Sweden

[KarlMarx1989]

What kind of society does Sweden run? Are they Socialist, or...? What?

[ontheyslay]

They have a welfare state. Since the public does not own the means of production, they are not a socialist state.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They are a capitalist state with a large welfare state and a big role for the state in the economy. This allows them to maintain a comparatively high living standard for the working class and one of the capitalist world's most egalitarian distributions of wealth.

In other words, they are the very model of a modern social democracy. But social democracy is not socialism. It is only the "least bad" form of capitalism.

[KarlMarx1989]

Ah. So there is a difference between Social Democracy and Socialist Democracy. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Social Democracy is "nice" capitalism. The state is involved in social welfare, and is supportive of workers but maintains the right to private property. and little or no worker control of the means of production

Socialist Democracy is a form of democracy that occurs in Socialism. the application of democracy ranges from community decisions, the workplace, law, and general government functions. this form of democracy is more direct. and since it occurs in socialism. there is no private property because the workers control all means of production.

[Absolut]

little or no worker control of the means of production

The workers are in as much control here as they are anywhere else in the world.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The workers are in as much control here as they are anywhere else in the world.

it does not rule out the possibility in social democracy for workers to control small(really small) portions of industry. it happens in other capitalist countries to a small(really small) degree also. but, with social democracy there will never be total worker control.

in the case of them completely controlling production, then you can just drop democracy and add -ism :D

[KarlMarx1989]

IMO; good idea = Direct Socialist Democracy

but that's just me.

Although, I do like the way Sweden handles it. It may be a form of Capitalism, but if we had a chance, here in the US, I would support a transition toward this form of Capitalism. Hey, it'd be a pretty nice step away from fascism.

[Qayin]

The US is no way fascist.
Capitalism is capitalism, reformed capitalism may be a bit better,its still capitalism

[KarlMarx1989]

Well, the US--before Barack Obama--was heading toward Fascism and still could if the wrong guy is elected. There is still a lot of opposition to President Obama's new form of Capitalism.

I do agree with you by saying that Capitalism = Capitalism. However, I would go a bit further by saying that Socialism just isn't possible in the US, as of now, so I would rather support a sort of Sweden-type Capitalism. Then we could take the steps from Socialism from there, and then maybe Communism after that; but that won't happen in my lifetime.

[Qayin]

I do agree with you by saying that Capitalism = Capitalism. However, I would go a bit further by saying that Socialism just isn't possible in the US, as of now, so I would rather support a sort of Sweden-type Capitalism. Then we could take the steps from Socialism from there, and then maybe Communism after that; but that won't happen in my lifetime.

Im going to sadly agree with you,our rightists are rabid idiots and think obamas a damn socialist.


Well, the US--before Barack Obama--was heading toward Fascism and still could if the wrong guy is elected. There is still a lot of opposition to President Obama's new form of Capitalism.

Bush was a neo-conservative. Now if he closed the borders and began openly purging leftists/trade unionists and claiming he wants to cleanse all non-europeans or deporting all non whites id agree with you there.

[KarlMarx1989]

Now if he closed the borders and began openly purging leftists/trade unionists and claiming he wants to cleanse all non-europeans or deporting all non whites id agree with you there.
Hey, that could be the next president.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Alright I have certain problems with the answers that have been provided so far. Let's start with this myth:


Originally posted by Kwisatz Haderach:
It [social democracy] is only the "least bad" form of capitalism.

Originally posted by xAMKx:
Capitalism is capitalism, reformed capitalism may be a bit better,its still capitalism

Originally posted by KarlMarx1989:
Although, I do like the way Sweden handles it. It may be a form of Capitalism, but if we had a chance, here in the US, I would support a transition toward this form of Capitalism.

I do agree with you by saying that Capitalism = Capitalism. However, I would go a bit further by saying that Socialism just isn't possible in the US, as of now, so I would rather support a sort of Sweden-type Capitalism. Then we could take the steps from Socialism from there, and then maybe Communism after that; but that won't happen in my lifetime.Well...it's interesting to read such favorable reviews of an imperialist country here on a "revolutionary" forum. The logic that has been presented here is basically reformist, "lesser evil" thinking. There is no "good" or "better" or "perfected" form of imperialism. Ask yourself for a moment why the Swedish bourgeoisie can afford these concessions to the masses. On what basis are these minor concessions possible? The basis is the super-exploitation of the Third World. Moreover, ask yourself what the ideological goal and impact is. Is it not but the bribery of the proletariat and the broader oppressed masses? Is this really what our goal should be? We want simply a few more bread crumbs stolen from the starving tossed our way and then maybe at some point in the distant Never Never Land of the future we think about revolution?

