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.
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
533 points (90.3% liked)
Memes
49848 readers
2238 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
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.
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 haven’t met any soc dems who think capitalism can be saved. Most agree that it [can be saved]
???
Just look how successful the Nordic countries are.
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.
Propped up by the underpaid labour and stolen resources of the global South and rapidly sprinting towards fascism like the rest of the West?
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.
Capitalism is in its original inception advocate in self-regulating market.
Source?
so we tend to advocate for regulation.
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.)
unless developed countries have jurisdictions on developing ones, and vice versa, there is not much that richer countries could do.
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.
There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow.
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.
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.)
Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.
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.
Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?
There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow.
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.
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?
view more: next ›