Pure versions of each have their flaws. Mixed-economics yields the highest quality of life according to the top ranking nations on the World Happiness Report. Nordic nations have the blueprint. We just need to adopt it.
They may be doing certain things right but do other totally wrong like forced conscription. Keep also in mind that they exploit third world countries like everyone else, their goods are made in china.
I’m not sure what other sensible alternative there is for Finland than conscription. You can’t get around the geographical issues so you have to have some sort of sensible and credible defence. That’s why it has a very wide approval, even when the moral issues of it are recognized. NATO seemed promising as a guarantor of safety, until it lost that credibility (and Finland got in a bit unwillingly, after some recent events). Voluntary military was what Sweden did and it didn’t work well for them.
Actually funnily enough people are surprisingly supportive of expanding the conscription to include women. And that’s on equality grounds, which to many who abhor the idea of forced conscription must seem pretty wild.
What’s the alternative to slavery? How do we get our food without a slave forced to farm 14h a day?
I didn’t mean it rhetorically, how would you ensure a credible defence for Finland? It’s the big issue.
So supportive that if they refuse to go they go to jail.
I’m talking about polls lol. And by voting the people are giving their concent to the system. That includes us who are forced to serve.
And most people who don’t want to do conscription go to civil service. Working in a library, school, such things. For women the whole thing is voluntary.
I didn’t mean it rhetorically, how would you ensure a credible defence for Finland? It’s the big issue.
Allowing people to defend themself as they want and not forcing them into an authoritarian army with jail as a repercussion would ensure a better defense if you ask me. Drafting people by force only benefit the government and rulers not people.
And most people who don’t want to do conscription go to civil service. Working in a library, school, such things. For women the whole thing is voluntary.
Being forced to do it means that you must do it even if you don’t want to. You are forced to do it even if you are happily willing to do it, you have no (legal) decision on it.
Edit: Also these BrainInABox and Cowbee communist apologists are really begging for a block or even a ban. Absolutely despicable. Might they be bots or trolls of somekind? They seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands.
Just a bit of background, given that you’re on a 12 day old account, Lemmy in general has a lot of Communists of various types, for a number of reasons:
The lead developers are all Communists
Lemmy is an anti-capitalist response to Reddit in design, it’s an attempt to cover for the failings of Reddit resulting from its profit-driven nature
Choosing Lemmy over Reddit requires some degree of ideological conviction, as Reddit is far more popular to begin with.
As for myself, I’m not a troll. I am a Communist, specifically a Marxist-Leninist, I even made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Further, this community in particular, c/LateStageCapitalism, is run by Communists and the express purpose is to critique Capitalism from the Left, I’m not breaking any rules by following the purpose of the Comm.
I would say it’s the dominant western neoliberal culture that accepts corruption as an “Oh well what can you do” type thing. Not all cultures are so accepting of corruption. We need to start treating corruption as great of a sin as murder or pedophilia, perhaps more so.
And socialist countries had exploitative socialism. I think realistically it’s best to try and find a system with least exploitation balanced with best quality of life for the people.
All economies are “mixed,” ergo it isn’t a meaningful distinction. What is more useful is recognizing which aspect of the economy is the principle, ie which has the real dominant power, over large firms and key industries. Socialism is when the public sector is the principle aspect, Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect. That’s why the PRC is Socialist, and the Nordic countries are Capitalist.
Judging which system is correct purely by looking to which countries have the highest happiness scores is myopic. We could use the same logic to say that Jeff Bezos has the most comfortable life, so we should all copy him. The problem is that we can’t. The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South, and because Private Ownership has domination over the state, worker protections and safety nets have been gradually sliding.
This is why having a good knowledge of theory and taking everything within a large context, rather than with harsh boundaries, is important to draw correct conclusions.
May I ask an honest question? Is your account run by 5 people? How do you find time to write thorough, well written responses to so many posts? We don’t always agree ideologically, but I really respect your methods.
Haha, it’s nothing like that. My job works more in spurts and waiting periods, so it largely depends on what’s going on in my work life. Plus, not every comment is bespoke, I usually draw from prior comments I’ve written if applicable and tweak if needed.
