I still disagree with this statement, insofar as it makes it seem like Scandinavia is more reliant on the third world than any other imperialist country.
This statement makes it seem like if the us just did enough imperialism it'd finally get healthcare. That's obviously not the case. It works as a shield for the American liberals to explain why they do not have healthcare.

The welfare state was a concession won by labour movements in Scandinavia. These concessions could be afforded due to the fact that the Scandinavian countries benefitted from empire - though such a benefit is not necessary for welfare to be present, as has been shown by the many aes states that provide services for their citizens.
Dismissing this victory of labour as "a product of imperialism" diminishes what we can accomplish. We should critique Scandinavia and be aware that those countries - like the rest of the west - benefit from empire. We should however not correlate the existence with a welfare state with participation in empire.
The largest Scandinavian companies don't pay their taxes, the welfare state is primarily funded for by outsized taxes on the poor and the "middle class". The upper classes in Scandinavia have been embroiled in countless tax fraud scandals.

It's not to say that Scandinavia doesn't benefit from imperialism or that the existence of the countries as they are now aren't reliant on exploitation of the third world - they are.

It is to say that the statement "Scandinavia can only be the way that it is due to imperialism" implies that with sufficient imperialism the us would turn into Scandinavia (it wouldn't) and that Scandinavia somehow does more imperialism than the us or other puppet masters.

[–] SkolShakedown@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

if we try our absolute hardest to just "do scandinavia" we will only get one step forward three steps back. you can count on reactionary capitalist claw back of any progress, the only long term solution is to defeat the capitalist class and remove their dictatorship. not beg them to give us tiny scraps from their extravagant buffet.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Kid, Scandinavia is falling apart. It's being hollowed out by neoliberal regimes like those that hollowed out the UK a few decades ago.
Even before being hollowed out, the place was far from perfect. There has always been homeless and exploited immigrants. One of the largest Scandinavian firms is Mærsk, which ships all over the world - mainly using underpaid labor.

None of the "good stuff" is paid for by these companies anyway - they're just cheating with their taxes like anyone else - it's paid for mainly by taxes of the lower and middle classes (when you're wealthy enough you put your money in a tax haven). At that point it's not "well regulated markets" it's outsized taxes on the part of the population with least resources available to them.
Is it better than the us? Very much so, but it's not even close to good

[–] Noughmad@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you mean their economy and policies, or their people? In either case, I agree.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would what people your country has matter?

[–] Noughmad@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Read the comment that I replied to. It does not say "have", but "do".

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah and then you wrote "in either case, I agree" as in you think it would be better to have Scandinavians, than whatever you have now, which is why I ask what you mean by that?

[–] Noughmad@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The two cases were "do (meaning 'emulate') their economy and policies" and "do (meaning 'have sex with') their people". No "have" anywhere.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Okay that does make more sense, I had trouble parsing the text, thank you for taking the time to explain it.