Is Sweden Socialist?

[gsvvu]

Would Sweden be considered somewhat socialist? I guess what I'm asking is if you were to lable the country would you consider it as being part socialist, and how much of the country would you say is socialist?
Thank you

[which doctor]

I would say they have a welfare capitalism type of economy. Some call it the "Scandinavian Model". There is a large safety net for the countries poor. Many things are subsidized. There are also high taxes to fund the government. To learn more do a little snooping on Wikipedia.

[Lamanov]

Concidering the fact that no country ever reached [workers' scientific] socialism I have to say no - Sweden is not socialist.

If by "socialism" you mean "state-socialism" (state-capitalism like USSR) or ethatism (like WW2 militarist Japan) - that too would be a streach, because Sweeden has - from what I see, although I'm not that educated on the matter of that country, so don't take my word for it - a very litle state controled economy (mixed economy -- combined private and state ownership and control).

It has a state established "safety net" (as Fist of Blood said), and such "safety net" is enabled by the strength of country's "exported" capital (outside investment) and its financial strength.

[Clarksist]

You've already heard the answer: no.

See... to be a socialist nation, the country would have to have the business model be a democratic one. And the means of production are all in the hands of the state.

Currently, that doesn't exist in Sweden... or any nation.

Once a workers democracy is established, and all of the means of production are nationalized, you could make a case for socialism depending on a few other factors.

[CCCPneubauten]

Quick question...I know that socialism is centralized...but can it be opposite?

Would there be a government or would it all me common workers who go about their jobs by day and call the shots by night? Would this group of people rotate every so often with new people?

What if one of the people in power was not fit for such power...like some one with a mental disorder in which they can't understand the real world...?

[Jadan ja]

In capitalist society capitalist buys worker's ability to work from the worker. That certainly means that Sweeden is a capitalist country.

Sweeden is often described as a mixed economy.

[Clarksist]

Quick question...I know that socialism is centralized...but can it be opposite?

Centralized as far as having a state.


Would there be a government or would it all me common workers who go about their jobs by day and call the shots by night? Would this group of people rotate every so often with new people?

It theoretically could be. As long as the workers have democracy, the means of production are owned by the state, then yeah I suppose it could be considered socialism.


What if one of the people in power was not fit for such power...like some one with a mental disorder in which they can't understand the real world...?

I would say that the group would not elect them any power.

Or they would, just to fuck with people.

[JKP]

It's better to just not use the word socialist at all; it means many different things to different people.

[CCCPneubauten]

Then what is a better word?

I don't quite know WHAT I am yet...

My main battle is with centralization or decentralized...

IS there any thing (Writing, speech, ect) that changed you guys one way or the other...


I like the realism and rationale of centralized but I love that an uncentral state would be more democratic...I just don't see it working long term...

Maybe I am wrong.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:42 PM
Then what is a better word?

I don't quite know WHAT I am yet...

My main battle is with centralization or decentralized...

IS there any thing (Writing, speech, ect) that changed you guys one way or the other...


I like the realism and rationale of centralized but I love that an uncentral state would be more democratic...I just don't see it working long term...

Maybe I am wrong.
Just be specific when you decribe something . Social democracy, Leninism, Anarchism etc can be decribe the whole gamut.

As for what changed my opinon, that would have to the Spanish Civil war. It showed to me that workers are in fact, capable of building towards anarchism. It was the state, vangaurd, and bureaucratic organizations that brought about the downfall of the movement.

[CCCPneubauten]

Seems just too idealistic, on a small scale yeah, I love it, but when you are talking about billions seems like that would get hard...

I feel that there needs to be a state before anarchism, follow Marx on that one...but how does one get rid of the state in a slow manner?

[Clarksist]

Seems just too idealistic, on a small scale yeah, I love it, but when you are talking about billions seems like that would get hard...

Why? Just keep local communes in touch with each other. I don't see how people working together without hurting each other is idealistic.


I feel that there needs to be a state before anarchism, follow Marx on that one...but how does one get rid of the state in a slow manner?

According to Marx, it may just "magically disapear". The state will wither away when the bourgeois class no longer exists. That won't happen with the vanguard, as power perpetuates power.

So if there was a way to make socialism without a state, it just may work. If only there was a name for stateless/classless socialism. (cough*anarchism*cough)

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Jadan [email protected] 9 2006, 04:09 AM
In capitalist society capitalist buys worker's ability to work from the worker. That certainly means that Sweeden is a capitalist country.
That is the case for any "socialist" country also. Only an individual capitalists are replaced by a one big state capital protected by bureaucracy.

Wage labor remains as a basis of social relations.

In real workers' socialism, however - wage labor is abolished. That's one clear element which separates one from another, and leaves no room for confusion and ambiguity.

[Sentinel]

The traditionally strong Social democratic party of Sweden has had it's "moments"
but can barely be considered socialist these days, in my opinion. The days when it's leaders openly criticized US Imperialism and opposed privatizations are long gone... Since prime minister Olof Palme was shot in the back in 1986, the Social democrat governments of Sweden have mostly been busy selling out public property... Like the railways, the telephone network and the postal services, just to name a few. So, no, Sweden is far from socialist I'm afraid. :(

[CCCPneubauten]

SO can I be a Marxist and favour a decentralized socialism? Or do I have to favour central direct democracy of the workers?

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:08 AM
Would Sweden be considered somewhat socialist? I guess what I'm asking is if you were to lable the country would you consider it as being part socialist, and how much of the country would you say is socialist?
Thank you
I live in Sweden and Sweden is not socialist. Sweden used to be built as a welfare capitalism with a large social security sector. But this model is being terminated as we speak, and have been so for a while now.