There is no Nordic model. The Nordics have substantially different economic histories and have developed in different ways at different times. Finland was poor until really very recently, Denmark was and still is a colonial exploiter, Norway got oil rich, Iceland was a haven for bankers and tax cheats, and Sweden only saw a recent blip of social progress from the 40s into the 70s and then destroyed the labor movement that built those gains over the previous 20 years with the impressive equality achieved in that period rapidly eroding back to the 1920s when you look at disparate investment in education and other ways of funneling public benefits to the already wealthy. And don’t forget that Sweden are colonial bastards towards the Sami as well, and still are looting their way through those spoils for resource wealth.
Anyone who tells you there even is a Nordic model is a fucking idiot.
Well its not completely true. They played a switzerland and sold stuff to both sides. They were only in it for the profit. But today swedes do realize how horrible that was but most people still dont connect the dots that norther europe still exploits the worlds resources.
This sounds awfully like one of those weird debates where twisted and contorted buzzwords get thrown around and once one of us Europeans innocently enters the discussion gets downvoted and hated into oblivion because everything we say is taken in some weird context we didn’t know shit about.
In what context dies a “Nordic model” come up and what’s it supposed to entail?
The Nordic model is often thrown out as an alternative to Marxism. The argument is that Nordic countries managed to create a capitalist society without exploitation.
Well, I’d say at least less exploitation than the raw capitalism the US has right now.
The funny thing is that the Allied powers helped establish a nation that has fixes for many problems the US faces right now, both constitutionally and economically in 1949.
Germany’s economy calls itself “social market economy” and acknowledges that the state has to interfere with “the market” whenever the developing power gradient in capitalism threatens to stomp the weaker. Does it work perfectly? Of course not! Nothing does on that level. Is it in danger of being hollowed out by capitalist fuckfaces constantly? Absolutely. Yet the model might give.some ideas.
The problem is that exploitation is largely just exported to the countries that the west subjugate. Plenty of exploitation in places like Africa and Latin America is currently happening in order to produce cheap goods people in Europe consume. This is the kind of stuff that props things up theguardian.com/…/mars-nestle-and-hershey-to-face…
If anything didn’t need a source then it’s that the wealth of rich nations is upheld by the less rich nations. Anyone who isn’t aware of that should not be listened to on any political or economical topic
Yet, what you said earlier struck me as incredibly “buzzwordy” so to say. You hinted at the choice being Marxism (we’ll come back to that one) and capitalism with the “Nordic Model” (reductive US-centric naming schemes at work) being sold as a (for you not satisfactory I assume) middle ground.
You seem to reject this middle ground because (and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m reading between the lines here) it will not solve the huge discrepancy in wealth between our richest and our poorest countries in earth.
So far, so good. Now: when you talk about “Marxism”, what do you mean by that exactly? I’ve seen this word thrown around countless times (again, mostly from the US) and most of the ppl doing so would have made Karl Marx vomit in his luscious beard when he heard what wild theories go by “Marxism” these days. So you’ll have to be rather specific as to what you mean. "Marxism " isn’t a clear-cut thing in the best of times.
Secondly: I’m assuming you want the global revolution the theories by Engels and Marx discuss im their economical parts and change the whole world towards a classless society by an uprising of the working class (however that would look). Isn’t any call for such a thing another manifestation of the same air of superiority we 1sr worlders tend to fall victim to? Any capitalist would tell you that the nations held back by the “1st world” just needed to fend for themselves and all would be great, right? While I can see how this is not a sentiment one would support (I don’t either), it’s not completely off. Even if we in the west decided that Marxism (again, whatever that means) is the Bee’s Knees right now, isn’t it just the same kind of patronizing if we just assume that the people in poorer countries think the same and expect them to (again) follow our lead into what we tell them is a better future? What if they want capitalism or whatever else? (Unlikely, yet still)
Now regarding the “Nordic Model” or all other forms of social economy: I think it’s safe to assume that the US and Europe have a comparable amount of “oppression per person” regarding foreign industry, yet the amount of exploitation of domestic workers will vary greatly.
Lacking many state-driven social security nets, the US will likely come upnfirst when it comes to local exploitation. So, if there was a way to ease this up while the rest of the world is not up for revolution stuff, why wouldn’t it be worthwhile to take that route?
Yet, what you said earlier struck me as incredibly “buzzwordy” so to say. You hinted at the choice being Marxism (we’ll come back to that one) and capitalism with the “Nordic Model” (reductive US-centric naming schemes at work) being sold as a (for you not satisfactory I assume) middle ground.
