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.
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 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.