Haha speak for yourself. Understanding the underlying mechanics makes it obvious what comes next and I kind of wish we could just skip that part. 😅

This is true for board games as well. The classic example being Monopoly.

I somewhat agree. I do take issue with the notion that the Nordic working class has been bought off though. That makes it sound like they’re conscious advocates of imperialism which I don’t think is generally true. Rather I’d argue that free from hyper exploitation, they can’t develop a meaningful class consciousness. As such, it’s difficult for them to see how their long term interests are put at risk by the capitalist system and how a socialist system could maintain their high standard of living without requiring imperialism.

I doubt the Nordic working class are receiving a meaningful share of the value stolen through imperialist means. Instead, I think the Nordic bourgeoisie are able to accumulate wealth without having to hyper exploit their local populations thanks to imperialism. This ameliorates the local class antagonisms and creates the superficial appearance that a capitalist system can maintain a stable high standard of living for the working class.

Of course, if imperialist exploitation can no longer ameliorate said antagonisms, class conflict will re-erupt in Nordic countries. The danger here is that parts of the working class may be convinced that their standard of living is predicated on imperialist conquest which is the basis for fascism. The good thing is I don’t actually think that’s true. A more reliable way for Nordic workers to maintain their standard of living would be for them to suppress the interests of their local bourgeoisie and transition to an actually socialist model.

You’re right, nobody has ever cared about Marx. No communist revolutionaries anywhere have ever called themselves Marxists. If they did, then their projects must have surely collapsed by now. That’s because Marx was very clear that his political theories were not made to be adaptable or revisable based on new information and changing conditions. No, that would be far too scientific for someone we can agree was clearly an idealist.

This is under the assumption that there is a surplus in society that can satisfy the needs of everyone. Marx’s point is that technological development and industrialization could make this possible. As such, the need to motivate people to work harder is not necessary.

Prior to such a surplus existing, the distribution of goods would be more akin to “From each according to their ability, to each according their contribution”. That ensures people are motivated to maximize their productivity as long as that’s still necessary.

I think want people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.

As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.

Tell me you haven’t read Marx without telling me you haven’t read Marx.

Seriously though, Marx is like the guy you go read if you want a ruthless critique of idealism. I go so far as to say it’s the reason his theories became so popular in the first place.

The existence of state run social services and regulations does not mean a country is not fully capitalist if you’re using Marx’s understanding of what capitalism is. Additionally I think there is a misconception that communism depends on altruistic behavior. It really doesn’t.

Things got much worse for most citizens of the USSR after it collapsed and state industry was privatized. Life expectancy dropped pretty severely. It shouldn’t be surpassing that anyone who suffered under that economic collapse would tell you the USSR was better.

People don’t have much recourse in the US either. The two party system just obfuscates that reality. I’d actually argue that because revolution is the only alternative to the communist party in China, the government has to be more responsive to citizen demands than the US.

I believe the writers actually wrote much of the story line for the entire show before filming the first season. As such, it’s probably one the most internally consistent time travel stories. That said, I do think season 3 gets bogged down by all of the exposition needed for the story to actually make any sense.

I believe Netflix actually has a website with the timelines for each character so you don’t get confused. IIIRC you can tell it what episode you’re on so you won’t get any spoilers.

Do they really love him though? My sense was mainly that this was an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” type of situation. Russia’s breakaway from western economies is an opportunity for countries in the global south. As such it makes sense that the left in those countries would aim to foster positive relations with Putin and the Russian government. That’s regardless of what they privately think about the guy.

China used to be behind technologically but in recent years that hasn’t really been the case. They now publish more high impact research papers than the US. Their green energy sector is also way ahead of anyone else. If the trend continues you’ll probably see US companies trying to steal Chinese IP at some point.

There are governments run by communists but I don’t believe any of them actually claim to have achieved a communist society. For example, Vietnam is run by communists who describe their system as a socialist oriented market economy.

Think about it this way, if you were a Chinese citizen would you rather work in a harsh factory setting or work as a subsistence farmer and risk starvation because it didn’t rain enough one year? Because that was literally the choice. There were no other options.

The reason why the Chinese government maintains a high level of support from Chinese citizens is not because they’re great propagandists. Rather it’s because hundreds of millions of people went from extreme poverty as peasants to living stable middle class lives within a few decades.

Why do you see that as such a bad thing? Would you prefer all these people remain in poverty as they have in other countries such as India or the Philippines? I don’t get it.

Then why isn’t India doing as well as China economically? They had the same chance to undercut US labor costs in order to industrialize. However, they could not capitalize on that opportunity as successfully as China did. It’s almost as if Chinese economic policy and central planning played a large role in their development. It’s also pretty clear that China is actually become less dependent on US demand as their own internal economy grows.

This isn’t a one time experiment either. Vietnam is following a similar path and has grown much faster than many comparable south east asian countries.

Nazis took nothing from the left wing other than some rhetoric they used to gain popular support from the working class. Their politics were more inspired by European colonialism than anything else. Lebensraum is basically just manifest destiny applied to Europe.

It’s not uncommon for fascists to adopt socialist rhetoric to try and gain mass appeal. However that falls away under the lightest scrutiny of their actions and ideology. “National Socialism” is the most obvious example. I’d include Pol Pot in that bucket as well.

The USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao are a bit different. The government in either case made decisions that led to unnecessary death, but there’s no evidence to suggest any of their missteps were motivated by racial animus.