What I actually said was that the Nordic model is used as an example of a viable alternative to Marxism. Nowhere did I say Marxism was the only possible option, simply that capitalism with the Nordic model is not a viable alternative.
You seem to reject this middle ground because (and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m reading between the lines here) it will not solve the huge discrepancy in wealth between our richest and our poorest countries in earth.
I’m not really sure what you mean by middle ground here. Either the working class owns the means of production, or you have a capital owning class in charge.
So far, so good. Now: when you talk about “Marxism”, what do you mean by that exactly?
What I mean by that is workers owning the means of production such as factories, schools, farms, and so on. I mean a society where labour is done for collective benefit, and the decisions of what work is done and to what purpose are done democratically.
Isn’t any call for such a thing another manifestation of the same air of superiority we 1sr worlders tend to fall victim to?
Not at all, a call for workers to overthrow the ruling class and be in charge of their own work is in no way a manifestation of 1st world superiority. That’s frankly a bizarre argument to try and make.
Even if we in the west decided that Marxism (again, whatever that means) is the Bee’s Knees right now, isn’t it just the same kind of patronizing if we just assume that the people in poorer countries think the same and expect them to (again) follow our lead into what we tell them is a better future? What if they want capitalism or whatever else?
They wouldn’t be following western lead though would they. They would be following China’s Vietnam’s, Laos’s and Cuba’s lead. These are the existing Marxist states today. The west is not leading anybody here. Furthermore, the original argument here was against western colonialism and subjugation of countries. Countries having sovereignty and the right to self determination is a prerequisite for any sort of liberation.
Now regarding the “Nordic Model” or all other forms of social economy: I think it’s safe to assume that the US and Europe have a comparable amount of “oppression per person” regarding foreign industry, yet the amount of exploitation of domestic workers will vary greatly.
There is no great mystery here. US is simply further along the path to late stage capitalism than Europe is. However, direction of travel is very much the same. Sweden is a great case study for this jacobin.com/…/sweden-1970s-democratic-socialism-o…
So, if there was a way to ease this up while the rest of the world is not up for revolution stuff, why wouldn’t it be worthwhile to take that route?
Where do I argue that if such a route was actually available that it should not be taken? It’s a bit of an fallacious argument to claim that Marxists want to a violent revolution.
The very concept of “revolutionary violence” is a false framing of the situation, since most of the violence comes from those who attempt to prevent reform as opposed to those struggling for reform. Focusing on the violent rebellions of the downtrodden overlooks the much greater repressive force and violence utilized by the ruling oligarchs to maintain the status quo, such as attacks against peaceful demonstrations, mass arrests, torture, destruction of opposition organizations, suppression of dissident publications, death squads, so so on.
Most social revolutions begin peaceably. Why would it be otherwise? Who would not prefer to assemble and demonstrate rather than engage in mortal combat against pitiless forces that enjoy everyadvantage in mobility and firepower? Revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, and El Salvador all began peacefully, with crowds of peasants and workers launching nonviolent protests only to be met with violent oppression from the authorities. Peaceful protest and reform are exactly what the people are denied by the ruling oligarchs. The dissidents who continue to fight back, who try to defend themselves from the oligarchs’ repressive fury, are then called “violent revolutionaries” and “terrorists”.
It is unreasonable to assume a model outside of this will be attainabille within the next two centuries.
Instead let’s focus on drawing back the exploitation within our own country this century then we can shift our perspective. We will never stop exploiting the poorest countries if we’re still exploiting our poorest citizens.
I can sit here and spin the exact same question about reducing global exploitation.
Reducing global exploitation would implies self sustainability and with the west, particularly the US, they never reach self sustainability with their current economic model of giving 95% of their production/wealth to the top 1% while a very large portion of its population is struggling economically/mentally/physically.
It’s a stepping stone in the problem of global exploitation, but it can’t happen overnight nor independently.
The thing is that the nordic model still gives the lions share of the wealth to the 1 percent, they just use the proceeds from exploiting the third world to supplement the wealth of the domestic working class.
Instead let’s focus on drawing back the exploitation within our own country this century then we can shift our perspective. We will never stop exploiting the poorest countries if we’re still exploiting our poorest citizens.
This just incentivizes more exploitation of the Global South.
In the American model, Larry and Carl turn the tray themselves, there’s only one slice of pie on it, and Homer is still in the dungeon getting whipped.
