By - Fuck-Being-Ethical
Maybe they have a point.
I mean after all look at [that Swedish Colonial Empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies#/media/File%3ASwedish_Empire.png)
Also reminder that Finland was a part of the Russian empire for a long time and had zero colonies throughout its history yet can still afford social programs.
duh, thats because finland did an imperialism on the ussr! /s
But but but Normandy and Danelaw.
yeah but how about norway?
Literally subjects of the Danish and Swedish crowns for the last few hundred years preceding the very late 18th century. So similar situation to Finland.
not to mention the oil money they got.
Yes, but unlike countries like UAT, Saudi Arabia etc they didn't spend it on stupid dick measuring things. Not all countries with oil do very well
Norway is disgusting imperialists of... um... Baffin Island and Antartica. Yea.
Well what about when Norwegian explorers colonized Vinland? Pure imperialism
Country does well = imperialism
Country does bad = either not real communism or cia propaganda
I don’t get why they think imperialism is bad anyway. It’s defined as expanding a country’s influence by military or diplomatic means. Is that really so bad?
It depends on what you mean by "imperialism". As it's commonly understood, the term refers to wealthy and powerful nations ruthlessly exploiting less developed places. Examples would include the Spanish exploitation of Mexico, or Belgium turning Congo into a giant slave plantation.
But if you're going to count trading and building infrastructure as imperialism, as the cartoonist seems to do, then "imperialism" is something that greatly benefits both the "imperialist" country and the "exploited" country.
[The horrifying impact of rich countries trading with poor countries](https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.gapminder.org/GapminderMedia/wp-uploads/20180409012330/World-Poverty-Since-1820-1024x730.png)
I mean, Empire's are commonly thought of as evil, and I do not like empires either. But an empire isn't necessarily evil. An empire is just a state that rules over many lands and different people's. Now often empires have resorted to force but it isnt something that all empires do.
Well that's true, you can argue that Indonesia is colonizing West Papua, or the Chile and Argentina are colonizing Mapuche.
Its good for the empire, but bad for the people that will be conquered
I guess it depends on the way you are doing the Imperialism, one good example whould be French Guiana.
Basically this. In this world it’s kill or be killed. Some people are more human-loving and some others are more logistics loving, as in care more about their country and community.
Say your child is on the road about to be hit and in front of you an old man is standing there and will cause the car to hit him, which will kill the man but cause the car to slow down enough for your child to live. If you do nothing your child will die. Do you push him off to save your child?
Imperialism was, is, and will always be a part of our world geopolitics. The best thing we can do is mitigate the effects.
Imo imperialism is a necessary evil. It is morally wrong and I believe it is wrong and in a perfect world it should not exist, however in our current world it is needed to curb the influence of other nations in order to survive.
Im neither, if you give a third option for your hypothetical that involves prioritizing the life of a racoon and harming the child and old man I wouldn’t hesitate to pick C
Looking at a lot of countries, especially South American countries that spawned from Spanish colonies where Spain intentionally made them hostile against each other in order to better control them, no, imperialism is not that good. A country like Gran Columbia would’ve been more likely to survive if Spain hadn’t done what they had done.
When you combine extractive economics that makes native population labourers, maintain governance and institutions by almost exclusively foreign appointments and with independence leaders being mostly foreign-educated, resulting in an ouroboros of accusing every other faction as a foreign proxy, you're probably not gonna have much of a stable state.
[There is an argument to be had that the Spanish colonisation project is in many ways, an extension of the feudal-era Reconquista and the Crusades, and Spain didn't have as much of a Renaissance at the time.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efz4Aket2ao)
No imperialism is fucking horrible. Imperialist dogma is what led to the British doing human trials without consent of vaccines on my mother when she was a child, it led to careless pollution of the land her family farmed in. Endless bouts of repression and violence. Like it was really fucking bad.
Agreed, the post is retarded but imperialism is very much **not** a good thing.
Considering most developed countries with high quality of life are a result of imperialism....
Ah yes. Working 70 hour weeks. The best!
