Looking for a criticism of the Scandinavian economies

[kerryhall]

Looking for a criticism of the Scandinavian economies from a revolutionary leftist perspective. It would be nice too if criticism of the individual countries was handled one by one. Certainly Norway, Sweden, and Denmark should be addressed, as I have seen them pointed at time and time again as what we should have, and why revolution isn't necessary.

Cheers

[Zostrianos]

I do admire those countries; I think they're the next best thing to complete Socialism. My only criticism of them (what makes me a socialist, and not a social democrat) is that as long as there is more than one party, there's always a risk of societal deterioration: if one day people elect a right wing party, all the good aspects of those societies could be gone like that, with privatization, capitalist abuses, etc. That's my only criticism, the fact that since they're democratic, their quasi-socialism could collapse at any moment.

[thefinalmarch]

Norway:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society

Sweden:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society

Denmark:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society

Every other bourgeois society:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society

[Crux]

Looking for a criticism of the Scandinavian economies from a revolutionary leftist perspective. It would be nice too if criticism of the individual countries was handled one by one. Certainly Norway, Sweden, and Denmark should be addressed, as I have seen them pointed at time and time again as what we should have, and why revolution isn't necessary.

CheersFrom one of my comrades here in Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna:
Sweden: (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752)

Is Sweden Socialist? (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752)

[Crux]

I do admire those countries; I think they're the next best thing to complete Socialism. My only criticism of them (what makes me a socialist, and not a social democrat) is that as long as there is more than one party, there's always a risk of societal deterioration: if one day people elect a right wing party, all the good aspects of those societies could be gone like that, with privatization, capitalist abuses, etc. That's my only criticism, the fact that since they're democratic, their quasi-socialism could collapse at any moment.
Reforms can be rolled back because they are hesistant and incomplete, this has been the case with nordic social democracy from the begining. And eventually it was them that helped roll it back too, when their workingclass base eroded and the pressure from below with in the socdem parties began to dissapear. Besides you ought to know that the NDP is comparatiely left-wing as far as international social democracy is concerned. That ought to tell you something of the state of social democracy.

[kerryhall]

Norway:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society

Sweden:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society

Denmark:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society

Every other bourgeois society:


Surplus-value is extracted from workers' labour-power -- i.e. workers are exploited
Workers are obliged to work for a capitalist otherwise they will not be paid any wages and will therefore be unable to subsist -- i.e. workers must sell their labour-power to live. They are therefore beholden to the capitalist classes -- i.e. workers are wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie
The contradictions between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the proletariat cannot be resolved in bourgeois society



Yes, but if some people believe that the capitalist deserves their profits for whatever reason, and if it looks to them like the workers have some sort of decent standard of living, (in their opinion) it is really hard to convince people, especially the large number of folks who I have talked to who are members of the Democratic party and would like to emulate Scandinavian countries.

It is quite easy to demonstrate the ills of capitalism for a country with a large number of poor people, but people hold those countries up as a model and go "look, everyone there is happy" despite surplus value being extracted from worker's labor.

BTW: It seems like a dangerous road: keep workers in those countries just happy enough so that a revolution will never take shape.

[Zostrianos]

Besides you ought to know that the NDP is comparatiely left-wing as far as international social democracy is concerned. That ought to tell you something of the state of social democracy.

Pure socialist parties here in Canada are almost insignificant, and get at best a few hundred votes per election. I've always liked the NDP, it's thanks to them that Canada hasn't become a capitalist hell-hole, and still retains free healthcare and a decent welfare state. Although they're social democrats, I've always imagined that if they took full power, with all the positive changes they would bring, it would be easier to tip the scales a bit further and bring about full, real socialism.

[Smyg]

Sweden is not socialist. The fucking slightest. Just to clarify that.

[Iron Felix]

Shall we negotiate with the ruling classes or abolish them?

[Crux]

Yes, but if some people believe that the capitalist deserves their profits for whatever reason, and if it looks to them like the workers have some sort of decent standard of living, (in their opinion) it is really hard to convince people, especially the large number of folks who I have talked to who are members of the Democratic party and would like to emulate Scandinavian countries.

It is quite easy to demonstrate the ills of capitalism for a country with a large number of poor people, but people hold those countries up as a model and go "look, everyone there is happy" despite surplus value being extracted from worker's labor.

