So it's not working then?
But I assume you're going to keep doing it anyway. All while continuing to accuse other people of being short sited with no sense of praxis.
BrainInABox
joined 4 months ago
What exactly does "should" mean in this context? Either it does it it doesn't, and saying it "should" just sounds like saying reality is wrong for not conforming to your economic theory.
Complains about things being simplistic, proceeds to judge things based on what instance they're from
BlueMAGA when asked to read more then two sentences
And how's that working out for you?
What a stupid comment
It's funny watching BlueMAGA trying to vacillate between
if progressivism is so popular then why can’t people turn out
And
Im fighting against this idea it’s all Democrats fault when they were barely given any power to begin with
And make sure those protests don't mention Israel! That would be anti-Semitic terrorism
Their left wing parties are still dominant
No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.
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.
Nonetheless, even though the far right reared its ugly in the region, the economic policies is not fully to blame.
Yes it is.
In what way?
Because they retain access to those cheap resources.
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.
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.
You mean like the Democrats?
Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.
No? They're experiencing the same right-wing slide into austerity and neoliberalism as everyone else.
Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?
Yes. But they also benifit just as much when other western countries do. If the USA overthrows a government to stop it nationalising state resources that are currently controlled by western corporations, the Nordics benifit just as much as if they'd done it themselves.
Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India?
Whataboutism
Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?
Trying to nationalise resources that are currently controlled by western interests.
Ah, so you only dislike it when other people are simplistic.