Sweden: Socialism or just regulated Capitalism?

[Sovietcomrade232]

I want to pose an interesting point. Although a good portion of the social programs (ie health care) have good intentions, are they really useful in a long term since? If tax heavily the capitalist, spend massive on welfare programs for the workers, is this really progress in Socialism or is this just heavily regulated capitalism? By this I mean are really achieving anything of real importance in the grand scheme of things or are we just achieve a 'stop gap' measure to make things more bearable in the mean time? Nikita Khrushchev once implied that liberals were bringing america closer and closer to socialism. Do you think that is so, or do you all that it'll achieve is a highly regulated mess that hinders what little good capitalism can do with little to off set that?

[eyedrop]

While it is certainly better than most other capitalist countries it is still capitalism. When EU, transnationals or Swedish capitalists say jump, the Swedish state apparatus jumps. Maybe reluctantly but it still jumps.

The average workers influence on their town and workplace are still pretty close to nill.

[Dimentio]

I want to pose an interesting point. Although a good portion of the social programs (ie health care) have good intentions, are they really useful in a long term since? If tax heavily the capitalist, spend massive on welfare programs for the workers, is this really progress in Socialism or is this just heavily regulated capitalism? By this I mean are really achieving anything of real importance in the grand scheme of things or are we just achieve a 'stop gap' measure to make things more bearable in the mean time? Nikita Khrushchev once implied that liberals were bringing america closer and closer to socialism. Do you think that is so, or do you all that it'll achieve is a highly regulated mess that hinders what little good capitalism can do with little to off set that?

In some aspects, Sweden did have traits of a socialist society. Not in the terms of social programmes, which only are... well, things that exist in Saudi Arabia as well.

What I'm instead is talking about was the high level of social organisation, and the influence of social democratic-run associations which penetrated almost all corners of Swedish society in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's.

[eyedrop]

I found this little cool diploma hanging on a wall, which shows hint of a social organisation we don't have these days.

The caption reads; Workers Sportsteam Diploma.

Not as an occupation, but as a part of the workers fight for their liberation.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7216/img00751m.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/img00751m.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[Dimentio]

Sweden was literally full of that in the 1970's.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What I'm instead is talking about was the high level of social organisation, and the influence of social democratic-run associations which penetrated almost all corners of Swedish society in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's.

The liberals nightmare.

I once read, in the dentists waiting room, a magazine called "ENTREPRENÖR", wherein a multi-part article made claims that all Swedish prosperity had its origins in the capitalism of the early 1900's and the oh-so-merciful hard dedicated work of Swedish capitalists in the classical liberal sanctification of individuals, and that it was social welfare programs that made the country "weak" - even though the years they described, though having capitalist growth, saw little improvement in the standard of living.

It also makes me think of a very badly written book whose first chapters I once read, published by the deranged and hysterical nutters at Timbro called "Så Sänkte jag Sovjet", wherein the entire first chapters was an endless tirade focusing on the oppression of the individual under the iron-heel of social-democracy (described as evil totalitarian collectivism) and the left-oriented illness of the Swedish people's minds that had to be corrected. :laugh:

[eyedrop]

Sweden was literally full of that in the 1970's.

It's amazing how fast society has completely forgotten it though.

To what degree the cultural working class organisation/unity was successful is an interesting discussion I haven't seen to much of. It certainly builds working class pride, which is kinda shattered these days.

[Dimentio]

It's amazing how fast society has completely forgotten it though.

To what degree the cultural working class organisation/unity was successful is an interesting discussion I haven't seen to much of. It certainly builds working class pride, which is kinda shattered these days.

We have fewer industrial workers today, a bloated service sector and a bloated sector with jobs that exist just to make unemployment statistics look better.

There is a certain working class pride amongst industrial workers, but most of them tend to vote conservative today, because they generally blame those who don't have jobs for being lazy. Those who vote on the left-wing parties are people working in the public sector and those who are unemployed. A lot of poorer workers are also blaming immigrants, either for stealing their jobs or their welfare.

[eyedrop]

We have fewer industrial workers today, a bloated service sector and a bloated sector with jobs that exist just to make unemployment statistics look better. When I last looked at the industrial numbers the real-worth of it was still rising, but it's significantly fewer workers involved.