Good point but it’s important to note that in the US, the state definitely interferes with “the market”, but only when power is threatened i.e. bailing out the banks instead of the mortgage holders in 2008, subsidies for fossil fuels and the meat industries, and other instances of protecting capital which would otherwise get a boo-boo should it be exposed to either free market forces or something like the efficiency of single payer health care.
Is this accurate or overstated? I was under the impression the Nordic Model is more predicated on fossil fuel exports than straight-up slave labor (as compared to, say, economic success of The Philippines or India or Israel or Saudi Arabia, where dirt cheap labor from neighboring states is essential to operations). Nords would be poorer without fossil fuel exports, but they’d still function within the EU trade network and enjoy a basic post-industrial standard of life with high quality education, health care, and mass transit.
By comparison, the Pacific Rim satraps are all ruled by folks who make their money entirely off of an export market powered by dirt cheap human labor. The shipping and vacation industries through the Pacific Islands are entirely a function of indentured labor. The agricultural industry is entirely plantation labor. Its a very different beast.
The whole western economy runs on cheap labour and resource extraction from the colonized countries. Nordic countries have very little industry and are certainly nowhere close to being self sufficient in any sense.
Scandinavian social democracy only seems to work because of the imperialism they practice on third world countries and the benefits they reaped from European colonialism. It’s just a slightly better distribution of the imperialist plunder from 3rd world nations. They never would have been rich if they didn’t exploit workers and resources in developing nations along with forcing terribly unfair trading terms upon them. Socialism actually seeks to liberate the world from all forms of oppression whereas Scandinavian social democracy merely ships it off to 3rd world countries (which houses 85% of the world’s population). Success of social democracy is not possible without inflicting inhumane suffering and oppression upon people in the global south:
The whole western economy runs on cheap labour and resource extraction from the colonized countries
A great deal of the western economy runs on cheap imports from industrial rivals, like China and India. But Chinese standard of living has been improving by leaps and bounds, approaching (and in cases exceeding) their western peers. I don’t think it is fair or accurate to say that a Nordish person working in the O&G sector and using an Apple phone is somehow profiting off the back of Chinese labor any more than a Chinese person using a fossil-fuel powered device while working in a phone assembly plant is profiting off Nordic extracted labor.
Scandinavian social democracy only seems to work because of the imperialism they practice on third world countries
The articles you’re citing largely focus on the weapons export industry, the knock-on-effects of fossil fuels, and the relationship between economies as a whole. They fail to discuss either the scope or benefit afforded to individual Scandinavians, relative to the handful of senior executives and majority stakeholders in these industries.
To say the US democratic model or the Middle Eastern monarchy model are predicated on imperialism would be far more accurate. But, again, the flow of trade is heavily biased towards a minority of residents. The real benefit of Scandinavian socialism isn’t that it grants access to cheap consumer goods. You can get that anywhere - from Qatar to Haiti to Taiwan - without any regard to the social system. The benefit of the Scandinavian model is in how it delivers professional health care and education labor. That’s the primary appeal of the system and it has nothing to do with cheap foreign imports.
Success of social democracy is not possible without inflicting inhumane suffering and oppression upon people in the global south
Success of social democracy is not predicated on the success of a consumerist market economy. Cuba is an excellent counterexample. It implements a raft of policies that are comparable to Scandinavian social services and reaps enormous economic benefits despite being entirely cut off from imperialist trade and cheap labor.
The real benefits of the consumer economy are the capitalist brokers, not the Scandinavian social democrats.
A great deal of western economy runs on exploitation of Latin America and Africa where western companies commit crimes against humanity on the daily basis.
To say the US democratic model or the Middle Eastern monarchy model are predicated on imperialism would be far more accurate.
Scandinavians are part of the US empire, and Scandinavian companies are directly involved in exploitation happening in developing countries. US does provide the military might to back this exploitation to be sure, but the resource and labour extraction is done by all western countries.
The benefit of the Scandinavian model is in how it delivers professional health care and education labor. That’s the primary appeal of the system and it has nothing to do with cheap foreign imports.
Except that it does since Scandinavia is not a closed economy. This the whole point here, much of the labor needed to make Scandinavia run happens in the countries the empire subjugates. You have to look at this in a holistic fashion accounting for all the labor needed to make these economies operate as opposed to just the labor that happens domestically.