BTW: It seems like a dangerous road: keep workers in those countries just happy enough so that a revolution will never take shape.
To many people the surplus value point would sound purely academic I think. The point you've got to make with those people looking to the nordic model as an example is that 1) much of that has been rolled back 2) it did not appear out of a vacuum. The welfare state was created from the pressure of a strong and quite militant labour movement. In the 1920's and 30's sweden, incredibly, had the highest number of strikes per capita in europe. In 1909 there was a massive general strike, just to take an example. These wellfare reforms were not handed down by benovelent liberal politicians, they were won with blood and struggle.

[ZeroNowhere]

You may be interested in this talk (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/audio-nov-4-talk-on-swedish-socialism.html), called, ''Swedish Socialism': Not what it used to be, but then it never was'.


I do admire those countries; I think they're the next best thing to complete Socialism. My only criticism of them (what makes me a socialist, and not a social democrat) is that as long as there is more than one party, there's always a risk of societal deterioration: if one day people elect a right wing party, all the good aspects of those societies could be gone like that, with privatization, capitalist abuses, etc. That's my only criticism, the fact that since they're democratic, their quasi-socialism could collapse at any moment.
Luxemburgism, everyone.

[Ocean Seal]

Two criticisms to social democracy

1. What has been given can be taken away
---All it requires is some chaos and the government can roll back positive social changes and implement a greater degree of neoliberalism

2. You can't have your cake and eat it too (this one is two fold)
--You can't have a ruling class and decent social services. Eventually you run out of money because such a state has a very high upkeep and capitalism as it progresses loses yield.
--You have to resort to imperialism otherwise (which can't work forever.

[aty]

It has failed. Socialdemocrats were progressive socialists trying to take the means of production to the hands of the workers until the mid 70s.

In the begining of the 70s the labour movement voted to set up "wage-founds" that meant that the workers would buy all the means of production year by year with the profits we produce. In the end the workers would own and control the means of production.

It was an absolute radical reformist idea. This made the captialists shit their pants. They created A and B-stocks, if you own A-stocks you have ten times much votes in the company.
And socialdemocrat-leaders Olof Palme and Kjell Olof Feldt later betrayed the idea of wage-founds that was democratically voted for by the workers.

It was here the big shift to neoliberalism began and I suspect more political interference from the US and IMF.
In 1985 the IMF put pressure on Sweden to deregulate and so they did deregulate the creditmarkets. This was done by the centralbank, our primeminister only knew that it would happen 3 days in advance. This is called the "novemberrevolution", practically a neoliberal-coup. The three men behind this have admitted they were under pressure from other nations and the IMF and World Bank.

This deregulation led to a huge swing up for the swedish economy, mostly for the rich. But in 1991 the bubble burst and we had the worst economic crisis ever in Sweden.
From always having an unemployment around 1%-3% we now had 10%+ and it have never went under 4% again, in 2011 we have 8% unemployment. We have not recovered yet.

[Revolution starts with U]

I do admire those countries; I think they're the next best thing to complete Socialism. My only criticism of them (what makes me a socialist, and not a social democrat) is that as long as there is more than one party, there's always a risk of societal deterioration: if one day people elect a right wing party, all the good aspects of those societies could be gone like that, with privatization, capitalist abuses, etc. That's my only criticism, the fact that since they're democratic, their quasi-socialism could collapse at any moment.

The USSR was a 1 party state, and yet managed to roll back worker gains, in not too short of a time....

[Crux]

Two criticisms to social democracy

1. What has been given can be taken away
---All it requires is some chaos and the government can roll back positive social changes and implement a greater degree of neoliberalism

2. You can't have your cake and eat it too (this one is two fold)
--You can't have a ruling class and decent social services. Eventually you run out of money because such a state has a very high upkeep and capitalism as it progresses loses yield.
--You have to resort to imperialism otherwise (which can't work forever.
A further point I'd like to make is that social wellfare *is* possible under capitalism as long as the capitalists can be pressured to stand back. This is only possible in an economic upturn. This is quite easy to see, because what gets cut as soon as an eocnomy starts to look wobbly? Social wellfare. To resist it you have to be prepared to go into direct conflict with the capitalists, and very few reformists today have the guts to do that. Also social democracy is not what it used to be, the social democrats of today are the liberals of 30 years ago. This is worth remembering, both to understand the 60's 70's wellfare models and, esepcially, what present day "social democracy" means. It is pretty far from any kind of reform socialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

From one of my comrades here in Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna:
Sweden: (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752)

Is Sweden Socialist? (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752)

This article is really well researched. I like it and will cite it next time I have a debate with insufferable techno-cratic Scandanavian third way The Economist loving jerks that filled my economic development classes in college.

