• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Socialism in Scandinavia

sir drinks-a-lot

Philosopher
sir drinks-a-lot
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
5,729
Location
Cole Valley, CA
I just read "Heaven on Earth" which is a history/criticism of socialism. All of the reasons cited for why a controlled economy seem to make sense, and there are alot of historical examples.

But, when I read the Amazon.com reviews, a few readers complain about the omission of the Scandanavian countries. They say that these are examples of the successes of Socialism.

I know very little about the Scandanivian countries. Are they truly socialist? If so, why does it work there and not elsewhere?

Answers to these questions or suggestions for further reading are appreciated.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I know very little about the Scandanivian countries. Are they truly socialist? If so, why does it work there and not elsewhere?
Click to expand...
"Truly socialist" no. The populations in the Scandinavian countries (I know more about Norway than the others) have for the last 60 years or so voted for political parties and systems where taxes are high and a lot of benefits are "free" to all (tax-payers as well as non tax-payers). Health care, university education, pensions, maternity leave, you name it.

At the same time, nothing stops you from trying to get rich - starting and running a business is encouraged, and of the few Norwegians worth more than a billion US dollars at least half are self-made within the same time frame.

The World Bank is ranking Norway as the fifth easiest country to do business in (after New Zealand, Singapore, United States and Canada) and mentions the "good circle": Highly educated people with access to free healthcare make it possible to create and maintain an economy that can afford to give free education and healtcare to new generations.

Some very rich people in Norway support the Labour Party.
 
In a word: No.

The Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are not socialist but socialdemocratic.

Sure, we have right-leaning governments from time to time, but there is a general agreement that a wellfare state is the preferred one.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
What is the difference?
Click to expand...

By definitions, a social democratic party wants to change society into a socialist state by democratic means, instead of a revolution (even a revolution backed by the majority of the population). In other words, they have a more conservative approach to how a state should be turned socialist.

The number one difference in practice, though, is that socialdemocrats respect the right to own private property.

Remember that Tony Blair is a socialdemocrat. It's very different from pure socialism.
 
Last edited:
Socialism:

[SIZE=-1]-- Is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]-- The view that the government should own and control major industries.
-- [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The theory or system of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society rather than by private individuals, with all members of the community coerced to share in the work and the products.[/SIZE]

If they were so great as methods of organizing economies then why didn't anyone use them prior to now?

Ok, here's why socialism and communism work for awhile but they can't last. There is a reason they are new inventions in the history of humanity. My explanantion will also explain why it's socialism and not rap music that caused the riots in France.

Socialism and communism are extremely rigid. Socialism and communism depend on the registration of each person in a nation. Without a registration, how would you ration benefits? Benefits are rationed based on formulas. There are LOTS of formulas for everything. The planning of a communist and/or socialist economy is based on predictions of population and economy.

If the predictions do not come true you find yourself in BIG trouble. That's in a nutshell what happened to Russia and China. Their predictions were just ridiculously off base like North Korea who is starving it's people because agricultural planning is completely off base. So the formulas and predictions must be rigidly precise and also come true --- or a managed economy will not work as it's planned.

Both socialism and communism demand labor laws. The employer must hire and fire based on formulas. Workers may not be fired from jobs without reasons. The government intervenes in the hiring and firing of workers which equals....more rigidity.

In the case of France, because of the labor laws and unions, they cannot create jobs. The immigrants to France cannot find work. The Arab and Africans in France have unemployment rates as high as 40 percent. Forty percent! Unbelievable! The same thing exactly exists in Germany where unions and the government control hiring and firing.

Socialist economies are too rigid to accomodate any variations. If there are too many old people you can't pay benefits. If there are too many young people you can't create jobs. If there are too many illegal migrants they get benefits but don't pay for them. If there are too many this too many that and on and on. They can't work in the long term, the type of economies Europe has are short term only.

The Social Security program and Medicare program in the United States are socialist. They are also almost bankrupt. They are running out of money because they rigidly set formulas for benefits but there are too many old people that live to be 100 and the formulas were designed for the year 1930 not 2005. People in 1930 only lived to be 60. Today they live to be over 90. Oops another mistake too bad.

The only economy that's long term is laissez faire capitalism because it accomodates all variations and shocks without collapsing like the Soviet Union. There are problems with it like devaluations and other things but no laissez faire economy collapses simply because the currency devalues or there is prolonged depression. Germany underwent TWO world wars and was totally destroyed. Yet somehow it always rebuilds. How is that possible? Capitalism has, in every case, regenerated itself. Communism and socialism never regenerate they just fall apart.
 
Last edited:
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I just read "Heaven on Earth" which is a history/criticism of socialism. All of the reasons cited for why a controlled economy seem to make sense, and there are alot of historical examples.

But, when I read the Amazon.com reviews, a few readers complain about the omission of the Scandanavian countries. They say that these are examples of the successes of Socialism.

I know very little about the Scandanivian countries. Are they truly socialist? If so, why does it work there and not elsewhere?

Answers to these questions or suggestions for further reading are appreciated.
Click to expand...
Whether the criticism is valid depends on how he defines socialism and what other countries he uses as an example (Cuba and Soviet or France and Germany). Scandinavia has very extensive welfare states but we're still clearly capitalistic. The state doesn't own the means of production, so if that's what he means by socialism, there's no reason he'd include Scandinavia.

As for why it works, the standard reason I hear is that we've got flexible labour markets. Benefits are high, but unlike for example France and Gernmany there is little regulation of hiring and firing of employees.
 
jay gw said:
The Social Security program and Medicare program in the United States are socialist. They are also almost bankrupt.
Click to expand...
Unless you have a special definition of 'soon', you're wrong about Social Security in the US.

Contributions are larger than benefits and will continue to be so for the next ten years. Given no changes, it can continue to pay the promised benefits until 2042, give or take a few.

Kerberos said:
Scandinavia has very extensive welfare states but we're still clearly capitalistic.
Click to expand...
Maybe 'social-liberal' would be a proper name for it: Social welfare systems are well developed while businesses have liberty.
 
It seems like most f you agree with the definition of a socialist country as being one with a controlled economy, or the means of production being publicly owned. Are there any other definitions of socialism?

Also, using this definition, would any of the Scandanavian countries even be counted as socialist?

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I wish I could contribute more!
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
It seems like most f you agree with the definition of a socialist country as being one with a controlled economy, or the means of production being publicly owned. Are there any other definitions of socialism?
Click to expand...
In this forum, universal health care has been called socialism ... :)

Also, using this definition, would any of the Scandanavian countries even be counted as socialist?
Click to expand...
No. Very few countries would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom