Right, the standard of living is declining all across the empire, including Scandinavia. The difference is that there were stronger social safety nets erected at the peak, so the decline hasn't hit as hard as other places, such as US, with more shaky safety nets.

This has been less and less true since the 90s, as the western states become heavily dependent on fossil fuel exports.

Not really, the west has continued to dominate the global south, and has a massive military presence across the globe. Western companies are extracting resources from Africa and other places at record pace today.

Scandinavian social democracy has nothing to do with American / East Asian materials extraction patterns.

Of course it does, all the material good such as appliances, phones, laptops, TVs, and so on are produced using resources and labour done predominantly in the global south.

And the whole reason we're seeing countries increasingly preferring China to the west is precisely because China offers mutually beneficial relations as opposed to exploitative ones the west imposes.

Cuba’s trade practices are strictly regulated by the American Navy and Coast Guard.

You ignored my point that USSR was not under these restrictions and did not behave in the way you suggest. Given that Cuba being modelled on USSR politically, there is every reason to expect that Cuba would not behave in such a way either even if it was not under a blockade.

At which point they had to reorganize and reestablish new trade ties in order to rebuild their living standards. But this had to do with access to developed industrial capital, not the exploitation of labor through imperial expansion.

Again, the point here was that USSR was able to have positive mutually beneficial relations with their partners as opposed to exploitative ones the west imposes on weaker countries.

Implementing public professional services in the domestic market (or not) has no impact on your foreign policy.

It's not possible to have any meaningful democracy when the means of production are owned privately. And foreign policy is very obviously influenced by this fact. To give you a concrete example, let's say you have a factory that's owned privately by a capitalist. The owner wants to reduce operating costs and increase profits. They have an incentive to move production to a cheaper labour market where they can exploit the workers more than they can at home. This creates a direct incentive for capitalists to colonize other countries and exploit them. On the other hand, let's say the same factory is cooperatively owned by the workers. They would have no incentive to move the factory to a cheaper labour market because they'd lose their jobs at that point. The incentive for imperialism is directly related to the economic system.

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The difference is that there were stronger social safety nets erected at the peak

Which were rooted in domestic industry and professional services, not extractionary practices targeting populations abroad. The erosion of these social safety nets has matched the erosion of labor unions, socialist organization, and left-wing party activity within the Scandinavian states.

the west has continued to dominate the global south

Western state control of the Global South has eroded with the outsourcing of US domestic industry abroad - particularly in the wake of the 1980s, when industry transplanted itself to the South Pacific. Latin American states are no longer dominated by western military juntas. African states are increasingly free of colonial and apartheidist regimes. South Pacific states are operating at parity with their western peers, rather than as occupied subordinates.

But even outside of this fact, the Scandinavian states are nearly non-existent in western foreign policy. Finland only just joined NATO, for instance. And only thanks to a collapse in European-Russian foreign policy relations, which I'd count as a mark against imperial domination rather than one in its favor.

USSR was not under these restrictions and did not behave in the way you suggest

The US actively embargoed Soviet States starting with the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1951. These sanctions continued into the 1990s and were slowly repealed under Clinton and then Bush in exchange for concessions by the United Russia government of Yeltsin and then Putin. What trade did occur was not inhibited by any some moral compunction of Soviet leaders. Exxon did business with the Soviets well into the 1980s, for instance.

USSR was able to have positive mutually beneficial relations with their partners as opposed to exploitative ones

That's simply not true. The USSR had strategic partnerships with a host of left-leaning governments. But these were driven by tactical considerations, not ethical ones. The Soviets were happy enough to trade with the Israelis all through the Cold War period and with both England and France for most of its history. Meanwhile, the Sino-Soviet split persisted for decades despite the mutual benefit a Russia/China alliance would have had both for the region and for international communism broadly.

Soviets would routinely aid domestic revolutionary forces against colonial governments if it suited their needs, but were happy enough to back Syrian military dictators and Romanian dipshit demagogues entirely out of Realpolitik.

It's not possible to have any meaningful democracy when the means of production are owned privately.

Social democracy creates public institutions that control the means of production within their fields. But the public institutions tend to be confined to education, health care, transport and other civil services. They don't extend out to the industrial wing of the economy.

So if you want meaningful democracy, you're going to be doing some social democracy at some point in your transition. Freaking out at people who organize towards publicly financed colleges and hospitals and calling them evil imperialists will do nothing to advance the cause of public ownership in the industrial sector.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Which were rooted in domestic industry and professional services, not extractionary practices targeting populations abroad.

The reality is that it's both.

Western state control of the Global South has eroded with the outsourcing of US domestic industry abroad - particularly in the wake of the 1980s, when industry transplanted itself to the South Pacific.

That's just a false narrative.

But even outside of this fact, the Scandinavian states are nearly non-existent in western foreign policy.

Scandinavian states participate in the plunder just like every other western bloc country. My cat can't doesn't get much say in how my house is run either, but it does benefit none the less.

The US actively embargoed Soviet States starting with the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1951.

USSR had an entire bloc around it and plenty of non aligned countries to trade with. US embargoes clearly didn't prevent USSR from being able to trade and to exploit countries if it chose to. The relations USSR developed with its partners were of a profoundly different kind than the ones western imperial powers have with the countries they subjugate today. The whole discussion here is regarding the exploitative nature of the relationship between the west and the global majority.

Social democracy creates public institutions that control the means of production within their fields. But the public institutions tend to be confined to education, health care, transport and other civil services. They don’t extend out to the industrial wing of the economy.

Social democracy can have a slight short term impact in these domains, the benefits however are never permanent and end up being rolled back in times of regular capitalist crises.

So if you want meaningful democracy, you’re going to be doing some social democracy at some point in your transition.

Social democracy isn't part of any transition, it's a mechanism that props up current capitalist relations.

Freaking out at people who organize towards publicly financed colleges and hospitals and calling them evil imperialists will do nothing to advance the cause of public ownership in the industrial sector.

Not sure what that's referring to even.

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The reality is that it's both.

That is not the reality, unless you're going to explain how public education and biotech are extractionary. And if that's your game, you're going to have to explain Cuba.

That's just a false narrative.

The US system of empire is failing, from the industrial bedrock of the Chinese cities to the farmlands of Ukraine to the mountains of Bolivia. Maybe Blinken (or the next guy) will turn things around, but we've been losing traction since the end of the Bush Era pretty much globally.

Scandinavian states participate in the plunder

The Scandinavian state services responsible for education, health care, and transportation had no discernible role in the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, the bulk fabrication of arms and armor in Ukraine, the string of failed coups in Latin America, or the ongoing occupation of Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines in the Mid-Atlantic. They weren't even NATO members until very recently.

This as dick-all to do with democratic socialism and singling these countries out as responsible fully whitewashes the conflict.

the benefits however are never permanent and end up being rolled back in times of regular capitalist crises

The benefits are only rolled back when the democracies themselves are curtailed, as the states are bombarded with fascist propaganda via foreign media. A compelling argument for a Scandinavian Firewall, but a piss poor criticism of the democratic institutions themselves.

Social democracy isn't part of any transition, it's a mechanism that props up current capitalist relations.

Capital relations are degraded through the imposition of social democratic reforms. And as residents rely on these reforms to sustain themselves, they become intractable. Only by unleashing fascist media, shock doctrine economics, and foreign coercion on a country do you curb the transitionary process. That's exactly what western political strategy has been for the last 60 years.

Not sure what that's referring to even.

What nascent leftists and left-liberals find appealing about the Scandinavian states are the high quality low cost public services.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That is not the reality, unless you’re going to explain how public education and biotech are extractionary. And if that’s your game, you’re going to have to explain Cuba.

I've explained what I mean here repeatedly in this thread. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. I'm not talking about things Nordic countries are producing. I'm talking about the basic necessities of life Nordic countries import that are produced by effective slave labour using resources extracted from the global south. This is what allows people living in these countries to focus on doing things like biotech.

The US system of empire is failing, from the industrial bedrock of the Chinese cities to the farmlands of Ukraine to the mountains of Bolivia. Maybe Blinken (or the next guy) will turn things around, but we’ve been losing traction since the end of the Bush Era pretty much globally.

Again, nowhere am I arguing with the fact that the empire is entering the stages of collapse.

The Scandinavian state services responsible for education, health care, and transportation had no discernible role in the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, the bulk fabrication of arms and armor in Ukraine, the string of failed coups in Latin America, or the ongoing occupation of Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines in the Mid-Atlantic. They weren’t even NATO members until very recently.

This has dick-all with the point I'm making. Perhaps I'm not articulating it clearly enough?

These countries piggy back on US imperialism, they're getting the benefits of imperialism by being members of the system. Scandinavian companies get to plunder the global south along with the rest of the west, Scandinavians enjoy commodities extracted from the global south by the empire.

The benefits are only rolled back when the democracies themselves are curtailed, as the states are bombarded with fascist propaganda via foreign media. A compelling argument for a Scandinavian Firewall, but a piss poor criticism of the democratic institutions themselves.

The case of Sweden shows that the democracies are curtailed by the domestic capitalists https://jacobin.com/2019/08/sweden-1970s-democratic-socialism-olof-palme-lo

Capital relations are degraded through the imposition of social democratic reforms. And as residents rely on these reforms to sustain themselves, they become intractable. Only by unleashing fascist media, shock doctrine economics, and foreign coercion on a country do you curb the transitionary process. That’s exactly what western political strategy has been for the last 60 years.

And it will continue to be western political strategy as long as the capital owning class remains in power.

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not talking about things Nordic countries are producing. I'm talking about the basic necessities of life Nordic countries import that are produced by effective slave labour using resources extracted from the global south.

This has absolutely dick-all to do with their political configuration. It is a consequence of supply and trade routes wholly outside their command. Social Democracy as an organizing principle functions to create and administer domestic civil services and is, if anything, undermined by the process of outsourcing capital and labor demand. The quippy "Nords Bad Because Social Democracy" mischaracterized milquetoast liberalism on the periphery as the kind of expansionist imperialism that Scandinavian states have neither the capacity nor the interest in mustering.

These countries piggy back on US imperialism

Because of their geographic position and ethnic sympathies, not because of their political organization. Were Sweden positioned off the coast of West Africa or deep within the Amazon, it would have a completely different set of social relations. Bolivians and Senegalese socialists do not enjoy parallel social relations, despite desiring much the same in terms of housing, health care, education, and transportation as their Baltic peers.

Scandinavian companies get to plunder the global south along with the rest of the west, Scandinavians enjoy commodities extracted from the global south by the empire.

A select group of Scandinavian business interests get a minority stake in the imperial projects of wealthier and more well-armed western nations, on the condition that they police and corral their native populations. The end result is a deteriorating public sector in Scandinavian states, as the profits of imperialism are plowed into neoliberal privatization at home. The benefits of social democracy are not defended by imperialism but clawed back. The institutions of social democracy are not girded but undermined.

Imperial tendency is adversarial to social democratic institutions and policies, as the profits go not to improved standards of living but greater degrees of surveillance, incarceration, coercion, and media-instigated hysteria.

That's the wages of empire. Not cheaper commodities and greater social comforts but grander delusions and more entrenched phobias.

The case of Sweden shows that the democracies are curtailed by the domestic capitalists https://jacobin.com/2019/08/sweden-1970s-democratic-socialism-olof-palme-lo

The Swedish economy got off to a flying start after the end of World War II, a conflict in which Sweden had remained neutral. Sweden benefited from the three-decade-long postwar economic boom, the so-called Trente Glorieuses. As the historian Eric Hobsbawn pointed out, it is perfectly justifiable to characterize the quarter-century between 1950 and 1975 as the period during “which the most dramatic, the fastest, and the most wide-reaching revolution in people’s everyday lives” took place. There was a sort of symbiosis between the capitalists’ demand for mass production and the people’s demand for mass democracy. Fordist welfare societies were created on the foundation of economic growth.

The case in Sweden showed the bounty of neutrality in the wake of a continent-wide obliteration of domestic capital.

What's more...