No, this system is completely worthless and unreformable! For an analysis of why and how revolution is possible here in a country like the U.S., go here (http://www.revolutiontalk.net/films/) and watch Session Three of that talk (the third video down from the top).

[gorillafuck]

Hey, that could be the next president.
But probably not.

The USA doesn't even have a fascist party with more than 10 members like England does (with the BNP).

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Some thoughts on the rise of fascism in the United States (http://rwor.org/future/web.htm). (Said article may be dated, but is still relevant.) Believe it. These people have strong positions in the halls of power.

[Qayin]

Well...it's interesting to read such favorable reviews of an imperialist country here on a "revolutionary" forum. The logic that has been presented here is basically reformist, "lesser evil" thinking. There is no "good" or "better" or "perfected" form of imperialism

Didn't know saying moving towards a social democracy before hitting socialism is being anti revolutionary and being favorable of imperialism,nice logic.

[Jethro Tull]

red dragon rider, i agree 100% with your analysis of sweden, but that text you linked to is utterly insane.

here's an amusing highlight


To put it another way, which vision will prevail: that of George W. Bush? Or of Bob Avakian?

:rolleyes::laugh:

revolutionaries need to understand that "fascist" is not a synonym for "bad".

[eyedrop]

Ask yourself for a moment why the Swedish bourgeoisie can afford these concessions to the masses. On what basis are these minor concessions possible? The basis is the super-exploitation of the Third World. Moreover, ask yourself what the ideological goal and impact is. Is it not but the bribery of the proletariat and the broader oppressed masses? Is this really what our goal should be? We want simply a few more bread crumbs stolen from the starving tossed our way and then maybe at some point in the distant Never Never Land of the future we think about revolution? Where do the swedish capitalists gain the majority of their profits?

I fail to see how swedish workers gain by the capitalists aquiring new markets and cheap labour. Not to mention that swedish workers are attacked constantly since their industry isn't competetive because they have too high wages compared to sweat-shop workers.

It's also interesting and kinda offensive how you so easily dismiss the last generations hard struggle to gain those minor "concessions".

[Comrade Gwydion]

1)
I'm tired of friggin Americans stating that Europe's social-democracy's (which only truely are present in Scandinavia) are socialist. They are, as stated above, open to free market, but with a high level of welfare and social security, and a lot of attention for the rights of people and enviroment against corperations.

2)
I'm also tired of people equating social-democrats as an 'evil capitalistic trick to keep us quiet'. The problem I have with social-democrats is that in the Netherlands, in France, in Britain, they are not the same as the Social-Democratic Party (called Labour party, often). Those parties have made a shift to the centre right recently, which explains why the great faction of 'socialists' in the European parliament are actually social liberals and neither social democrats or democratic socialists. The Soc-Dem principle however, although no longer upheld by Labor-party, is rather close to my views as a democratic socialist. They're not 'us', but they're damn well the only 'allies' we have in the parliamentary system.
They're not friggin perfect, but hell, if I had to choose between them and friggin Stalin, I'd take Sweden thank you.


(That said, I obviously just hate Stalin, and needed to rant. Dunno if I'll still feel strongly about this tomorrow ;) )

[Dimentio]

The four Scandinavian countries all have a very peculiar welfare model under capitalist conditions.

[Stormshield]

It's interesting to read about what foreigners think about the situation here. Really, the well-fare model has begun spiralling markedly downwards the last few years, with the right-wing parties gaining government, and selling stuff out at an astonishing rate.

I like it how people describe Sweden as "the lesser evil", since really... Well, I'd lie if I'd say that I want to live in some other country, I don't, but it's the perfect capitalism FOR CAPITALISTS. The majority of the proletariat are content, while still being extremely vulnerable to changes in market and stuff, so the capitalists have most of the advantages of other countries, but are dealing with a working class that doesn't really organize itself, or for that matter doesn't see itself as a working class at all.

Could ramble on forever, but to sum it up... Sweden is an OK place to live, but it's very much a capitalist country. And it's getting worse.

[Absolut]

it does not rule out the possibility in social democracy for workers to control small(really small) portions of industry. it happens in other capitalist countries to a small(really small) degree also. but, with social democracy there will never be total worker control.

How would then social democracy be special in regards to the possibility of workers control, if it happens in other capitalist countries as well?

[Forward Union]

What kind of society does Sweden run? Are they Socialist, or...? What?

Capitalist social democracy. Though currently run by a right wing coalition.

