Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.

Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.

Like, come on.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.

Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.

So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would've thunk.

Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.

You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?

Like, come on.

Yeah, come on. Use your brain for once and don't just spew tankie bullshit.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would’ve thunk.

Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren't really allowed to benefit from imperialism.

Surely you've noticed how much worse off they are? Do you think that's just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven't recovered? Do you not realize how much better things were before the West's so-called "shock therapy" destroyed all of their social programs?

You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?

Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?

Use your brain.

[–] reinar@distress.digital 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that's just because the USSR ruined them...

Germans still pay solidarity tax lil bro... USSR was one of the most talented entities in fucking up entire countries for decades to come, politburo was producing most vile, scheming and backstabbing ruling class ever to imagine. The very same people were running privatization and scraping all the social security programs in place, your boys from the West in Yeltsin's team were simply lacking and couldn't keep up.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

I'm sure the Cold War has nothing to do with that lol

The fuck did you call me, btw?

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren’t really allowed to benefit from imperialism.

Lol, what? Do you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don't end up in post-soviet countries? Do you think they still drive Ladas there? Those countries ABSOLUTELY have cheap commodities imported in to subsidize their developed country lifestyles. Not to the same extent as the big players, but we'll get to why that is.

Surely you’ve noticed how much worse off they are?

Are they? They are worse, but depending on the region not by much. Take a look yourself, The same report that puts Nordic countries at the top has Czechia (formerly a part of Czechoslovakia) just a smidge below US and UK and actually above Belgium and France. Now you can argue "that's a satellite state and not an actual USSR aligned country" but it's not like Estonia is that far behind and according to the CCCP Estonia was hardcore in the CCCP, you know ECCP.

Do you think that’s just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven’t recovered?

Well, kinda. Most of those countries have issues with a Russian minority who refuse to integrate into the local culture. It creates tensions in their societies which then hinders their progress. It's going to take at least another generation or two before that issue essentially "solves itself". And remember, that's an issue only because the CCCP did deliberate mass deportation of locals into foreign lands. You can still find some Baltic people in Siberia, not because they want to be there but because they were forced to be there.

Do you not realize how much better things were before the West’s so-called “shock therapy” destroyed all of their social programs?

Unlike you I actually know how thing were before and things were pretty shit before the collapse, it's literally one of the reasons the Soviet union collapsed. Sure things right after the collapse were worse but guess what, in less than 10 years it was already better than the end of union. The "shock therapy" didn't destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.

Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?

The fuck kind of a stupid question is this? Obviously US wouldn't allow it, but it's not like the EU would allow it either. And it's a stupid question because Sweden (and most neighbors of Russia) wouldn't even need the umbrella of protection if Russia wasn't such a fucking asshole towards its neighbors. Just to prove that point Finland and Russia had normal relations, until Putin decided to threaten them out of nowhere and now Finland is in NATO because Russia acted like an asshole. The umbrella of protection point has literally nothing to do with how well Nordic countries are doing. You could argue that the umbrella would mean they don't have to spend that much on defense, but guess what else would make them spend less on defense? If Russia wasn't such a fucking prick. Regardless they're still doing well.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don’t end up in post-soviet countries?

I think they don't benefit from it. Products made from the resources from southern countries end up in southern countries too! That's not the point.

The benefit of superexploitation is being able to make commodities artificially cheap in the imperial core relative to wages in the imperial core. In post-soviet countries these products aren't actually cheap relative to their own incomes, they have to pay a significant portion of their wages to afford them.

The “shock therapy” didn’t destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.

I'm working my way through Red Hangover, and that really doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe 1 in 10 people living in the post-soviet sphere have benefitted. Neoliberalism is nightmare.

The fuck kind of a stupid question is this? Obviously US wouldn’t allow it, but it’s not like the EU would allow it either.

So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In post-soviet countries these products aren’t actually cheap relative to their own incomes, they have to pay a significant portion of their wages to afford them.

Have you lived there? Because it sure as shit talk about it like you have, except you clealy haven't because if you did you'd know how disingenuous your point is. Obviously post-soviet countries don't have the buying power of countries that generally have existed for more than a century. Like you should be aware, post-soviet countries had to restart their economy following the collapse of the union. You're rubbing in the fact that people had to live through the collapse. But it doesn't mean you couldn't afford those cheap products. I was able to buy Coke and Mars back in 1994 despite the economy being probably in its worst state ever and most people probably could until the start of this year. The looming recession is killing buying power right now, so this year really isn't a good comparison on how big part of the wage goes into actually living.

I’m working my way through Red Hangover, and that really doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe 1 in 10 people living in the post-soviet sphere have benefitted.

I guess my parents, me, my friends and most people I know just happen to live in some magical bubble where we're the 1 in 10? I know not everyone is well off, but it's not like everyone in the Nordic countries are well off either. It's definitely not 1 in 10 who have benefited.

Neoliberalism is nightmare.

Maybe the only statement we mostly agree upon. I wouldn't call it a nightmare but I agree that we could do better. However soviet era socialism is definitely not better.

So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.

And this is where you go off the deep end. At no point was western militarism even a point of discussion. The discussion was the welfare state of Nordic countries and western militarism has nothing to do with that.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

I was able to buy Coke and Mars back in 1994 despite the economy being probably in its worst state ever and most people probably could until the start of this year.

lol wtf is this how you measure prosperity? Mexico drinks 7 times more Coke than the rest of the world, would you call them prosperous? I think I remember something about Coke being more readily available than baby formula there?

I guess my parents, me, my friends and most people I know just happen to live in some magical bubble where we’re the 1 in 10? I know not everyone is well off, but it’s not like everyone in the Nordic countries are well off either. It’s definitely not 1 in 10 who have benefited.

Only 1 in 10 saw improvement from before, and specifically in ways unrelated to technological development.

Is your water cleaner? Are you healthier? Do you have more free time? Maybe! Not most people, though.

And this is where you go off the deep end. At no point was western militarism even a point of discussion. The discussion was the welfare state of Nordic countries and western militarism has nothing to do with that.

It has a lot to do with it! It's easier to spend money on welfare when you don't have to spend it on defense.