TankovayaDiviziya

It's only a big impairment in America because they needed to somehow make it so. It's baffling.

I genuinely can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but making voting difficult in US is intentional.

He's been obsessed with it since the 1980s.

The Nazi rearmament gave people jobs (but caused excessive government expenditure). Also, Hitler stopped most of the payment for reparations when he came to power.

That is true. But the resentment on Versailles treaty is not the only reason and it is far more complex. The US was basically providing money to Germany through loans, so that Germany can repay the reparations set by Versailles treaty (the United States along with Britain actually opposed the terms but the French insisted). Germany was actually on her way to pay the reparations and the economy boomed after World War 1. But, when 1929 came the Great Depression happened which means the United States had no more money to give, which means Germany also had no money to pay the reparations. This caused the country to default leading to hyperinflation.

Hitler refused to pay the remaining reparations and gave jobs to the Germans by rearming. However, this caused another inflation and impending bankruptcy which prompted Hitler to invade regions and then countries to plunder for more funds.

The German economy overheated because of excessive government spending to appease the people. The Nazis went to war in 1939 to stave off the impending economic collapse through plundering of other country's resources.

Edit: to those who would say it was the Versailles Treaty to blame for Germany being bankrupt during the Great Depression, it is more complicated than that. Many argue that blaming the reparations clause from Versailles is basically a myth.

But the resentment on Versailles treaty is not the only reason and it is far more complex. The US was basically providing money to Germany through loans, so that Germany can repay the reparations set by Versailles treaty (the United States along with Britain actually opposed the terms but the French insisted). Germany was actually on her way to pay the reparations and the economy boomed after World War 1. But, when 1929 came the Great Depression happened which means the United States had no more money to give, which means Germany also had no money to pay the reparations. This caused the country to default leading to hyperinflation.

Hitler refused to pay the remaining reparations and gave jobs to the Germans by rearming. However, this caused another inflation and impending bankruptcy which prompted Hitler to invade regions and then countries to plunder for more funds.

The Heritage is trying to be the Third International but right wing.

It never gets old when someone's having cognitive dissonance.

Looks like you are having cognitive dissonance.

No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.

How has the Nordics been more neoliberal? They still tax billionaires. They enjoy high standard of living and little wealth inequality. These are the balance that neither the US nor USSR could achieve.

Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support.

Mate, you're literally describing what I was talking about.

Which contradict your initial claims that Nordics are becoming more right.

Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow?

Learn what a non-sequitor is before throwing the term around. I don't want to have to ask a third time for you to actually learn the basics about things before talking about them.

You claimed that throughout history, there has been international laws and standards. I asked you what they are and gave me a non-response to a previous statement that does not have to do with what I asked or my point. Just because a word is too big for you, doesn't mean you can make accusations on a mirror. You did not even address when i asked you as to how the Nordics benefit from American imperialism when you said they do.

Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.

Oh, so you acknowledge now that western countries can impose their will on the global South? I thought you said that their "lack of jurisdiction" meant they weren't allowed to? Are you now saying western countries can don't actually have to follow the rules and can just do it anyway? Because if so, I will only be able to conclude that you were being deliberately dishonest when you said otherwise.

When it is Saudi Arabia and Gulf states violating human rights, you brushed it aside as whataboutism. But when it is specifically about an entity you hate that is just as guilty, you give it a pass. That is called double standards.

To go back to the point you are trying to derail, these countries act with impunity because they know they could not be held accountable. When it comes to trade, no country has jurisdiction on another on how to treat and pay their workers even if the more developed countries want to tell poorer nations to do so. More often, governments in developing countries would cite sovereignty as thought terminating response to criticisms of human rights violations by the international community. That is why the Nordics, with very little to no colonialist past compared to major Western European countries, have no power to tell the global south how to treat their workers. Because the nation state is given supremacy over international rules, which is why in practice there are no rules. The fact that there are none is why you can't cite any legally binding international laws when I asked you upon initially insisting there are. So, the accusations of social democratic countries exploiting the global south do not make sense given the current international paradigm. Because social democratic countries have no power and right.

I appreciate being provided insight from Marxist-Leninist pov. But you also have to realise that developing countries also mutually signed trade deals with developed countries. Jobs have been outsourced to poorer countries (at the detriment of working class in rich countries but that is another topic); the result for these countries is the growth of middle class and millions being uplifted from poverty. No one can deny that. But no one can deny either that the poor in developing countries had been exploited for labour. However, if we follow Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs, people tend to prioritise economic and physical security first before other needs. Once these are secure, people explore more what transcends than just living to work-- such as social, personal goals and self-actualisation. As we speak, many people in developing countries are starting to question the exploitative working culture. Improved social mobility widens someone's perspective both personal and social. Countries that offered themselves to be world's cheap manufacturers are starting to become expensive because of higher demands for better wages and working standards.

Going back to the main topic at hand, it is not that poor countries did not have a choice to be hoodwinked, they agreed to be cheap manufacturers. But not all of these countries are on level with each other in terms of wealth growth and distribution because of individual government policies, which is exactly what Nordic countries do not have control over because of they do not have jurisdiction.