Latvian here, your math is off regarding the Baltic states
I was talking about Japan and South Korea obviously....
Pardon, I thought being intentionally dense helps to win arguments on Reddit. Guess it's not on every sub.
Not really, imperial expansion was usually a detriment to the general economy as there was usually a greater comparative advantage from just trading and the resources from imperial territories were usually raw luxury products with little additive value to the general public
This isn’t the 20th century anymore.
I dont really consider it good or bad, i personally see it as just something that happened all over throughout time and some resulted in extremely wealthy countries and some not so much…
We dont need imperialism for countries to advance. The early Southeast asian nations did manage to advance due to trade with the Islamic world and China. Japan and albeit to a lesser extent Thailand successfully modernised without the need for colonisation
I’m not sure that’s The Standard Definition. The usual understanding is hegemony, where one country conquers others, and has been expanded by the far left to the point of stupid where any economic or cultural influence on another country counts.
I mean yeah why isn’t it so bad,influence on other countries is bad
How could that be good in a moral sense? One could jokingly suggest that some countries are better off post colonisation, such as India being united as one nation, having one euro ruler instead of being pulled apart by 4 euros prior to UK rule, and learning the english language to better scam call americans later on but they literally murdered people and plundered their resources. Its good for the conqueror but very bad for the conquered.
Also what China is doing is fine
Solidarity with the south you say?
I mean, Stalin *was* from Georgia
Look at a graph of extreme poverty over time and you will see serious reductions. In a World where resources are not evenly distributed you have three options: trade, autarky, or war/colonialism. Take your pick!
Social programs = imperialism?
How the fuck does that many sense?
They think Nordic countries trading with poor countries which basically every credible economist agrees helps with development is "imperialism"
Well in all fairness it didn’t say social programs= imperialism.
It said Nordic countries fund social programs through imperialism. Which is complete BS
I don’t remember Finland trying to colonize a part of Africa or Asia with the help of a social program.
I know. That’s why the meme is complete horse shit.
The mental gymnastics that tankies go through is astonishing.
This is literally on an anarchist subreddit, wtf are you talking about?
The only difference between tankies and anarcho socialist is that tankies realize you need a huge state to distribute wealth.
Can someone explain to me how Nordic countries are even exploiting the south? Cuz I’ve never heard of such a thing but they keep saying it lol. Are they even there??
They...engage in capitalist trade with lower income countries...
The idea is basically that because they participate in the global economic system, which involves buying things made in developing countries, and there are also some corporations based in the Nordic countries, they are oppressing the global lower class. Not denying that there aren't worker exploitation issues, but that's a pretty weak basis for calling buying anything imperialism.
My standard response is pointing out that those countries aren't poor because of capitalism, they're actually better off than the average person throughout history. It's just that they look poor compared to rich countries, like the Nordic ones. When you look at who actually supports capitalism, it tends to be disproportionately the global lower class and middle class countries where all that low-cost manufacturing is, that leftists tend to use as examples of how oppressive capitalism is. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/10/09/emerging-and-developing-economies-much-more-optimistic-than-rich-countries-about-the-future/
I think it's pretty obvious that average citizens are wealthier due to cheaper imported goods. Probably not magnitudes but still consequential, it's going to take a good deal of efficiency improvements to counter-balance the increased costs of developing countries.
I mean, if the workers in those countries are able to negotiate for higher wages, driving costs up, I'm fine with that. They should be paid a living wage as fast as possible, and I wouldn't even oppose outside intervention if it could actually accomplish that, even if it meant slightly higher prices. The only issue is if it results in those jobs simply being moved and those workers being left out to dry rather than just being paid a higher wage.
