Politics is starting to seem increasingly simple to me

[nerdspeak]

Tl;dr: we really should focus 90% of our energy on labor union organizing, because the threat of strike action -- and thus harm to the profits of the capitalist class -- is the only way to exact concessions from the capitalists/investors.  

I'm from the US, but I've lived in Europe for a while, and for the last few years in what could be described as "social democracies" or "mixed economies," where many crucial goods and services are either taken out of the market altogether or heavily regulated by the state.

Most recently, I've been living in Belgium, where higher education and healthcare are essentially free, unemployment insurance payments continue almost indefinitely, it's quite difficult to be fired, etc. And this is considered a fairly mediocre Bismarckian welfare state compared to the social democracies in the Nordic countries.

Denmark, for example has basically abolished poverty -- the 5% of the population living below the poverty line is comprised almost entirely of university students, and not because they are actually living in what we'd call poverty, but because they are receiving most of their livelihood in kind from the state rather than in the form of cash income. 

Ok, so why is there so much less inequality -- of both opportunity and of extreme outcomes? It's because there is high labor union membership, and I think that is at least 70% of the explanation. 

The credible threat of a significant strike -- and thus a pause in profits for the capitalists -- is the only way to reliably exact concessions from the investor class. It doesn't matter what sort of moral case you make -- capitalists will twist morality into what serves their interests (emphasizing property rights, freedom of contract, personal responsibility). We need to be able to threaten to hurt the rate of return of their businesses, otherwise stage-orange capitalists and the politicians who take their money won't pay any attention. 

Rates of labor union participation for some select countries: 

• Denmark: 67%
• Norway: 52% 
• Belgium: 50%
• Romania: 20-25%
• United States: 10%

You'll notice labor standards steadily declining as union membership drops -- and Romania is a much poorer country than the US, yet worker protections (at least in the formal economy) are still stronger, with lengthy parental leave, etc.  

I also think having a political party to represent labor is important, but there is no point in trying to do that unless the labor organizations are already there. 

[Bobby_2021]

The problem with the social democracies and the Nordic model is that they still needed to siphon wealth from the rest of the world for it to have free healthcare and workers rights.

It's quite interesting you bought up the case of Romania. Such countries with communist past indeed had free healthcare, education, and higher rates of women joining universities and workforce than their western counter parts. It's a pretty good model to aspire to once again to be honest.

And none of this involved imperialism or colonialism and they worked under sever sanctions. Which makes it all the while more impressive.

It fared poorly in wartime. Granted. But it was still great for the average worker.

A good case study is the impact of 600 million dollar loan package given to Ukraine by the EU in 2013-14, in return for austerity measures. It actually increased the poverty rates in Ukraine and decrease pensions for old people etc. 

It's a crony capitalist model vs a social model. The contrast between the two models is uncanny.

[LordFall]

My devil's advocate argument is that these countries that you've listed Denmark, Norway and Belgium are pretty insignificant in terms of economic power and will lose to more ruthless economies like US/China when it comes to innovation and inevitably warfare. 

I studied socialism for a bit and they're heavily in favour of a global strike and it seems cool in a utopian world but realistically the world is controlled by the most ruthless and efficient people so they'll just starve/torture us until we get back to work. 

[nerdspeak]

12 hours ago, LordFall said:

My devil's advocate argument is that these countries that you've listed Denmark, Norway and Belgium are pretty insignificant in terms of economic power and will lose to more ruthless economies like US/China when it comes to innovation and inevitably warfare. 

I studied socialism for a bit and they're heavily in favour of a global strike and it seems cool in a utopian world but realistically the world is controlled by the most ruthless and efficient people so they'll just starve/torture us until we get back to work. 

They're not insignificant relative to their population, and if you combine all of the functional European welfare states together it is a very serious economic and military bloc. 

1. The Nordics are very entrepreneurial. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States, which makes sense as it's much lower-risk there -- you will still get free healthcare, etc. even if your business fails.  Given the small size of the populations, they've had a lot of big successes, even in consumer tech sector which supposedly benefits from fluid labor markets if you believe the Silicon Valley propaganda. Especially in Sweden but in Finland too.
2. More Bismarckian welfare states like Belgium, Germany, etc. have lower rates of startup formation than the Nordics. They're also less visible in consumer-facing tech. But, they are leaders in manufacturing innovation, particularly in machine tools and electrical equipment. Certain regions of Germany have high concentrations of SMB manufacturers that make critical components for global supply chains and those skills don't exist anywhere else. 
3. The Nordics have extremely serious militaries. The Finns defeated the USSR, the Swedes have one of the best navies in the world, etc. 

Some far-left organizations like to push the mass strike as a tool, and of course a mass strike would provoke massive retaliation by the capitalist class and the state. But most of those organizations are interested in creating a revolutionary situation, which is not what I'm interested in at all. 

