From a Swedish standpoint, this is just nonsense. The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Island and Denmark) are all in the top six most democratic countries in the world (according to The economist, England). These are were much socialist countries and most definitely democratic.
Then you have china, soviet and alike. Those are countries that call(ed) themself communist. I will argue that that’s however mostly used as a label to legitimate the government and to obscure what they really are, in the same manner north Korea is formaly named the democratic people’s republic of Korea (DPRK). Those countries does/did not operate as communist states the way that Marx and other political theorists imaginend them.
Yes i know it’s not perfect and the exact positions might not be completely accurate but I still think the overall picture it paints it useful. Maybe we aren’t the most democratic countries but we’re defently democratic. You can check this whit whatever source you happen to prefere
Jag hae inte läst Marx (men har en kompis som håller på med det) och jag är faktiskt 15. Men jag vet en del om vad han tänkte/skrev t.ex. att Marx inte uppmanar till att döda demonstranter och bygga murar för att stänga inne folk. Han beskriver ett samhälle styrt av arbetetarna, inte ett samhälle styrt av en liten majoritet med enorma klasskillnader som i dagens Kina.
Even just reading the abstract would make it clear why I sent you that link.
Those countries does/did not operate as communist states the way that Marx and other political theorists imaginend them.
The article details the way in which socialist theory has been implemented throughout points in history and compares and contrasts with the modern Chinese methods. It is not “just a label” as you casually threw out earlier. China has used the productive forces of capital to rapidly modernize, however they do not allow capital to be turned into political power. This is detailed in the article.
Like why are you even trying to comment on Marx’s intentions when you clearly haven’t Marx or any other theorists? This behavior is so bizarre to me.
I’d like to add that the nordic countries are not socialist by any metric.
Also, we shouldn’t be so quick to trust western media on the DPRK, who have gotten to the point that they can literally say anything about their enemies, and have it be believed.
They Nordic countries type of socialism may not be a replacement for capitalism (I live in Sweden so I’d know) but works alot more like the type of socialism that’s common in Europe.
This terminology might not be on spot but I still think the Nordic countries are what most people would refere to as at least a little bit socialist. Maybe the proper term is social democratic?
The proper term is social democratic. Socialism has a simple and specific definition. Those Nordic countries have changed nothing about who owns the means of production and therefore have no relation to socialism.
The Nordic countries are at best welfare capitalist states, and that welfare relies on the super-exploitation of the Global South. No Nordic country is even gesturing toward the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. In fact they’re moving in the opposite direction, toward the neoliberal privatization of more and more of the commons and the financialization of everything, which is burying the working class in debt. The Eurozone is just the cartel of the European private banks, and it was designed to enforce neoclassical economics and preclude Keynsian economics.
From a Swedish standpoint, this is just nonsense. The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Island and Denmark) are all in the top six most democratic countries in the world (according to The economist, England). These are were much socialist countries and most definitely democratic.
Then you have china, soviet and alike. Those are countries that call(ed) themself communist. I will argue that that’s however mostly used as a label to legitimate the government and to obscure what they really are, in the same manner north Korea is formaly named the democratic people’s republic of Korea (DPRK). Those countries does/did not operate as communist states the way that Marx and other political theorists imaginend them.
Neoliberal corporate media are defining what is to be considered “democratic”? You don’t have to drink this Kool-Aid.
Yes i know it’s not perfect and the exact positions might not be completely accurate but I still think the overall picture it paints it useful. Maybe we aren’t the most democratic countries but we’re defently democratic. You can check this whit whatever source you happen to prefere
The only thing it’s useful for is an approximate answer to the question “Who does the Economist Group want to lionize?”
What do you believe Marx envisioned a country building Communism to work like?
Why are you calling Social Safety Nets “Socialism?”
Du høres ut som meg når jeg var 15. Har du faktisk lest Marx og disse “andre teoretikerne”?
Jag hae inte läst Marx (men har en kompis som håller på med det) och jag är faktiskt 15. Men jag vet en del om vad han tänkte/skrev t.ex. att Marx inte uppmanar till att döda demonstranter och bygga murar för att stänga inne folk. Han beskriver ett samhälle styrt av arbetetarna, inte ett samhälle styrt av en liten majoritet med enorma klasskillnader som i dagens Kina.
For en tilfeldighet! Jeg kan respektere ærligheten, i det minste. Jeg virkelig burde slutte å tenke at alle på Internett er like gamle som meg.
Jeg virkelig ville anbefalt å lære mer om Marx og Engels sine idéer, for eksempel Engels skrev “Om autoritet” (svensk oversettelse her — veldig kort!)
https://redsails.org/losurdo-on-china/
Thanks, but what should i get out of this apparat from Soviet and Chinese history? What is it you are trying to say with this?
Even just reading the abstract would make it clear why I sent you that link.
The article details the way in which socialist theory has been implemented throughout points in history and compares and contrasts with the modern Chinese methods. It is not “just a label” as you casually threw out earlier. China has used the productive forces of capital to rapidly modernize, however they do not allow capital to be turned into political power. This is detailed in the article.
Like why are you even trying to comment on Marx’s intentions when you clearly haven’t Marx or any other theorists? This behavior is so bizarre to me.
I’d like to add that the nordic countries are not socialist by any metric.
Also, we shouldn’t be so quick to trust western media on the DPRK, who have gotten to the point that they can literally say anything about their enemies, and have it be believed.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
not socialist
Is north korea a totalitarian dictatorship? Are they all really required to get the same haircut? A short documentary.
Are north korean defectors really paid to lie by the south? A short documentary.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
They Nordic countries type of socialism may not be a replacement for capitalism (I live in Sweden so I’d know) but works alot more like the type of socialism that’s common in Europe.
This terminology might not be on spot but I still think the Nordic countries are what most people would refere to as at least a little bit socialist. Maybe the proper term is social democratic?
i.e. not the socialism of Marx
If you ignore that country with 1.4 billion people and a few others, i.e. the majority of country calling their countries socialist.
Yes, that is the proper term
The proper term is social democratic. Socialism has a simple and specific definition. Those Nordic countries have changed nothing about who owns the means of production and therefore have no relation to socialism.
The Nordic countries are at best welfare capitalist states, and that welfare relies on the super-exploitation of the Global South. No Nordic country is even gesturing toward the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. In fact they’re moving in the opposite direction, toward the neoliberal privatization of more and more of the commons and the financialization of everything, which is burying the working class in debt. The Eurozone is just the cartel of the European private banks, and it was designed to enforce neoclassical economics and preclude Keynsian economics.