There are a few different reasons that give rise to these (false) conclusions, and different reasons manifest in different degrees. Ie, not everyone will have all of these reasons, but most have at least one.
Chauvanism. Intentionally or not, there is often a superstructural element to western thought derived from being a beneficiary of Imperialism that discredits the achievements of non-Western Leftists. The fact that a western revolution has failed to materialize leads to some westerners being defensive and thus discrediting the achievements of the PRC.
A lack of real analysis at what the PRC is economically structured as. It’s easy to not understand the makeup of the PRC’s economy if you don’t engage with it.
A lack of reading Marxist theory, and thus not being able to properly analyze structures from a Dialectical Materialist perspective.
In my opinion, those are the main 3 reasons for such conclusions.
I imagine the next deflection is something like ‘but china has the second largest number of billionares’, but as soon as you sort that list by per-capita it suddenly tells a very different story.
The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South
Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 Not sure what sort of imperialism Finland for example is doing that for example China isn’t. We are super-exploiting them in the same way, as in doing trade and having our companies operate in those countries.
Essentially, Finland (and Imperialist countries in general) operate on a principle of unequal exchange. By leveraging mechanisms like IMF loans with clauses requiring privatization of resources and industry for foreign capture, to relying on overseas production to super-exploit for super-profits, to simply relying on high interest rates on foreign loans, Imperialist countries consume more of the Global South’s value than they provide the Global South.
China doesn’t operate in that way. China is a country focused on selling goods it produces, ergo it cares more to have customers. The BRI and BRICs exist purely to build up more customers, it’s neither charity nor Imperialism. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren’t the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The “Chinese Debt Trap” is a Myth.
China also has companies that operate the exact same way and buy resources from Global South. It has a much bigger impact too, sometimes dominating the local economy. I honestly don’t see any real difference between Finnish and Chinese trade, than some perceived or claimed difference in ideology behind it. And Finland isn’t much of a loan giver to other countries. Finland is a member of IMF but so is China and China actually does do loans to Global South. Not sure I would count membership in IMF and loaning money itself exploitative, but if you consider that as exploitation, then surely it counts for China more than Finland?
China needs rare Earth for its own production, which drives the reason it is involved in Africa to begin with. The difference is that China needs to sell its goods internationally, so it can’t just relentlessly exploit these countries. As a consequence, it frequently forgives loans, and moreover does not require clauses requiring privatization of nationalized resources to do so. China’s economic model requires some degree of multilateralism to continue to exist, it isn’t a consumption driven economy nor one dominated by private financialized Capital.
Finland’s economy is externally driven, it relies on brutal production in the Global South for much of its commodities, and does so with immense financialized Capital. China’s is internally driven and focused far more on manufacturing and selling.
We all need to do trade. The only difference you’ve outlined so far is that China’s economy isn’t at the same service economy point as more advanced economies, otherwise it’s the same. By that merit Finland became a imperialistic country exploiting Global South quite late, which I guess is nice.
Trade is necessary, yes. The difference becomes apparent when you look at the manner and character of exchange. Countries dominated by private, financialized Capital without exception rely on Imperialism to continue, but the PRC’s economy is driven by manufacturing and public ownership. It is unlikely that the PRC will make a hard pivot towards such a privately dominated financialized economy because it was run precisely to avoid such a situation to begin with, as its run by Marxists.
What you are saying has no concrete difference to the people on the other end. If Finland and China are doing the same sort of actions there, then I’d consider them the same on that measure. So either both are exploiting them or neither is.
And personally I’d say those actions are inherently exploitative not because of the specific ideology behind it but because countries in a better position (richer, stronger, more influential) have a stronger negotiation position than countries in a worse position (poorer and weaker).
What would make a difference is if either of the countries we are comparing are abusing that position (more than the other). And I don’t think that’s the case, of course considering the relative strength of their negotiation position.
Pure versions of each have their flaws. Mixed-economics yields the highest quality of life according to the top ranking nations on the World Happiness Report. Nordic nations have the blueprint. We just need to adopt it.
They may be doing certain things right but do other totally wrong like forced conscription. Keep also in mind that they exploit third world countries like everyone else, their goods are made in china.
