The Myth of Nordic 'Socialism'
- This topic has 17 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well, The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank) has just managed to admit that the Nordic countries are in fact, “capitalist” economies. Now, if they would kindly admit to the state capitalist countries of Cuba, N Korea, etc, as being capitalist economies also, that would be a further step forward.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-myth-of-nordic-socialism-51554296401
Not quite a clear cut rebuttal as your post implies, Dave
The article says earlier Nordic economies were socialist and that they failed thus proving socialism isn’t possible.
“…Although contemporary Sweden remains a traditional welfare state in some respects (e.g. it has comparatively high tax rates), successive governments since the early 1990s have consistently chosen more freedom over more equality, more market over more state. Following the obvious failure of the socialist experiment, the balance between capitalism and socialism has shifted toward capitalism…”
“……Why should countries like the United Kingdom or the U.S. make the same mistake as the Swedes did in the 1970s? Sweden’s “democratic socialism” with high taxes, redistribution and high state regulation has failed, and the young people who are today enthusiastic about the ideas of Bernie Sanders should draw lessons from the experiences of Sweden and other Nordic countries.”
The post wasn’t intended to present a “clear cut rebuttal”, Alan, but an attempt to provoke discussion on a topic about which there is still much confusion. Which it has.
If they admit that the ex-Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and North Korea are, or were capitalist economy, their whole false propaganda made by many years will fall apart, and will also prove that the allegations made by some social democrats calling themselves socialists will fall apart too.
The new tendency is that, socialism is just economic equality, and medical services financed by the state, and to leave intact the economic exploitation at the point of production, wage slavery, and the continuous oppression of the state apparatus. and to run as political candidate of a capitalist political party, to continue running capitalism in the name of the working class.
Most peoples are still confused of what socialism really is, and what it is not socialism, and the new wave of the so called socialists will add more confusion too, like it was done in Latin American with the so called socialism of the XXI century, and many right-winger has used it as a pretext to attack socialism, in the same manner that Trump is using false socialism as an electoral tool
Marcos on the WSPUS thread
“There is a new term known as socialism for bankers”
We read:
“…instead of letting the market punish the banks (which is what capitalism is supposed to do) the government bailed them out and eventually levied paltry fines which the banks treated as the cost of doing business. If this isn’t socialism, what is it? Yet it’s a particular form of socialism. Millions of homeowners who owed more on their homes than the homes became worth didn’t get bailed out. Millions of workers who lost their jobs or their savings, or both, didn’t get bailed out. No major banker went to jail. Call it socialism for rich bankers….”
The concept of socialism has been completely distorted and twisted by the left-wingers, the Leninists and the right wingers. It is going to take many years to repair the damages, by the meantime the workers are electing their own class enemies, and marching behind their own rulers. In my dictionary it is called: Class conciliation
Hi, L.B. here,
The idea Marcos raised is poignant:
‘The concept of socialism has been completely distorted and twisted by the left-wingers, the Leninists and the right wingers. It is going to take many years to repair the damages, by the meantime the workers are electing their own class enemies, and marching behind their own rulers. In my dictionary it is called: Class conciliation’
This is one I have struggled with recently. I do sit on the left, and I take an intersectional approach like so many others- the idea that we can take an oppressive experience (gender, class, race and so on) and join it to points of equivalence with a broad ranging societal subalternity- but join them together to create a diverse voice of resistance.
Sorry, I am trying to refine this.
Capitalism, in the form of many late advent conditions, seeks to emit new narrations for its own survival- perhaps the left/right dichotomy is its invention. Here socialism is linked or coupled to left ideas (over socialist ideas) and bonds the left to a stale mate with the right. This means nothing changes. The thing is- the right wing agenda surges in popular discourse.
The “conservatives don’t hate socialism, they hate equality” has opened up more space- space to consider:
The ideas of the ruling elite are the ruling ideas- mental and material! Okay I finally said it.
I might say I am on the left- or Marcos, thanks, might say I am confused about socialism (there are so many modalities out there: so, so many schisms):
‘and the new wave of the so called socialists will add more confusion too’
There is that- there are so many ways to be ‘socialist’ and I have moved between so many.
I am reminded of that: the ruling elite, the ruling idea- Do I follow or interrogate the ideas fed to me? I will reflect on that, who made the idea, who was its ruler?
I may of digressed from the ‘nordic myth’ a little-
The left seeks equality with the right- economic socialism. Now I might see laizzes faire – market socialism that benefits the elite over the non elite- got there in the (self poorly defined) end.
Can I say the newer interplay away from Left/Right has led me to think more deeply- thank you.
I needed to contribute this: so I can be intersectianal, but not fall into the stale mate of ‘social-economic’ polarities supporting the status quo.
