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
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.
But that's kinda what everybody is trying to say in answer to you.
Sure, there's probably an argument to be made that the imperialist projects of those countries' past doesn't exist anymore but the benefits from those times didn't go away. And it seems important (at least to me) to maybe not forget it. :edgeworth-shrug:
Like, if those Nordic countries were required to pay back the ill gotten gains from their past imperialist projects, would the labor/socialist movements been able to win their fights?
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
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
Totally missing the point
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
But that's kinda what everybody is trying to say in answer to you.
Sure, there's probably an argument to be made that the imperialist projects of those countries' past doesn't exist anymore but the benefits from those times didn't go away. And it seems important (at least to me) to maybe not forget it. :edgeworth-shrug:
Like, if those Nordic countries were required to pay back the ill gotten gains from their past imperialist projects, would the labor/socialist movements been able to win their fights?
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator