5 ms·

Late 19th century, early 20th, Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe. The wealth of Sweden was accumulated post-WWII when the rest of Europe stood i

by amag 11y ago

Late 19th century, early 20th, Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe. The wealth of Sweden was accumulated post-WWII when the rest of Europe stood in ruins and needed to be rebuilt, not by being a colonial force to be reckoned with (it never was).

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Late 19th century, early 20th, Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe. not by being a colonial force to be reckoned with (it never was) I mean, yes, if you compare Sweden only to the really lucrative colonizers, it'll look "poor" by comparison. But all you're really saying is that Sweden was less effective as a colonial power than its neighbors who were even "better" at it (England, France, etc.). That doesn't change the original point. If you look beyond simply Europe at where Sweden was with respect to the rest of the world, especially the regions that were colonized and enslaved, it's clear where they stood, and clear how much they benefited by being the ones who colonized, as opposed to the ones who were colonized. The point is, you can't just look at "nice European socialism" in a vacuum and ignore the reasons why that philosophy has succeeded in Western Europe and why that exact same philosophy has been an empirical disaster in countries that were previously colonies of Western European powers and are still impoverished enough that they cannot export the working class down the economic chain any further (the way Western European powers - and the US as well - have).
- marshray 11y ago
  I think you're just really really attached to the idea that colonialism explains the modern world. Over the course of the 20th century, the Ottomon and British empires crumbled. World War II happened. The US and Soviet Union became superpowers, there was a Cold War, and the Soviet Union split apart. The US pursued aggressively open trade. Western Europe unified to a common economic zone. World power structures have been reorganized several times over since colonial times. For example, how does your theory explain Singapore going from a British colony, occupied by Japan during WWII, to US$56,319 GDP per capita in 2014? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > you're just really really attached to the idea that colonialism explains the modern world. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. I said that one can't understand Western European socialism (the kind which OP appears to advocate) without understanding this aspect of those countries' history. The implication is that calling such socialism "nice" is ignoring and whitewashing the negative side, both historical and contemporary. In any case, I know better than to seriously engage in a discussion about this on HN; it's really not the forum for these sorts of conversations.
    - marshray 11y ago
      For the record, I didn't say you said that directly, which "putting words in my mouth" would imply. It's my interpretation of your viewpoint.

by amag 11y ago

chimeracoder 11y ago

> Late 19th century, early 20th, Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe. not by being a colonial force to be reckoned with (it never was) I mean, yes, if you compare Sweden only to the really lucrative colonizers, it'll look "poor" by comparison. But all you're really saying is that Sweden was less effective as a colonial power than its neighbors who were even "better" at it (England, France, etc.). That doesn't change the original point. If you look beyond simply Europe at where Sweden was with respect to the rest of the world, especially the regions that were colonized and enslaved, it's clear where they stood, and clear how much they benefited by being the ones who colonized, as opposed to the ones who were colonized. The point is, you can't just look at "nice European socialism" in a vacuum and ignore the reasons why that philosophy has succeeded in Western Europe and why that exact same philosophy has been an empirical disaster in countries that were previously colonies of Western European powers and are still impoverished enough that they cannot export the working class down the economic chain any further (the way Western European powers - and the US as well - have).

marshray 11y ago
I think you're just really really attached to the idea that colonialism explains the modern world. Over the course of the 20th century, the Ottomon and British empires crumbled. World War II happened. The US and Soviet Union became superpowers, there was a Cold War, and the Soviet Union split apart. The US pursued aggressively open trade. Western Europe unified to a common economic zone. World power structures have been reorganized several times over since colonial times. For example, how does your theory explain Singapore going from a British colony, occupied by Japan during WWII, to US$56,319 GDP per capita in 2014? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > you're just really really attached to the idea that colonialism explains the modern world. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. I said that one can't understand Western European socialism (the kind which OP appears to advocate) without understanding this aspect of those countries' history. The implication is that calling such socialism "nice" is ignoring and whitewashing the negative side, both historical and contemporary. In any case, I know better than to seriously engage in a discussion about this on HN; it's really not the forum for these sorts of conversations.
  - marshray 11y ago
    For the record, I didn't say you said that directly, which "putting words in my mouth" would imply. It's my interpretation of your viewpoint.