Socialism really would never work without repression, they would need to take from the most rich and might need force, so people will not accept the new system might cause real problems, so it will need more repression
This why big revolutions always end up with repressive regimes, even the French Revolution (that was not socialist at all)
And when you have an authoritarian regime in power they will want to remain in power, the original goals of the revolution will be lost and the new regime always think about itself first. So you can’t control what this regime will find acceptable or not.
The democracy needs concessions, needs to accept in parts the other side, this why Nordic countries have a better social equality and a very capitalist oil extraction
so people will not accept the new system might cause real problems, so it will need more repression
Capitalists are a tiny minority of the population, and only got there through exploitation of labor power. You can call this “repression” if you like, but its basic self-defense. People are righteous in resisting exploitation.
The democracy needs concessions, needs to accept in parts the other side, this why Nordic countries have a better social equality and a very capitalist oil extraction
Capitalist countries, including the nordic ones, aren’t democracies. They are capitalist dictatorships:
The first part is unquestionably true, revolution is the exertion of the authority of one class upon the rest. The latter parts are entirely wrong, or misguided.
Socialist countries put the working classes in charge. The goals are not lost, it’s that the goal of a working class state is the same as the general class goal of the working classes, the collectivization of production and distribution. This goal is not lost whatsoever, but it does require protecting against opportunists, as well as the former ruling classes, as they still exist and cannot disappear overnight.
The Nordics on the other hand are imperialist countries. They bribe their working classes with the spoils of exploiting the global south. This kind of class collaboration is why social democracy is often called social fascism by critics, as it’s collaboration and agreement to perpetuate imperialism in order to have cushy safety nets. Without imperialism, the Nordics would need to turn socialist in order to retain their safety nets.
Colonialism proper? Not as much as the UK, Germany, France, and the US, but over time they have come to enormously benefit from imperialism and neocolonialism, which is the modern form.
Yes, I by no means meant to downplay that. Just to highlight that even though they were not as heavily involved, neocolonialism and imperialism are still the driving force behind their safety nets, so anyone trying to point to them not being as heavily involved in old colonialism as a way to dismiss their modern neocolonialism and imperialism can be safely countered.
And to clarify my earlier point, colonialism proper is still around, just not as much as it was at the peak.
I’ll just link another one and elaborate.
While they didn’t have colonies as a nation they simply did it in a more hypocritical way and were actually heavily involved.
Swedes, Danes and Norwegians alike.
I get your point about the current neocolonialism but taking in to account the small numbers of their population compared to the big (but little known) role they played in the ‘old’ colonialism leads me to believe you underestimate their guilty past.
It was also unknown to me for a long time so let this be a good opportunity for everyone to look into it, especially this commenter you’re replying to.
These Nordics are not an example, as a matter of fact they could do a lot better considering their vast natural resources and don’t get me started on how their industrial expansion on Sami land, amongst other things, is only one aspect of their abundantly racist and anti-green attitude.
I’m aware that they played a critical and heavy role in colonialism, and am not trying to downplay that in any way. I appreciate the added context, but I don’t believe we are opposed in any way here.
Socialism really would never work without repression, they would need to take from the most rich and might need force, so people will not accept the new system might cause real problems, so it will need more repression
This why big revolutions always end up with repressive regimes, even the French Revolution (that was not socialist at all)
And when you have an authoritarian regime in power they will want to remain in power, the original goals of the revolution will be lost and the new regime always think about itself first. So you can’t control what this regime will find acceptable or not.
The democracy needs concessions, needs to accept in parts the other side, this why Nordic countries have a better social equality and a very capitalist oil extraction
Capitalists are a tiny minority of the population, and only got there through exploitation of labor power. You can call this “repression” if you like, but its basic self-defense. People are righteous in resisting exploitation.
Capitalist countries, including the nordic ones, aren’t democracies. They are capitalist dictatorships:
Do you mean to imply that capitalism works and works without repression?
The first part is unquestionably true, revolution is the exertion of the authority of one class upon the rest. The latter parts are entirely wrong, or misguided.
Socialist countries put the working classes in charge. The goals are not lost, it’s that the goal of a working class state is the same as the general class goal of the working classes, the collectivization of production and distribution. This goal is not lost whatsoever, but it does require protecting against opportunists, as well as the former ruling classes, as they still exist and cannot disappear overnight.
The Nordics on the other hand are imperialist countries. They bribe their working classes with the spoils of exploiting the global south. This kind of class collaboration is why social democracy is often called social fascism by critics, as it’s collaboration and agreement to perpetuate imperialism in order to have cushy safety nets. Without imperialism, the Nordics would need to turn socialist in order to retain their safety nets.
Many Nordic Countries built themselves up with colonialism and similar things, right?
Colonialism proper? Not as much as the UK, Germany, France, and the US, but over time they have come to enormously benefit from imperialism and neocolonialism, which is the modern form.
They actively took part in it as subcontractors, even if technically their nation wasn’t involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_soldiers_in_the_Congo_Free_State
Yes, I by no means meant to downplay that. Just to highlight that even though they were not as heavily involved, neocolonialism and imperialism are still the driving force behind their safety nets, so anyone trying to point to them not being as heavily involved in old colonialism as a way to dismiss their modern neocolonialism and imperialism can be safely countered.
And to clarify my earlier point, colonialism proper is still around, just not as much as it was at the peak.
I’ll just link another one and elaborate.
While they didn’t have colonies as a nation they simply did it in a more hypocritical way and were actually heavily involved.
Swedes, Danes and Norwegians alike.
I get your point about the current neocolonialism but taking in to account the small numbers of their population compared to the big (but little known) role they played in the ‘old’ colonialism leads me to believe you underestimate their guilty past.
It was also unknown to me for a long time so let this be a good opportunity for everyone to look into it, especially this commenter you’re replying to.
These Nordics are not an example, as a matter of fact they could do a lot better considering their vast natural resources and don’t get me started on how their industrial expansion on Sami land, amongst other things, is only one aspect of their abundantly racist and anti-green attitude.
I’m aware that they played a critical and heavy role in colonialism, and am not trying to downplay that in any way. I appreciate the added context, but I don’t believe we are opposed in any way here.
We certainly aren’t, figured some lesser known facts might be useful for lurkers.
Cheers friend
Cheers back!