You’re actually the one who’s kind of constantly shifting away from what I’m talking about:
You claim that Scandinavia is socialist. I say that no, they’re in the imperial core, and their economies are dependent on a global system of capitalism, that they’ve just exported the exploitation elsewhere, also that they are definitely imperialist (major exporter, benefits off of EU financial imperialism, unequal exchange with Russia, and Africa, and China, etc.).
Then you say that Finland was just clever and found ways to sell expensive consumer goods to the USSR after the Second World War (a war where they invaded the USSR as an ally of Germany) and used the opportunity when the Soviet Union was recovering from severe damage to get their oil cheaply and make them pay high prices for necessary commodities. You also say that didn’t get cheap goods from Africa, which just isn’t true, they were getting ore and a bunch of agricultural products that originated in Africa during the Post-War era, where do you think that things like rubber, and coffee, and tea, and palm oil, and sugar, and cocoa, and phosphate, and copper, and gold, and a lot of crude oil, everything else came from? These commodities don’t just magically appear out of European markets.
Then you say, Ha, Finland, imperialist, that’s unbelievable, Finland is a tiny country and the USSR was bigger.
Then I say that doesn’t make sense because it wasn’t just Finland doing it, they could only put pressure on the USSR like that because the rest of Post-War Western Europe was also doing it.
Then you say, I’m shifting goalposts.
I say again, that Finland invaded the USSR (later benefiting from the damages caused during WW2), so therefore it’s a literally ridiculous to claim that tiny Finland cannot possibly be imperialist just because it’s tiny.
And you say that the Finnish government back then was not the same as the one now, and there’s no continuity between the two…
There’s no end to this. I point out flaws in your position and then you shift the argument. Each time I am burdened with the task of proving that the next thing you say doesn’t make sense.
Booo! Your poem was shitty and hardly on topic.
You’re actually the one who’s kind of constantly shifting away from what I’m talking about:
You claim that Scandinavia is socialist. I say that no, they’re in the imperial core, and their economies are dependent on a global system of capitalism, that they’ve just exported the exploitation elsewhere, also that they are definitely imperialist (major exporter, benefits off of EU financial imperialism, unequal exchange with Russia, and Africa, and China, etc.).
Then you say that Finland was just clever and found ways to sell expensive consumer goods to the USSR after the Second World War (a war where they invaded the USSR as an ally of Germany) and used the opportunity when the Soviet Union was recovering from severe damage to get their oil cheaply and make them pay high prices for necessary commodities. You also say that didn’t get cheap goods from Africa, which just isn’t true, they were getting ore and a bunch of agricultural products that originated in Africa during the Post-War era, where do you think that things like rubber, and coffee, and tea, and palm oil, and sugar, and cocoa, and phosphate, and copper, and gold, and a lot of crude oil, everything else came from? These commodities don’t just magically appear out of European markets.
Then you say, Ha, Finland, imperialist, that’s unbelievable, Finland is a tiny country and the USSR was bigger.
Then I say that doesn’t make sense because it wasn’t just Finland doing it, they could only put pressure on the USSR like that because the rest of Post-War Western Europe was also doing it.
Then you say, I’m shifting goalposts.
I say again, that Finland invaded the USSR (later benefiting from the damages caused during WW2), so therefore it’s a literally ridiculous to claim that tiny Finland cannot possibly be imperialist just because it’s tiny.
And you say that the Finnish government back then was not the same as the one now, and there’s no continuity between the two…
There’s no end to this. I point out flaws in your position and then you shift the argument. Each time I am burdened with the task of proving that the next thing you say doesn’t make sense.