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.
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.
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…