this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
487 points (91.6% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3516 readers
762 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that is a defensible position. I'd likely disagree on some nations and agree with others.
But overall yeah that's the general idea. Truly socialists states would certainly not be authoritarian. Where would you place a state like Norway with it's sovereign wealth fund?
Clearly some profits have been socialized and they do have robust safety nets/social programs, but they are undeniably still capitalist.
If we keep your definition, I'd say Norway is both authoritarian and imperialist. The social safety nets are generous, but come from expropriating wealth from the global south. This is the way that Norway both maintains relatively good safety nets while also maintaining incredibly wealthy capitalists, through exporting the bulk of the class conflict to the countries dominated by Norway's finance capital.
Fron my understanding the bulk of their sovereign wealth fund comes from socializing the profits of resource extraction within Norway. Minerals and fossil fuels primarily, not corporate taxes. Although those exist.
Taking a global view to the issue is not something I thought about. Admittedly I was taking a view country by country that focused on how the state is impacting the individual citizens within their borders.
I'll have to think more on this one. Evaluating whether or not a country is authoritarian towards its own people is useful for looking for places to migrate to or systems to replicate (at least in the short term), but it doesn't consider the greater suffering caused by those systems outside of borders.
All very good points from you
No problem! This analysis of imperialism is the biggest distinction between Marxists and social democrats. Lenin played an enormously valuable role in identifying this process before the modern welfare state, and the concentration of capital accelerated this export of exploitation. Italian philosopher Domenico Losurdo talked about "Herrenvolk Democracy," how the in-group recieved the bulk of progressive change at the same time the out-group received brutal exploitation in similar degrees.