Scandinavian Social Democracy

[GopherViking]

Greetings comrades, this is my first post on here. Originally I was a strong capitalist, but now I've started to reconsider and look more into socialism. I was always under the impression that the Scandinavian countries were fully socialist, but it turns out this is not the case. I've looked around on here, and apparently most on here dislike social democracy because it is not true socialism with the proletariat control. If social democracy is undesirable, then how do you explain the relative prosperity of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Firstly, Welcome onboard to the red side!

And to start with i need to point out that socialism menas that the workers are in control over the production, which can be manifested in diferent ways. That have never happend here in Scandinavia. Its a very common missunderstanding, the labour movement here have taken a parlamentarian strategy in the form of social democratic parties, where reforms in the working class interest have been taken one after one. This is not socialism but keyanism, which means that youre trying to reduce the bad impacts of capitalism with a strong wellfare sector and a social safety net.

So why do many leftist dislike this? As you say, mostly because it isnt real proletarian control and it sometimes claims to be it. Also its a false sence of security since its very fradgile and can easely been taken away.

[Prinskaj]

Greetings comrades, this is my first post on here. Originally I was a strong capitalist, but now I've started to reconsider and look more into
Welcome to the site, I hope that you like it here. :)

I was always under the impression that the Scandinavian countries were fully socialist, but it turns out this is not the case. I've looked around on here, and apparently most on here dislike social democracy because it is not true socialism with the proletariat control. If social democracy is undesirable, then how do you explain the relative prosperity of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark?
Well, we don't like the social democracies of Denmark, Sweden, Norway etc. Because they still operate under the capitalist mode of production, and is still highly class based, with the bourgeois control of the means of production.
These countries have larger prosperity because of the people in these countries having, historically, demanded higher wages and better working conditions, then many other countries. Higher wages leads to more consumption and therefore economic growth (Keynesian economics)

[Gold Against The Soul]

Greetings comrades, this is my first post on here. Originally I was a strong capitalist, but now I've started to reconsider and look more into socialism. I was always under the impression that the Scandinavian countries were fully socialist, but it turns out this is not the case. I've looked around on here, and apparently most on here dislike social democracy because it is not true socialism with the proletariat control. If social democracy is undesirable, then how do you explain the relative prosperity of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark?

I'm not an expert on the countries in question but my understanding was that there, like everywhere else, social democracy has been on the decline for sometime now. Sure, they still do relatively better than most in terms of unemployment, inequality, living standards, social problems etc but this is a measure against others. Usually countries who have significantly rolled back any reforms that had been introduced. How would the situation compare with, lets say, 30 years ago, in these same countries? As I understand it, things like unemployment, inequality are all on the upturn and higher than they have been in the past. The process is just seems slower and more ordered than compared with, lets say, Britain. The trade union seem to like 'social partnerships' with the government, which seems to me to be about compromise as the reforms are rolled back. Comrades from these countries are maybe better placed to comment on this.

And this leads onto to the keys points. You mention workers control and that is one of them. If the workers have placed their trust in people claiming to represent their interests and these people switch sides because the balance of forces have changed, what is to be done? Ask them nicely to change their minds? Has that ever worked? Actually, the exact same question with regards to the Russian Revolution. This is why Marx talks about the emancipation of the class having to be the act of the working class. Social Democracy and Bolshevism come from the same movement. The Bolsheviks (Russian for majority, IIRC) were a split from the Russian SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC Labour Party. Both sides essentially agreeing on the issue being about more or less state control of the economy. Which, for me, is nothing to do with socialism. That is an argument about state capitalism.

The other issue with social democracy was that it was a compromise between capital and labour. This is why many socialists call the period 'The post-war settlement'. We had just come out of a world war where millions of workers had died fighting for the interests of different sections of their own ruling classes. The Soviet Union existed and was regarded as a threat. In that climate, the status quo could have meant the ruling class being overthrown in places like Britain and Western Europe. Hence the Marshall Plan. Hence essentially buying off workers and compromising with the trade unions and others claiming to represent workers interests. Obviously, the circumstances of this compromise don't exist today and that is why we're very unlikely to see a return to it, even if people wanted it back. And there isn't much evidence of that on the horizon!

After that, you have to ask if is social democracy economically even affordable anymore for capitalism? To fund welfare spending, spending on free education, hospitals etc requires more and more profits from the workers. It would require worldwide co-operation that doesn't seem very likely. Like the contradictions within capitalism itself. It is about competition and screwing more and more out for greater profits. Think of Robert Owen in Britain. He tried to setup 'fair' factories where the workers get treated better and what happened? They got put out of business by factories who treated workers like shit. Same principle internationally.

Finally, even if we could have social democracy, with the bosses all co-operating internationally, can't we do better? If endless unemployment , three meals a day, some disposable income to purchase things you don't really need is all your after, then this can be found in most well run prisons! :)