The point is that their overall wealth absolutely is subsidized by imperialism, either directly through their own corporations exploiting the periphery, through the flow of goods enabled by cheap labor and resources in the periphery thanks to the US or other more militarily active empires subjugating those countries, or through trade with the imperial hegemon. The problem is that after winning concessions for themselves the socdems just stopped and became collaborationists: they didn't demand the end of exploitation, merely that their workers should share a greater portion of the spoils than before. They were at best highly localized harm reduction, and at worst a pressure release valve that precluded further leftward movement.
And yes, at times they have been a bit better and tried to take this or that stand, like the Swedish PM who was assassinated by the CIA over his anti-imperialist statements. But the point remains that simply winning some local concessions for the working class while preserving the capitalist system and continuing to be part of the beneficiaries of the imperial machine and its systems of hegemony is not enough and still represents collaborationism.
I think that's just a sort of rhetorical decay of the argument that their general standard of living and wealth is built on imperialism just like it is for the rest of the imperial core, regardless of the localized victories their labor movement has won, like someone hears that and then in the repeating of it "quality of life" becomes conflated with and replaced by the welfare state specifically.
It's clearly a response to how liberals tend to point at the wealthy scandinavian countries and try to declare them "real" socialism because of the comparatively high wealth their working class enjoys, which is an extremely toxic rhetorical trick that's done incalculable damage - it was even ostensibly part of fucking Gorbachev's reasoning in his hairbrained plan to do scandinavian social democracy from the left, not understanding that much of the western wealth came from imperial exploitation and that the USSR's base of productive capital couldn't maintain a tolerable standard of living for everyone (thanks to Khrushchev-era reductions in production of industrial capital and the refocusing of the economy onto consumer goods) if inequality was allowed to grow through liberalizing reforms and some people ended up with much more than others, and instead required constant load balancing to ensure there was enough for everyone (and of course liberalization did far worse than merely leading to unequal distribution of scarce goods, it also led to the cannibalization of productive capital by private enterprises and complete economic collapse).
The welfare state in Scandinavia is funded by the past spoils of exploitation, and by the continued dividends and imperial privilege. Without that wealth, the welfare state disappears
Over simplified example:
I live in a house that was built by other people from materials taken from somewhere else and delivered by other people.
If I had to build the house myself from materials that I, myself went out and brought home, would I be in the same material position as a child who was born and lived their life in a home or would the child technically be given a "leg up"? The kid didn't need to source, pay for, and collect the materials or assemble the materials into a house.
Wow, you're right, there are no permanent benefits of exploitation and capital that countries benefit from over time, I can't believe I didn't see that
so I'm noticing a kind of irritating trend, where someone posts a take that's entirely compatible with a Marxist worldview, but either 1) is informed by some sub-par historical background, or 2) uses more nuance than "unlimited genocide on the first world". Instead of engaging though, people here activate the "lib detected" protocols and go immediately into shit posting and malice mode.
I disagree with your take, and I think it's pretty straightforward to explain that the only reason the Nordic model has allowed both the inefficient distribution of resources of capitalism and a (fairly) robust social safety net is that they have far, far more than enough to go around (read: more surplus value than could ever be produced domestically), and that amount of wealth and resources can literally (and does literally) only come from without. But I'm not gonna PPB you or call you a lib or tell you to "read a book" because clearly you're a leftist and you're trying. I'm all for using those responses against people who aren't our allies but you're with us. You came here and wrote this effort post because you care. So thanks, even if I disagree, and thanks to everyone else wh has addressed this in good faith. For everyone else, save that energy, there will be plenty of actual libs and hogs to dunk on.
tldr; unequal exchange, imperialism & "nations aren't real look at the actual economic conditions and one sees that the entire world is integrated into an America-Euro-(Japan ig lol) empire." Don't have the time to summarise books on mechanics, but if you want book recs i can give.
In terms of concrete, Zak Cope pointed out in one of his books that in 2009, the total surplus value transferred from the third world to the first world was 6.5 trillion dollars. Lots of it is stuff like Canada's "we own the mine and get 98% of the profit and you get the pollution and death" strategy, so the money appears to come from taxing Canadians. Another strategy is that employed by indonesian companies working for UNIQLO sell them clothes (this counts as indonesia's value added, tiny), and then UNIQLO marks them up and sells them (the markup becomes profit 'produced' by UNIQLO and is taxed by Japan). This value is redistributed through welfare, as well as less obvious things like "commodities are just really cheap golly i wonder why i can get coffee from south america anytime i want for less than 1 hours work". Based on what i know of the development of imperialism since Cope's book was published, I don't expect its gotten better (its gotten worse lol)
Thank you for bringing up unequal exchange and unaccounted for externalities, which are then profited off and redistributed by social democratic policies. This is a more sound/structural argument than "individual companies engage in exploitation, and they pay their taxes", which while true, doesn't show the whole dynamic of neocolonialism.