Explaining Marxist Theory:
Marx talked about a thing called Primitive Accumulation in Das Kapital. Primitive Accumulation in Marxian view it's about how the capital that Capitalism works comes from? Marx says that begins with the trade that Bourgeoise merchants in Europe did and that enrich themselves. After that, these Bourgeoises would finance Absolutist mercantilist kings in their colonial adventures, and from that money and colonial global system, things like Stock Exchange and Banks would emerge, making private enterprises lucrative. These Bourgeoises that were super-rich by colonial experience and these new institutions would invest in the would demand civil liberties and laws that benefited them, like Private Propriety and Less Judicial Differences Between Non-Nobles and Nobles. These demands started things like Glorious Revolution, Dutch Independence War, French Revolution, Revolutions in America, etc. And after these revolutions, the Bourgeoises would invest their money in the new Industrial Revolution ending the process of creation of capitalism. The rest of his writing it's about the condition of this system that he calls "capitalism" that oppresses mostly industrial workers in industrial regions. While Marx says that the Industrial Nations use global institutions to assert power against the competition in Africa and Asia, he doesn't care as much for their condition and thinks that industrial countries are better in almost all ways.
Marxists during the late and early 19th ad 20th century would export marxist theory to the nations that Europe was imperializing and would by that start to adapt marxist theories to that non-europeans people, talking about not only about class but also about race and how european imperialism is an extent of capitalism. And then, Lenin came along. The Lenin theory used that framework that I said and create his definition of Imperialism that until this day influence Radical Leftists: Lenin's Imperialism is a feature of Late Stage Capitalism, where Capitalism uses its global institutions to extract resources and markets to fuel his profits and the Capitalist Imperialists will do everything to overthrow governments that will challenge this system. Mostly of this definition, as we can say, it's a development of the Primitive Accumulation of Marx, but as something that still happens to this day. Marx viewed those new nations that wanted to be capitalist to the process of Primitive Accumulation, so Britain would ended this process. Lenin used examples to say that until this day Britain to this process in his colonies to gain profit. And more on, because Lenin's imperialism is more about a global capitalist system that fuels Europe and North America, so even countries that didn't colonize any country would until doing imperialism with their banks, stock exchange, and enterprises. And the Russian Civil War it's the perfect "proof" to say that his theories were right, because the capitalistic imperialism wanted to crush their revolution to harm their global system - which isn't, the war was a mess and extremely more complicated than this Manicheism.
But Lenin's definition would be used all the time of the Soviet Union and would be exported for other countries with Marxists, especially in the colonized world. This is the foundation of Marxism Leninism, but also other forms of socialism would still use Lenin's definition or derivation to justify cut relations with the international market and distrust with other nations that were seemed as imperialistic. This applies to real colonizers as Britain, France, and Germany, to countries as Nordic, and to other tax havens of Europe. They justify that Nordic countries are bad because their take part in the Global System and have institutions in their countries that influence all the world. They seem all Western Europe and North America as a part of a global system that wants to take down all the resources of the third world, that's why we can trust in them
While they had points that Europe gain so much profit in Imperialism, even the non-colonizers, the truth is more complex: Imperialism was not done just for profit and domestic opposition existed against these actions. Western companies abuse Africa and Asia mostly against their governments and just did this because of the laws of the countries, which are against the recommendations of the law of International Institutes. Global trade enriched the world. Not all western countries are always aggressive against all communistic countries, an example being everyone chill with Tito most of the time. And socialist nations can be imperialistic, AKA Soviet Union and China.
Lenin's definition it's so important for the Radical Left for being, well, the only explanation for why western countries are always bad. This is is so important for their narrative, because developed countries are less like to approve of socialism - against Marx's desire. This happens because Socialist militias and terrorist groups are more like to gain the support of the people when they are miserable.
Note: Sorry for the length
Very well said. Thanks for the analysis!
Yes, the vast, feared and cruel Norwegian Empire
That guy is from an alternate reality where vikings conquered the earth.
It's almost as if sound economic management of natural resources and a lack of govt corruption are to blame
This is such an outrageously bad take. None of the Nordic countries had colonial empires (maybe Denmark but even that was too small to matter). And even if you claim they piggy-backed off other European Imperialist powers it still makes no sense why the Nordic Countries would manage to milk the Global South (another term I hate) better than the countries doing the actual explotation.