[Kamerat]

Social democratic country is like a regular capitalist country. Except you have free healthcare, free education and more social security. This is financed by higher taxes. The higher taxes only affects those who earn a wage and not people who own shares/means of production. Its easy for rich people to avoid taxes leagaly by changeing their capital and income into shares or other none taxable form of capital and income. Workers dont own the means of production in Sweden or any other social democratic country. But i see social democratic countrys as more progresive then other capitalist countrys with less welfare.

[gorillafuck]

Some thoughts on the rise of fascism in the United States (http://rwor.org/future/web.htm). (Said article may be dated, but is still relevant.) Believe it. These people have strong positions in the halls of power.
"They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world."

No, they're not. Neo-Cons believe in having religion have a sizable influence on the state (abortion, LGBT rights, some have supported proposals to ban sex toys, etc.), but they are not out to start a religious dictatorship.

[Dimentio]

In the 1970's, there was actually a plan in the Swedish government to abolish capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Meidner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

[eyedrop]

In the 1970's, there was actually a plan in the Swedish government to abolish capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Meidner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

What happened? Did they change the system or did the system change them?

Edit: Checked out your links.


Rudulf Meidner caused controversy in 1976 when the LO published his proposal to require all companies above a certain size to issue new stock shares to workers, so that within 20 years the workers would control 52% of the companies they worked in. This created friction and was one reason the ruling Social Democratic Party lost support in the early 1980s.

[Forward Union]

Social democratic country is like a regular capitalist country. Except you have free healthcare, free education and more social security. This is financed by higher taxes. The higher taxes only affects those who earn a wage and not people who own shares/means of production. Its easy for rich people to avoid taxes leagaly by changeing their capital and income into shares or other none taxable form of capital and income. Workers dont own the means of production in Sweden or any other social democratic country. But i see social democratic countrys as more progresive then other capitalist countrys with less welfare.

Social democratic policies are concessions made by capitalists to strong unions and an organized and militant working class.

The system is certainly no more progressive than anywhere else. It'll slip back into the abyss at the first oppertunity (and is doing so)

[Jethro Tull]

"They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world."

No, they're not. Neo-Cons believe in having religion have a sizable influence on the state (abortion, LGBT rights, some have supported proposals to ban sex toys, etc.), but they are not out to start a religious dictatorship.

actually, so-called "neo-cons" (when the term's not just a codeword for 'jew') are not very socially conservative at all. unlike fascists, "neo-cons" are strongly adverse to protectionist policies - and therefore tend support more lenient immigration policies. (much of the bush administration's falling out of grace was dependent upon right-populist disgust with their leniency towards "illegals" - an obvious economic necessity.) nixon, the first "neo-con", created the e.p.a., tried to impliment universal healthcare, supported the ruling of roe v. wade, commented in private that "there are times when an abortion is necessary", (such as "when you have a black and a white") also admitted in private that he "d[id] not mind the homosexuality" and that he "understand[s] it". and pandered to blacks by using the phase "black power".

it's worth pointing out that there's little actual ideological difference between the "neo-cons" in the republican party and, say, the clinton and obama administrations. they both just pander to different public demographics to get elected.

[Rusty Shackleford]

How would then social democracy be special in regards to the possibility of workers control, if it happens in other capitalist countries as well?
it doesnt make it much more special. but it is still something worth pointing out that it may exist within social democracies. i dont know if there are any worker run businesses in sweden. if anyone would be able to contribute information on that i would be grateful

[NecroCommie]

Many things already said are correct, but I'd like to add certain details.

Where as social democracies do uphold many free services, they do this on the price of many ridiculous necessities. All social democracies buy their welfare with ridiculous bureucracy, sky-high prices and drastic over-education. The position of nordic workers is in a way secure, but difficult. Due to the lack of any clear lower class the nordic countries are one of the most expensive countries to live in, and in order to gain something from the illogical welfare system one will have to succumb to a lifetime of passive government surveillance and a paper-war of bureucracy.

it doesnt make it much more special. but it is still something worth pointing out that it may exist within social democracies. i dont know if there are any worker run businesses in sweden. if anyone would be able to contribute information on that i would be grateful
Dunno about Sweden, but at least finnish industry is mainly run by big state-monopolies. If there really is a difference between nordic countries and other cappies, then I'd say that the nordic countries are the ones with less workers control.

This oppinion however, is mainly a "hunch" as they say.

[eyedrop]

Dunno about Sweden, but at least finnish industry is mainly run by big state-monopolies. If there really is a difference between nordic countries and other cappies, then I'd say that the nordic countries are the ones with less workers control.