Success of social democracy is not predicated on the success of a consumerist market economy. Cuba is an excellent counterexample. It implements a raft of policies that are comparable to Scandinavian social services and reaps enormous economic benefits despite being entirely cut off from imperialist trade and cheap labor.
Sure, the positive aspects of Scandinavian economies aren’t exclusive to Scandinavia, and Cuba is indeed a far more principled example of socialist policies in action.
A great deal of western economy runs on exploitation of Latin America and Africa where western companies commit crimes against humanity on the daily basis.
Undeniably. But the benefit of this exploitation accrues first and foremost to the ownership class.
Scandinavian companies are directly involved in exploitation happening in developing countries
US cut-outs in Scandinavia function in much the same way as the 50-state strategy for the domestic arms industry. This secures political patronage by way of kickbacks and sinesures to elites within the Scandinavian domestic polity. But it does not benefit Scandinavians writ large. The beneficiaries are entirely within the foreign rooted patronage network and have contracted over time as the network grows more efficient.
Scandinavia is not a closed economy
The economic benefits of Scandinavian socialism are geographically and linguistically limited. Traveling overseas for medical care and education is a luxury, particularly when your conditions are chronic or time-critical. And the labor for these services is primarily sourced from the Scandinavian polity. They’re not importing a bunch of Global South doctors and teachers to get the cost of their socialized programs down.
the labor needed to make Scandinavia run happens in the countries the empire subjugates
The labor needed to make the Scandinavian Treats Network flow is a consequence of colonialism. But Treats trade through the privatized economy. There is no publicly financed cheap TVs, cars, and textiles service. And the benefits of these industries accrue primarily to the bourgeois not the proletariat. That is why they’re the focus of intensive advertising and other consumerist propaganda. Nobody in Scandinavia needs to spend millions during the local soccer tournament to promote the public mail service or the local judiciary in order to garner support for it. Its the newest FIFA title and scammy financial products and the fanciest luxury watch brands and clothing styles that get the lion’s share of promotion. None of those are consequences of Democratic Socialism.
Cuba is indeed a far more principled example of socialist policies in action.
Cuba isn’t “principled”, its “embargoed”. Cubans would be more than happy to get the Scandinavian tier of treats if they were on offer.
But my point is that Cuba can still deliver public services despite being cut off from treats networks. These are distinct systems of trade.
Undeniably. But the benefit of this exploitation accrues first and foremost to the ownership class.
Of course, but the conditions of the working class are also improved by imperialism and that’s the reason there is sufficient support for ruling class policies from the working majority in the imperial core.
They’re not importing a bunch of Global South doctors and teachers to get the cost of their socialized programs down.
My point was that many of the stable goods consumed by the people in Scandinavia are either partially or entirely sourced in colonized countries. This eliminates a lot of the hard labor jobs in Scandinavia that would otherwise be necessary.
I’m not arguing that the proletariat are the primary beneficiaries of colonialism, I’m just pointing out that people in western countries enjoy a higher standard of living because of it. And this is a necessary part of the social contract that keeps capitalists in power.
Cuba isn’t “principled”, its “embargoed”. Cubans would be more than happy to get the Scandinavian tier of treats if they were on offer.
Cuba would not exploit other countries if it wasn’t embargoed because exploitation isn’t inherent in Cuban economic system as it is under capitalism.
the conditions of the working class are also improved by imperialism
I think that’s highly debatable. If nothing else, imperialism undermines domestic labor power, as domestic workers are devalued at the industrial level and shuttled off into police/military industries where they are more easily controlled from the top. But my main focus is on the industries where democratic socialism have the biggest impact. Health care, education, mass transit, and other service-sector work isn’t easily exported and won’t directly benefit from generically “cheaper” cost of living for a functionally poorer working class cohort.
many of the stable goods consumed by the people in Scandinavia are either partially or entirely sourced in colonized countries
These consumer goods exist within the private market. Imports undermine domestic labor and retail work is almost entirely privatized. There is no notable distinction between a Swedish democratic socialist shopping at ICA and a British constitutional monarchist shopping at Tesco. They both receive the same capitalist-driven benefits. Neither system is predicated on imperially supplied imports.
people in western countries enjoy a higher standard of living because of it
People in China enjoy a comparable (sometimes superior) standard of living despite it. People outside of western countries - particularly those in the Global South - can experience democratic socialism without any of the horrors of imperialism tacked on.
