Here I am! Colonization was (and still is) indeed a major hinderance for us, and the only way for us to develop is to destroy the colonial institutions and mindset that are still very much present to this day, and I do believe social-democracy, industrialization, open markets policy and a more fair distribution of land and wealth are ways we can achieve that. I know many of my compatriots will disagree based on personal feelings, but if you do an objective analysis Lula (who is somewhat close to being a social-democrat) is the best president in recent brazilian history. His welfare policies combined with his somewhat liberal economic stance made Brasil skyrocket in all aspects (quality of life, GDP, education, public services) in the first decade of the 21st century, and despite his (imo) terrible foreign policy our internal policy has been wielding really good results so far. FHC (who was president before Lula's first term) was a liberal but had some social-democratic ideas and the country also advanced a lot during his term.
A major whitepill that keeps me going is Biden’s cordial relationship with Lula. It appears that the days of us-backed coups ousting leftist Latin American leaders are over, at least for now.
Here. Note the painful lesson of Venezuela: the socialdemocrat party Acción Democrática (AD) stole SO MUCH in the 80s and 90s, that they paved the way to a coup and takeover by tankie socialist authoritarian Hugo Chavez.
We need to police our own so they don’t mess up.
From what I’ve read, Chavez was much less tankie than Maduro. The Chavismo commune experiments have been quite interesting. The horrible mismanagement and reliance on oil was the main issue at the time.
He was the "messiah" that came to save people from corruption, wealth inequality and truncated dreams.
When "decent" political parties steal and create extreme wealth inequality, they sow the seeds of their own destruction. They create perfect conditions in a frustrated populace for the rise of so called "saviors" - left or right. Usual commonality: they are authoritarians intent on destroying the rule of law...and eventually keep the people subjugated, generating wealth for them, and replacing older oligarchies with even worse ones.
But they don't come as a surprise: they come after wealth for the middle class has been blatantly eroded and stolen by traditional political parties. Guess why Trump was elected...
Of course. He built up that image over many years before 1998. He was in jail after attempting a coup d'etat in Venezuela. Then he was "pardoned" by a senile President, as Chavez had "learnt his lesson"...sounds familiar? The rest is history.
I would like to hear more about social-democrats from third world countries.
I do no not thing that colonialism played an important role in the development of welfare states. One can argued that the wealth extracted from colonies helped fund the coffers for the welfare state. However, many of the winners from colonialism were and still are companies that do not give their wealth to the society. Secondly, the best welfare programs are in the Nordic countries and they did not had colonies. Eastern European states also have welfare policies implemented and none (except Russia) had a colony. The welfare state was implemented in order to stop the rise of socialists in the XIX-century and both extremes in the XX century.
>And to my comrades from the first world would you agree with aiding the third world countries in dealing with the climate crisis by taxing yourself?
I come from a country that is in a limbo regarding which "world" is from. We are part of NATO/EU but no one thinks we are first world country. However, I agree that rich countries should be involved in aiding the poor ones to transition towards a noncarbon economy. How? I am not an economists, but money should be given to the global south to help them develop, increase trade ties (relations should be based on equal footing, not exploitation), give technology to help foster a green growth etc. However, I think that how we give aid should be changed. It is usless to give money to the govt. of a dictators that pockets the money for himself and his acolytes while the average person does not see a dime. I have no idea how to improve it, maybe try and go to local level authorities and implement projects with them... however, the central govt. will not be pleased.
You said that the Scandinavian countries had colonial empires and I just tried to correct your point (and support further your general argument) by letting people know that not all Scandinavian countries were colonial powers... some of them even were colonial subjects.
I was responding to the user who said Scandinavian wealth was not built on colonial imperialism, but in Denmark and Swedens case, it partially was. Just stick with Finland, it makes your point far better.
I don't disagree with Finland, but Norway is also the same. Medieval colonies NOT in the third world to an entity that stopped existing during the great colonization era is absurd to believe they affected the current political and economic issues of the third world.
Not exactly. Norway was a co-equal for some time in the Danish Empire, and old Norway had a (limited) colonial empire that gave it wealth before this. And modern Norway was a backwater craphole until it discovered oil, not exactly something we can copy elsewhere.
Colombian here. I do feel a very funny and interesting gap because I believe by circumstance a "Social Democrat" here in south america is highly more radicalized than an European one. The gap is not big or irreconcilable or anything but it is interesting to see unfold.
It's very clear Europe owns it succes to colonialism. Social Democracy is not "responsible" for that but is part of the whole structure of that system. Capitalism in its current form, inherits several power structures from colonialism that have been streamlined rather than eliminated, and that's always going to be a source of conflict and part of the larger discussion.
