Socialism? Americans would be happy to have health care, better workers‘ rights, affordable education. Just like most other advanced economies in Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and so on. That’s not socialism, that’s capitalism with regulations and social programs. Nobody really wants socialism, which was as utter failure everywhere it was tried.
Anywhere socialism has existed, it has done so under the threat of global capitalism which is led by the United States. The countries you listed are only able to maintain their wealth and relative comfort by taking advantage of the global south. They benefit from obscuring that relationship so that the people who see that benefit, don’t have to reckon with the extent of it and how it enables the oppression of all of us and holds us back as a whole.
Today, the global North drains from the South commodities worth $2.2 trillion per year, in Northern prices. For perspective, that amount of money would be enough to end extreme poverty, globally, fifteen times over.
Over the whole period from 1960 to today, the drain totalled $62 trillion in real terms. If this value had been retained by the South and contributed to Southern growth, tracking with the South’s growth rates over this period, it would be worth $152 trillion today.
These are extraordinary sums. For the global North (and here we mean the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, Korea, and the rich economies of Europe), the gains are so large that, for the past couple of decades, they have outstripped the rate of economic growth. In other words, net growth in the North relies on appropriation from the rest of the world.
Let me give you the quick and dirty, oversimplified rundown of how that relationship plays out:
Power, under capitalism, resides in capital, which isn’t just money but also resources and property. In order to maintain power, capitalism requires infinite and continuous growth, which of course requires more and more resources to sustain.
Say a given country decides it would like to own its resources nationally and use the wealth generated by those resources to support the growth and welfare of their own people. Capitalist nations are able to wield state power against those countries whenever they encounter this sort of difficulty. This includes leveraging state and capitalist media to run propaganda campaigns, which sour public perception of that country’s national leadership; funding coups and covert operations against them; giving money and training to militant minority resistance groups; and when all else fails, all out war, while messy, is a very lucrative means to the end of converting the resources of global south nations into private capital for the global north.
This capital is then wielded within the capitalist world to manipulate political outcomes in favor of the private owners of capital and to prevent the working class from gaining the consciousness that would enable them to struggle for the things you mentioned; health care, worker’s rights, affordable education; as they slowly strip away what was won from past struggles.
I believe this lovely quote by Ella Baker, a major activist and leader behind the civil rights movement, is relevant to the conversation;
A nice gathering like today is not enough. You have to go back and reach out to your neighbors who don’t speak to you. And you have to reach out to your friends who think they are making it good. And get them to understand that they–as well as you and I–cannot be free in America or anywhere else where there is capitalism and imperialism. Until we can get people to recognize that they themselves have to make the struggle and have to make the fight for freedom every day in the year, every year until they win it.
Your wall of text is ahistorical. Yugoslavia is a counter example. They received American aid after WW2 to rebuild.
Half of Europe lived under real socialism and it was a fucking terrible time for many reasons.
During the Cold War the Soviet led block and the non aligned movement together had sufficient resources, knowledge, and people to get their shit together independently of the US.
Forgive me for actually caring about the subject. Clearly you have other priorities.
You mean this aid to Yugoslavia?
Omar Bradley was also an outspoken supporter of providing aid and improving relations with Yugoslavia, stating in an address to Congress on 30 November 1950 that “In the first place, if we could even take them out of the hostile camp and make them neutral, that is one step. If you can get them to act as a threat, that’s a second step. if you can get them to actively participate on your side, that is an even further step and then, of course, if you had a commitment, where their efforts were integrated with those of ours on the defence, that would still be a further step.” This marked the beginning of US military aid to a communist nation in order to counter Soviet ambitions in the region, leading to greater strives in United States–Yugoslavia relations.
The aid to Yugoslavia that is an example of the US being hostile towards socialist states and cynically providing support to anyone that would align with it against its enemies? The same US whose loans are notoriously difficult to pay back, leaving the recipients permanently indebted to the US? Surely we are talking about different aid Yugoslavia, that couldn’t be your single counter example.
During the Cold War the Soviet led block and the non aligned movement together had sufficient resources, knowledge, and people to get their shit together independently of the US.
