You must log in or register to comment.
Norwegian here. I thought the foundation for our welfare state was laid over many years by unions fighting for their rights. And the workers party and socialist party working together on top of that for decades. The communists (AKP ML) were never a big movement.
It was both, there was domestic risk of revolution that needed to be addressed, which led to imperialism as a way to both support the capitalist class and bribe the domestic working class at the expense of the international working class. Look into theories of unequal exchange as well.
The unions and communists provided a need to address, and imperialism provided a source to address the need without changing the property relations.
Removed by mod
Exactly.
The fact that you distinguish unions and communists is insane. As if there’s only one communism and it was built in Russian 1929, everything else is a welfare state
Are you explaining to a Norwegian how to Norway?
Leftists have to explain what liberalism is to liberals, because they don’t know
No way, am I a norwesplainer?
unions are syndicalist. both are socialist movements but they are not the same thing.
Mam, this is a meme section
You’re the one who went off piste conflating related but distinctive and not necessarily interdependent things and pretending that not doing so is the darkest depths of madness 😄
How dare you. How dare you to reflect the contradictions I am introducing in the conversation?
Idunno 🤷🏻
Know better then!
Seems like they distinguished them because they’re legitimately different political parties. Kind of spelled that out even. Big C Communist not little c communist.
A rectangle is square shaped but is not a square.
Communism was done through the movement of unionised workers, and you’ll find similarities in the talking points, as communism was an answer to the problems most unionised workers can agree on.
But unionised workers don’t immediately agree with communism.
Is it supposed to follow that the only way to get social welfare is to attempt to overthrow the capital class? I’m not sure that it does.
Social welfare isn’t the goal, the goal is a society that doesn’t need it because they are earning the value of what they produce.
I don’t agree that the value of a human being is that which they produce. The society I want recognizes that human beings are inherently worthy of dignity, necessities, and basic comfort. The idea that any compassionate society will no longer need social welfare is pants-on-head “privileged”.
So you dont understand socialism do you? You are approaching this under the liberal perspective that’s happy with a subpar sustenance being provided to those that need it. The idea that they’re getting something therefore I don’t have to concern myself with it.
The basic premise of socialism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
Just a reminder that here in the Nordics liberals are considered right wing. You can get a lot more left than liberal.
where do nordic countries get all their natural resources from?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
