Pure versions of each have their flaws. Mixed-economics yields the highest quality of life according to the top ranking nations on the World Happiness Report. Nordic nations have the blueprint. We just need to adopt it.
if Nordic countries had to stand on their own, they would collapse, they can only get by because they’re the beneficiaries of a global system of worker exploitation.
All economies are “mixed,” ergo it isn’t a meaningful distinction. What is more useful is recognizing which aspect of the economy is the principle, ie which has the real dominant power, over large firms and key industries. Socialism is when the public sector is the principle aspect, Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect. That’s why the PRC is Socialist, and the Nordic countries are Capitalist.
Judging which system is correct purely by looking to which countries have the highest happiness scores is myopic. We could use the same logic to say that Jeff Bezos has the most comfortable life, so we should all copy him. The problem is that we can’t. The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South, and because Private Ownership has domination over the state, worker protections and safety nets have been gradually sliding.
This is why having a good knowledge of theory and taking everything within a large context, rather than with harsh boundaries, is important to draw correct conclusions.
There are a few different reasons that give rise to these (false) conclusions, and different reasons manifest in different degrees. Ie, not everyone will have all of these reasons, but most have at least one.
Chauvanism. Intentionally or not, there is often a superstructural element to western thought derived from being a beneficiary of Imperialism that discredits the achievements of non-Western Leftists. The fact that a western revolution has failed to materialize leads to some westerners being defensive and thus discrediting the achievements of the PRC.
A lack of real analysis at what the PRC is economically structured as. It’s easy to not understand the makeup of the PRC’s economy if you don’t engage with it.
A lack of reading Marxist theory, and thus not being able to properly analyze structures from a Dialectical Materialist perspective.
In my opinion, those are the main 3 reasons for such conclusions.
I imagine the next deflection is something like ‘but china has the second largest number of billionares’, but as soon as you sort that list by per-capita it suddenly tells a very different story.
May I ask an honest question? Is your account run by 5 people? How do you find time to write thorough, well written responses to so many posts? We don’t always agree ideologically, but I really respect your methods.
Haha, it’s nothing like that. My job works more in spurts and waiting periods, so it largely depends on what’s going on in my work life. Plus, not every comment is bespoke, I usually draw from prior comments I’ve written if applicable and tweak if needed.
Workers rights in Denmark, an Imperialist country that is firmly under the control of Private Capital, are declining. Safety nets are eroding and unions are weakening, disparity is rising. The opposite is the case in the PRC, a rapidly developing country where Public Ownership is in control of the economy.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism. Analysis of China’s economic makeup affirms this method as true:
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%? The material conditions of Chinese citizens have dramatically improved, along with their faith in the government:
Further, China is not Imperialist. Rather than using financial Capital to provide large loans with clauses requiring countries to privatize industries for foreign capture, they focus on building up trade infrastructure and industrialization. This is because they need to create more customers, they don’t have an import-driven economy nor does private financial Capital control the state.
I recommend you check out this introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list I made, if you want to judge Marxists on their application of Marxism, then you should familiarize yourself with Marxism.
Again, I’ll remind you that Denmark is an Imperialist country, and a petro-state. It is dominated by the Private Sector, and has a well-developed labor aristocracy that has somewhat successfully organized into recieving some of the spoils of Imperialism, though this is fading and eroding over time as the workers have no control over the government or market. Denmark is also already a developed country, and has been one for a long time. That’s how it engages with Imperialism in the first place, large corporations developed and needed to spread outwards to retain legitimacy, they export the worst aspects of production to the Global South while importing the spoils.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
The PRC, on the other hand, is a developing country. Key metrics are rapidly rising, and a lot of this is due to programs like the Poverty Eradication Program that was successfully completed. I really like The Metamorphosis of Yunagudui to show just how massive that campaign was for the people it impacted.
Further, China does have unions, such as the All China Federation of Trade Unions, and the state regularly supports worker movements as well. That’s why it enjoys such high approval ratings, Unions are there to represent labor against Capital, and the government actually represents the people in the PRC while the state sides with corporations in Denmark. Unions are far more necessary in Denmark when greedy Capitalists run freely and can take whatever you have when you aren’t looking.