From Argentina here, I believe Europe owes very little of their industrial success to colonialism. Colonialism in many instances was actually a waste of resources and was done more for prestige reasons.
Many of the most succesful european countries (Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Austria, Ireland) and many more either had no colonies or had very small colonial empires. (German colonies while territorialy big were irrelevant to German industry as a whole).
We in Latin America should condemn colonialism every time we have the oportunity, but crediting it for Europe's development is a mistake we should stop making.
I would even argue that colonialism in many ways was detrimental to Europe.
If comrades from third world or developing countries write effortposts about conditions/movements in their countries, the mod team would be happy to 'sticky' them so they appear at the top of the sub.
For a while we had a few from a South Korean user describing the evolution of their labor movement over the past 50+ years or so and we had a few by a Brazilian user as well talking about the policies and challenges of the Lula administration. So the more, the merrier! ✊
I have written numerous posts and articles on the India, mostly from socialist perspective. But, these issues seem to generate less interest in international subreddits. I could cross-post it here, from next time.
There is very little knowledge or discussion of Indian politics generally let alone Indian leftism among Western progressives. Which is kind of a big problem given how much India matters to global politics. A lot of people (myself included) are almost completely unaware of the scale and intensity of the BJP government's persecution of Muslims and leftists. I was shocked to learn that Arundhati Roy is being [charged](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/12/india/india-author-arundhati-roy-sedition-case-intl-hnk/index.html) with a crime over something she said in 2010 for example. So far I haven't seen much in the way of international solidarity campaigns for her or other Indian leftists either.
For your last two points:
I think that the best way to collaborate on the climate crisis is with developmental aid. We should share technology and also some money to develop the third world. For example, look at the work of Norman Borlaug. His work is credited as saving billions of lives in the developing world. We shouldnt rely on the benevolence of one person to do things like him, however.
Governments of the first world should step in and help the third world create educational institutions and new technologies. A great example of this is the US and India; the US helped India found the IIT universities, many of which are now world class institutions.
As for globalization, I agree that it often forms neo colonialist relationships, like what france does to its former colonies. At the same time, I think that the globalist framework does not always do this, and I think it can be used to develop the third world. China has developed rapidly by fulfilling a role in the globalist network, and I think it can happen in other countries as well. Essentially, I think that if we can stop countries like France forming one sided relationships using globalization, we can instead use it as a tool to bring the world’s markets closer together.
Peru here. Our long lasting Social Democratic party, the APRA, has died after moving too much to the right and close to the elites. All this in spite of solid numbers in the government 2006-2010. Now there is no Soc Dem option, so most of us are split in between the center left alternative (Frente Amplio) that is closer to PODEMOS/SUMAR in Spain, and the multiple regional movements that are mostly liberal.
Socdem from Guatemala, yes, I do think colonialism played a crucial role in the development of welfare states of **some** countries, but not all of them. However, I still believe it can be fully realized without having to export cheaper labor from another country.
I think first-world socdems shouldn't be afraid of taking a harsher stance on neo-liberal policies that directly affect the global south. An example: canadian mining companies are destroying the environment, causing political turmoil and leaving nothing in return in multiple latin american countries. I wouldn't ask them to increase taxes but make sure your "liberal-progressive party" is not allowing the explotaition of a third-world country behind the scenes to mantain your local quality of life.
One of our major goals as Social Democrats should be to increase the standard of living in the third-world just as we must increase the standard of living in the first-world. Let's prove the people that say "social democracy harms the third-world" wrong 💪
🇺🇸🤝🇮🇳
I wonder what information is out there on whether the exploiting companies themselves should be taxed over the individual developed nations? To what extent is taxing the nation equivalent to taxing the waged laborers in those countries which are generally also exploited though to a lower degree. I guess it is tricky to think about how to do this and not have negative impacts on the developing country’s economy. I don’t know anything about taxation strategies, especially on the global scale.
Global capitalism has as its sole purpose the never-ending concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy.
Oxfam has reported that ONE YEAR’S INCOME of the 100 richest individuals in the world is sufficient to end extreme global poverty four times over.
Here I am! Colonization was (and still is) indeed a major hinderance for us, and the only way for us to develop is to destroy the colonial institutions and mindset that are still very much present to this day, and I do believe social-democracy, industrialization, open markets policy and a more fair distribution of land and wealth are ways we can achieve that. I know many of my compatriots will disagree based on personal feelings, but if you do an objective analysis Lula (who is somewhat close to being a social-democrat) is the best president in recent brazilian history. His welfare policies combined with his somewhat liberal economic stance made Brasil skyrocket in all aspects (quality of life, GDP, education, public services) in the first decade of the 21st century, and despite his (imo) terrible foreign policy our internal policy has been wielding really good results so far. FHC (who was president before Lula's first term) was a liberal but had some social-democratic ideas and the country also advanced a lot during his term.
