I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.
Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.
I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.
The Nordic countries are pretty clearly among the most ethnically homogenous and at a state level quite hostile to foreigners and immigrants. This is pretty clear cut and dry. The US, Australia, etc are more Settler-Colonial. The Nordics certainly have stronger labor organization, which helps, but ultimately rely on Imperialism and again, are decaying like the rest of the Global North.
As for the Glonal South, I think you’re vastly misanalyzing the situation. BRICS is successful despite the Imperialist countries, the blame should not be on the oppressed but the oppressors. Such a blame is akin to Macron’s recent statement that African countries should be greatful to the French for colonizing them and making them “sovereign nations.” The Imperialists aren’t merely a convenient scapegoat, but regularly exploiting them. Countries like Burkina Faso and Algeria became the extreme targets of Empire for daring to go against the Imperialist countries, it isn’t like countries can just “say no” to Imperialism.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism. It’s pretty unquestionable that the working class had far more power back then, with some of the best education and healthcare in the world provided entirely free. The Soviets were advancing science and global healthcare. It’s worth listening to Dr. Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, affectionately titled “Yellow Parenti.” Socialism may not be perfect, but that doesn’t mean it is equally bad to Capitalism, and to pretend “greed” impacts all economic systems equally is a failed form of logic without doing the legwork of proving that.
Circling back to the Nordics, the model only “works” inasmuch as the Nordic Countries currently function as global parasites on the labor of the Global South, like the rest of the Global North, their model depends on this, and as the tendency for the rate of profit persists they are introducing more austerity measures and weakening the safety nets, disparity is rising, and worker protections are falling. Higher unionization rates slow this process, but can’t stop it, Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.
You don’t have to dismantle the world, it has prepared the foundations for moving beyond the current system into a Socialist one. Centralization and monopolization of markets paves the way for public ownership and central planning to be a smooth transition. Socialists don’t want to tear down the system, but to move beyond it to the next Mode of Production via erasure of the Capitalist state and replacing with a Proletarian one.
I didn’t misunderstand anything about BRICS, I said exactly what you’re saying, that these countries succeeded because they were more unified in their approach to outside instigators. Corruption (greed) and lack of unity has been the bane of the failure examples you’re citing.
Please spare me the oppression politics slogans. You can’t live your life on other people’s charity anymore than you can run a country on the good will of others. People will always be assholes to each others, and it’s the responsibility of leaders in a country to give a shit and figure out how to make their country survive. Look at the history of Singapore, and how much outside influence tried to destabilize it. The point is that the root cause of failure in many nations is within, not without.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism.
I don’t know, this is questionable. A lot of science and tech achievements were more related to competition with capitalists nations. It’s hard to say at this point, nothing happened in a vacuum.
Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.
The Nordic Model is socialism, it just co-exists with a regulated capitalism. You’re wrong about any death of this model, if you look at GDP growth https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/nordic-gdp-growth-returns-to-pre-pandemic-levels/. It has its issues, but it’s a far better alternative to becoming subjugated by Stalin-like overlords and/or having everyone be equally poor.
You’re just going to have to live with the fact that some people will always reject the centralized proletariat control of production because 1) people, even in socialist systems, will always be greedy and cannot be trusted, and 2) people desire individuality and autonomy. A persons life is finite, they’re not here to be a slave for capitalist or to be a bee in the hive mind, there needs to be a system which lets someone exercise their individuality and autonomy without creating social ruin.
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
You legitimately are arguing that it is the fault of Imperialized countries for being Imperialized? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, here, this is what it sounds like you are saying to me. The leaders of a country, especially those in Imperialized countries, do not necessarily have the best interests of their populace in mind and frequently sell out the populace for money to Imperialists, and are placed in said positions by said Imperialists.
It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.
The Nordic model is not Socialism. The Nordic model is Capitalism, though with more generous social safety nets than most Capitalist countries. GDP growth is not what I am referring to, I am talking about a declining Rate of Profit and the erosion of safety nets. It is not better than Socialism, which democratizes the economy and uplifts the working class.
As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.
Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.
It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.
You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory
I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.
As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.
No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.
From a source (linked below):
As the 1990s progressed, the Stalinist period and the first half of the twentieth century in general increasingly retained the attention of scholars interested in the Soviet Union. Everyday Soviet life was seen as a history of repression, rationing, privation, famine, “survival strategies,” control, and social stratification. It was intimately tied to the campaign for Soviet culturedness (kul’turnost’), meaning the inculcation of proper manners and taste, which began in the second half of the 1930s. In these years, the regime recognized the legitimacy of consumption, notably through slogans proclaiming that life “became better and gayer” with the introduction of luxury consumer goods (Soviet champagne, caviar, chocolate, perfume, etc.), which were nonetheless accessible only to groups that the regime considered privileged.