As for Imperialism, you’re assuming millitary intervention is Imperialism. Was it Imperialism when the US Union invaded and beat the Confederacy? Or when the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany? In the case of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc, approval rates for the CPC are quite high. A large part of that, for example, in Tibet, is because the majority of the population were slaves in a brutal caste system under the CIA-backed Dali Lama, and thus welcomed the PLA in open arms.
As for Taiwan, Both the CPC and Taiwan have stated that they are okay with the status quo, for now. With US backing lowering in Taiwan, we may see increased desire to integrate into the PRC to make up for their loss in revenue from the US.
The Belt and Road Initiative doesn’t work that way. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren’t the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The “Chinese Debt Trap” is a Myth.
Speech is restricted in China, that’s true. Corporations can’t say whatever they want and risk destabilizing the system, and Billionaires are regularly punished for speaking out. Individual workers aren’t really targeted much, both because they don’t pose a threat, and because speech is promoted among the working class. “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom” is a common saying in China, ie let many viewpoints be thrust into the sphere of conversation. In Capitalist countries, speech is firmly controlled by Private interests, if China did not restrict the speech of Capitalists they would flood the sphere with whatever they wanted.
For democracy, I’ll copy and paste my sources, as you clearly read none of them:
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?
And yes, I speak to people living in China, read articles from Chinese people, and speak to people who left China. The ones who left China were the most interesting, in that they defended China when overhearing a rant about China my right-wing coworker went on. This actually starteda shift towards me being more positive on China and encouraged me to learn more. I find articles like The Revival of Capital and the Left Turn of the Mental Laborer to be fascinating. China is clearly not a paradise, but it’s also one of the fastest improving countries in the world, and that’s thanks to being Socialist and run by Marxist-Leninists.
I know the person you’re replying to won’t care to read these materials, but it sure helps for others reading through the comments with where to start educating themselves. Thanks!
No problem! That’s generally my strategy, people looking to argue online aren’t going to change their minds, they see it as a “win/lose” situation. Instead, I focus on refutation of absurd claims and well-sourced information more for onlookers to engage with. I really like Nia Frome’s articles on Red Sails called Marketing Socialism and On Dialectics, Or How to Defeat Enemies. They really help shape how I engage with others online, decisive and sharp refutation is very useful for onlookers to see.
For more fun articles on why people believe what they do, I’m a big fan of Roderic Day’s “Brainwashing” and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Those help dramatically with seeing that, really, there’s little convincing others directly in online debate, but there is hope for others whose material conditions have opened them up to new ideas to see and engage with more information they are curious about.
The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South
Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 Not sure what sort of imperialism Finland for example is doing that for example China isn’t. We are super-exploiting them in the same way, as in doing trade and having our companies operate in those countries.
Essentially, Finland (and Imperialist countries in general) operate on a principle of unequal exchange. By leveraging mechanisms like IMF loans with clauses requiring privatization of resources and industry for foreign capture, to relying on overseas production to super-exploit for super-profits, to simply relying on high interest rates on foreign loans, Imperialist countries consume more of the Global South’s value than they provide the Global South.
China doesn’t operate in that way. China is a country focused on selling goods it produces, ergo it cares more to have customers. The BRI and BRICs exist purely to build up more customers, it’s neither charity nor Imperialism. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren’t the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The “Chinese Debt Trap” is a Myth.
China also has companies that operate the exact same way and buy resources from Global South. It has a much bigger impact too, sometimes dominating the local economy. I honestly don’t see any real difference between Finnish and Chinese trade, than some perceived or claimed difference in ideology behind it. And Finland isn’t much of a loan giver to other countries. Finland is a member of IMF but so is China and China actually does do loans to Global South. Not sure I would count membership in IMF and loaning money itself exploitative, but if you consider that as exploitation, then surely it counts for China more than Finland?
China needs rare Earth for its own production, which drives the reason it is involved in Africa to begin with. The difference is that China needs to sell its goods internationally, so it can’t just relentlessly exploit these countries. As a consequence, it frequently forgives loans, and moreover does not require clauses requiring privatization of nationalized resources to do so. China’s economic model requires some degree of multilateralism to continue to exist, it isn’t a consumption driven economy nor one dominated by private financialized Capital.