[svenne]

This article is really well researched. I like it and will cite it next time I have a debate with insufferable techno-cratic Scandanavian third way The Economist loving jerks that filled my economic development classes in college.

It's actually a pretty good article, but a couple of small (and pretty large) things are missing. I may have missed something in the article, but these are my impressions.
The idea behind the central agreements on wage levels was the Rehn-Meidner Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehn%E2%80%93Meidner_Model), where the RS (Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna, who wrote the article) seems to have left out that the unprofitable companys had to close down, while the profitable companies profited from the agreement. In short, Sweden had a lot of profitable and strong companies, with people having "good" salaries.
And a lot more importantly, the focus on the social democratic party seems to mess up the writings about the 68-revolt and it continuation inte the 80s (!). While the normal history in Sweden tells us that the revolt came and ended with a couple of students occupying their own house - sort of -, it's a lot more to it. Sweden experienced a lot of strikes, both wild cat and demanded by the workers, in the 1970s and beginning of 1980s. If i remember correctly, Sweden even had a unusually high level of wild cat strikes, long after other countries strike waves had died down.
The background to these strikes could be found in the Rehn-Meidner Model; while wages increased, and so did the amount of consumer goods people could afford, the workers had to work harder for each year. That just plainly sucked.
While the strikes of the 1970-80s often where legal and started within the union framework, there also was a lot of other forces at play. For example, in the somewhat famous forest workers strike of 1975, about 25 % of the striking workers where members of the Central Organization of the Workers of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Organisation_of_the_Workers_of_Sweden), the swedish anarcho-syndicalist union. Of course, it may seem as a small thing to mention, but in reality, a lot of other groups - both unorganized workers, anarcho-syndicalists, as well as "stalinists" from the Left Party - played a big part in the latest big rounds of class struggle in Sweden. As when the RS takes claim for the school strikes in the mid-90s, there also was a lot of influence, cooperation and participation with and from other parts of the swedish broad left.

... And try not to take this post as a part of a sectarian war, but as a fleshing out of the article.

[CleverTitle]

You may be interested in this talk (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/audio-nov-4-talk-on-swedish-socialism.html), called, ''Swedish Socialism': Not what it used to be, but then it never was'.


Luxemburgism, everyone.
oh god

There's so much wrong with this.
Am I having a stroke?

[Rafiq]

They carry the inherit contradictions within capitalism.

Not much more to it, really. This is why Marx opposed all forms of capitalism, and he didn't do it from an ethical perspective. When someone sais "What's so bad about what Sweden has" you don't go on about surplus value being extracted, because they aren't going to buy that.

All capitalist systems are bound to failure and destruction eventually. There is no avoiding that, not even with this quasi-socialdemocratic crap that the Scandandavian countries have.

[kerryhall]

Sweden is not socialist. The fucking slightest. Just to clarify that.

I agree with that, but people living there have a better standard of living than other places, so many people seem to think that they have a close to ideal system, they seem to think that it shows that capitalism can be fixed.

[kerryhall]

They carry the inherit contradictions within capitalism.

All capitalist systems are bound to failure and destruction eventually. There is no avoiding that, not even with this quasi-socialdemocratic crap that the Scandandavian countries have.

Can you please elaborate. Sorry, but I'm learning.

[aty]

I agree with that, but people living there have a better standard of living than other places, so many people seem to think that they have a close to ideal system, they seem to think that it shows that capitalism can be fixed.
What it shows is that capitalism cant be fixed. You have to always go forward with more and more socialism or the capitalists will soon take it all away.

It was the socialdemocrats that betrayed the swedish peoples desire for socialism. In the begining of the 70s the swedish working class made a huge effort to actually take over the means of production. A large part of the economy were either nationalized or worked as cooperatives. And with the wage-founds all of the means of production would be controlled by the workers.