I’m not sure what other sensible alternative there is for Finland than conscription. You can’t get around the geographical issues so you have to have some sort of sensible and credible defence. That’s why it has a very wide approval, even when the moral issues of it are recognized. NATO seemed promising as a guarantor of safety, until it lost that credibility (and Finland got in a bit unwillingly, after some recent events). Voluntary military was what Sweden did and it didn’t work well for them.
Actually funnily enough people are surprisingly supportive of expanding the conscription to include women. And that’s on equality grounds, which to many who abhor the idea of forced conscription must seem pretty wild.
What’s the alternative to slavery? How do we get our food without a slave forced to farm 14h a day?
So supportive that if they refuse to go they go to jail.
What’s the alternative to slavery? How do we get our food without a slave forced to farm 14h a day?
I didn’t mean it rhetorically, how would you ensure a credible defence for Finland? It’s the big issue.
I’m talking about polls lol. And by voting the people are giving their concent to the system. That includes us who are forced to serve.
And most people who don’t want to do conscription go to civil service. Working in a library, school, such things. For women the whole thing is voluntary.
Allowing people to defend themself as they want and not forcing them into an authoritarian army with jail as a repercussion would ensure a better defense if you ask me. Drafting people by force only benefit the government and rulers not people.
https://www.thelocal.se/20190404/sweden-hands-out-first-jail-terms-for-draft-evasion
I would happily join the military in a country that actually cared for me. Thats something worth fighting for.
A country that cares for you wouldn’t force you to join the military and put you in jail if you refuse.
They wouldn’t have to force me, thats kinda the point.
Being forced to do it means that you must do it even if you don’t want to. You are forced to do it even if you are happily willing to do it, you have no (legal) decision on it.
The fact that this still got 14 downvotes. Wow…
Edit: Also these BrainInABox and Cowbee communist apologists are really begging for a block or even a ban. Absolutely despicable. Might they be bots or trolls of somekind? They seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands.
Just a bit of background, given that you’re on a 12 day old account, Lemmy in general has a lot of Communists of various types, for a number of reasons:
The lead developers are all Communists
Lemmy is an anti-capitalist response to Reddit in design, it’s an attempt to cover for the failings of Reddit resulting from its profit-driven nature
Choosing Lemmy over Reddit requires some degree of ideological conviction, as Reddit is far more popular to begin with.
As for myself, I’m not a troll. I am a Communist, specifically a Marxist-Leninist, I even made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Further, this community in particular, c/LateStageCapitalism, is run by Communists and the express purpose is to critique Capitalism from the Left, I’m not breaking any rules by following the purpose of the Comm.
Hope that helps!
The flaw is humans; we’ll corrupt any system.
I would say it’s the dominant western neoliberal culture that accepts corruption as an “Oh well what can you do” type thing. Not all cultures are so accepting of corruption. We need to start treating corruption as great of a sin as murder or pedophilia, perhaps more so.
But the orphan grinding machine has always been around! We can’t just tear it down, that’s insulting to all the people it ground up!
What’s crazy is my “liberal” family use this logic unironically.
We will also de-corrupt and fix any of them.
You’re not wrong. Some systems are still better than others though.
Nordic nations is still exploitive capitalism.
And socialist countries had exploitative socialism. I think realistically it’s best to try and find a system with least exploitation balanced with best quality of life for the people.
There are a few problems here.
All economies are “mixed,” ergo it isn’t a meaningful distinction. What is more useful is recognizing which aspect of the economy is the principle, ie which has the real dominant power, over large firms and key industries. Socialism is when the public sector is the principle aspect, Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect. That’s why the PRC is Socialist, and the Nordic countries are Capitalist.
Judging which system is correct purely by looking to which countries have the highest happiness scores is myopic. We could use the same logic to say that Jeff Bezos has the most comfortable life, so we should all copy him. The problem is that we can’t. The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South, and because Private Ownership has domination over the state, worker protections and safety nets have been gradually sliding.
This is why having a good knowledge of theory and taking everything within a large context, rather than with harsh boundaries, is important to draw correct conclusions.
May I ask an honest question? Is your account run by 5 people? How do you find time to write thorough, well written responses to so many posts? We don’t always agree ideologically, but I really respect your methods.