Finland’s economy is externally driven, it relies on brutal production in the Global South for much of its commodities, and does so with immense financialized Capital. China’s is internally driven and focused far more on manufacturing and selling.
We all need to do trade. The only difference you’ve outlined so far is that China’s economy isn’t at the same service economy point as more advanced economies, otherwise it’s the same. By that merit Finland became a imperialistic country exploiting Global South quite late, which I guess is nice.
Trade is necessary, yes. The difference becomes apparent when you look at the manner and character of exchange. Countries dominated by private, financialized Capital without exception rely on Imperialism to continue, but the PRC’s economy is driven by manufacturing and public ownership. It is unlikely that the PRC will make a hard pivot towards such a privately dominated financialized economy because it was run precisely to avoid such a situation to begin with, as its run by Marxists.
What you are saying has no concrete difference to the people on the other end. If Finland and China are doing the same sort of actions there, then I’d consider them the same on that measure. So either both are exploiting them or neither is.
And personally I’d say those actions are inherently exploitative not because of the specific ideology behind it but because countries in a better position (richer, stronger, more influential) have a stronger negotiation position than countries in a worse position (poorer and weaker).
What would make a difference is if either of the countries we are comparing are abusing that position (more than the other). And I don’t think that’s the case, of course considering the relative strength of their negotiation position.
And socialist countries had exploitative socialism. I think realistically it’s best to try and find a system with least exploitation balanced with best quality of life for the people.
They may be doing certain things right but do other totally wrong like forced conscription. Keep also in mind that they exploit third world countries like everyone else, their goods are made in china.
I’m not sure what other sensible alternative there is for Finland than conscription. You can’t get around the geographical issues so you have to have some sort of sensible and credible defence. That’s why it has a very wide approval, even when the moral issues of it are recognized. NATO seemed promising as a guarantor of safety, until it lost that credibility (and Finland got in a bit unwillingly, after some recent events). Voluntary military was what Sweden did and it didn’t work well for them.
Actually funnily enough people are surprisingly supportive of expanding the conscription to include women. And that’s on equality grounds, which to many who abhor the idea of forced conscription must seem pretty wild.
What’s the alternative to slavery? How do we get our food without a slave forced to farm 14h a day?
I didn’t mean it rhetorically, how would you ensure a credible defence for Finland? It’s the big issue.
So supportive that if they refuse to go they go to jail.
I’m talking about polls lol. And by voting the people are giving their concent to the system. That includes us who are forced to serve.
And most people who don’t want to do conscription go to civil service. Working in a library, school, such things. For women the whole thing is voluntary.
I didn’t mean it rhetorically, how would you ensure a credible defence for Finland? It’s the big issue.
Allowing people to defend themself as they want and not forcing them into an authoritarian army with jail as a repercussion would ensure a better defense if you ask me. Drafting people by force only benefit the government and rulers not people.
And most people who don’t want to do conscription go to civil service. Working in a library, school, such things. For women the whole thing is voluntary.
That’s for Sweden. I’m from Finland. It’s a different country. Here’s an article about the civilian service/alternative service I was talking about: https://akl-web.fi/en/civilian-service/civilian-service (the article is from an anti-militarist peace organization so the language probably reflects that, they might have other takes you probably enjoy)
If you refuse both military service/conscription and civilian service and you aren’t found unfit for service or something like that, you might serve in a prison though. That’s true for Sweden and Finland. We call them “totaalikieltäytyjä”, “total refuser” or something like that. Pretty rare though, I think 2022 it was 1 person and most just got given a sentence and an ankle bracelet and served the sentence that way.
“I’m not sure what you mean with this, what form would it take, some sort of militia or what sort of thing?”
Putting an electronic bracelet on someone who refuse conscription it’s a big giveaway of government true intentions: they want to have control on people. Being under house arrests or in jail is a limit to the ability to defend yourself, not being drafted isn’t.
Being forced to do it means that you must do it even if you don’t want to. You are forced to do it even if you are happily willing to do it, you have no (legal) decision on it.
