Off of the back of unfathomable global exploitation. Is China's (comparably) miniscule investments in Africa the entire explanation for it's poverty reduction, as is the case with every Social Democracy?
There is still exploitation in China. Do you really think the large proletarian factory working class of China is not exploited? It is through them China was able to amass such wealth.
What imperialism did Singapore or Taiwan, or even Sri Lanka engage in? Yes, Sri Lanka has similar life expectancy and infant mortality as Cuba despite being even poorer. Being able to provide decent conditions for the working class is not evidence that the government is socialist, at least in the Marxists sense. Also the idea that countries like Sweden or Norway can only provide social services due to imperialism is false. These countries are wealthy because their labor productivity is high AND they have redistributive mechanisms. The US actually has a higher average wage than Norway and Sweden, but also has higher inequality.
Sweden and Norway do engage in imperialism, in the sense of investing in foreign poor countries to exploit low wages. However, this only benefits the capitalist. The decent living conditions of the working class in Scandinavia is the result of high labor productivity of Scandinavian workers. The idea that first world workers enjoy good life because of third world exploitation is not only false but extremely harmful to the workers movement, which requires international solidarity.
What is a superprofit? Where is the evidence that first world workers benefit from imperialism?
Let me explain the Marxist thesis here :
Workers in first world are more productive, due to advanced machinery, better logistics etc. So they produce more for the same labor-hour.
Therefore, they can purchase more for the same hourly wage. For example, a deli worker makes $150 in a day. Now she goes to Alibaba.com and buys a bunch of stuff that costs $150 but actually took 5 worker-days to produce in China. This is the natural end result of difference in labor productivity.
This is not exploitation in the Marxist sense. It is undesirable of course, which is why we want to abolish the commodity-form in the first place(or at least us "ultras" want to), but it is not the "fault", to use a crude moral term, of the working class in the wealthy country. They "earned" their ability to have more, by producing more. To deny that in exchange, there is an exchange of equivalents, is to deny one of the most basic Marxist proposition.
Off of the back of unfathomable global exploitation. Is China's (comparably) miniscule investments in Africa the entire explanation for it's poverty reduction, as is the case with every Social Democracy?
There is still exploitation in China. Do you really think the large proletarian factory working class of China is not exploited? It is through them China was able to amass such wealth.
And where is the proletariat's increasing wealth coming from?
I never said there was no exploitation.
What imperialism did Singapore or Taiwan, or even Sri Lanka engage in? Yes, Sri Lanka has similar life expectancy and infant mortality as Cuba despite being even poorer. Being able to provide decent conditions for the working class is not evidence that the government is socialist, at least in the Marxists sense. Also the idea that countries like Sweden or Norway can only provide social services due to imperialism is false. These countries are wealthy because their labor productivity is high AND they have redistributive mechanisms. The US actually has a higher average wage than Norway and Sweden, but also has higher inequality.
Sweden and Norway do engage in imperialism, in the sense of investing in foreign poor countries to exploit low wages. However, this only benefits the capitalist. The decent living conditions of the working class in Scandinavia is the result of high labor productivity of Scandinavian workers. The idea that first world workers enjoy good life because of third world exploitation is not only false but extremely harmful to the workers movement, which requires international solidarity.
Lmao you're arguing that workers in the Imperial Core don't benefit at all from Imperialism and colonial superprofits? Alright I'm out
What is a superprofit? Where is the evidence that first world workers benefit from imperialism?
Let me explain the Marxist thesis here :
Workers in first world are more productive, due to advanced machinery, better logistics etc. So they produce more for the same labor-hour.
Therefore, they can purchase more for the same hourly wage. For example, a deli worker makes $150 in a day. Now she goes to Alibaba.com and buys a bunch of stuff that costs $150 but actually took 5 worker-days to produce in China. This is the natural end result of difference in labor productivity.
This is not exploitation in the Marxist sense. It is undesirable of course, which is why we want to abolish the commodity-form in the first place(or at least us "ultras" want to), but it is not the "fault", to use a crude moral term, of the working class in the wealthy country. They "earned" their ability to have more, by producing more. To deny that in exchange, there is an exchange of equivalents, is to deny one of the most basic Marxist proposition.
deleted by creator