yeah, capitalism is really good at hiding its exploitation by making stuff appear less connected than it actually is (same sorta thing with wage labour ofc; each transaction viewed by itself appears free and equal)
Yeah here you go always happy to share books
Amin - Accumulation on a World Scale; A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment (2 volumes)
Arghiri - Unequal Exchange; A Study of the Imperialism of Trade
Carroll & Sapinski - Organizing the 1%; How Corporate Power Works
Cope - Divided World, Divided Class; Global Political Economy and the Stratification of Labour Under Capitalism
de Leon - The Land of Open Graves; Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail
Engler - Canada in Africa; 300 Years of Aid and Exploitation
Engler - Stand on Guard for Whom; A People's History of the Canadian Military
Gordon & Webber - Blood of Extration; Canadian Imperialism in Latin America
Livingston - Self-Devouring Growth; A Planatary Parable as Told from Southern Africa
McKinney - How the US Creates 'Shithole' Countries
Mies - Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale; Women in the International Division of Labour
Patnaik & Moyo - Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry; the Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era
Prashad - The Poorer Nations; A Possible History of the Global South
Shipley - Canada in the World; Settler Capitalism and the Colonial Imagination
Sobocinska - Saving the World; Western Volunteers and the Rise of the Humanitarian-Development Complex
Walia - Border and Rule; Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism
Bedford & Irving - The Tragedy of Progress; Marxism, Modernity and the Aboriginal Question
Mays - An Afro-Indigenous History of the United States
Mackey - Unsettled Expectations; Uncertainty, Land and Settler Decolonization
Adams - A Tortured People; The Politics of Colonization
Also settler-colonial theory is relevant to Sweden and Norway and Finland wrt Sami peoples. I haven't read anything by or about Sapmi specfically though, so can't suggest any readings there, but the last four recommendations above are works on the topic wrt other places and more generally. Norway of course also has the oil state aspect, which isnt exactly a politically neutral source of wealth but likely needs no further explanation.
edit: added Cope's book after re-reading and realising i forgot to add it
You need this book which explicitly addresses OP's objections: Riding the Wave: Sweden’s Integration into the Imperialist World System by Torkil Lauesen
In 2008, Norwegian communications multinational, Telenor — partly owned by the state — was exposed in a documentary as partnering with a Bangladeshi supplier that employed child labor in horrendous conditions. The report also uncovered that the children were made to handle chemical substances without any protection and one of the workers even died after falling into a pool of acid. Not only was the treatment of workers unacceptable, they also ruined the crops of farmers in the surrounding areas with the waste from the plant. Like other Western multinationals that deliberately go to the developing world looking to save money on labor and operations costs, the company washed its hands of the accusations, denying knowledge about their partner's inhumane practices.
Similarly, Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil, also partly owned by the state, has been involved in multiple corruption cases around the world — especially in underdeveloped countries — where they have bribed state companies and government officials in order to obtain licenses for extraction. Their involvement is not only limited to these aggressive economic practices, they are also deeply involved in the West’s military exploits. Norway dropped 588 bombs on Libya but scarcely is mentioned as being part of these imperialist operations. Statoil has since started joint extractions operations worth millions in the ruined country.
Sweden’s foreign policy record is no better. Technology firms like Saab, BAE Systems, and Bofors compete with the U.S. and Israel in their development of a large variety of weapons that are sold to 55 countries around the world in deals worth billions. It seems that Sweden, like their Norwegian neighbor, actively participates in denying human rights to millions across the globe and especially in underdeveloped nations.
The Swedish clothing giant H&M can retail affordable products in rich nations and make huge profits only because they exploit and underpay workers in impoverished nations such as Bangladesh. As John Smith points out in his book "Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century," only 0.95 euros of the final sale price of an H&M T-shirt remains in Bangladesh to cover the cost of the factory, the workers, the suppliers, and the government. The remaining 3.54 euros goes for taxes and transportation in the market country, with the bulk going to the retailer. In other words, Western nations capture most of the profit although it is the poor workers and nations that have put most of the input in terms of labor and resources.
The Danish-British firm, G4S is the world’s largest security company and is known for its long list of controversies. They have supplied services to Israeli prisons and checkpoints, they have been accused of mistreatment of immigrants in detention centers, they have also played a huge role in protecting Western imperialist interests such as oil refineries and the territory around the Dakota Access pipeline. However, since the U.K. is known as the most aggressive of the two nations, the Danish component is frequently swept under the rug despite the fact that they were the founders and developers of the company.