Not to mention that the social programs mentioned were all built up during the 60s and 70s, or you know when the other Europeans were in the process of decolonisation.
We still have Greenland and the Faroe islands but they have seats in parlament and a good degree of sovereignty + not much to exploit conscidering how small the Faroe islands are and how desolate Greenland is. Denmark can't exactly fund it's healthcare system from Greenland money.
They really just hate the idea of people living comfortably.
Ah yes, who could forget the might Finnish Imperium?
It's true. The Norwegians stole All of their money from their colonies, that they definitely have had historically.
Source: just trust me dude.
I, from South Europe, would like to disagree with the Anarchist, because the Nordic Countries have a high literacy system while our current bureaucracy is a circus: we have an obsolete education system, but they won't change it.
“Complete anarchy” wants social programs. Am I going to have to tell them or are you?
Idiots, absolute idiots
Hurrr durr buzzword global south
Imperialism is when take useless land
I agree, I miss the North Sea Empire
I mean, tbf the first world countries do benefit from the poorer, and thus lower costs that third world countries have. Is that bad? Maybe, depends on your view of the interactions between nations. Are rich countries exploiting, or are poor countries simply offering what they specialize best in.
Replace "Imperialism" with "Oil" and it would be accurate.
Reminds me when i talked to an anarkiddie about how Scandinavia succeeded and he kept talking about how it practices imperialism. But i asked him why and he only talked about the explotation of the south instead of giving examples
The only Nordic countries that had empires were Sweden and Denmark, both of their imperial and post-imperial periods were marred by poverty.
It was only until the Nordic countries industrialized that they achieved some of the highest living standards in the world.
Countries with enough political, economic, and/or military pull will always dictate their conditions to other countries. Always did, always will. It is the case for capitalist countries as much as it is for communist.
The sooner these people stop blaming every single fault of human nature on capitalism, the sooner they can potentially begin to understand how the world really works.
They want to have total power for their ideological clique. Only thing that makes them feel their existences matter. Not a healthy way to feel important in the world
Um they pay high taxes and have some of the toughest immigration laws on earth?
You hate Nordic countries because of Nordic “imperialism”
I hate Nordic countries because I find North Europeans insufferable
We are not the same
Imperialism is when global free trade.
Honestly that’s probably their honest un ironic take, which is so dumb it I learned it was dumb all the way back in middle school.
I wonder if Nordic social programs rely on funding from exploitation of poorer countries as these people believe how will these Socialists fund their social programs?
"Our country has enough resources to make all of us rich" kind of rethoric
As the dude say before me, their also heavily relies in trade or financial aid with other socialist countries
But, but, but... Weren't Nordic countries an utopia and the absolute proof that socialism works???
If imperialism = a capitalist market economy then they're spot on.
Never forget the 2 gazilion fish killed during oil exploration and exploitation 😔
Very evidently these people don't give a shit about the global south because all those countries want is economic development
I don’t think anyone in Scandinavia has had an empire since Cnut the great. And unless they got some serious returns on the loot from Lindisfarne, I really doubt that explains their success today.
Depends on your definition of "Empire". Sweden definitely had something going through the 17th century, thing is it was a continental European Empire and not a colonial one.
Imperialism is when a capitalist country becomes rich by militarily conquering space, cultures, and markets; or by supporting such practices politically and economically.
It is disingenuous to pretend that’s not true in order own the libs.
Ignoring how you’re wrong who the fuck have the Finns conquered?
Go to Google Scholar and type “imperialism,” and read for a while. Then do the same for “Finland and World War Two.” You’ll learn something, my dude.
You mean how they were invaded by the USSR, and despite doing really well, eventually lost due to the shear difference in manpower?
That’s a fractional part of a much more complex history that’s available for you to learn on Google Scholar.
Also, it’s not “shear difference,” it’s “sheer difference.” “Shear” means to clip or cut, or refers to a cutting implement. “Sheer” means utter or ultimate.
>That’s a fractional part of a much more complex history that’s available for you to learn on Google Scholar.
Which part of Finish history is imperialist then?
