Norgur
- 0 Posts
- 36 Comments
If anything didn’t need a source then it’s that the wealth of rich nations is upheld by the less rich nations. Anyone who isn’t aware of that should not be listened to on any political or economical topic
Yet, what you said earlier struck me as incredibly “buzzwordy” so to say. You hinted at the choice being Marxism (we’ll come back to that one) and capitalism with the “Nordic Model” (reductive US-centric naming schemes at work) being sold as a (for you not satisfactory I assume) middle ground.
You seem to reject this middle ground because (and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m reading between the lines here) it will not solve the huge discrepancy in wealth between our richest and our poorest countries in earth.
So far, so good. Now: when you talk about “Marxism”, what do you mean by that exactly? I’ve seen this word thrown around countless times (again, mostly from the US) and most of the ppl doing so would have made Karl Marx vomit in his luscious beard when he heard what wild theories go by “Marxism” these days. So you’ll have to be rather specific as to what you mean. "Marxism " isn’t a clear-cut thing in the best of times.
Secondly: I’m assuming you want the global revolution the theories by Engels and Marx discuss im their economical parts and change the whole world towards a classless society by an uprising of the working class (however that would look). Isn’t any call for such a thing another manifestation of the same air of superiority we 1sr worlders tend to fall victim to? Any capitalist would tell you that the nations held back by the “1st world” just needed to fend for themselves and all would be great, right? While I can see how this is not a sentiment one would support (I don’t either), it’s not completely off. Even if we in the west decided that Marxism (again, whatever that means) is the Bee’s Knees right now, isn’t it just the same kind of patronizing if we just assume that the people in poorer countries think the same and expect them to (again) follow our lead into what we tell them is a better future? What if they want capitalism or whatever else? (Unlikely, yet still)
Now regarding the “Nordic Model” or all other forms of social economy: I think it’s safe to assume that the US and Europe have a comparable amount of “oppression per person” regarding foreign industry, yet the amount of exploitation of domestic workers will vary greatly.
Lacking many state-driven social security nets, the US will likely come upnfirst when it comes to local exploitation. So, if there was a way to ease this up while the rest of the world is not up for revolution stuff, why wouldn’t it be worthwhile to take that route?
Well, you’re usually in the general vicinity of the root cause of any problem by that assumption.
Well, I’d say at least less exploitation than the raw capitalism the US has right now.
The funny thing is that the Allied powers helped establish a nation that has fixes for many problems the US faces right now, both constitutionally and economically in 1949.
Germany’s economy calls itself “social market economy” and acknowledges that the state has to interfere with “the market” whenever the developing power gradient in capitalism threatens to stomp the weaker. Does it work perfectly? Of course not! Nothing does on that level. Is it in danger of being hollowed out by capitalist fuckfaces constantly? Absolutely. Yet the model might give.some ideas.
https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/business/social-market-economy-in-germany-growth-and-prosperity
This sounds awfully like one of those weird debates where twisted and contorted buzzwords get thrown around and once one of us Europeans innocently enters the discussion gets downvoted and hated into oblivion because everything we say is taken in some weird context we didn’t know shit about.
In what context dies a “Nordic model” come up and what’s it supposed to entail?
Remember the super important maintenance things you learned by hard? This is them now. Feel old yet?
Well, having a newborn myself right now, that baby is sitting too upright, so it’s heavy head is sinking into the shoulders way more than it should, giving it that squashed look.
I as a man have that with Jeans and socks. Both are fucking uncomfortable and to be gotten rid of at the earliest convenience!
The difference is that especially in Greece, those kinds of relationships (forced or otherwise) were part of the non criminal open society.
Kind of hard to define but refer to themselves as I?
It’s spooky, alright. But is it scary, too? Because it won’t send shivers down my spine otherwise.
The fact that this got a fair bit of upvotes tells me I’m not alone in my narcissistic tendencies. Yay me and me alone!
First of all: Don’t you think Kässpatzen “evolved from” something, too? Like… both are “cooked dough stuff with cheese”
And secondly: your argument is not the counter you might think it is. The core of my argument was that Mac and Cheese are a downgrade to the food it came from. It doesn’t matter, if the origins are in Italy or Germany, the argument stands. Slopping fat with cheese flavor on pasta is nothing one could claim any culinary high ground with
And lastly: we all agree that this is some light hearted, friendly banter here, and not some patriotic conflict about cultural superiority, right?
Calm down, 'Muricans. We didn’t lose our shit when you replaced the Spatzen in Kässpatzen with Macaroni and the cheese in Kässpatzen with fatty, gloopy cheddar “sauce”. You can bear this one.
Dieser Kommentarebereich…