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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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
I could point to concessions won by socialist against capitalists in global south countries (and not just the ones folks always think of).
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'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.