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.
Not to be overly pedantic but saying “socialist countries put the working class in charge” is the type of intellectually inaccurate rhetoric that confuses less informed people and misleads them into thinking socialism is when the average broke working class retard is making geopolitical decisions
AES are ran by a vanguard class that represented the working class during the revolutionary class struggle that overthrew the old elite class but in these vanguard parties they are simply made up of 2nd class elites who use the workers movements to propel themselves. This is why USSR China DPRK Cuba etc all were movements lead by bourgeois (all those famous leaders were elite class not working class including the very writers of core Marxist literature) that resulted in yet more elite class people running the state but doing so on behalf of the working class rather than on behalf of transnational finance
The whole “workers rise up to seize the state apparatus” mentality is precisely why it’s so easy to dismantle western “leftist” ideology and why there’s such a major disconnect between the western left and Asians living under literal communist regimes despite both pulling from the same literature. The average McDonald’s worker has no business making large scale societal decisions under any form of government be it democracy or vanguard Marxism because the average McDonald’s worker is too retarded to not DoorDash fast food on Friday the moment they get paid. Trust me, I’ve lived my entire life amongst the paycheck-to-paycheck working class; their decision making skills are the sole reason they are poor not bourgeois exploitation that’s just cope
It’s not “intellectually inaccurate,” it’s the Marxist understanding of class. The vanguard do not form a second class, they are of the proletariat (and peasantry, if applicable). Administration is not a class, but a type of labor that is necessary for production and distribution. The leaders of the Cuban, Korean, Russian, Chinese, etc. were proletarian intellectuals. Intellectuals are not a class of their own, they are a subcategory of every class, and the job of the political party is to create intellectuals and bring that class up to the level of the intellectuals in terms of thought.
Further, the masses are not stupid. Blaming individuals for systemic exploitation is extremely classist. The idea that there is no wisdom in the people, and that they instead are helpless to fall for whoever speaks to them most convincingly is absurd and ahistorical. Political parties do not command the people, the people command the parties, and the parties are there to guide the people. All legitimacy for the vanguard comes from its direct connection with the masses.
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:
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.
Not to be overly pedantic but saying “socialist countries put the working class in charge” is the type of intellectually inaccurate rhetoric that confuses less informed people and misleads them into thinking socialism is when the average broke working class retard is making geopolitical decisions
AES are ran by a vanguard class that represented the working class during the revolutionary class struggle that overthrew the old elite class but in these vanguard parties they are simply made up of 2nd class elites who use the workers movements to propel themselves. This is why USSR China DPRK Cuba etc all were movements lead by bourgeois (all those famous leaders were elite class not working class including the very writers of core Marxist literature) that resulted in yet more elite class people running the state but doing so on behalf of the working class rather than on behalf of transnational finance
The whole “workers rise up to seize the state apparatus” mentality is precisely why it’s so easy to dismantle western “leftist” ideology and why there’s such a major disconnect between the western left and Asians living under literal communist regimes despite both pulling from the same literature. The average McDonald’s worker has no business making large scale societal decisions under any form of government be it democracy or vanguard Marxism because the average McDonald’s worker is too retarded to not DoorDash fast food on Friday the moment they get paid. Trust me, I’ve lived my entire life amongst the paycheck-to-paycheck working class; their decision making skills are the sole reason they are poor not bourgeois exploitation that’s just cope
It’s not “intellectually inaccurate,” it’s the Marxist understanding of class. The vanguard do not form a second class, they are of the proletariat (and peasantry, if applicable). Administration is not a class, but a type of labor that is necessary for production and distribution. The leaders of the Cuban, Korean, Russian, Chinese, etc. were proletarian intellectuals. Intellectuals are not a class of their own, they are a subcategory of every class, and the job of the political party is to create intellectuals and bring that class up to the level of the intellectuals in terms of thought.
Further, the masses are not stupid. Blaming individuals for systemic exploitation is extremely classist. The idea that there is no wisdom in the people, and that they instead are helpless to fall for whoever speaks to them most convincingly is absurd and ahistorical. Political parties do not command the people, the people command the parties, and the parties are there to guide the people. All legitimacy for the vanguard comes from its direct connection with the masses.
Do you mean to imply that capitalism works and works without repression?
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!