It was the miners in the north of Sweden that started the ideology-backbone of this surge in class warfare from the swedish working class. In the northern parts of Sweden people are firm socialists and have actually voted more and more to the left as the rest of the country have gone to the right.
The wild cat miners strike 69-70 started a trend with 20 years of wild cat strikes. The capitalists could not break the swedish working class with the methods that it had used in other countries. And during this whole time the unions stayed largely out of the conflict as the unions are mainly socialdemocratic, this is why the wild cat strikes.

What then happend was the capitalists deregulated the creditmarkets(undemocratically) and blew up a huge bubble that exploded in 1991 and at the same time a right wing government took over and changed many laws.

Today young people cant get a full time job. We never get a real job but have bad contracts or work for a "Staff hiring-company" that can exploit and go around the worker-laws that the strikers in the 70s managed to win. These laws dont work anymore but they still exist. "Hiring-companys" was legalized by the right wing in the 90s.

Even if you fight within the capitalist system to get to socialism, the capitalists can always exploit the system in some way or another. They can go around laws and the democracy.

This is what you should learn about Sweden.

[Rafiq]

Can you please elaborate. Sorry, but I'm learning.

Well it's going to be hard to sum it up one post, but Marx wrote three volumes of a book called Das Kapital, which explains everything. And since then, no economist has been able to disprove the books.

This is why many mainstream economists are becoming 'fans' of Marx.

I'd look into it.

[aty]

Well it's going to be hard to sum it up one post, but Marx wrote three volumes of a book called Das Kapital, which explains everything. And since then, no economist has been able to disprove the books.

This is why many mainstream economists are becoming 'fans' of Marx.

I'd look into it.
Das Kapital is no book for one that is just starting to learn about politics and economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It has failed. Socialdemocrats were progressive socialists trying to take the means of production to the hands of the workers until the mid 70s.

In the begining of the 70s the labour movement voted to set up "wage-founds" that meant that the workers would buy all the means of production year by year with the profits we produce. In the end the workers would own and control the means of production.

It was an absolute radical reformist idea. This made the capitalists shit their pants. They created A and B-stocks, if you own A-stocks you have ten times much votes in the company.
And socialdemocrat-leaders Olof Palme and Kjell Olof Feldt later betrayed the idea of wage-founds that was democratically voted for by the workers.

It's about time somebody posted in this thread about:

The increase of real social savings and investment by first means of mandatory and significant redistributions of annual business profits, by private enterprises with more workers than a defined threshold, as non-tradable and superior voting shares to be held by geographically organised worker funds.

A.K.A. the Meidner Plan. I know many Trotskyists are obsessed about "nationalizing the top such-and-such companies," but the bankruptcy of their "transitional" sloganeering, particular in Scandinavia, expresses itself by the lack of discussion on the Meidner Plan for the middle companies.

[Fawkes]

What are the social services, particularly welfare/unemployment, like in those countries? I was debating my friend a few days ago regarding Scandinavian countries and he repeatedly brought up that people there aren't forced to work because they get full state support if they don't. I still argued against him on the basis that that's not possible because capitalism requires a large, subjugated labor pool to draw from and that the state wouldn't have the capability to support large portions of the population if production dropped drastically. Still, what exactly is the welfare/unemployment system like in those countries? I used a basic materialist analysis to refute his points, but it would've been nice to have been able to relate them directly to Scandinavian countries in particular.

[svenne]

What are the social services, particularly welfare/unemployment, like in those countries? I was debating my friend a few days ago regarding Scandinavian countries and he repeatedly brought up that people there aren't forced to work because they get full state support if they don't. I still argued against him on the basis that that's not possible because capitalism requires a large, subjugated labor pool to draw from and that the state wouldn't have the capability to support large portions of the population if production dropped drastically. Still, what exactly is the welfare/unemployment system like in those countries? I used a basic materialist analysis to refute his points, but it would've been nice to have been able to relate them directly to Scandinavian countries in particular.

A world of no. At least in Sweden. You have to search jobs for eight hours a day, five days a week to get support. And after a couple of hundred days, you get the lowest possible support, and they put you in "FAS 3", where you have to work at a real job for full time. Funniest thing? The company which "hires" you doesn't pay your salary, and even better: they get paid 5000 SEK (somewhat lower than $1000) a month. Well, to be honest, it's a pretty new thing, but it ain't been this bad since the 1930s. The scandinavian welfare system is pretty much dying in Sweden.

[Thirsty Crow]

A world of no. At least in Sweden. You have to search jobs for eight hours a day, five days a week to get support.
That sounds as if an unemployed person is forced to treat finding a job as a full time job. And how exactly do state authorities supervise job seekers?