It is no surprise then that the Nobel Peace prize, which was founded in Sweden and based in Norway, has given known war-mongers such as President Barack Obama and Colombian President Manuel Santos, among others, the award in what some argue are highly political moves.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/amp/analysis/Scandinavias-Covert-Role-in-Western-Imperialism-20170320-0022.html
I recommend reading 'Riding the Wave: Sweden's Integration into the Imperialist World System' by Torkil Lauesen which documents with a fine tooth comb the scandinavian countries' integration into imperialism. A particular standout is the total capture of the finance sector in the ex-soviet states like Estonia.
Comrade, this is inappropriately hostile Reddit behavior tbh, OP has been a member of the site for a long time and is bringing a discussion in good faith, I don’t agree necessarily with their premise but we owe each other a level of comradely behavior, save the vitriol for chuds and wreckers
I'm not really following the logic of comparing the UK's NHS, lack of social programs in the US, or the existence of such in Venezuela as part of the argument.
I do agree that we shouldn't discount concessions that were won by left organizing to achieve these programs if that is the case (I'm somewhat uneducated on how they arose), but it is important to understand how they are paid for. Being part of the globalized capitalist system is effectively funding these systems on the backs of the third world, exploitation has to happen to have the tax base and wealth necessary to fund these programs.
We can acknowledge something is good for the citizens but that it wouldn't function without capitalism. It would be interesting to see how long these programs continue on if the Nordics were cut off like Cuba. This would give an idea on whether it is something they keep around because they can afford to now or because they truly believe it is an important thing to provide
Bad construction comrade. Your argument is paraphrased thus:
Egyptian famines are a result of a lack of wheat, therefore any country that doesn't grow wheat is in a famine.
The welfare system in the stated Nordic countries is indeed funded by imperialism. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Some imperial countries do not distribute the gains among the citizens.
Post hoc fallacy here..in these cases, the welfare state does develop after imperialism, but that doesn't mean that imperialism created the welfare state...
Some countries have social programs without ever being imperialist. It just means less wealth to redistribute
Ok, that is about what I thought but wasn't certain.
I don't think many would claim that the actual foundation of the Nordic social programs is a literal direct result of imperialism in that if you are imperialist then you will create social programs for your citizenry. I think the argument today is that these are funded by the Nordics' intermingling with global capital which is at its roots imperialism in the Global North's subjugation of the Global South and if the wealth provided by this commingling were to dry up or severed from the Nordics there would be attempts by the ruling class to chip away at these reforms won by leftist groups in the interests of maintaining their wealth at the cost of the citizenry
That's exactly the point, reforms will be eroded by imperialism turned inwards to protect wealth of the ruling class. The systems are allowed to continue in their current state funded by taxation until they're not (as profits continue to decline). If you accept Lenin's argument that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, then it is difficult to decouple how those social programs are funded and where the wealth is taken from
I'm not up to speed on the Hexbear lore. What's the significance of that date?
Read Torkil Lauesens Riding the Wave: Sweden's Integration into the Imperialist World System for a thorough deboonking of the Nordic "left"
I can share some figures when I'm done at work but that's not for a while lol
it implicitly implies socialism is only possible if the third world is exploited
Why would it imply this? This would only be true you think that the Nordic model is socialism and that either socialism is only possible on the Nordic model or socialism has never existed outside the Nordic model.
Edit: I agree we shouldn't ignore the role of labor movement in building the powerful welfare state of these countries. But I think you'd need a larger quantitative study to show Nordic workers aren't net beneficiaries of exploitation of the global south. And I don't think it'd show that to be the case.
Because it implies all concessions won by socialists in a capitalist system are imperialist in nature, and that the socialists themselves therefore are imperialists.
This is largely true if the capitalist country is part of the imperial core, which the Scandinavian countries absolutely are a part of. All concessions made toward imperial core workers are mostly imperialist capitalists reluctantly sharing the imperialist plunder that they stole from the Global South. Your effortpost makes more sense if you're talking about something like Singapore or Taiwan (and even then, their state welfare has far more to do with setting a good capitalist example against Red China), but for imperial core countries, the case towards exploitation is pretty simple. Transnational corporations based on some imperial core country engage in labor arbitrage because labor in the Global South is dirt cheap. After stealing the surplus value from superexploited Global South workers, the class collaborationist socdem state pounds on the door demanding a share of the booty through comparatively high corporate taxes and tariffs. The corporation forks over some of the imperialist plunder, and it's through this portion of the plunder that funds the welfare system. With a robust welfare system, imperial core workers are lulled into complacency and groomed towards imperialist chauvinism. This is all basic dependency theory.
Because the Scandinavian countries depend on superexploited workers in the Global South, they have a material interest to uphold imperialism, and in particular Western imperialism. This is why you have Danish troops dicking around in a random West African country until Mali expelled them from their country. Obviously, Mali isn't some Danish colony or even a Danish neocolony (it is/was a French neocolony), but the fact that Denmark needs the cheap labor from the Global South means they have to participate in Western imperialism even if it doesn't have any immediate national benefit. They are junior partners of Western imperialism like how Scotland is a junior partner of British imperialism.