Democratic socialism and imperial economic expansionism are two independent political phenomena. One does not contribute to the other, save in contradiction. I might argue that Scandinavian democratic socialism is actively being undermined by imperialist political arrangements, as in the case of Finland joining NATO and ceding a large chunk of its surplus to militarization. Alternatively, one might look at how Worst Korea, the UK, and India have suffered sever living quality declines as neoliberal economic policy cannibalizes their public sector services.
The benefits of imperialism - particularly in the wake of the 21st century - do not appear to accrue to lay residents of these nations. They are entirely bound up in aristocratic cadres who can reinvest the surplus into imperial expansion. This pattern isn’t unique to the modern moment, either. It is the same story told during the Dutch post-30-years-War Era, the post-Civil War period, and the WW1-WW2 period.
Cuba would not exploit other countries if it wasn’t embargoed because exploitation isn’t inherent in Cuban economic system as it is under capitalism.
If you showed up in Havana with a cargo ship full of H&M clothing and electronics produced in a Samsung sweatshop and cosmetics tested on adorable animals and gold jewelry mined out of a West African slave pit, plenty of Cubans would receive them happily. This is commodity fetishism in action. Nobody understands the blood and toil that made these surplus goods appear and relatively few people are able to reconcile the information with how they live their lives.
Cubans who leave the island have absolutely no compunction at consuming right alongside their American peers. Americans who visit are never turned away because their money comes from a nation full of rapacious barbarians. There is nothing inherent to the Cuban economy that prevents it from absorbing the surplus labor of their neighbors. This is entirely a consequence of US foreign policy, executed with the belief that Cuban socialism cannot exist absent the cheap labor of their neighbors.
The Americans were wrong in the 1960s and again in the late 90s when they predicted the embargo would topple the Castro government. You’re wrong now. Democratic Socialism has nothing to do with Imperialist looting and plundering.
I think that’s highly debatable. If nothing else, imperialism undermines domestic labor power, as domestic workers are devalued at the industrial level and shuttled off into police/military industries where they are more easily controlled from the top.
Of course, undermining labor power is the point, but in the short term overall standard of living is raised. Eventually, the empire ends up hollowing out its core because the cost of maintaining the colonies starts to outpace the plunder. This is the point we’re reaching now with standard of living starting to crumble in the west. However, people in the west enjoyed a far higher standard of living than people in the countries the west has been subjugating for many decades on end. This fact can’t be understated.
These consumer goods exist within the private market. Imports undermine domestic labor and retail work is almost entirely privatized. There is no notable distinction between a Swedish democratic socialist shopping at ICA and a British constitutional monarchist shopping at Tesco. They both receive the same capitalist-driven benefits. Neither system is predicated on imperially supplied imports.
If you look at the supply chains for practically any goods, such as cell phones, you’ll see that most of the resources needed to produce these goods are extracted in places like Africa using slave labor. Western countries don’t even have this wealth of natural resources to lean on. They are robbing the rest of the world of these resources while subjugating the people of the colonized countries. The life of a Swedish democratic socialist or a British constitutional monarchist would be wildly different without the plunder the empire is doing.
The benefits of imperialism - particularly in the wake of the 21st century - do not appear to accrue to lay residents of these nations.
The empire is indeed starting to hollow itself out today, but we can’t ignore the history of how we got here. There are stages of development of the empire, and in the early stages most people living in imperial core did enjoy the benefits. As we get into later stages of the empire, the benefits are starting to fizzle for the majority.
If you showed up in Havana with a cargo ship full of H&M clothing and electronics produced in a Samsung sweatshop and cosmetics tested on adorable animals and gold jewelry mined out of a West African slave pit, plenty of Cubans would receive them happily. This is commodity fetishism in action. Nobody understands the blood and toil that made these surplus goods appear and relatively few people are able to reconcile the information with how they live their lives.
I’m not talking about individualistic liberal perspective here. I’m talking about how Cuba behaves as a nation and we can also look at how USSR behaved. USSR did not subjugate other nations the way the west does, and when it collapsed the standard of living in places like Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea also collapsed because they had a mutually beneficial relationship with USSR. When US empire collapses, the standard of living in the subjugated countries will rise. That’s the difference.
The Americans were wrong in the 1960s and again in the late 90s when they predicted the embargo would topple the Castro government. You’re wrong now. Democratic Socialism has nothing to do with Imperialist looting and plundering.