This oppinion however, is mainly a "hunch" as they say. I'm somewhat divided on the issue. From an industrial workers point of view it doesn't matter if his boss is the government or not (One can make a decent arguement that the government is even better at supressing workers at times*), but I prefer that the government, which is atleast sligthly accountable, gains the profit instead of a scumbag of a capitalist.




*Public wages are still below the private wages. Link (http://www.nito.no/Student/Nyhetsarkiv---Student/Tjener-offentlig-ansatte-mer-enn-de-i-privat-sektor/) Which can make a decent case for working having more bargaining power in the private sector.


Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/24/norway-ethical-oil-environment-arms?commentpage=3) is a decent article in the Guardian dispelling some myths about Norway being a saint.

[Kamerat]

Social democratic policies are concessions made by capitalists to strong unions and an organized and militant working class.

The system is certainly no more progressive than anywhere else. It'll slip back into the abyss at the first oppertunity (and is doing so)
How is free education and healthcare for all not better then education and healthcare just for the rich? Why is a welfare check from the state to the unemployed which the unemployed can live of not better then the unemployed starving to death?

Im not saying these concessions is the ideal, but its better then nothing. And these concessions are not going to derive/distract/divert the strong unions and an organized and militant working class more then any other capitalistic politic. Just compare the unions and organized militant working class in a none social democratic first world country with the unions and organized militant working class in a social democratic first world country.

[Absolut]

it doesnt make it much more special. but it is still something worth pointing out that it may exist within social democracies. i dont know if there are any worker run businesses in sweden. if anyone would be able to contribute information on that i would be grateful

Of course it may exist within social democracies, but I fail to see why it is relevant at all, especially since the fundamental conditions are the same as in any other capitalist country. It may also exists within purely capitalist countries. Whats your point?

I dont know of any businesses run by the workers in Sweden.

[MarxSchmarx]

The Swedish welfare state will not exist without capitalism. Period. It cannot destroy capitalism, because that will "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."


Well...it's interesting to read such favorable reviews of an imperialist country here on a "revolutionary" forum. The logic that has been presented here is basically reformist, "lesser evil" thinking. There is no "good" or "better" or "perfected" form of imperialism. Ask yourself for a moment why the Swedish bourgeoisie can afford these concessions to the masses. On what basis are these minor concessions possible? The basis is the super-exploitation of the Third World. Moreover, ask yourself what the ideological goal and impact is. Is it not but the bribery of the proletariat and the broader oppressed masses? Is this really what our goal should be? We want simply a few more bread crumbs stolen from the starving tossed our way and then maybe at some point in the distant Never Never Land of the future we think about revolution?


This is a valid point, but I frankly do not see this as the achilles' heel of social democracy. True, many welfare states to some extent rely on exploitation of the 3rd world, but this isn't true of all, and nor is it inherent in order for a welfare state to work. Consider a miraculously wealthy country like Brunei that just happens to sit on massive oil reserves to fund its generous welfare state.

Make no mistake. If the welfare states of scandinavia had to choose between capitalism and their social welfare, they would choose capitalism.

I like it how people describe Sweden as "the lesser evil", since really... Well, I'd lie if I'd say that I want to live in some other country, I don't, but it's the perfect capitalism FOR CAPITALISTS. The majority of the proletariat are content, while still being extremely vulnerable to changes in market and stuff, so the capitalists have most of the advantages of other countries, but are dealing with a working class that doesn't really organize itself, or for that matter doesn't see itself as a working class at all.

Further, I suspect that places like Sweden will be the last advanced capitalist societies to finally become socialist. The Swedish people, unlike say the Argentines or even the Americans, have much more to lose by the death of capitalism.

[Stormshield]

Further, I suspect that places like Sweden will be the last advanced capitalist societies to finally become socialist. The Swedish people, unlike say the Argentines or even the Americans, have much more to lose by the death of capitalism.

Very true statement. It's far easier to gather a movement and get people interested if they are unhappy with the current system. Most people in Sweden are content with the way it is, and to add to that, there's almost no political interest, most people just don't care and spend their time on "more important" or "more fun" stuff.

It's as you say - it's not that the current system is good, it's just good enough to keep people content... And the sad thing is that it works.

[RotStern]

I think that Sweden's government is very similar to the German one.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is simply a Social Democrat regime. Capitalist.

It has nothing to do with Socialism.

[KarlMarx1989]

It's funny. Many people in the US are convinced that Sweden is a 'socialist' nation and the new elected government is going in the direction toward a Sweden-like society.