Haha, it’s nothing like that. My job works more in spurts and waiting periods, so it largely depends on what’s going on in my work life. Plus, not every comment is bespoke, I usually draw from prior comments I’ve written if applicable and tweak if needed.
Thanks for the kind words!
I’ll never understand people who insist China is ‘State Capitalism’ but Nordic countries are ideal socialism, somehow.
There are a few different reasons that give rise to these (false) conclusions, and different reasons manifest in different degrees. Ie, not everyone will have all of these reasons, but most have at least one.
Chauvanism. Intentionally or not, there is often a superstructural element to western thought derived from being a beneficiary of Imperialism that discredits the achievements of non-Western Leftists. The fact that a western revolution has failed to materialize leads to some westerners being defensive and thus discrediting the achievements of the PRC.
A lack of real analysis at what the PRC is economically structured as. It’s easy to not understand the makeup of the PRC’s economy if you don’t engage with it.
A lack of reading Marxist theory, and thus not being able to properly analyze structures from a Dialectical Materialist perspective.
In my opinion, those are the main 3 reasons for such conclusions.
I imagine the next deflection is something like ‘but china has the second largest number of billionares’, but as soon as you sort that list by per-capita it suddenly tells a very different story.
Especially since that number is decreasing in recent years while GDP growth is still solidly positive.
Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 Not sure what sort of imperialism Finland for example is doing that for example China isn’t. We are super-exploiting them in the same way, as in doing trade and having our companies operate in those countries.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
Essentially, Finland (and Imperialist countries in general) operate on a principle of unequal exchange. By leveraging mechanisms like IMF loans with clauses requiring privatization of resources and industry for foreign capture, to relying on overseas production to super-exploit for super-profits, to simply relying on high interest rates on foreign loans, Imperialist countries consume more of the Global South’s value than they provide the Global South.
China doesn’t operate in that way. China is a country focused on selling goods it produces, ergo it cares more to have customers. The BRI and BRICs exist purely to build up more customers, it’s neither charity nor Imperialism. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren’t the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The “Chinese Debt Trap” is a Myth.
China also has companies that operate the exact same way and buy resources from Global South. It has a much bigger impact too, sometimes dominating the local economy. I honestly don’t see any real difference between Finnish and Chinese trade, than some perceived or claimed difference in ideology behind it. And Finland isn’t much of a loan giver to other countries. Finland is a member of IMF but so is China and China actually does do loans to Global South. Not sure I would count membership in IMF and loaning money itself exploitative, but if you consider that as exploitation, then surely it counts for China more than Finland?
China needs rare Earth for its own production, which drives the reason it is involved in Africa to begin with. The difference is that China needs to sell its goods internationally, so it can’t just relentlessly exploit these countries. As a consequence, it frequently forgives loans, and moreover does not require clauses requiring privatization of nationalized resources to do so. China’s economic model requires some degree of multilateralism to continue to exist, it isn’t a consumption driven economy nor one dominated by private financialized Capital.
Finland’s economy is externally driven, it relies on brutal production in the Global South for much of its commodities, and does so with immense financialized Capital. China’s is internally driven and focused far more on manufacturing and selling.
We all need to do trade. The only difference you’ve outlined so far is that China’s economy isn’t at the same service economy point as more advanced economies, otherwise it’s the same. By that merit Finland became a imperialistic country exploiting Global South quite late, which I guess is nice.
Trade is necessary, yes. The difference becomes apparent when you look at the manner and character of exchange. Countries dominated by private, financialized Capital without exception rely on Imperialism to continue, but the PRC’s economy is driven by manufacturing and public ownership. It is unlikely that the PRC will make a hard pivot towards such a privately dominated financialized economy because it was run precisely to avoid such a situation to begin with, as its run by Marxists.
What you are saying has no concrete difference to the people on the other end. If Finland and China are doing the same sort of actions there, then I’d consider them the same on that measure. So either both are exploiting them or neither is.
And personally I’d say those actions are inherently exploitative not because of the specific ideology behind it but because countries in a better position (richer, stronger, more influential) have a stronger negotiation position than countries in a worse position (poorer and weaker).
What would make a difference is if either of the countries we are comparing are abusing that position (more than the other). And I don’t think that’s the case, of course considering the relative strength of their negotiation position.