I'm interested in concessions like healthcare, better working conditions, free university education, job retraining post-layoff, etc. You don't need a general strike to exact concessions. You can get a lot through targeted strikes, collective bargaining, legislative action (if you have a labor party), co-determination where representatives of labor sit on boards and keep the shareholders in check (like in Germany and the Nordics), etc. 

Edited July 30, 2024 by nerdspeak

[Alex4]

I have almost decided to join a union by September. It is a revelation I had recently and is part of my integration into green. 

[DocWatts]

@Bobby_2021 @nerdspeak

You both have valid points. 

Social democracies with strong union participation do indeed offer the highest standards of living in the world, and are the highest form of democracy that we currently have.

At the same time, it's also undeniably true that the social democracies of the world maintain their high standards of living through an extractative global system that exploits the developing world. (To be clear, this isn't just an issue with social democracy, it's a systemic problem with our global economy).

What I've yet to see is an actual solution to this conundrum, aside from fantasies that a world socialist revolution will fix the world's problems. This was tried numerous times in the 20th century, by now it should be abundantly clear that you can't force socialism on a society that isn't developmentally ready for it and doesn't have the civic solidarity to sustain it. (Just to be clear, I'm making this observation as someone on the political Left).

Edited July 30, 2024 by DocWatts

[nerdspeak]

I would add that:

1. Firms in social democracies require natural resource inputs, but they still generally behave more responsibly than American multinationals because they respond to demands of organized labor. While Belgium was an imperial power, the Nordics were not. 

2. The Eastern Bloc countries sustained their manufacturing model by receiving below-market prices on oil from the Soviet Union, extracted from places like Siberia that were effectively colonies of the core Slavic Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. I don’t know if the USSR can be a model for much although the 1917 revolution is inspiring in a way. 

3. @DocWatts I agree the main task is building civic/social solidarity, and the only way to do that which I can see is through labor organizing. Exploitation by the investor class is the one thing most of us have in common. 

[Bobby_2021]

25 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

What I've yet to see is an actual solution to this conundrum, aside from fantasies that a world socialist revolution will fix the world's problems. This was tried numerous times in thr 20th century, it should be abundantly clear that you can't force socialism on a society that isn't developmentally ready for it and doesn't have the civic solidarity to sustain it.

20th century was full of war. Socialism will not thrive under wartime and heavy sanctions. Just like Finland will not have gracious social programs if you drop a bunch of bombs on it and sanction it.

You have to keep in mind that United States of America after the ww2 went out of their way to overthrow the socialist governments methodologically using everything in their arsenal from covert regime change to dropping bombs on them.

How would Japan work under sanctions?

How would Finland work under sanctions?

How would North Korea work under sanctions?

People look at North Korea and say that's socialism and it doesn't work while in reality they were forced to not work by the rest of the world with sanctions.

This is not to gloss over the serious problems with socialism like lack of diversification of revenue. But those could be easily fixed.

It's remarkable how liberal were the Soviet states even under heavy sanctions. But they were tipped over the threshold by the US and their allies by criminal domination and deceit.

I am not a leftist at all. I am right leaning 70% of the time. I am giving credit where it's due.

[DocWatts]

20 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

20th century was full of war. Socialism will not thrive under wartime and heavy sanctions. Just like Finland will not have gracious social programs if you drop a bunch of bombs on it and sanction it.

You have to keep in mind that United States of America after the ww2 went out of their way to overthrow the socialist governments methodologically using everything in their arsenal from covert regime change to dropping bombs on them.

How would Japan work under sanctions?

How would Finland work under sanctions?

How would North Korea work under sanctions?

People look at North Korea and say that's socialism and it doesn't work while in reality they were forced to not work by the rest of the world with sanctions.

This is not to gloss over the serious problems with socialism like lack of diversification of revenue. But those could be easily fixed.

It's remarkable how liberal were the Soviet states even under heavy sanctions. But they were tipped over the threshold by the US and their allies by criminal domination and deceit.

I am not a leftist at all. I am right leaning 70% of the time. I am giving credit where it's due.

I largely agree with you, but another dimension to this is that unless we're talking about the far future where global geopolitics is completely different, opposition to any system that challenges the global order is always going to be the case.

This introduces an unfortunate Game Theoretical dimension where (often very harsh) authoritarianism becomes necessary to protect these regimes / experiments from threats within and without, ultimately undermining thier egalitarian aims (and leaving the people living in those states with far less personal freedom than someone living in a capitalist country). We saw this not only in the Soviet bloc, but also in many post-colonial governments in the developing world as well.

You can bring up the completely valid point that it's not an even playing field, but pointing that out doesn't change the basic Game Theory dynamics that are at play here.

Edited July 30, 2024 by DocWatts

[Bobby_2021]

If anyone is serious just completely ignore the "social democratic" model peddled by Sanders. It will not work for 95% of the world.

Go for it if your country has

- small and ethnically homogeneous population.