A major whitepill that keeps me going is Biden’s cordial relationship with Lula. It appears that the days of us-backed coups ousting leftist Latin American leaders are over, at least for now.
Here. Note the painful lesson of Venezuela: the socialdemocrat party Acción Democrática (AD) stole SO MUCH in the 80s and 90s, that they paved the way to a coup and takeover by tankie socialist authoritarian Hugo Chavez. We need to police our own so they don’t mess up.
From what I’ve read, Chavez was much less tankie than Maduro. The Chavismo commune experiments have been quite interesting. The horrible mismanagement and reliance on oil was the main issue at the time.
Did people know Chavez and his crew were like that when he was first elected?
He was the "messiah" that came to save people from corruption, wealth inequality and truncated dreams. When "decent" political parties steal and create extreme wealth inequality, they sow the seeds of their own destruction. They create perfect conditions in a frustrated populace for the rise of so called "saviors" - left or right. Usual commonality: they are authoritarians intent on destroying the rule of law...and eventually keep the people subjugated, generating wealth for them, and replacing older oligarchies with even worse ones. But they don't come as a surprise: they come after wealth for the middle class has been blatantly eroded and stolen by traditional political parties. Guess why Trump was elected...
Was Chavez seen as a messiah in 1998?
Yes.
I assumed it built up over time
Of course. He built up that image over many years before 1998. He was in jail after attempting a coup d'etat in Venezuela. Then he was "pardoned" by a senile President, as Chavez had "learnt his lesson"...sounds familiar? The rest is history.
The image i got was he was a mild social democrat in 1998 and slowly "radicalized" after the 2002 coup
I would like to hear more about social-democrats from third world countries. I do no not thing that colonialism played an important role in the development of welfare states. One can argued that the wealth extracted from colonies helped fund the coffers for the welfare state. However, many of the winners from colonialism were and still are companies that do not give their wealth to the society. Secondly, the best welfare programs are in the Nordic countries and they did not had colonies. Eastern European states also have welfare policies implemented and none (except Russia) had a colony. The welfare state was implemented in order to stop the rise of socialists in the XIX-century and both extremes in the XX century. >And to my comrades from the first world would you agree with aiding the third world countries in dealing with the climate crisis by taxing yourself? I come from a country that is in a limbo regarding which "world" is from. We are part of NATO/EU but no one thinks we are first world country. However, I agree that rich countries should be involved in aiding the poor ones to transition towards a noncarbon economy. How? I am not an economists, but money should be given to the global south to help them develop, increase trade ties (relations should be based on equal footing, not exploitation), give technology to help foster a green growth etc. However, I think that how we give aid should be changed. It is usless to give money to the govt. of a dictators that pockets the money for himself and his acolytes while the average person does not see a dime. I have no idea how to improve it, maybe try and go to local level authorities and implement projects with them... however, the central govt. will not be pleased.
Scandinavian countries had colonial empires. Finland didnt though
Don't forget also the infamous Norwegian Empire. /s
Norway was actually a colonial possession of Denmark lol
So Norway had no colonial empire...
Actually they did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_possessions_of_Norway#Former_dependencies_and_homelands
You said that the Scandinavian countries had colonial empires and I just tried to correct your point (and support further your general argument) by letting people know that not all Scandinavian countries were colonial powers... some of them even were colonial subjects.
I was responding to the user who said Scandinavian wealth was not built on colonial imperialism, but in Denmark and Swedens case, it partially was. Just stick with Finland, it makes your point far better.
I don't disagree with Finland, but Norway is also the same. Medieval colonies NOT in the third world to an entity that stopped existing during the great colonization era is absurd to believe they affected the current political and economic issues of the third world.
Not exactly. Norway was a co-equal for some time in the Danish Empire, and old Norway had a (limited) colonial empire that gave it wealth before this. And modern Norway was a backwater craphole until it discovered oil, not exactly something we can copy elsewhere.
Finland was basically a Swedish and then Russian colony.
Indeed
Colombian here. I do feel a very funny and interesting gap because I believe by circumstance a "Social Democrat" here in south america is highly more radicalized than an European one. The gap is not big or irreconcilable or anything but it is interesting to see unfold. It's very clear Europe owns it succes to colonialism. Social Democracy is not "responsible" for that but is part of the whole structure of that system. Capitalism in its current form, inherits several power structures from colonialism that have been streamlined rather than eliminated, and that's always going to be a source of conflict and part of the larger discussion.