Indeed, the distribution of objects as rewards was central to the social policies of Communist countries. Following the October Revolution, the distribution of noble and bourgeois property among workers and Bolshevik leaders at all levels, which was part of an urban campaign for housing redistribution, lent concrete meaning to the reversal of social hierarchies and confirmed the right of the neediest citizens to oppress those who were once the most privileged within the latter’s own apartments, which were now transformed into communal residences.
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
The countries aren’t nefessarily underdeveloped, they are over-exploited. The absolute vast majority of the resources and value they creste is taken for the Global North, the fact that the United States and other Western Powers regularly commit regime change isn’t somehow the fault of the Imperialized. This is a monstrous view of the world you have, which is why I asked you to clarify yourself several times.
Secondly, the USSR. They didn’t go from “relatively little” to “less little,” they went from a semi-feudal backwater to the second largest economy in the world, and did so while under constant siege. Again, life expectancy doubled literacy rates over tripled, they managed to take on the vast majority of the Nazis (80% of Nazi deaths were on the Eastern Front) and took Berlin, healthcare and education was free, working hours were shorter than the US with greater vacation days, all with rapid economic growth and low inequality. Linking right-wing think tanks designed to massage narratives can’t erase the numerical facts.
You were linked many extensive primary and scholarly sources by people like @Edie@lemmy.ml and you return with right-wing think tanks, which is rude at best and shows a lack of care. The bare minimum you could do is read Anticommunism & Wonderland, which is a subset of Blackshirts and Reds, though you really should read any of the books provided.
Finally, again, the Nordic Model is not Socialism. The Working Class is oppressed by the bourgeoisie within the countries, and the Nordic Countries heavily exploit the Global South. Not everyone can copy the Nordic Model because it requires mass international exploitation, which you argued is the fault of the Imperialized in an earlier section, so I guess that clarifies your worldview a bit. In short: brutal expropriation and Imperialism is a good thing, more should do it even harder, and it’s the fault of the Imperialized for not picking them up by their bootstraps (despite them picking up the Global North by its bootstraps, and the Global North acting like they earned the riches they stole).
Try to reread this comment section, and legitimately ask yourself if half-assed right-wing think tank articles are better than Primary and Scholarly secondary sources, and if you want to be that dedicated to justifying brutal exploitation and encouraging more of it.
Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model.
What bigger picture is there than improvements in material quality of life conditions, like calories available and infant mortality rates and life expectancy and literacy levels and gender equality and and and? And what is that but the socioeconomic conditions? Before the revolution this was an preindustrial, illiterate, feudal state of desperately precarious peasants. And after the revolution it was war-torn, and continuously threatened by imperialist states, and then, not long after, invaded by the WWII Axis powers. And still the material conditions of the masses improved by leaps & bounds compared to their starting position.
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
Again, the “Nordic model” has been predicated on spoils of neocolonialism. How do the neocolonized feel about their subjugation and oppression? And under decades of grinding neoliberalism, the social safety nets have been eroding all over the imperial core, and the bourgeoisie aren’t going to give them back even if they could (which they can’t, especially now that the empire is deteriorating). These are bourgeois democracies, they’re not proletarian ones.
I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.
Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.
I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.
The Nordic countries are pretty clearly among the most ethnically homogenous and at a state level quite hostile to foreigners and immigrants. This is pretty clear cut and dry. The US, Australia, etc are more Settler-Colonial. The Nordics certainly have stronger labor organization, which helps, but ultimately rely on Imperialism and again, are decaying like the rest of the Global North.
As for the Glonal South, I think you’re vastly misanalyzing the situation. BRICS is successful despite the Imperialist countries, the blame should not be on the oppressed but the oppressors. Such a blame is akin to Macron’s recent statement that African countries should be greatful to the French for colonizing them and making them “sovereign nations.” The Imperialists aren’t merely a convenient scapegoat, but regularly exploiting them. Countries like Burkina Faso and Algeria became the extreme targets of Empire for daring to go against the Imperialist countries, it isn’t like countries can just “say no” to Imperialism.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism. It’s pretty unquestionable that the working class had far more power back then, with some of the best education and healthcare in the world provided entirely free. The Soviets were advancing science and global healthcare. It’s worth listening to Dr. Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, affectionately titled “Yellow Parenti.” Socialism may not be perfect, but that doesn’t mean it is equally bad to Capitalism, and to pretend “greed” impacts all economic systems equally is a failed form of logic without doing the legwork of proving that.
Circling back to the Nordics, the model only “works” inasmuch as the Nordic Countries currently function as global parasites on the labor of the Global South, like the rest of the Global North, their model depends on this, and as the tendency for the rate of profit persists they are introducing more austerity measures and weakening the safety nets, disparity is rising, and worker protections are falling. Higher unionization rates slow this process, but can’t stop it, Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.
You don’t have to dismantle the world, it has prepared the foundations for moving beyond the current system into a Socialist one. Centralization and monopolization of markets paves the way for public ownership and central planning to be a smooth transition. Socialists don’t want to tear down the system, but to move beyond it to the next Mode of Production via erasure of the Capitalist state and replacing with a Proletarian one.