- unequal exchange with global South.

- Tight integration with imperial powers.

- Access to infinite natural resources both at home and abroad.

"We should go for the Nordic model" is as good as saying everyone should start a business and become rich. It's not even mathematically possible.

34 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

largely agree with you, but another dimension to this is that unless we're talking about the far future where global geopolitics is completely different, opposition to any system that challenges the global order is always going to be the case.

Yeah man nice guys finish last.

USSR played it nice by not bombing the fuck out of the allies of US and restraining themselves, while US went on a full fledged bombing spree, Invasions and coups.

USSR messed up with invasion of Afghanistan, but nowhere close to the criminal domination that US engaged in. USSR had to react while US did all the action.

The dissolution of the USSR would remain as the greatest of all crimes against humanity, whoever was responsible for it.

Edited July 30, 2024 by Bobby_2021

[nerdspeak]

• Being small doesn’t make social democracy easier, it makes it harder. You have to trade to get most industrial inputs, many public goods benefit from economies of scale, etc. 
• The Nordics are not that homogenous. In Finland especially there’s a lot of ethnic conflict. Belgium — which is still pretty good — is not homogenous at all. 
• No country has access to infinite access to material resources at home or abroad. 

The main variable is the strength of organized labor, and its tie-in with a labor-oriented political party. 

[Ulax]

But why is there a high labor union membership? Government policy can determine how strong labor unions get. Just see what the conservative party did to union in the 70s and 80s in the UK.

[Bobby_2021]

@nerdspeak At the end of the day, these countries are indirect beneficiaries of western imperialism. How exactly they managed to do it while simultaneously whitewashing them as a bastion of equality is somewhat complex. 

1 hour ago, nerdspeak said:

You have to trade to get most industrial inputs, many public goods benefit from economies of scale, etc. 

The global South does plenty of trade with imperialist states. 

The difference is that Nordic countries get paid fairly while South gets paid in parity. 

This wouldn't be the case of the population of the Nordic states were higher.

1 hour ago, nerdspeak said:

Being small doesn’t make social democracy easier, it makes it harder

Try implementing social democracy and free healthcare with 500 million people instead of 5 million people. 

You should appreciate how the former Soviet states actually did managed to have free healthcare and equality for women with relatively high populations.

If USSR managed to hold on, these states would have beaten all western states in liberalism and equality for the general populace without criminal exploitation.

1 hour ago, nerdspeak said:

The Nordics are not that homogenous. In Finland especially there’s a lot of ethnic conflict. Belgium — which is still pretty good — is not homogenous at all

It's still relatively homogenous compared to the rest of the world. 

They even did Nazi style ethnic sterilization campaign in the 20th century but managed to whitewash it away that most of the world doesn't know about it. These people are good at whitewashing their tainted past.

Ethnic homogeneity means high trust and low polarization making it easier to get stuff done basically.

1 hour ago, nerdspeak said:

No country has access to infinite access to material resources at home or abroad.

Infinite in this context means they have a surplus that is enough to sustain a couple of generations. 

If you have a 1000 apples to eat, you have infinite apples from a practical point of view since you will never be able to exhaust it.

That's the surplus they get from ripping off from the global South indirectly via trade with imperialist powers.

If the imperial powers decide to pay them like they pay the global South, it would be a whole different picture.

1 hour ago, nerdspeak said:

The main variable is the strength of organized labor, and its tie-in with a labor-oriented political party. 

Labour unions are not that rare as you might think. They still operate in countries with a socialist/communist culture like I do. I don't get the parallel with social democracy and unions.

Social programs in capitalist system needs to generate a surplus and thus makes it unviable. Ex Social Security in the US will run out by 2035.

Scandinavian countries simply happened to have a surplus for a small populace and that's why it works.

To add on top of it....

Labour unions in a capitalist imperial system can backfire real fast. The capitalists would simply move the operations abroad to the global South.

[Hatfort]

On 30/7/2024 at 1:22 PM, Alex4 said:

I have almost decided to join a union by September. It is a revelation I had recently and is part of my integration into green. 

Of course, you should. They will advise you when you need to and if someday things get ugly with an employer, they will help you in your cause so things are done under the law, to avoid wage theft, or other abuses. Then you'll thank they have your back, and at the very least, it's also a common cause for other workers, and improve general conditions for the working class, yourself included.

Edited July 31, 2024 by Hatfort

[nerdspeak]

On 7/30/2024 at 0:37 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

Labour unions in a capitalist imperial system can backfire real fast. The capitalists would simply move the operations abroad to the global South.

To make this work, the unions need to be represented in govt through a labor party that can act to prevent offshoring. 

On 7/30/2024 at 11:47 AM, Ulax said:

But why is there a high labor union membership? Government policy can determine how strong labor unions get. Just see what the conservative party did to union in the 70s and 80s in the UK.

Both the Labour Party and the British unions made a lot of mistakes in the 70s.