It regularly does, social-democracy seems to generally ensure better living condition to its people. I donât see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
âBetter conditions than social-democraciesâ is a tall order considering that most (every?) Marxist-Leninist state was formed in impoverished, exploited countries, and have frequently been targeted by sanctions, boycotts, and so on. If you told a Chinese peasant in the 40âs that their countryâs life expectancy would someday exceed that of the US, theyâd call you a liar. Certainly it wasnât about to happen under the Nationalists or anybody else.
Not everyone is allowed to have social democracy. For example, Norwayâs economy benefits greatly from their oil revenues, but in much of the world, the presence of oil resources is called an âoil curse,â because Western governments destabilize and overthrow governments that bring those profits back to the people. When Iranâs left-leaning (but not communist) government in the 50âs tried to reclaim control of their oil from their British colonial overlords, the CIA did a coup and installed a fascist. There are countless other stories of this happening all around the world.
No country has lifted more people out of poverty and extreme poverty than China. Granting developing countries a second option for investment is an enormous boon for the world, especially since China is much less restrictive over other countriesâ domestic economic policies compared to the IMF.
This is why I would argue that, even if you disagree with Chinaâs system, if you want any other system besides capitalism to be available to people in the developing world, then you should recognize that China is furthering that goal. I donât consider Chinaâs system to be perfect or ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but Iâve read enough history to see more ideal systems get crushed time and again.
Do social democracies also ensure better living conditions for the impoverished nations they continue to exploit so they can support their own standards of living?
I donât see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
Iâm not sure what you define as an âextreme regimeâ but you can try looking at Cuba, China, or the USSR, for starters.
I think they could improve their impact on developing nations, especially if we consider the impact of colonialism, but otherwise, yes, I think they contribute to their economic growth which keeps lifting people out of poverty.
It doesnât seem like USSR or Cubaâs people had on average better lives than in social-democracies. For China, I think itâs getting better, mostly thanks to the intense economical ties with the rest of the world that they tied once they decide to abandon the communist economy. However, they continue having notable issues with authoritarianism, which seem to be getting worse with the current leader.
lol, they (european âsocial-democraciesâ and US/EU finance capital) are the root cause of colonialism and the financial system has been built around the global southâs over-exploitation at gunpoint. That has never really stopped. Any over-exploited, colonized country that expresses too much democracy or sovereignty ends up invaded, sanctioned, or coupedâŚ
Cuba is much better now than before the revolution, when mobsters ruled its cities and landlords ruled over the peasantry with an iron fist. There was no democracy there before, and the moment Cuba had a more democratic system it was under assault from the US. The USSR and Cuba were able to develop the way they did in spite of the bourgeois democracies that invaded or assaulted them at every opportunity
Other countries has intense economical ties to western capital, like India. But their development is nothing compared to Chinaâs. They have incredible levels of poverty and a lack of development. I am sure you will invent some alternative theory as to why China was able to eliminate extreme poverty, but the truth is that âsocial democraciesâ in Europe and NA have notable issues with authoritarianism against the global south. They looted the rest of the world at gunpoint and now tell them their development is all because they are lazy or corrupt.