L.B
Post note to comment:
Have you noticed that any failure of a socialist agenda is prefaced by looking or using naturally occurring data that is created by capital/totalitarian based states/policies that purport to ‘testing’ the socialist mode- then draw on their theoretical analyses from rational economics- deeming doomed
Neo liberal policy says the best form of welfare is a job- and the best jobs the market provides are welfare jobs… wage slave positions, and ones that suspend democracy while at work. But for the networked, the CEO and the ruling indolent, they enjoy the economic entitlement we are discouraged from even questioning; even desiring- or we are considered welfare dependent!
It seems nations ‘test a prosocial model’- see it fail- and then say: “see it has failed” and then continue with defending their position (yet opposed by their counterpart) to continue with their ideas, for their ideas are what most people know and are familiar with.
They say it will fail- but it was never put to proper practice- Do you trust a capitalist to implement a socialist premise? They see no profit nor any very personal gain. They might say there is no profit in being social, and all are individuals. And then before we know it- market forms of welfare are created to ‘manage the poor’.
The problem is, if they assess it, they will draw their own summations, conclusions, and so on- their narrative is business as usual, Under New Management, and so on.
What a problem- this problem surfaces in the global, national and local discourse.
And in so many ‘brands’ of socialism- this issue can take many different forms of signification, it becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees- but the capital vociferation hammers the same consistent message: Capital over labour, ruling over the ruled… me over you or mine over yours.
Just a vent, but seeking purpose in it,
L.B
I am reminded of that: the ruling elite, the ruling idea- Do I follow or interrogate the ideas fed to me? I will reflect on that, who made the idea, who was its ruler?
Marx’s analysis of capitalism points to Socialism as the next, higher stage in social development, but there is nothing of predeterminism in this. With today’s large stocks of nuclear and biological weapons and massive pollution of the environment the old socialist challenge “Socialism or Barbarism?” is more relevant than ever. Socialism will not be inevitable until the working class decides to establish it.
It is true that the young Marx sometimes saw the socialist revolution as a more or less spontaneous process. But the mature Marx — “Marx the Marxist” — stressed that the change-over to Socialism must be a conscious act, “the conscious reorganisation of society” as he put it in volume III of Capital (chapter V, section II).
And this was not a question of consciousness among a small minority leading the great majority (as in the Leninist theory). As Engels put it in his 1895 Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggles in France 1848-50:Where it a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for, body and soul.
And in his 1890 Preface to the 4th German edition of the Communist Manifesto:
For the ultimate triumph of the ideas set forth in the Manifesto Marx relied solely and exclusively upon the intellectual development of the working class, as it necessarily had to ensue from united action and discussion.
Taken from here.
“Don’t follow leaders and watch the parking meters.” (Bob Dylan) 🙂
Thanks Matthew,
The need to interrogate the ‘taken for granted’ is so crucial- and today especially. Your Bob Dylan finale was the ideal closing argument!
Discussion is so important to challenge reified rule following behaviour- or the same old dance continues. sorry for the odd metaphor- I don’t have capital as a dance partner, but would much prefer to dance with the struggle ahead- it is far more honest and congruent
🙂
The spgb article about Sweden should have included the theory of surplus value as one of the essential ideas of the Marxian theory
Neil
The truth always hurt . where you are standing now I was there more than 5o years ago. There is one type of true socialism and thousands types of reformism proven to be wrong and most have failed Right and left are not relevant and they are two wings of the same bird known as capitalism. Our society is not divided between conservative and liberal it is divided between bourgeois and proletarian and liberalism and neoliberalism doesn’t exist
Thank you Marcos,
I will continue with using the tools, the narrative theory, the deconstruction and so on- but it will dust itself from the binarism of left/right. The truth is there: it will always be right over left- and the wings… the answer was in front of me all along, wings! Wings of the same bird, and capital remains centred and is its organising principle.
You where at this crossroads over five years ago.. yes it hurts a little to realise reformism has beaten such a weight on my thinking…
Oh I have so much re-reading to do! Starting with Matthew’s recommendations, and perhaps renegotiation of surplus theory, and what negations in my own theory base lay ahead, I do this, and I share my renewal, as it is important- thank Marcos, good to know the journey is shared by a person who has been here before…
L.B. Neill
they are two wings of the same bird known as capitalism.
Being a smart ass I always say , “we aren’t a bird we are a movement”. I really prefer the metaphor that we, although as yet limited in size and scope by our numbers, with our educational contributions, are ‘gnawing at the foundations of capitalism’, by countering the capitalist narrative in a crucially distinctive way.
This article from 1922 spells out some of the problems we still have to overcome.
The spgb article about Sweden should have included the theory of surplus value as one of the essential ideas of the Marxian theory
He does open with this,
“Historically, Marxism has meant the materialist conception of history, the Labour Theory of Value and the political class struggle.” (My emphasis)
Although he doesn’t expand it further. I can only think space prevented him and the issue dealt also with Alienation etc as subjects, so perhaps his intention was just to expand on the Historical Materialist perspective more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.