Yes, and for the most part they did. Let’s not for get that in 1917 the Russian Empire was still a medieval state with similar technology. After the USSR was founded; their last famine would be in 1947, which happened as a result of WWII; and I’m not sure if you remember this but they would be the only other world power than the US at the time. In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They beat the US to space, fought through several invasions and international boycotts, though with a much lower GDP than the US. They had to spend 15% of their GDP to the US’s 5-7% to compete with the US militarily. This was of course reasonable to do as the US had set itself out to be a hostile threat to the very idea of socialism, but was a major sacrifice nonetheless.
Standards of living in across the Soviet bloc dropped substantially in the 90s after the fall of the USSR as corrupt governments and wealthy elite privatized the USSR’s resources. Even today, Russians earn under $10,000 per capita, about the same as the Soviet Union in the 80s. There is a lot more depth and complexity to this history than you would like to make it seem.
Socialism? Americans would be happy to have health care, better workers‘ rights, affordable education. Just like most other advanced economies in Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and so on. That’s not socialism, that’s capitalism with regulations and social programs. Nobody really wants socialism, which was as utter failure everywhere it was tried.
Anywhere socialism has existed, it has done so under the threat of global capitalism which is led by the United States. The countries you listed are only able to maintain their wealth and relative comfort by taking advantage of the global south. They benefit from obscuring that relationship so that the people who see that benefit, don’t have to reckon with the extent of it and how it enables the oppression of all of us and holds us back as a whole.
Let me give you the quick and dirty, oversimplified rundown of how that relationship plays out:
Power, under capitalism, resides in capital, which isn’t just money but also resources and property. In order to maintain power, capitalism requires infinite and continuous growth, which of course requires more and more resources to sustain.
Say a given country decides it would like to own its resources nationally and use the wealth generated by those resources to support the growth and welfare of their own people. Capitalist nations are able to wield state power against those countries whenever they encounter this sort of difficulty. This includes leveraging state and capitalist media to run propaganda campaigns, which sour public perception of that country’s national leadership; funding coups and covert operations against them; giving money and training to militant minority resistance groups; and when all else fails, all out war, while messy, is a very lucrative means to the end of converting the resources of global south nations into private capital for the global north.
This capital is then wielded within the capitalist world to manipulate political outcomes in favor of the private owners of capital and to prevent the working class from gaining the consciousness that would enable them to struggle for the things you mentioned; health care, worker’s rights, affordable education; as they slowly strip away what was won from past struggles.
I believe this lovely quote by Ella Baker, a major activist and leader behind the civil rights movement, is relevant to the conversation;
Your wall of text is ahistorical. Yugoslavia is a counter example. They received American aid after WW2 to rebuild.
Half of Europe lived under real socialism and it was a fucking terrible time for many reasons.
During the Cold War the Soviet led block and the non aligned movement together had sufficient resources, knowledge, and people to get their shit together independently of the US.
Forgive me for actually caring about the subject. Clearly you have other priorities.
You mean this aid to Yugoslavia?
The aid to Yugoslavia that is an example of the US being hostile towards socialist states and cynically providing support to anyone that would align with it against its enemies? The same US whose loans are notoriously difficult to pay back, leaving the recipients permanently indebted to the US? Surely we are talking about different aid Yugoslavia, that couldn’t be your single counter example.
Yes, and for the most part they did. Let’s not for get that in 1917 the Russian Empire was still a medieval state with similar technology. After the USSR was founded; their last famine would be in 1947, which happened as a result of WWII; and I’m not sure if you remember this but they would be the only other world power than the US at the time. In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They beat the US to space, fought through several invasions and international boycotts, though with a much lower GDP than the US. They had to spend 15% of their GDP to the US’s 5-7% to compete with the US militarily. This was of course reasonable to do as the US had set itself out to be a hostile threat to the very idea of socialism, but was a major sacrifice nonetheless.
Standards of living in across the Soviet bloc dropped substantially in the 90s after the fall of the USSR as corrupt governments and wealthy elite privatized the USSR’s resources. Even today, Russians earn under $10,000 per capita, about the same as the Soviet Union in the 80s. There is a lot more depth and complexity to this history than you would like to make it seem.