Any change in system will require socialist agitation, but if all socialist agitation within an imperialist system is imperialist, then all socialism is imperialist by this line of reasoning.
Have you seen the socialists in imperial core countries? Every single reformist socialists who see a robust welfare state as a triumph of socialism are de facto imperialists who think NATO needs to give Ukrainians neonazis tanks and planes in order to genocide the Russian orcish hordes. This is why orgs like the DSA parrot the US state department line, why so many Eurocommunist orgs just become cruise missile socialists. Even in places like Japan, their communist party malds over "Stalin authoritarianism." This isn't some (nominal) socdem party, but a party that styles itself as a communist party. I don't think I've ever seen any other communist party who hated Stalin, but that's to be expected from socialists of an imperial core country like Japan.
Overall, your post fundamentally ignores the divide between the Global North and the Global South. What is applicable to the North is not applicable to the South and vice versa. This is why people in the North think Russia is bad for committing alleged warcrimes while people in the South are waving Russian flags as they protest against their comprador governments
Because it implies all concessions won by socialists in a capitalist system are imperialist in nature, and that the socialists themselves therefore are imperialists
I could point to concessions won by socialist against capitalists in global south countries (and not just the ones folks always think of).
if all socialist agitation within an imperialist system is imperialist, then all socialism is imperialist by this line of reasoning.
Okay, I see you point (with the small addendum of in the global north). We don't want to take an ultra third worldist position that states "organizing in the global north is pointless."
I agree
I'm very skeptical that the Nordic countries are on the socialist path. Moreover, in so far as socialism has existed, there are more historical and actually existing examples outside the Nordic states.
I also don't see much effort by the labor movements in the Nordic counties to resist or be countervailing forces to imperialism.
it implicitly implies socialism is only possible if the third world is exploited
implying the nordics are socialist to begin with
this line of reasoning puts the existence of the welfare state as a result of imperialism rather than labour agitation
It’s almost as if labour is agitating to more widely distribute the benefits of imperialism
You see, it’s not exploitation when Scandinavian companies get massively rich off child labor in the third world, and those taxes generated prop up the robust welfare state, its… something else… :very-smart:
The Nordic countries welfare systems are built on the backs of the third world
So this statement is egregious to you but
The Nordic countries welfare systems are fed by by the backs of the third world
this statement is in theory fine by you? What an entirely stupid effort post
No, the welfare system exists in tandem with the capitalist nature of the countries. In a capitalist society it’s a concession from the ruling class to placate the masses. Look the other way on the value extraction, war crimes, and exploitation since you’re getting free healthcare funded by blood money from the third world. Yes, labor agitation plays a major part in the creation of the system, as the ruling class will give these concessions to stop further agitation, but it does precisely that: stops further agitation.
Well I agree with the OP. Saying the nordic countries are built on the backs of the third world is not enough, as that statement applies to the whole of Europe.
That is not to say that there aren't different levels of distribution and exploitation within a capitalist system. I always said that Brazil and the United States are both settler colonial nations, but the latter's great disaster is the dust bowl - ours is the 1850 Law of Land where it was illegal for normal people to seize land nobody claimed without paying for it. And guess who even had money at all at the time? But if the nordic countries existed outside of the imperial heartland, they'd be transformed by that. They might even have welfare systems, but the odds would be good that they'd be as poor as a south american nation.
They might retain their work and political culture, and therefore be not nearly as unequal as, say, Brazil. But one should ask if their work and political culture could rise up in a reality of general financial predations and consistent western political coups or trade wars. If Sweden wasn't in Europe would it be free to be as it is, or would it be under the mother of all sanctions right now? If the Swedes had lived under the Francophonie, would they be free to develop the kind of institutional solidarity they hold dear? Probably not. They'd be as desperate as anyone else that lives in such countries, where dogs eat dogs so they can get a few dollars to pay eternal debts.
I do want to stress that I don't begrudge or think less of what scandinavian people accomplished. Look at the gulf arab states. Some of them 'distributed' their wealth amongst their people on the basis of enslaving foreigners. The biggest one is Saudi Arabia and Jedda didn't use to have a sewer system until 2015 or something. With a different history the wealth of Norway could be in the hands of 12 people instead of a sovereign wealth fund.
So at the end of the day is that people who root for 'AES countries' and people who like 'The Nordics' should stop looking for kinks in each other's armor. If you're american and you live off your own labor there's a handful of policies that you desperately need for yourself. Health care is just one of them. Competing to see which foreigner is truly socialist is what the CIA wants you to do. That's what matters.
Scandinavian countries are puppet states in global capitalism
:agony-shivering:
