Socialism really would never work without repression, they would need to take from the most rich and might need force, so people will not accept the new system might cause real problems, so it will need more repression
This why big revolutions always end up with repressive regimes, even the French Revolution (that was not socialist at all)
And when you have an authoritarian regime in power they will want to remain in power, the original goals of the revolution will be lost and the new regime always think about itself first. So you can’t control what this regime will find acceptable or not.
The democracy needs concessions, needs to accept in parts the other side, this why Nordic countries have a better social equality and a very capitalist oil extraction
Colonialism proper? Not as much as the UK, Germany, France, and the US, but over time they have come to enormously benefit from imperialism and neocolonialism, which is the modern form.
The first part is unquestionably true, revolution is the exertion of the authority of one class upon the rest. The latter parts are entirely wrong, or misguided.
Socialist countries put the working classes in charge. The goals are not lost, it’s that the goal of a working class state is the same as the general class goal of the working classes, the collectivization of production and distribution. This goal is not lost whatsoever, but it does require protecting against opportunists, as well as the former ruling classes, as they still exist and cannot disappear overnight.
The Nordics on the other hand are imperialist countries. They bribe their working classes with the spoils of exploiting the global south. This kind of class collaboration is why social democracy is often called social fascism by critics, as it’s collaboration and agreement to perpetuate imperialism in order to have cushy safety nets. Without imperialism, the Nordics would need to turn socialist in order to retain their safety nets.
Socialism really would never work without repression, they would need to take from the most rich and might need force, so people will not accept the new system might cause real problems, so it will need more repression
This why big revolutions always end up with repressive regimes, even the French Revolution (that was not socialist at all)
And when you have an authoritarian regime in power they will want to remain in power, the original goals of the revolution will be lost and the new regime always think about itself first. So you can’t control what this regime will find acceptable or not.
The democracy needs concessions, needs to accept in parts the other side, this why Nordic countries have a better social equality and a very capitalist oil extraction
Many Nordic Countries built themselves up with colonialism and similar things, right?
Colonialism proper? Not as much as the UK, Germany, France, and the US, but over time they have come to enormously benefit from imperialism and neocolonialism, which is the modern form.
The first part is unquestionably true, revolution is the exertion of the authority of one class upon the rest. The latter parts are entirely wrong, or misguided.
Socialist countries put the working classes in charge. The goals are not lost, it’s that the goal of a working class state is the same as the general class goal of the working classes, the collectivization of production and distribution. This goal is not lost whatsoever, but it does require protecting against opportunists, as well as the former ruling classes, as they still exist and cannot disappear overnight.
The Nordics on the other hand are imperialist countries. They bribe their working classes with the spoils of exploiting the global south. This kind of class collaboration is why social democracy is often called social fascism by critics, as it’s collaboration and agreement to perpetuate imperialism in order to have cushy safety nets. Without imperialism, the Nordics would need to turn socialist in order to retain their safety nets.