>Also, it’s not “shear difference,” it’s “sheer difference.” “Shear” means to clip or cut, or refers to a cutting implement. “Sheer” means utter or ultimate.
I think you may be holding reddit comments to a bit too high of a standard there mate
Again, go to Google Scholar and type “imperialism” then do the same for “Finland and World War Two.” Inform yourself. Don’t expect me to do it because you don’t know history and disagree with me.
Secondly, if someone can’t spell and/or has a poor vocabulary, it’s an indication that they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to global geopolitics.
When someone doesn't explain themselves and just says "google it" or "do your own research" it's a pretty good indication that they don't have a valid argument
Let’s follow your line of logic:
You say something that reveals your ignorance. I refuse to provide you publicly available academic information that proves my point. You take that as evidence that you’re right and I’m wrong.
It’s that kind of self-righteous stupidity that has the world in trouble these days.
You made a claim, back it up yourself lol.
So basically russian imperialist histories that say the winter war was completely justified?
Complex history of what, not wanting to surrender land to an imperialist power?
You’ll have to do some reading to learn that history. I’m not in the habit of arguing politics with the uninformed.
Let’s follow your line of logic.
You write something revealing your ignorance. I suggest you go read publicly available academic sources. You demand I explain those sources to you. When I refuse, you declare yourself correct and victorious.
Your kind of self-righteous stupidity is why the world is how it is.
I “demanded” you explain your position beyond vague claims lmao.
It’s not imperialism when the ussr forcibly colonized your land.
World War Two’s history was more than that. You talk like everyone in Finland had the same experience of colonization and the Winter War.
Go to Google Scholar, type “Finland and World War Two” and you’ll learn something.
USSR attempting to forcibly take all of Finland is actually anti imperialism.
The invasion of the Baltic countries and Poland was actually anti imperialism.
SMH russian imperialists such as yourself are still coping to this day.
The winter war was not just a ‘fractional part’ of a complex history. Ussr has the full intention of taking their lands and colonizing it as they did in the Baltics.
You’re the russian imperialist here giving the same bullshit excuses for the winter war as a ‘complex event’ when everybody knows fully well ussr had the goal of fully taking over their lands.
Also ‘not everyone had the same experience’ you know besides the overwhelming majority of the population that resisted russian imperialists such as yourself?
You think the Winter War was not a fractional portion of a more complex history? That’s deeply ignorant, my dude.
Also, I’m a fat American nerd. Not a mid-twentieth century Russian imperialist.
This is the bullshit russian imperialists use to always argue that Finland just had to completely surrender to the ussr. Literal standard rhetoric/apologetics.
‘It was actually complex - Finland had to just give up their land and surrender to the soviet army. It’s not as if Stalin was actively trying to expand the soviet union’
You clearly don’t know the difference between a 21st century American and a 20th century Russian. Also deeply ignorant, my dude.
Talked to plenty of modern day russian imperialists that defend the shit things Russia does and has done.
Have you like even read basic fucking histories on the winter war? Do you think it’s consensus that Stalin was justified to invade Finland? That it wasn’t imperialism it was actually ‘complex’. Or maybe the consensus is that…. Stalin was actively trying to expand the Soviet Union..
You mean when they were forced to concede land to the Soviets and then tried to regain it?
Again, go read a book or an academic article instead of just regurgitating talking points spouted by right-wing propagandists.
You literally refuse to engage at all and just say ‘I’m right’ literal example of the worst type of redditors
And we’ve arrived at a common dynamic across modern conservative thought.
You say something dumb. You get called dumb. You declare yourself a victim of redditors/communists/socialists/Antifa/wokeness/Democrats. Then you declare yourself correct and victorious.
Congratulations, my dude. You’ve passed Conservative 101.
I’m more used to communists complaining about Redditors. Also especially users who just start arguments and then just endlessly insult everyone after without engagement.
The winter war was an actual event. But you consider the existence of a Finland at all to be a crime - they needed to be forcibly colonized by Russia.
Desktop version of /u/Semaug's link:
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)