cognitive dissonance is before accuse every one of having it.
Lol. Is that really the best you could come up with as a deflection? You might as well have gone with "U mad?" if you were going to be that unoriginal.