It’s only a big impairment in America because they needed to somehow make it so. It’s baffling.

I genuinely can’t tell if you are being sarcastic, but making voting difficult in US is intentional.

He’s been obsessed with it since the 1980s.

The Nazi rearmament gave people jobs (but caused excessive government expenditure). Also, Hitler stopped most of the payment for reparations when he came to power.

That is true. But the resentment on Versailles treaty is not the only reason and it is far more complex. The US was basically providing money to Germany through loans, so that Germany can repay the reparations set by Versailles treaty (the United States along with Britain actually opposed the terms but the French insisted). Germany was actually on her way to pay the reparations and the economy boomed after World War 1. But, when 1929 came the Great Depression happened which means the United States had no more money to give, which means Germany also had no money to pay the reparations. This caused the country to default leading to hyperinflation.

Hitler refused to pay the remaining reparations and gave jobs to the Germans by rearming. However, this caused another inflation and impending bankruptcy which prompted Hitler to invade regions and then countries to plunder for more funds.

The German economy overheated because of excessive government spending to appease the people. The Nazis went to war in 1939 to stave off the impending economic collapse through plundering of other country’s resources.

Edit: to those who would say it was the Versailles Treaty to blame for Germany being bankrupt during the Great Depression, it is more complicated than that. Many argue that blaming the reparations clause from Versailles is basically a myth.

But the resentment on Versailles treaty is not the only reason and it is far more complex. The US was basically providing money to Germany through loans, so that Germany can repay the reparations set by Versailles treaty (the United States along with Britain actually opposed the terms but the French insisted). Germany was actually on her way to pay the reparations and the economy boomed after World War 1. But, when 1929 came the Great Depression happened which means the United States had no more money to give, which means Germany also had no money to pay the reparations. This caused the country to default leading to hyperinflation.

Hitler refused to pay the remaining reparations and gave jobs to the Germans by rearming. However, this caused another inflation and impending bankruptcy which prompted Hitler to invade regions and then countries to plunder for more funds.

The old testament did not even mention hell and thus Jews don’t believe it. Hell is a Christian invention to control the masses through threat of eternal damnation for disobeying the authority.

Removed by mod

It never gets old when someone’s having cognitive dissonance.

Looks like you are having cognitive dissonance.

No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.

How has the Nordics been more neoliberal? They still tax billionaires. They enjoy high standard of living and little wealth inequality. These are the balance that neither the US nor USSR could achieve.

Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support.

Mate, you’re literally describing what I was talking about.

Which contradict your initial claims that Nordics are becoming more right.

Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow?

Learn what a non-sequitor is before throwing the term around. I don’t want to have to ask a third time for you to actually learn the basics about things before talking about them.

You claimed that throughout history, there has been international laws and standards. I asked you what they are and gave me a non-response to a previous statement that does not have to do with what I asked or my point. Just because a word is too big for you, doesn’t mean you can make accusations on a mirror. You did not even address when i asked you as to how the Nordics benefit from American imperialism when you said they do.

Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.

Oh, so you acknowledge now that western countries can impose their will on the global South? I thought you said that their “lack of jurisdiction” meant they weren’t allowed to? Are you now saying western countries can don’t actually have to follow the rules and can just do it anyway? Because if so, I will only be able to conclude that you were being deliberately dishonest when you said otherwise.

When it is Saudi Arabia and Gulf states violating human rights, you brushed it aside as whataboutism. But when it is specifically about an entity you hate that is just as guilty, you give it a pass. That is called double standards.

To go back to the point you are trying to derail, these countries act with impunity because they know they could not be held accountable. When it comes to trade, no country has jurisdiction on another on how to treat and pay their workers even if the more developed countries want to tell poorer nations to do so. More often, governments in developing countries would cite sovereignty as thought terminating response to criticisms of human rights violations by the international community. That is why the Nordics, with very little to no colonialist past compared to major Western European countries, have no power to tell the global south how to treat their workers. Because the nation state is given supremacy over international rules, which is why in practice there are no rules. The fact that there are none is why you can’t cite any legally binding international laws when I asked you upon initially insisting there are. So, the accusations of social democratic countries exploiting the global south do not make sense given the current international paradigm. Because social democratic countries have no power and right.

I appreciate being provided insight from Marxist-Leninist pov. But you also have to realise that developing countries also mutually signed trade deals with developed countries. Jobs have been outsourced to poorer countries (at the detriment of working class in rich countries but that is another topic); the result for these countries is the growth of middle class and millions being uplifted from poverty. No one can deny that. But no one can deny either that the poor in developing countries had been exploited for labour. However, if we follow Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs, people tend to prioritise economic and physical security first before other needs. Once these are secure, people explore more what transcends than just living to work-- such as social, personal goals and self-actualisation. As we speak, many people in developing countries are starting to question the exploitative working culture. Improved social mobility widens someone’s perspective both personal and social. Countries that offered themselves to be world’s cheap manufacturers are starting to become expensive because of higher demands for better wages and working standards.

Going back to the main topic at hand, it is not that poor countries did not have a choice to be hoodwinked, they agreed to be cheap manufacturers. But not all of these countries are on level with each other in terms of wealth growth and distribution because of individual government policies, which is exactly what Nordic countries do not have control over because of they do not have jurisdiction.

No? They’re experiencing the same right-wing slide into austerity and neoliberalism as everyone else.

Their left wing parties are still dominant. Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support. Nonetheless, even though the far right reared its ugly in the region, the economic policies is not fully to blame.

Yes. But they also benifit just as much when other western countries do. If the USA overthrows a government to stop it nationalising state resources that are currently controlled by western corporations, the Nordics benifit just as much as if they’d done it themselves.

In what way?

Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India?

Whataboutism

Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?

Trying to nationalise resources that are currently controlled by western interests.

Have you tried answering the questions specifically and directly? Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow? Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.

Yeah, but you’re still supporting a system where the people you advocate regulation to are the people who have a material interest against regulation (or, more accurately, have a material interest in regulations that give them a monopoly.)

Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.

They sure act like they do, with the way they use their military, intelligence services, and international bodies they control to enforce their will on the global South.

Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?

There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow.

I would encourage you to learn even the smallest amount of history. Generally its respectful to actually have some knowledge of a subject before trying to talk on it.

Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India? Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?

You are just making up definitions now but that is irrelevant because, like I said, unless there is legally binding global rules then this won’t be a problem. But there aren’t any. You obviously never heard, nor have been in a corrupt, poor country whose government abuse human rights. And then when the international community condemn the offending government, that government typically say other countries don’t have jurisdiction or to respect their own sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is the reality of lawless and anarchic international relations.

But the Nordic countries are not imperialists. The last time that Nordic countries had an empire was like, 600 years ago, long before the invention of capitalism. Some wealthy countries now like Poland and Ireland did not even have empires and were in fact colonial subjects. Dominican Republic is on track to achieved developed status in 2030 if things go right.

Capitalism is in its original inception advocate in self-regulating market. Soc dems don’t believe this and recognise the bad aspects of capitalism (and of pure socialism in relation to economy), so we tend to advocate for regulation.

Propped up by the underpaid labour and stolen resources of the global South and rapidly sprinting towards fascism like the rest of the West?

Like I mentioned to other commenter, unless developed countries have jurisdictions on developing ones, and vice versa, there is not much that richer countries could do. There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow. Try advocating that and let me know how people will react.

More damningly, though, is the fact that the Nordic Countries are reliant upon the same Imperialist machine of extraction from the Global South as the rest of the West. The Nordics enjoy their cushy lifestyles on the backs of brutal labor in the Global South, almost like an employer-employee relationship at an international level.

That is a good point usually raised. But, developed countries do not have jurisdiction on developing countries on how to treat their workers and what wages to set, and vice versa. Unless there is harmonised and legally binding rules and regulations for everyone in the world to follow, then this issue won’t even exist.

I haven’t met any soc dems who think capitalism can be saved. Most agree that it can only be contained. Just look how successful the Nordic countries are. They have successful companies and still have billionaires, but the rich are heavily taxed. And if the rich threatens to leave with their assets, they will still be taxed heavily for doing so.

It was quite big in Latin America and perhaps the Philippines. The biggest left wing groups and anti-dictatorship movements in the 20th century was influenced by the Catholic church. I am no longer religious, but I would not be the person I am today had I not been brought up in a Catholic environment.

You will hardly find any theists in Lemmy, let alone staunch Catholics.

You have to give credit to where it’s due, Pope Francis did his best as the leader of one the biggest religious organisations. And I am not defending where the gap of his leadership had been, but leaders never have absolute authority because this is an often false notion they always do. Keep that mind, as he still have to contend with his subordinates. I mean, a leader is still just one person versus the aristocrats and elites who lend support and authority. The subordinates actually have the power if you think about it (like, who elects the pope after all?) That being said, I am no longer religious but I have read over the years of court intrigues of friction between conservative and progressive Catholic clergies. Many conservative clergies complain about Francis and said they miss Pope Benedict XVI. Francis had to play a delicate balance of court politics.

You joke but there is a genuine possibility that the Vatican might elect someone who is more conservative, if not very so. The Vatican under Francis had been the most progressive it had been in decades. And it ruffled the feathers of many conservative clergies.