Democratic Socialism is just a the sheep’s clothing of imperialism.
the short term overall standard of living is raised
But we’re no longer in the short term. Scandinavian social democracy has been ongoing since the 60s. That’s three generations worth of living standards which have largely leveled off and even begun to decline relative to their Eastern peers as neoliberal trade chews into proletariat standards of living. Scandinavian states were explicitly neutral during the Cold War and avoided the imperialist impulses of their southern peers. THIS is the windfall they reaped into the end of the 20th century.
However, people in the west enjoyed a far higher standard of living than people in the countries the west has been subjugating
This has been less and less true since the 90s, as the western states become heavily dependent on fossil fuel exports. It is the Middle Eastern bloc that’s seen all the real material benefits of imperial subjugation. Dubai and Riyahd and Amman and even Tehran have seen enormous windfalls. Folks in London and Boston and Berlin have not. Standards of living in Scandinavian states are slipping and poverty is rising (abet marginally).
If you look at the supply chains for practically any goods, such as cell phones, you’ll see that most of the resources needed to produce these goods are extracted in places like Africa using slave labor.
Scandinavian social democracy has nothing to do with American / East Asian materials extraction patterns. What’s more, as Chinese business interests take over traditionally western owned-and-operated enterprises along the African coastline, quality of life is improving. We saw this first in South Africa, as it joined the BRICS block and pivoted away from reliance exclusively on US/UK monetary policy. But we’re seeing it in Somalia, Kenya, Madagascar, and the DRC as well.
Should we laud Scandinavians because their purchase of electronics is finally becoming a boon for African miners? Should we laud democratic socialism for this transition? Of course not. Neither should we defame it for the atrocities committed by American, English, French, and Spanish post-colonial corporate thugs. No more than we should blame a shopper at an American grocery store for the crimes committed by the United Fruit Company.
I’m talking about how Cuba behaves as a nation and we can also look at how USSR behaved.
Cuba’s trade practices are strictly regulated by the American Navy and Coast Guard. Meanwhile, their retail markets and agricultural/biotech exports are what would inevitably draw in the exact same criminally sourced consumer goods. This isn’t a problem of Cuban (or Nordic) social democracy. It is a problem of foreign monopolistic exporters in occupied regions of the global south. And the Scandinavians, at least, lack a meaningful contribution to that project. The citations you link to are token at best. Akin to blaming Poland for the invasion of Iraq in '03.
USSR did not subjugate other nations the way the west does, and when it collapsed the standard of living in places like Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea also collapsed because they had a mutually beneficial relationship with USSR.
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.
Democratic Socialism is just a the sheep’s clothing of imperialism.
Implementing public professional services in the domestic market (or not) has no impact on your foreign policy.
But we’re no longer in the short term. Scandinavian social democracy has been ongoing since the 60s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
That doesn’t get you from “Democratic Socialism” to “Imperialism”, as evidenced by your own linked article.
That’s not an argument I made anywhere. What I keep telling you is that democratic socialism provides a veneer of democracy for the masses which allows capitalism to operate. Capitalism is what’s responsible for the imperialism.
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.
Oh please, it’s the height of dishonesty to pretend they were actually neutral after WW2.
Alright, asshole. I think we’re done.
I think we are done, you’ll have to go make straw man arguments in a different thread now.
I doubt the Nordic working class are receiving a meaningful share of the value stolen through imperialist means. Instead, I think the Nordic bourgeoisie are able to accumulate wealth without having to hyper exploit their local populations thanks to imperialism. This ameliorates the local class antagonisms and creates the superficial appearance that a capitalist system can maintain a stable high standard of living for the working class.
Of course, if imperialist exploitation can no longer ameliorate said antagonisms, class conflict will re-erupt in Nordic countries. The danger here is that parts of the working class may be convinced that their standard of living is predicated on imperialist conquest which is the basis for fascism. The good thing is I don’t actually think that’s true. A more reliable way for Nordic workers to maintain their standard of living would be for them to suppress the interests of their local bourgeoisie and transition to an actually socialist model.
Obviously, the vast majority of plunder goes to the capitalist class, but the working class unarguably enjoys better conditions than vast majority of the world which is how the ruling class buys the support of domestic workers for imperialist policies.
I somewhat agree. I do take issue with the notion that the Nordic working class has been bought off though. That makes it sound like they’re conscious advocates of imperialism which I don’t think is generally true. Rather I’d argue that free from hyper exploitation, they can’t develop a meaningful class consciousness. As such, it’s difficult for them to see how their long term interests are put at risk by the capitalist system and how a socialist system could maintain their high standard of living without requiring imperialism.
Add comment