Edit: Also these BrainInABox and Cowbee communist apologists are really begging for a block or even a ban. Absolutely despicable. Might they be bots or trolls of somekind? They seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands.
Just a bit of background, given that you’re on a 12 day old account, Lemmy in general has a lot of Communists of various types, for a number of reasons:
The lead developers are all Communists
Lemmy is an anti-capitalist response to Reddit in design, it’s an attempt to cover for the failings of Reddit resulting from its profit-driven nature
Choosing Lemmy over Reddit requires some degree of ideological conviction, as Reddit is far more popular to begin with.
As for myself, I’m not a troll. I am a Communist, specifically a Marxist-Leninist, I even made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Further, this community in particular, c/LateStageCapitalism, is run by Communists and the express purpose is to critique Capitalism from the Left, I’m not breaking any rules by following the purpose of the Comm.
I would say it’s the dominant western neoliberal culture that accepts corruption as an “Oh well what can you do” type thing. Not all cultures are so accepting of corruption. We need to start treating corruption as great of a sin as murder or pedophilia, perhaps more so.
Pure versions of each have their flaws. Mixed-economics yields the highest quality of life according to the top ranking nations on the World Happiness Report. Nordic nations have the blueprint. We just need to adopt it.
if Nordic countries had to stand on their own, they would collapse, they can only get by because they’re the beneficiaries of a global system of worker exploitation.
There are a few problems here.
All economies are “mixed,” ergo it isn’t a meaningful distinction. What is more useful is recognizing which aspect of the economy is the principle, ie which has the real dominant power, over large firms and key industries. Socialism is when the public sector is the principle aspect, Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect. That’s why the PRC is Socialist, and the Nordic countries are Capitalist.
Judging which system is correct purely by looking to which countries have the highest happiness scores is myopic. We could use the same logic to say that Jeff Bezos has the most comfortable life, so we should all copy him. The problem is that we can’t. The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South, and because Private Ownership has domination over the state, worker protections and safety nets have been gradually sliding.
This is why having a good knowledge of theory and taking everything within a large context, rather than with harsh boundaries, is important to draw correct conclusions.
I’ll never understand people who insist China is ‘State Capitalism’ but Nordic countries are ideal socialism, somehow.
I’ll give you a hint: it’s about race.
There are a few different reasons that give rise to these (false) conclusions, and different reasons manifest in different degrees. Ie, not everyone will have all of these reasons, but most have at least one.
Chauvanism. Intentionally or not, there is often a superstructural element to western thought derived from being a beneficiary of Imperialism that discredits the achievements of non-Western Leftists. The fact that a western revolution has failed to materialize leads to some westerners being defensive and thus discrediting the achievements of the PRC.
A lack of real analysis at what the PRC is economically structured as. It’s easy to not understand the makeup of the PRC’s economy if you don’t engage with it.
A lack of reading Marxist theory, and thus not being able to properly analyze structures from a Dialectical Materialist perspective.
In my opinion, those are the main 3 reasons for such conclusions.
I imagine the next deflection is something like ‘but china has the second largest number of billionares’, but as soon as you sort that list by per-capita it suddenly tells a very different story.
Especially since that number is decreasing in recent years while GDP growth is still solidly positive.
May I ask an honest question? Is your account run by 5 people? How do you find time to write thorough, well written responses to so many posts? We don’t always agree ideologically, but I really respect your methods.
Haha, it’s nothing like that. My job works more in spurts and waiting periods, so it largely depends on what’s going on in my work life. Plus, not every comment is bespoke, I usually draw from prior comments I’ve written if applicable and tweak if needed.
Thanks for the kind words!
Removed by mod
Workers rights in Denmark, an Imperialist country that is firmly under the control of Private Capital, are declining. Safety nets are eroding and unions are weakening, disparity is rising. The opposite is the case in the PRC, a rapidly developing country where Public Ownership is in control of the economy.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism. Analysis of China’s economic makeup affirms this method as true:
Further, China is democratic. It doesn’t have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%? The material conditions of Chinese citizens have dramatically improved, along with their faith in the government:
Further, China is not Imperialist. Rather than using financial Capital to provide large loans with clauses requiring countries to privatize industries for foreign capture, they focus on building up trade infrastructure and industrialization. This is because they need to create more customers, they don’t have an import-driven economy nor does private financial Capital control the state.