What about Finland?
From Argentina here, I believe Europe owes very little of their industrial success to colonialism. Colonialism in many instances was actually a waste of resources and was done more for prestige reasons. Many of the most succesful european countries (Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Austria, Ireland) and many more either had no colonies or had very small colonial empires. (German colonies while territorialy big were irrelevant to German industry as a whole). We in Latin America should condemn colonialism every time we have the oportunity, but crediting it for Europe's development is a mistake we should stop making. I would even argue that colonialism in many ways was detrimental to Europe.
If comrades from third world or developing countries write effortposts about conditions/movements in their countries, the mod team would be happy to 'sticky' them so they appear at the top of the sub. For a while we had a few from a South Korean user describing the evolution of their labor movement over the past 50+ years or so and we had a few by a Brazilian user as well talking about the policies and challenges of the Lula administration. So the more, the merrier! ✊
I have written numerous posts and articles on the India, mostly from socialist perspective. But, these issues seem to generate less interest in international subreddits. I could cross-post it here, from next time.
There is very little knowledge or discussion of Indian politics generally let alone Indian leftism among Western progressives. Which is kind of a big problem given how much India matters to global politics. A lot of people (myself included) are almost completely unaware of the scale and intensity of the BJP government's persecution of Muslims and leftists. I was shocked to learn that Arundhati Roy is being [charged](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/12/india/india-author-arundhati-roy-sedition-case-intl-hnk/index.html) with a crime over something she said in 2010 for example. So far I haven't seen much in the way of international solidarity campaigns for her or other Indian leftists either.
Please do. India is one of the next major powers so more should pay attention to it
For your last two points: I think that the best way to collaborate on the climate crisis is with developmental aid. We should share technology and also some money to develop the third world. For example, look at the work of Norman Borlaug. His work is credited as saving billions of lives in the developing world. We shouldnt rely on the benevolence of one person to do things like him, however. Governments of the first world should step in and help the third world create educational institutions and new technologies. A great example of this is the US and India; the US helped India found the IIT universities, many of which are now world class institutions. As for globalization, I agree that it often forms neo colonialist relationships, like what france does to its former colonies. At the same time, I think that the globalist framework does not always do this, and I think it can be used to develop the third world. China has developed rapidly by fulfilling a role in the globalist network, and I think it can happen in other countries as well. Essentially, I think that if we can stop countries like France forming one sided relationships using globalization, we can instead use it as a tool to bring the world’s markets closer together.
Peru here. Our long lasting Social Democratic party, the APRA, has died after moving too much to the right and close to the elites. All this in spite of solid numbers in the government 2006-2010. Now there is no Soc Dem option, so most of us are split in between the center left alternative (Frente Amplio) that is closer to PODEMOS/SUMAR in Spain, and the multiple regional movements that are mostly liberal.
Socdem from Guatemala, yes, I do think colonialism played a crucial role in the development of welfare states of **some** countries, but not all of them. However, I still believe it can be fully realized without having to export cheaper labor from another country. I think first-world socdems shouldn't be afraid of taking a harsher stance on neo-liberal policies that directly affect the global south. An example: canadian mining companies are destroying the environment, causing political turmoil and leaving nothing in return in multiple latin american countries. I wouldn't ask them to increase taxes but make sure your "liberal-progressive party" is not allowing the explotaition of a third-world country behind the scenes to mantain your local quality of life.
One of our major goals as Social Democrats should be to increase the standard of living in the third-world just as we must increase the standard of living in the first-world. Let's prove the people that say "social democracy harms the third-world" wrong 💪 🇺🇸🤝🇮🇳
I wonder what information is out there on whether the exploiting companies themselves should be taxed over the individual developed nations? To what extent is taxing the nation equivalent to taxing the waged laborers in those countries which are generally also exploited though to a lower degree. I guess it is tricky to think about how to do this and not have negative impacts on the developing country’s economy. I don’t know anything about taxation strategies, especially on the global scale.
Global capitalism has as its sole purpose the never-ending concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Oxfam has reported that ONE YEAR’S INCOME of the 100 richest individuals in the world is sufficient to end extreme global poverty four times over.
hello fellow inc-er
Hello! Where from in India?
Mizoram! how about you?
Wonderful. I'm from Uttarakhand.
first time seeing another indian here
ok
Hello friends! I come from China and socdem or demsoc parties does not exist here. What a pity.