Bad construction comrade.
Your argument is paraphrased thus:
Egyptian famines are a result of a lack of wheat, therefore any country that doesn't grow wheat is in a famine.
The welfare system in the stated Nordic countries is indeed funded by imperialism. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Some imperial countries do not distribute the gains among the citizens.
Post hoc fallacy here..in these cases, the welfare state does develop after imperialism, but that doesn't mean that imperialism created the welfare state...
Some countries have social programs without ever being imperialist. It just means less wealth to redistribute
Ok, that is about what I thought but wasn't certain.
I don't think many would claim that the actual foundation of the Nordic social programs is a literal direct result of imperialism in that if you are imperialist then you will create social programs for your citizenry. I think the argument today is that these are funded by the Nordics' intermingling with global capital which is at its roots imperialism in the Global North's subjugation of the Global South and if the wealth provided by this commingling were to dry up or severed from the Nordics there would be attempts by the ruling class to chip away at these reforms won by leftist groups in the interests of maintaining their wealth at the cost of the citizenry
That's exactly the point, reforms will be eroded by imperialism turned inwards to protect wealth of the ruling class. The systems are allowed to continue in their current state funded by taxation until they're not (as profits continue to decline). If you accept Lenin's argument that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, then it is difficult to decouple how those social programs are funded and where the wealth is taken from
Yeah I could have been clearer, sorry, there are attempts to chip away, but they accelerate during times of economic downturn whether that is a capital crisis or for example completely isolating from global capital. What I mean is that it exists as it stands today at the pleasure of the ruling class who will take it away if they decide it is 'necessary' (maintain growth of their wealth).
I guess myself and some of the other comments are pointing out that even if it were founded through leftist action, that action did not go far enough to decouple the funding from imperialism (global capital) which makes the system itself founded and sustained by imperialism. The US not having social programs doesn't disprove this, it just means the left hasn't even evolved to the point where there is enough fear to toss out these programs funded by global capital here.
If there were concessions won today in the US that established a wealth tax on millionaires/billionaires and corporations to fund UBI, this would be good, but it would also be funded through the activities of the ultra rich and corporations, which are primarily imperialist in nature through the extractive relationship between the core and periphery. The rich would continue to get rich off exploitation and a piece of that wealth would be shared with citizens who then also get to share in the benefit of that exploitation of the periphery. It's why those distribution of wealth maps look so different between distribute within the country individually vs distribute equally across the globe.
deleted by creator
Bad construction comrade. Your argument is paraphrased thus:
Egyptian famines are a result of a lack of wheat, therefore any country that doesn't grow wheat is in a famine.
The welfare system in the stated Nordic countries is indeed funded by imperialism. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Some imperial countries do not distribute the gains among the citizens.
Post hoc fallacy here..in these cases, the welfare state does develop after imperialism, but that doesn't mean that imperialism created the welfare state...
Some countries have social programs without ever being imperialist. It just means less wealth to redistribute
deleted by creator
Ok, that is about what I thought but wasn't certain.
I don't think many would claim that the actual foundation of the Nordic social programs is a literal direct result of imperialism in that if you are imperialist then you will create social programs for your citizenry. I think the argument today is that these are funded by the Nordics' intermingling with global capital which is at its roots imperialism in the Global North's subjugation of the Global South and if the wealth provided by this commingling were to dry up or severed from the Nordics there would be attempts by the ruling class to chip away at these reforms won by leftist groups in the interests of maintaining their wealth at the cost of the citizenry
deleted by creator
That's exactly the point, reforms will be eroded by imperialism turned inwards to protect wealth of the ruling class. The systems are allowed to continue in their current state funded by taxation until they're not (as profits continue to decline). If you accept Lenin's argument that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, then it is difficult to decouple how those social programs are funded and where the wealth is taken from
deleted by creator
Yeah I could have been clearer, sorry, there are attempts to chip away, but they accelerate during times of economic downturn whether that is a capital crisis or for example completely isolating from global capital. What I mean is that it exists as it stands today at the pleasure of the ruling class who will take it away if they decide it is 'necessary' (maintain growth of their wealth).
I guess myself and some of the other comments are pointing out that even if it were founded through leftist action, that action did not go far enough to decouple the funding from imperialism (global capital) which makes the system itself founded and sustained by imperialism. The US not having social programs doesn't disprove this, it just means the left hasn't even evolved to the point where there is enough fear to toss out these programs funded by global capital here.
If there were concessions won today in the US that established a wealth tax on millionaires/billionaires and corporations to fund UBI, this would be good, but it would also be funded through the activities of the ultra rich and corporations, which are primarily imperialist in nature through the extractive relationship between the core and periphery. The rich would continue to get rich off exploitation and a piece of that wealth would be shared with citizens who then also get to share in the benefit of that exploitation of the periphery. It's why those distribution of wealth maps look so different between distribute within the country individually vs distribute equally across the globe.