So since I would consider myself a baby ML. I don’t really trust myself in being able to defend the history and the ideology of Marxism Leninism.

after talking with her about the disastrous effects free market policy would have on Cuba . We came to disagree on how much the embargo mattered. she blames that the under productivity and inefficiency of the Cuban economy is due to the restriction of a free market. I tried responding with that the two currency system solves that problem, but now I realize I probably should be knowing more before arguing.

We also discussed the US interest in invading countries that nationalize their oil. She admitted that there was an incentive to invade these countries. then she asked me why Norway with a nationalized oil production hasn’t been invaded. The only answer I came up with was that Norway is part of the US sphere of influence and participates with imperialism alongside the US. but I don’t feel like that’s a good answer.

If anyone could help me with these two topics that would be highly appreciated.

Part 1 https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7436

  • NothingButBits
    7·
    4 years ago

    Norway’s oil isn’t entirely nationalized. It has been partly privatized. I did a bit of digging and it seems that the government only owns 67% of Equinor Proof. Seems like Norway is headed in the same direction as Sweden and Finland and is slowly dismantling its social welfare. Albeit at a slower pace, this is probably due to the fact that they aren’t in the EU so they face less pressure, for now at least.

    This is probably the main reason, the Nordic states have been compliant with the Imperialist demands. Cuba on the other hand wants to own all the resources of its land and prevent its population from being used as a cheap labor pool by the US. Since they resist, they suffer.

    Besides, public opinion of Norway is incredibly high in the west. The Nordic countries, especially Norway are seen as a sanctuary by many Americans, it would be incredible difficult to manufacture consent to invade a country like this.

    There is one more reason. Some empires specialized in warmongering and exploitation, others are considered hitchhikers. See Hitchhikers guide to Imperialism .

    Some imperialists administered territory and opened markets. Others provided capital to build railways and link the global economy. Still others produced migratory labour or hauled commodities. Administering territory was the most prestigious job. But it was not the only way to be an imperialist. Profit and power could also be won by hitchhiking.

    The Scandinavians are still hitchhiking away. The Danish shipping line A P Moller-Maersk is the largest in the world, moving more than 12 million shipping containers around the globe every year. Oil profits fund Norway’s $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund, which is in turn invested worldwide. Nowadays, they hitchhike on a Pax Americana rather than a Pax Britannica, but it is important to remember that small, globally orientated European countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway exist because the arrangement of world geopolitics leaves them a particular space in which to thrive. More than a century after they sold their colonies, the hitchhiking strategy still seems to be paying off.