And after a couple of hundred days, you get the lowest possible support, and they put you in "FAS 3", where you have to work at a real job for full time.So, basically, there is a gradation of unemployment "benefits" (boy do I hate ideologytalk) according to the time of unemployment. Is there a mandatory time of actual employment (like, two years) before people can apply for state support?

Also, I don't quite understand how the state "puts" someone in FAS 3. Is it - you either do this, or don't get a dime out of the state? It seems that this FAS 3 is a kind of those government programs whereby the state enables a company to hire a unemployed person without being obliged to pay out wages, as a condition for getting state support (this corresponds to the rest of your post). Which amounts to capitalists' welfare (the absurdity of handing out money to an enterprise in order that you may pay out a person's unemployment benefits - while s/he works for the same company). Is there a good article on such practices, preferably from at least a "leftist" perspective?

[EvilRedGuy]

Popular Socialism (Folkesocialisme) is shit.

I just want to abolish the classes. I need more money.

[individualist communist]

Well for Denmark (where i live) the extremely high taxes on ordinary workers bothers me. Also the strict gun control and the restrictions on freedom of speech is a problem.

[aty]

Well for Denmark (where i live) the extremely high taxes on ordinary workers bothers me. Also the strict gun control and the restrictions on freedom of speech is a problem.
I would say this is the least of our problems....

[Wubbaz]

First off, the Scandinavian countries are by no means social-democratic paradises. The class structure inherent in capitalism exists here just as it does in any other capitalist country. Our hard-won rights for workers are under siege by the urge for constant economic growth.. pensions have been raised, for example, to expand the pool of labour-power for capital to exploit.

The Scandinavian welfare system is financed by some of the worlds highest tax percentages. This also means, that the average wage of the worker is higher than the rest of the world, and that the Northern economies therefore have to attend to special "niche" roles in the global economy. If one was imagine that, for example, all minerals in the world would be extracted and processed into other goods by workers being paid Danish/Swedish/Norweigan wages, maintaining the current rate of consumption in the Western economies would simply be impossible. The conclusion is therefore that, while a Scandinavian welfare system is perhaps the closest thing that capitalism can come to ensure good living conditions for the whole populace, it is in no way a welfare system that would be able to function everywhere in the world. Contemporary capitalism needs to pay the larger part of the world low wages, so that the rest 1/5 of the world may live with such high material standards as we do.

[kerryhall]

1) much of that has been rolled back


Is there some sort of document stating exactly what has been rolled back, since say the 1970s? (or similar time in the past, as long as I can clearly show that it is being rolled back)



2) it did not appear out of a vacuum. The welfare state was created from the pressure of a strong and quite militant labour movement. In the 1920's and 30's sweden, incredibly, had the highest number of strikes per capita in europe. In 1909 there was a massive general strike, just to take an example. These wellfare reforms were not handed down by benovelent liberal politicians, they were won with blood and struggle.

What about the welfare states created in other Scandinavian countries? I'm trying to have all my bases covered.

Is there a leaflet or essay that discusses these things? Sounds like something that would be quite useful.

So what do I say to someone who says "well I realize it will take general strikes and such to win a welfare state, but I would rather have that then revolution, because revolution sounds scary to me"

Thanks!!

[kerryhall]

What it shows is that capitalism cant be fixed. You have to always go forward with more and more socialism or the capitalists will soon take it all away.


I agree with this, I think it's a good point. But I need more details about how the capitalists take it away. I have argued that we need a mass movement in order to get rid of capitalism, but people are saying no, we should use a mass movement to get reforms passed that would greatly limit the power of the capitalists. It's such a bizarre idea to me that I have trouble responding haha.



It was the socialdemocrats that betrayed the swedish peoples desire for socialism.


Ugh, of course.



In the begining of the 70s the swedish working class made a huge effort to actually take over the means of production. A large part of the economy were either nationalized or worked as cooperatives. And with the wage-founds all of the means of production would be controlled by the workers.


I will read more about that for sure!



It was the miners in the north of Sweden that started the ideology-backbone of this surge in class warfare from the swedish working class. In the northern parts of Sweden people are firm socialists and have actually voted more and more to the left as the rest of the country have gone to the right.

