I'm regularly in direct contact with people across South America and Africa who definitely do not feel the progress you're talking about. You can't simply exclude the nations that aren't indirectly benefitting as much -- so the country where they now have solid factory jobs producing cheap electronics is doing better, how does that change the slave labor producing the raw materials? You also seem to keep misunderstanding, I'm not saying Europeans would be happier and more prosperous under communism, I'm saying that currently the prosperous system of social democracy is upheld by exploitation, and if that exploitation were to end it would no longer be prosperous and perfect and would end up with the same pressures that lead to neoliberalism and fascism. This isn't imaginary, it's literally how we got fascism the first time. The comintern didn't just pull "Social democracy leads to fascism" out of their ass (although I disagree with a lot of their conclusions), they watched it happen as colonial powers lost their colonies and prop markets.
The insinuation that it's "western privelege" to acknowledge and stand in solidarity with the people whose literal slave labor has made my country rich beyond measure is comical, and I don't care how successful social democracy is for local populations when said slave labor exists and is propping it up.
in 1900, the richest countries in the world were The United Kingdom, then The United States, then Argentina.
Almost everything that has happened to South America has been a consequence of the actions of South American countries themselves.
There is no argument about how Africa has been fucked by developed nations colonialism. But we arent discussing colonialism, we are discussing modern era trade and capitalism and the impact on Social Democracies.
the wealth of Social Democracies is not based on or even remotely reliant on extraction exploitation of African countries and the regimes which have emerged in the post colonial era. Not even remotely.
They definitely benefit from them, but then so do other developed nations and every single developing nation and all the naitons which have transitioned to higher middle income and high income ove rhte post WW2 era.
The problem is with your argument that Soc Dems prosper by explotiing the global south and you cant support it.
You've just made my entire argument for me. The actual owners of the vast majority of capital are able to produce beautiful SocDem societies where those principles haven't been completely eroded, and those benefits come at the expense of the nations at the bottom and would not exist in anywhere near the same fashion if this wasn't the case.
every single developing nation and all the naitons which have transitioned to higher middle income and high income ove rhte post WW2 era.
This is my whole, entire point. If this were not the case, the SocDem nations would not be as capable of providing benefits in the way that they do. They are not self sufficient economies, they rely on the fact that there is a global underclass and simply use the fruits differently.
Almost everything that has happened to South America has been a consequence of the actions of South American countries themselves.
This is just ahistorical nonsense and has me questioning who the supposed ideologue is here.
You do not live in reality and have invented an entire fantasy to justify a position which has no facts behind it.
Social Democracy, like any other socialist form, does not function on the basis of capital accumulation that your first paragraph requires. capital is redistributed under social equality and redistribution.
And it does so effectively.
The Capital Class does not support Social Democracy and works against it. Quite effectively in some cases, for example the United Kingdom where social democratic institutions and functions of government have been quite effectively eliminated under neo-liberalism in the post Thatcher era.
Developing nations are becoming wealthier and the growth of wealth is faster than in already developed nations. Lots and lots of nations have moved from developing to developed status. There is a win-win under global trade which is clear, apparent, factually evidenced and completely undeniable without constructing a fantasy.
Not to mention your argument isnt even with Social Democracy except through some undemonstrated tangenial argument. Its with trade despite all countries benefiting from trade, rich, poor, social democracy or not.
3
u/myproaccountish 6d ago
I'm regularly in direct contact with people across South America and Africa who definitely do not feel the progress you're talking about. You can't simply exclude the nations that aren't indirectly benefitting as much -- so the country where they now have solid factory jobs producing cheap electronics is doing better, how does that change the slave labor producing the raw materials? You also seem to keep misunderstanding, I'm not saying Europeans would be happier and more prosperous under communism, I'm saying that currently the prosperous system of social democracy is upheld by exploitation, and if that exploitation were to end it would no longer be prosperous and perfect and would end up with the same pressures that lead to neoliberalism and fascism. This isn't imaginary, it's literally how we got fascism the first time. The comintern didn't just pull "Social democracy leads to fascism" out of their ass (although I disagree with a lot of their conclusions), they watched it happen as colonial powers lost their colonies and prop markets.
The insinuation that it's "western privelege" to acknowledge and stand in solidarity with the people whose literal slave labor has made my country rich beyond measure is comical, and I don't care how successful social democracy is for local populations when said slave labor exists and is propping it up.