I didn’t misunderstand anything about BRICS, I said exactly what you’re saying, that these countries succeeded because they were more unified in their approach to outside instigators. Corruption (greed) and lack of unity has been the bane of the failure examples you’re citing.
Please spare me the oppression politics slogans. You can’t live your life on other people’s charity anymore than you can run a country on the good will of others. People will always be assholes to each others, and it’s the responsibility of leaders in a country to give a shit and figure out how to make their country survive. Look at the history of Singapore, and how much outside influence tried to destabilize it. The point is that the root cause of failure in many nations is within, not without.
I don’t know, this is questionable. A lot of science and tech achievements were more related to competition with capitalists nations. It’s hard to say at this point, nothing happened in a vacuum.
The Nordic Model is socialism, it just co-exists with a regulated capitalism. You’re wrong about any death of this model, if you look at GDP growth https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/nordic-gdp-growth-returns-to-pre-pandemic-levels/. It has its issues, but it’s a far better alternative to becoming subjugated by Stalin-like overlords and/or having everyone be equally poor.
You’re just going to have to live with the fact that some people will always reject the centralized proletariat control of production because 1) people, even in socialist systems, will always be greedy and cannot be trusted, and 2) people desire individuality and autonomy. A persons life is finite, they’re not here to be a slave for capitalist or to be a bee in the hive mind, there needs to be a system which lets someone exercise their individuality and autonomy without creating social ruin.
It is not socialism. I already went over this upthread:
You legitimately are arguing that it is the fault of Imperialized countries for being Imperialized? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, here, this is what it sounds like you are saying to me. The leaders of a country, especially those in Imperialized countries, do not necessarily have the best interests of their populace in mind and frequently sell out the populace for money to Imperialists, and are placed in said positions by said Imperialists.
It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.
The Nordic model is not Socialism. The Nordic model is Capitalism, though with more generous social safety nets than most Capitalist countries. GDP growth is not what I am referring to, I am talking about a declining Rate of Profit and the erosion of safety nets. It is not better than Socialism, which democratizes the economy and uplifts the working class.
As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.
Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.
You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory
I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.
No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.
From a source (linked below):
https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
The countries aren’t nefessarily underdeveloped, they are over-exploited. The absolute vast majority of the resources and value they creste is taken for the Global North, the fact that the United States and other Western Powers regularly commit regime change isn’t somehow the fault of the Imperialized. This is a monstrous view of the world you have, which is why I asked you to clarify yourself several times.
Secondly, the USSR. They didn’t go from “relatively little” to “less little,” they went from a semi-feudal backwater to the second largest economy in the world, and did so while under constant siege. Again, life expectancy doubled literacy rates over tripled, they managed to take on the vast majority of the Nazis (80% of Nazi deaths were on the Eastern Front) and took Berlin, healthcare and education was free, working hours were shorter than the US with greater vacation days, all with rapid economic growth and low inequality. Linking right-wing think tanks designed to massage narratives can’t erase the numerical facts.
You were linked many extensive primary and scholarly sources by people like @Edie@lemmy.ml and you return with right-wing think tanks, which is rude at best and shows a lack of care. The bare minimum you could do is read Anticommunism & Wonderland, which is a subset of Blackshirts and Reds, though you really should read any of the books provided.
Finally, again, the Nordic Model is not Socialism. The Working Class is oppressed by the bourgeoisie within the countries, and the Nordic Countries heavily exploit the Global South. Not everyone can copy the Nordic Model because it requires mass international exploitation, which you argued is the fault of the Imperialized in an earlier section, so I guess that clarifies your worldview a bit. In short: brutal expropriation and Imperialism is a good thing, more should do it even harder, and it’s the fault of the Imperialized for not picking them up by their bootstraps (despite them picking up the Global North by its bootstraps, and the Global North acting like they earned the riches they stole).
Try to reread this comment section, and legitimately ask yourself if half-assed right-wing think tank articles are better than Primary and Scholarly secondary sources, and if you want to be that dedicated to justifying brutal exploitation and encouraging more of it.
What bigger picture is there than improvements in material quality of life conditions, like calories available and infant mortality rates and life expectancy and literacy levels and gender equality and and and? And what is that but the socioeconomic conditions? Before the revolution this was an preindustrial, illiterate, feudal state of desperately precarious peasants. And after the revolution it was war-torn, and continuously threatened by imperialist states, and then, not long after, invaded by the WWII Axis powers. And still the material conditions of the masses improved by leaps & bounds compared to their starting position.
Again, the “Nordic model” has been predicated on spoils of neocolonialism. How do the neocolonized feel about their subjugation and oppression? And under decades of grinding neoliberalism, the social safety nets have been eroding all over the imperial core, and the bourgeoisie aren’t going to give them back even if they could (which they can’t, especially now that the empire is deteriorating). These are bourgeois democracies, they’re not proletarian ones.