Sweden was strongly affected by the radicalization of the 1960s. As in most other countries, it began with youth solidarity with the Third World. Swedish opposition to the Vietnam war was broad and influential. Swedish students joined others in demonstrations and in occupations. This new left contributed to pushing socialism further up on the agenda.

This would posit a distinctly contrary view to what you're stating above. Far from sympathizing and allying with imperialist states, the Swedes continued their commitment to the non-aligned movement and to independent sovereignty both for themselves and for their Third World peers.

In 1976, the social democrats lost control of the government. This was not — as many in Sweden claim today — because welfare had become too extensive or taxes too high. On the contrary: at the time, no party challenged the solidaristic welfare state, and the new bourgeois government continued to raise taxes. Social democracy’s loss might have been the result of a protest vote against a party that, after ruling for 44 years, had become overly autocratic. (The most important reason for the 1976 electoral loss, however, was the social democrats’ support for an expansion of Swedish nuclear power. This brought it into conflict with the radical environmentalist movement.) By the time the party regained control over the government in 1982, its leaders had accepted the basic principles of neoliberal politics.

Since then, the welfare state had been successively weakened. Increasingly large parts of the public sector have been privatized. The pension system has been fundamentally revised, and today Sweden has growing numbers of poor pensioners. Large sections of the public-owned housing stock have been sold. Today, Sweden is among those European countries whose economic and social divides are increasing most rapidly. This is most notable in increased segregation within the educational sector, which has become increasingly privatized. Bourgeois governments have led the way in this development, but social democrats have accepted the reforms afterward. They have not attempted to launch alternative political platforms.

So, far from the narrative of imperialist calf-fattening, we're entering the 80s (a period of consumerist glut) and social democrats are falling out thanks to the conflict between public demand for cheap energy and local environmental activism. They're embracing neoliberal policies not out of hunger for foreign imports but due to a sag in the post-war boom.

At the same time, despite the political consensus among the leaderships of the different parties, this development is deeply unpopular among Swedish citizens; discontent extends deep within the bourgeois parties’ own core troops. A large majority of the population still supports a commonly owned public sector and is prepared to pay the taxes necessary to finance it. This fact comes as confirmation that the solidaristic welfare state of the 1970s represented a series of collective conquests by broad layers of the Swedish people.

When people in the rest of the world point to Sweden as a prototype, it is these conquests they mean — not the increasingly hollow welfare state that has survived to today.

These are not conquests of foreign territory but conquests within the Swedish economy of Swedish residents in opposition to foreign investors and military powers.

The Swedes yearn not for their own foreign feudal lands but for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

his has absolutely dick-all to do with their political configuration.

It has everything to do with the political configuration, and I've already gave a direct contrast with USSR showing what relations look like with a socialist political configuration. Politics are inherently inseparable from economics.

Because of their geographic position and ethnic sympathies, not because of their political organization.

They absolutely align with the US because of their political organization.

The benefits of social democracy are not defended by imperialism but clawed back. The institutions of social democracy are not girded but undermined.

Nowhere have I argued that socialist structures benefit from imperialism. I'm arguing that the notion of social democracy doesn't actually work to hold back imperialism and capitalism which is its state goal.

This would posit a distinctly contrary view to what you’re stating above. Far from sympathizing and allying with imperialist states, the Swedes continued their commitment to the non-aligned movement and to independent sovereignty both for themselves and for their Third World peers.

No, it's not contrary to my view at all which is that social democracy doesn't work. Capitalist class that holds power gets their way in the long run. That's precisely what the article explains.

The Swedes yearn not for their own foreign feudal lands but for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yet, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be achieved via reformism. The whole system is explicitly built to promote the interests of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. You can't use the master's tools will to dismantle the master's house.

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Politics are inherently inseparable from economics.

That doesn't get you from "Democratic Socialism" to "Imperialism", as evidenced by your own linked article.

They absolutely align with the US because of their political organization.

Per your own linked article, they remained neutral even after the end of WW2 and sympathized more with the Non-Aligned states than either of the two Superpowers.

Nowhere have I argued that socialist structures benefit from imperialism.

Alright, asshole. I think we're done.