The wild cat miners strike 69-70 started a trend with 20 years of wild cat strikes. The capitalists could not break the swedish working class with the methods that it had used in other countries. And during this whole time the unions stayed largely out of the conflict as the unions are mainly socialdemocratic, this is why the wild cat strikes.


Wow, that is awesome!



What then happend was the capitalists deregulated the creditmarkets(undemocratically) and blew up a huge bubble that exploded in 1991 and at the same time a right wing government took over and changed many laws.


How did they manage to deregulate the credit markets? How did a right wing government take over?



Today young people cant get a full time job. We never get a real job but have bad contracts or work for a "Staff hiring-company" that can exploit and go around the worker-laws that the strikers in the 70s managed to win. These laws dont work anymore but they still exist. "Hiring-companys" was legalized by the right wing in the 90s.


That sucks :(



Even if you fight within the capitalist system to get to socialism, the capitalists can always exploit the system in some way or another. They can go around laws and the democracy.


I agree, but I need more details as to how.



This is what you should learn about Sweden.


I need to learn about Denmark too, that one is constantly held up as an example, and I got nothing in response.

Thanks!!

[kerryhall]

Well it's going to be hard to sum it up one post, but Marx wrote three volumes of a book called Das Kapital, which explains everything. And since then, no economist has been able to disprove the books.

This is why many mainstream economists are becoming 'fans' of Marx.

I'd look into it.

I personally have no problem reading Kapital, (but have not gotten around to it yet) but here is the problem: if I am talking to someone on the street about capitalism, and I say "all capitalist economies are bound to fail eventually" and the person says "how?" then what am I supposed to say? Read Kapital? There has to be some sort of summary. The translations of Kapital are not really written in accessible language. I just realized right now maybe I should look at the cliff notes, but in the mean time, any good leaflets on this exact subject would be most helpful for outreach efforts.

Cheers!

[kerryhall]

First off, the Scandinavian countries are by no means social-democratic paradises. The class structure inherent in capitalism exists here just as it does in any other capitalist country. Our hard-won rights for workers are under siege by the urge for constant economic growth.. pensions have been raised, for example, to expand the pool of labour-power for capital to exploit.

The Scandinavian welfare system is financed by some of the worlds highest tax percentages. This also means, that the average wage of the worker is higher than the rest of the world, and that the Northern economies therefore have to attend to special "niche" roles in the global economy. If one was imagine that, for example, all minerals in the world would be extracted and processed into other goods by workers being paid Danish/Swedish/Norweigan wages, maintaining the current rate of consumption in the Western economies would simply be impossible. The conclusion is therefore that, while a Scandinavian welfare system is perhaps the closest thing that capitalism can come to ensure good living conditions for the whole populace, it is in no way a welfare system that would be able to function everywhere in the world. Contemporary capitalism needs to pay the larger part of the world low wages, so that the rest 1/5 of the world may live with such high material standards as we do.

This is a really, really good point. I would like to see a leaflet written about this. Any more discussion about this particular point?

Also what did you mean by the "1/5" above?

Hmm thinking about it now though, I know what the response is going to be: "But if taxes are high enough on the capitalists (won through worker action) then a welfare system could function in the rest of the world"

[kerryhall]

Any more info/leaflets on this?

[Kombouto]

The Scandinavian welfare system is financed by some of the worlds highest tax percentages.

Just one clarification on this. A Spanish worker in Seat pays 75% of the taxes that a Swedish worker in Volvo pays. 1% richest in Spain pays 20% of the taxes than 1% richest in Sweden pays.

[rednordman]

I can say that you do not need to criticize any of the skandinavian economies as the more open to capitalism they have become in recent years, the more problems that have arrised. its as simple as that.

[aty]

I wish you all could read swedish, the center for marxism have just written "the impossibilities of reformism".
http://www.cmsmarx.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CMS-Reformismens-om%C3%B6jligheter.pdf

It absolutely smashes the reformist ideas. It will be fun to see if any socialdemocrats will answer this report.

[CAleftist]

Sweden's reformist social-democratic experiment was initiated as a response to worker demands and the threat of Communist revolution in the early 1900s. And it was possible because Sweden historically had a monarchy and a state church (neither of which America ever had) as the central power over the Swedish society. So there wasn't the hostility to "central planning" that was endemic in American society.

From my understanding, the Right has gained a lot more power in Sweden (and the other Scandinavian countries) in recent years.