I recommend you check out this introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list I made, if you want to judge Marxists on their application of Marxism, then you should familiarize yourself with Marxism.
Removed by mod
Again, I’ll remind you that Denmark is an Imperialist country, and a petro-state. It is dominated by the Private Sector, and has a well-developed labor aristocracy that has somewhat successfully organized into recieving some of the spoils of Imperialism, though this is fading and eroding over time as the workers have no control over the government or market. Denmark is also already a developed country, and has been one for a long time. That’s how it engages with Imperialism in the first place, large corporations developed and needed to spread outwards to retain legitimacy, they export the worst aspects of production to the Global South while importing the spoils.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
The PRC, on the other hand, is a developing country. Key metrics are rapidly rising, and a lot of this is due to programs like the Poverty Eradication Program that was successfully completed. I really like The Metamorphosis of Yunagudui to show just how massive that campaign was for the people it impacted.
Further, China does have unions, such as the All China Federation of Trade Unions, and the state regularly supports worker movements as well. That’s why it enjoys such high approval ratings, Unions are there to represent labor against Capital, and the government actually represents the people in the PRC while the state sides with corporations in Denmark. Unions are far more necessary in Denmark when greedy Capitalists run freely and can take whatever you have when you aren’t looking.
As for Imperialism, you’re assuming millitary intervention is Imperialism. Was it Imperialism when the US Union invaded and beat the Confederacy? Or when the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany? In the case of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc, approval rates for the CPC are quite high. A large part of that, for example, in Tibet, is because the majority of the population were slaves in a brutal caste system under the CIA-backed Dali Lama, and thus welcomed the PLA in open arms.
As for Taiwan, Both the CPC and Taiwan have stated that they are okay with the status quo, for now. With US backing lowering in Taiwan, we may see increased desire to integrate into the PRC to make up for their loss in revenue from the US.
The Belt and Road Initiative doesn’t work that way. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren’t the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The “Chinese Debt Trap” is a Myth.
Speech is restricted in China, that’s true. Corporations can’t say whatever they want and risk destabilizing the system, and Billionaires are regularly punished for speaking out. Individual workers aren’t really targeted much, both because they don’t pose a threat, and because speech is promoted among the working class. “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom” is a common saying in China, ie let many viewpoints be thrust into the sphere of conversation. In Capitalist countries, speech is firmly controlled by Private interests, if China did not restrict the speech of Capitalists they would flood the sphere with whatever they wanted.
For democracy, I’ll copy and paste my sources, as you clearly read none of them:
And yes, I speak to people living in China, read articles from Chinese people, and speak to people who left China. The ones who left China were the most interesting, in that they defended China when overhearing a rant about China my right-wing coworker went on. This actually starteda shift towards me being more positive on China and encouraged me to learn more. I find articles like The Revival of Capital and the Left Turn of the Mental Laborer to be fascinating. China is clearly not a paradise, but it’s also one of the fastest improving countries in the world, and that’s thanks to being Socialist and run by Marxist-Leninists.
I know the person you’re replying to won’t care to read these materials, but it sure helps for others reading through the comments with where to start educating themselves. Thanks!
No problem! That’s generally my strategy, people looking to argue online aren’t going to change their minds, they see it as a “win/lose” situation. Instead, I focus on refutation of absurd claims and well-sourced information more for onlookers to engage with. I really like Nia Frome’s articles on Red Sails called Marketing Socialism and On Dialectics, Or How to Defeat Enemies. They really help shape how I engage with others online, decisive and sharp refutation is very useful for onlookers to see.
For more fun articles on why people believe what they do, I’m a big fan of Roderic Day’s “Brainwashing” and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Those help dramatically with seeing that, really, there’s little convincing others directly in online debate, but there is hope for others whose material conditions have opened them up to new ideas to see and engage with more information they are curious about.
Thank you for your work in this thread comrade, its going to help a lot of people.
I appreciate it! 🫡
I said it elsewhere, but I do think now is an excellent time for agitation and developing clear lines.
