I just wish that people here would take time to explain why liberals are not left instead of just attacking you.

Liberalism is not left because by definition they are socially progressive but economically conservative.

I used to think the liberals are “left” because of the Americam mainstream media (by intentionally muddying political terms) interchange liberal between left. But thanks to Philosophy Tube’s beginner’s video explaining what it means, now I know better.

You mean they know exactly what the problem but choose bury their heads in the sand.

I appreciate being provided insight from Marxist-Leninist pov. But you also have to realise that developing countries also mutually signed trade deals with developed countries. Jobs have been outsourced to poorer countries (at the detriment of working class in rich countries but that is another topic); the result for these countries is the growth of middle class and millions being uplifted from poverty. No one can deny that. But no one can deny either that the poor in developing countries had been exploited for labour. However, if we follow Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs, people tend to prioritise economic and physical security first before other needs. Once these are secure, people explore more what transcends than just living to work-- such as social, personal goals and self-actualisation. As we speak, many people in developing countries are starting to question the exploitative working culture. Improved social mobility widens someone’s perspective both personal and social. Countries that offered themselves to be world’s cheap manufacturers are starting to become expensive because of higher demands for better wages and working standards.

Going back to the main topic at hand, it is not that poor countries did not have a choice to be hoodwinked, they agreed to be cheap manufacturers. But not all of these countries are on level with each other in terms of wealth growth and distribution because of individual government policies, which is exactly what Nordic countries do not have control over because of they do not have jurisdiction.

You are just making up definitions now but that is irrelevant because, like I said, unless there is legally binding global rules then this won’t be a problem. But there aren’t any. You obviously never heard, nor have been in a corrupt, poor country whose government abuse human rights. And then when the international community condemn the offending government, that government typically say other countries don’t have jurisdiction or to respect their own sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is the reality of lawless and anarchic international relations.

But the Nordic countries are not imperialists. The last time that Nordic countries had an empire was like, 600 years ago, long before the invention of capitalism. Some wealthy countries now like Poland and Ireland did not even have empires and were in fact colonial subjects. Dominican Republic is on track to achieved developed status in 2030 if things go right.

More damningly, though, is the fact that the Nordic Countries are reliant upon the same Imperialist machine of extraction from the Global South as the rest of the West. The Nordics enjoy their cushy lifestyles on the backs of brutal labor in the Global South, almost like an employer-employee relationship at an international level.

That is a good point usually raised. But, developed countries do not have jurisdiction on developing countries on how to treat their workers and what wages to set, and vice versa. Unless there is harmonised and legally binding rules and regulations for everyone in the world to follow, then this issue won’t even exist.

I haven’t met any soc dems who think capitalism can be saved. Most agree that it can only be contained. Just look how successful the Nordic countries are. They have successful companies and still have billionaires, but the rich are heavily taxed. And if the rich threatens to leave with their assets, they will still be taxed heavily for doing so.