Is the service sector workers inherently incapable of producing a working class culture and pride? I can see McJobs being too unstable and "temporary" to produce it, but there are plenty of stable "lifelong" jobs in the service sector as well which could produce a working class culture.


There is a certain working class pride amongst industrial workers, but most of them tend to vote conservative today, because they generally blame those who don't have jobs for being lazy. Those who vote on the left-wing parties are people working in the public sector and those who are unemployed. A lot of poorer workers are also blaming immigrants, either for stealing their jobs or their welfare.The impression I get is that industrial workers here vote Ap (centrist, was social-democratic) since Røkke, our industrial captain and hero, heavily cooperates with them. The union also supports Ap.

The impression I've gotten from talking too old retired workers is that they vote conservative because they feel betrayed by Ap and all the left wing parties, combined with the immigrant issue.

[Dimentio]

When I last looked at the industrial numbers the real-worth of it was still rising, but it's significantly fewer workers involved.

Is the service sector workers inherently incapable of producing a working class culture and pride? I can see McJobs being too unstable and "temporary" to produce it, but there are plenty of stable "lifelong" jobs in the service sector as well which could produce a working class culture.

To some extent, it has been possible within the public sector. But the difference today from the 1970's is that there is a permanently high unemployment, which is probably even higher given the amount of people who are prematurely retired or stuffed into "job activities". And the conditions on the work place are not yet bad enough to produce radical results.



The impression I've gotten from talking too old retired workers is that they vote conservative because they feel betrayed by Ap and all the left wing parties, combined with the immigrant issue.

The same here. But those voting on the Fascists here are younger(!) male workers from industrial small towns with high unemployment. The older, retired workers are often voting conservative.

In some ways, I could understand them. Our countries are basically 2/3 societies, and I would say that the important struggle in terms of class today is fought in China and India, due to the exploitative conditions there.

I think though that a movement could be built up from unemployed people, even though they tend to blame themselves for what is really in general a social and structural and political problem.

[Sovietcomrade232]

In my personal opinion these highly regulated capitalist states serve mainly provide a fairer version of capitalism albeit at the cost of efficiency and progress. Also it more or less preserves the capitalist system as a whole, basically removing the possibility of a worker class culture being produced. So it's usefulness as a transition is almost negligible. The high taxes and social programs just offset the negative aspects of capitalism. Without a change in the way they economy is built, the way of life stays the same. If anything it limits the ability to progress into a socialist (in a communist sense) state as it gives a false sense of equality and develops the culture into one that is okay with the status quo.

[Dimentio]

In my personal opinion these highly regulated capitalist states serve mainly provide a fairer version of capitalism albeit at the cost of efficiency and progress. Also it more or less preserves the capitalist system as a whole, basically removing the possibility of a worker class culture being produced. So it's usefulness as a transition is almost negligible. The high taxes and social programs just offset the negative aspects of capitalism. Without a change in the way they economy is built, the way of life stays the same. If anything it limits the ability to progress into a socialist (in a communist sense) state as it gives a false sense of equality and develops the culture into one that is okay with the status quo.

I agree that welfare capitalism is still welfare capitalism. The socialist aspects of Sweden, and to some degree Norway, were instead located in a very advanced and large movement of labour unions.

[Red Commissar]

I would say it's socialism. It's regulated capitalism and still rooted in that. The achievements were impressive but it can't be construed as socialism. The closest the government of Sweden made that could've been remotely in that direction were with the Employee Funds legislation that unsurprisingly never saw the light of day.

Also, and I don't mean to nitpick, but that Khrushchev quote you refer to isn't true- I've often seen it rendered as "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism".

There's no grounds to Khrushchev ever saying this beyond being circulated by some press in the day and still tossed around to this day. Soviet records don't show a thing and it doesn't appear in any of his interviews with foreign press.

[Sovietcomrade232]

Also, and I don't mean to nitpick, but that Khrushchev quote you refer to isn't true- I've often seen it rendered as "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism".

There's no grounds to Khrushchev ever saying this beyond being circulated by some press in the day and still tossed around to this day. Soviet records don't show a thing and it doesn't appear in any of his interviews with foreign press.

Interesting I never new that. But still I was addressing what it implied was incorrect, so it really doesn't matter if it was really said or not.