You calling the person above a tankie just shows how ignorant you are.
They took the time, with references and without name-calling (something you immediately jumped to), to refute your claim about the Chinese government.
Why can’t we have honest, intellectual discussions on the internet?
Your behavior reflects how most people think about socialists.
Liberals will always retreat to lazy name calling when faced with any real arguments.
Removed by mod
We see how fake democracy is in the US when it helped dozens of coups and are arresting people for protesting against a genocide
Why don’t you just call me a pinko commie? It’s clearly what you mean
Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 Not sure what sort of imperialism Finland for example is doing that for example China isn’t. We are super-exploiting them in the same way, as in doing trade and having our companies operate in those countries.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
Essentially, Finland (and Imperialist countries in general) operate on a principle of unequal exchange. By leveraging mechanisms like IMF loans with clauses requiring privatization of resources and industry for foreign capture, to relying on overseas production to super-exploit for super-profits, to simply relying on high interest rates on foreign loans, Imperialist countries consume more of the Global South’s value than they provide the Global South.
China doesn’t operate in that way. China is a country focused on selling goods it produces, ergo it cares more to have customers. The BRI and BRICs exist purely to build up more customers, it’s neither charity nor Imperialism. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren’t the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The “Chinese Debt Trap” is a Myth.
China also has companies that operate the exact same way and buy resources from Global South. It has a much bigger impact too, sometimes dominating the local economy. I honestly don’t see any real difference between Finnish and Chinese trade, than some perceived or claimed difference in ideology behind it. And Finland isn’t much of a loan giver to other countries. Finland is a member of IMF but so is China and China actually does do loans to Global South. Not sure I would count membership in IMF and loaning money itself exploitative, but if you consider that as exploitation, then surely it counts for China more than Finland?
China needs rare Earth for its own production, which drives the reason it is involved in Africa to begin with. The difference is that China needs to sell its goods internationally, so it can’t just relentlessly exploit these countries. As a consequence, it frequently forgives loans, and moreover does not require clauses requiring privatization of nationalized resources to do so. China’s economic model requires some degree of multilateralism to continue to exist, it isn’t a consumption driven economy nor one dominated by private financialized Capital.
Finland’s economy is externally driven, it relies on brutal production in the Global South for much of its commodities, and does so with immense financialized Capital. China’s is internally driven and focused far more on manufacturing and selling.
We all need to do trade. The only difference you’ve outlined so far is that China’s economy isn’t at the same service economy point as more advanced economies, otherwise it’s the same. By that merit Finland became a imperialistic country exploiting Global South quite late, which I guess is nice.
Trade is necessary, yes. The difference becomes apparent when you look at the manner and character of exchange. Countries dominated by private, financialized Capital without exception rely on Imperialism to continue, but the PRC’s economy is driven by manufacturing and public ownership. It is unlikely that the PRC will make a hard pivot towards such a privately dominated financialized economy because it was run precisely to avoid such a situation to begin with, as its run by Marxists.
What you are saying has no concrete difference to the people on the other end. If Finland and China are doing the same sort of actions there, then I’d consider them the same on that measure. So either both are exploiting them or neither is.
And personally I’d say those actions are inherently exploitative not because of the specific ideology behind it but because countries in a better position (richer, stronger, more influential) have a stronger negotiation position than countries in a worse position (poorer and weaker).
What would make a difference is if either of the countries we are comparing are abusing that position (more than the other). And I don’t think that’s the case, of course considering the relative strength of their negotiation position.
Nordic nations is still exploitive capitalism.
And socialist countries had exploitative socialism. I think realistically it’s best to try and find a system with least exploitation balanced with best quality of life for the people.
Yes, socialism
They may be doing certain things right but do other totally wrong like forced conscription. Keep also in mind that they exploit third world countries like everyone else, their goods are made in china.
I’m not sure what other sensible alternative there is for Finland than conscription. You can’t get around the geographical issues so you have to have some sort of sensible and credible defence. That’s why it has a very wide approval, even when the moral issues of it are recognized. NATO seemed promising as a guarantor of safety, until it lost that credibility (and Finland got in a bit unwillingly, after some recent events). Voluntary military was what Sweden did and it didn’t work well for them.
