this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
548 points (90.3% liked)
Memes
49848 readers
2219 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
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.