It’s important for Leftists to take an internationalist stance, so as to avoid perpetuating Imperialism like PatSocs seek to.

The result is alienation of the voting public. A local approach is necessary to appeal to voters because large international movements rarely if never actually materialize. They don’t offer substiantial improvements in living standards that are within reach, instead promising great things in the far-flung future.

It’s also why Trump is so effective in messaging: he advocates immediate improvements for voters within the US. Voters don’t seem to care he likely won’t deliver, but it gives him broad enough appeal to get elected. He does also connect with other conservatives internationally, but it isn’t his main priority at all.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make about the Soviets with respect to “killing millions” or “banning opposition” outside of what I said, you aren’t really pointing at specifics so there’s nothing for me to respond to, other than to say the Black Book of Communism has long been debunked.

The various political purges, famines etc… Those aren’t in dispute.

As for the Soviets, power was dramatically equalized, especially compared to Tsarist Russia and the Russian Federation. For Stalin, the CIA didn’t think him a dictator.

Sure, compared to monarchism/tsarism things were more equal. But that’s a depressingly low bar to set, especially when compared to the post-war democracies situated a bit further west. You’ve linked a single document with little context supposedly written shortly after Stalin’s death. At that time, fairly little was known about the inner workings of the Soviet Union, which was largely discovered later. Stalin was not a very typical dictator, in the sense that he was quite frugal and a genuine Bolshevik, e.g. he really was strongly ideologically motivated, rather than a direct lust for power that’s typical for dictators. But he was still the undisputed leader of a one-party state that did not tolerate dissent, had a very powerful secret police at his disposal and frequently removed people he did not like from power (or had them killed). Stalin himself commented on his lack of warmth for humanity after his wife died. He was absolutely ruthless and consolidated considerable power to himself and his innermost circle, enough to deeply concern Lenin when he was still alive. Historians generally agree Stalin was a dictator, albeit a somewhat atypical one.

What you describe, with your heavy progressive tax rates, has only ever been in place in countries fearing a revolution while neighboring a Socialist power, historically the USSR.

The US had a 77% tax rate on the highest incomes in 1918, which predates the USSR by 4 years. It dropped in the interwar period and picked up again with the start of WW2. Budgetary pressure is what in the vast majority of cases increases tax rates. It’s statistically by far the most important factor, not the threat of countries like the USSR. There are far too many countries near the USSR that did not increase tax rates, and vice versa, to assume this is the case.

The Nordics fund their safety nets through brutal loans and export of Capital, a process identified and tracked as Imperialism.

You know that their balance sheets are public information, right? They don’t show some kind of massive funding from brutal loans on the global south. The vast majority of their initial wealth came from the export of natural resources, but these days they are primarily service economies.

I’m not saying those schemes don’t exist (they do) but said schemes are not unique to specifically the west. Notably China is often criticised for similar schemes, taking control of important infrastructure in the process.

I think a big part of your worldview is thinking the Nordics separate from US Imperialism, and not willing accomplices to the looting of the Global South.

You have repeatedly made incorrect assumptions and conclusions on my worldview, and you seem to hold a somewhat simplistic and onesided view of the world yourself. I don’t think we will be nearing each other in this discussion. That’s fine, it’s okay to disagree on things. Particularly on politics it’s important to keep a diversified set of opinions around. I do value your view on things, even if I don’t find myself agreeing with it.

Finally, I’d just like to add that I don’t make perfect the enemy of good. I refuse to accept bad is somehow good, or exempt from criticism, just because worse exists. I have a set of principles I simply will not compromise on, that I do not think are unreasonable. Plenty of ideologies or political parties don’t cross my red lines, some do. I have a personal preference of course, and I consider that my democratic right to have. I also acknowledge that the world doesn’t like being expressed in simple ideological terms. No “historical narrative” ever fully pans out. That’s fine, I can live with that. I simply try to focus on the problems in front of me, that I can realistically help solve, and try to avoid anything that could prevent me from helping to solve problems in the future.

I intend to leave this discussion here, as I don’t see much value in continuing it (and it’s getting late). Thanks for your civil participation in it. Hopefully Lemmy will also learn to upvote civil discussion even if they don’t agree with every comment in it.