Actually funnily enough people are surprisingly supportive of expanding the conscription to include women. And that’s on equality grounds, which to many who abhor the idea of forced conscription must seem pretty wild.
What’s the alternative to slavery? How do we get our food without a slave forced to farm 14h a day?
So supportive that if they refuse to go they go to jail.
What’s the alternative to slavery? How do we get our food without a slave forced to farm 14h a day?
I didn’t mean it rhetorically, how would you ensure a credible defence for Finland? It’s the big issue.
I’m talking about polls lol. And by voting the people are giving their concent to the system. That includes us who are forced to serve.
And most people who don’t want to do conscription go to civil service. Working in a library, school, such things. For women the whole thing is voluntary.
Allowing people to defend themself as they want and not forcing them into an authoritarian army with jail as a repercussion would ensure a better defense if you ask me. Drafting people by force only benefit the government and rulers not people.
https://www.thelocal.se/20190404/sweden-hands-out-first-jail-terms-for-draft-evasion
I’m not sure what you mean with this, what form would it take, some sort of militia or what sort of thing?
That’s for Sweden. I’m from Finland. It’s a different country. Here’s an article about the civilian service/alternative service I was talking about: https://akl-web.fi/en/civilian-service/civilian-service (the article is from an anti-militarist peace organization so the language probably reflects that, they might have other takes you probably enjoy)
If you refuse both military service/conscription and civilian service and you aren’t found unfit for service or something like that, you might serve in a prison though. That’s true for Sweden and Finland. We call them “totaalikieltäytyjä”, “total refuser” or something like that. Pretty rare though, I think 2022 it was 1 person and most just got given a sentence and an ankle bracelet and served the sentence that way.
This reminds me of the lone person refusing conscription in israel and the propaganda dismissing the actual number of people ending up in jail.
https://ebco-beoc.org/finland
Putting an electronic bracelet on someone who refuse conscription it’s a big giveaway of government true intentions: they want to have control on people. Being under house arrests or in jail is a limit to the ability to defend yourself, not being drafted isn’t.
I’m not sure if you read your link but it links to AKL which I also linked to and it doesn’t disagree with the numbers.
I also wish to hear your take on the defence, what practical form it would take. I don’t think you elaborated on it.
I would happily join the military in a country that actually cared for me. Thats something worth fighting for.
A country that cares for you wouldn’t force you to join the military and put you in jail if you refuse.
They wouldn’t have to force me, thats kinda the point.
Being forced to do it means that you must do it even if you don’t want to. You are forced to do it even if you are happily willing to do it, you have no (legal) decision on it.
The fact that this still got 14 downvotes. Wow…
Edit: Also these BrainInABox and Cowbee communist apologists are really begging for a block or even a ban. Absolutely despicable. Might they be bots or trolls of somekind? They seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands.
Just a bit of background, given that you’re on a 12 day old account, Lemmy in general has a lot of Communists of various types, for a number of reasons:
The lead developers are all Communists
Lemmy is an anti-capitalist response to Reddit in design, it’s an attempt to cover for the failings of Reddit resulting from its profit-driven nature
Choosing Lemmy over Reddit requires some degree of ideological conviction, as Reddit is far more popular to begin with.
As for myself, I’m not a troll. I am a Communist, specifically a Marxist-Leninist, I even made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Further, this community in particular, c/LateStageCapitalism, is run by Communists and the express purpose is to critique Capitalism from the Left, I’m not breaking any rules by following the purpose of the Comm.
Hope that helps!
You are in a fucking communist space. It will be you getting the ban
The flaw is humans; we’ll corrupt any system.
I would say it’s the dominant western neoliberal culture that accepts corruption as an “Oh well what can you do” type thing. Not all cultures are so accepting of corruption. We need to start treating corruption as great of a sin as murder or pedophilia, perhaps more so.
But the orphan grinding machine has always been around! We can’t just tear it down, that’s insulting to all the people it ground up!
What’s crazy is my “liberal” family use this logic unironically.
You’re not wrong. Some systems are still better than others though.
We will also de-corrupt and fix any of them.
deleted by creator