this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
541 points (95.3% liked)
Memes
53486 readers
757 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're taking a vulgar empiricist approach and denying the ongoing material processes and trends that point to decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries. If you only trust what you can directly see with your own eyes, then you deny evolution, geographical shifts, and other phenomena that require observation over an extended period. Again, you're also choosing to ignore imperialism, that's like saying capitalism works great because capitalists live great while ignoring the necessity of worker exploitation.
I'm sure your theory and methodology is fine. I just don't trust much in that sort of speculation tbh.
Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
Like said, I'm sure it's a good theory and all. I'm just cautious about trusting that sort of predictions. They don't always pan out quite as predicted.
The fact that some predictions are wrong doesn't mean we can't analyze trends and trajectories, nor does it mean taking the opposite approach and focusing on static snapshots is better. Again, vulgar empricism denies evolution, geographic shifts, and imperialism. Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
I didn't say you weren't allowed to do your predictions. I'm sure they're good predictions. I just don't put much faith in them.
Are you allergic to giving a clear answer? Being extremely vague about your claims and refusing to address points I've made isn't helping your case here.
You said according theories you believe in that socialist countries will be best of the best and so on. I'm not concerned about the future and don't really trust these sort of predictions, so what else can even say really. I wanted to be nice and agree that yeah maybe at some point.
I'm just not very interested in speculation, that's all
I said that socialist countries are better at providing for the working class now. This statement requires isolating variables and taking differences into account when making a comparison, not looking at static and arbitrary comparisons. Further, the decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries are already ongoing, not processes for the future. You've been explained this before and haven't responded to it, or justified why your arbitrary comparison is better than comparing peer countries and trajectories.
Same goes with not giving a clear answer on geographical shifts, evolution, and imperialism. Your static snapshot method is wrong.
I mean the best countries are still capitalist. So eh, once a socialist vountry take that top spot your argument will be stronger. But we're not there yet.
"Best" in what way? A tiny number of countries that fund their safety nets through plundering the global south doesn't mean capitalism is good at safety nets, it means capitalism forces plunder. You never engage with this point and it sounds like you're pro-imperialism.
Best in the way we've talked about the whole time... Least amount of people living paycheck to paycheck and since social safety nets count, the ones with best of those too. Nordics are top at that.
And it makes no difference to you if these safety nets are eroding, and depend entirely on depriving people in the global south of their own wealth and safety nets? By your logic billionaires have the best safety nets, so being a billionaire is the best system.
I think you know how I feel about speculation about the future. And being a billionaire would be a great system, though they seem to exist in both system we talked about, since there's billionaires in socialist countries and capitalist ones.
Maybe your theory about billionaires being the ultimate winner is on to something.
Billionaires cannot exist without the workers they plunder from, just like imperialist countries cannot exist without the countries they plunder from. Trying to isolate a subsection of the economy and erase those doing the work to prop it up is your error. The workers in the global south that prop up the Nordic systems are contained within that system, and as a consequence the actual working class is below China in terms of safety nets. China doesn't rely on this system, and as such is ahead.
I mean there's loads of billionaires in China.
Sure, but China is a socialist country that orients production towards common prosperity, and the billionaires aren't in control of the state. The billionaires in the Nordics exist at the expense of the global south, the billionaires in China exploit Chinese people. The major difference is that China takes care of their working classes, while the Nordics take care of their internal working class while forcing austerity on their external working class. Comparing the bottom in both systems, China surpasses the Nordics by a long shot.
I mean, this doesn't seem as much based on numbers than "well China has socialist rhetoric so less social safety nets is actually more so I win". I think better to just stick to the numbers tbh
Replying here because we reached the max comment depth.
If you cut the Nordics off of their imperialism, they would not be able to have these same safety nets. The people doing the bulk of the labor for the Nordic safety nets do not get access to them. China does run its safety nets from its own labor. You're taking a selectively blind approach that apologizes for imperialism.
I think the max comment limit was the hint that it might be time to stop hah. If you do this or that, eh. But situation is what it is right now and it was countries that we compared.
I don't think there's anything that interesting coming out of this tbh
It's not about "rhetoric," but the system itself. China has more social safety nets for those it depends on than the Nordics do. The Nordics just withold the safety nets for those inside the imperial core while depending on austerity abroad, while China is internally driven. Again, you're trying to remove those that the system depends on from consideration, equivalent to saying "being a billionaire is the best system." The Nordics are not a self-sufficient, closed loop, but instead part of the imperial core.
I mean yeah of course we are talking about people in the country that are actually eligible for the welfare and such.
You erased imperialism, continuity, motion, and history, in favor of steering the conversation towards imperialist countries somehow being a better system for enjoying their plunder.
I guess the hint to stop was a bit too subtle...