The Norwegian welfare state

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The Norwegian state is considering lowering the tax on companies involved with ownership and commercial use of ships, from the current 28 percent level to 0,6 percent.

Meanwhile the national bank also increased interest rate, meaning for people like me have to pay almos twice as much as a few years before. For me that means giving the bank 1000 dollars each month for an apartment (which I "own" with a considerable debt).

[Tower of Bebel]

The Norwegian welfare State is like any welfare State under attack. The agressor is neoliberalism.

In Belgium the government uses the growing numbers of pensioned workers as a disguise under which the welfare state is attacked.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The agressor is neoliberalism.

How about, more precisely, the agressor is the (perceived) interests of the capitalist class?

I am adding "perceived" in there because after all the welfare state was established so as to protect the capitalist class.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:02 pm

The agressor is neoliberalism.

How about, more precisely, the agressor is the (perceived) interests of the capitalist class?

I am adding "perceived" in there because after all the welfare state was established so as to protect the capitalist class.
Well, short termism is just one of the many charges to be levelled agaisnt capitalist society.

Some people will attack welfare states as being tiny little concesions that don't go far enough, and in some ways that is entirely correct, in others however the effects people fel when the welfare state is scld back show just how vital they are

[RGacky3]

No walfare state can survive long, and we are seeing in europe it being dismantled, the idea of having humane, social Capitalism does'nt work because Capitalism always comes down to the bottom line, and as soon as you try and make it human and socially concious it looses in competition, and everyone suffers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The right is using the opportunity of lowered political involvement in economic and class matters to partially or fully repeal the welfare state. The next time folks get upset about their shitty lives, there will be plenty "more" reforms to enact. i.e. the ones that were already in place before the far right took them away. So basically this means regressing several decades in terms of the working class movement in these countries.

But why have people allowed these reactionary measures to be taken? My theory? They're now more concerned with the "eminent catastrophe" that is the present environmental condition of the Earth, post Cold War propaganda, they're more concerned with hating Bush for lying about WMD, etc.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 02, 2007 06:35 pm
But why have people allowed these reactionary measures to be taken? My theory? They're now more concerned with the "eminent catastrophe" that is the present environmental condition of the Earth, post Cold War propaganda, they're more concerned with hating Bush for lying about WMD, etc.
I guess it's because of the ideological attack on the people's minds. The Soviet-Union is dead and the crisis of 1974 has been "overcome". Reformist parties all over the world are the ideal tool to make certain reactionary reform, as they are willing to cooperate.

But we have seen struggle the past years. One important new struggle is the movements against current globalisation. This one is accompanied with the creation of new reformist parties from below. Both are far from revolutionary, but can be the new tool for us revolutionaries to intervene.

[LuXe]

We still have parties like "Rød valgallianse/Red Electional Alliance" (Revolutionary socialist) "Sosialistisk Venstre/Socialist Left" (Socialism through reforms) and "Arbeiderpartiet/The Workers Party" (Worker rights, capitalist welfare)

All of these are on the left recieving about 45% of the votes combined.

We have an election coming up in a couple of days now, which is a local communal election.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

"Arbeiderpartiet/The Workers Party" (Worker rights, capitalist welfare)

Are you kidding me?

Guess what party the 8th richest man in Norway (Kjell Inge Røkke) voted for? Yes, that's right, Arbeiderpartiet. It should properly be called Kapitalistpartiet, because it serves the interest of the capitalist class.

What has "The Workers Party" and the "Socialist Left Party" done since they got in power? I have no idea, but I assume they have only further cut down on the welfare state.

[LuXe]

Its in the question of ideology. Wether Kjell Inge votes for AP, is really not something to be used as an argument, but I will not defend AP.

However, I will say that SV has alot of good politics, but are a little too much populist for my taste. They do want to remove the welfare system and implement a Socialist one.

EDIT; I am actually gonna become a member of SV's youth party "Sosialistisk Ungdom" or Socialist youth, to get a taste of political life.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

With the end of the cold war, both socialist movements and socialist ideologies have been relegated even further into the political fringe, which has been one of the main factors in allowing these counter reforms to take place.

[Idola Mentis]

The shipping industry in Norway has been a critical part of the national economy for most of this century - in fact, since the age of sail - and thus been in a position to demand all kinds of privileged treatment. Seems successive governments is doing this more out of habit than anything else. It's not as if any of them have ever made good on their threats of flagging out whenever their whining wasn't heard.

When times are good, the shipping barons take credit. When times are bad, they blame the government, then lay off sailors to employ philipinos - who we are supposed to believe are perfectly content to be paid in glass pearls and happy meals. Then they usually start a new round of demanding more preferential treatment. Just business as usual in the Worker's Paradise of the Norwegian Labour Party.

The interest rate has been extremely low in the past few years. It's now returning to a more "normal" but still very low level. The Central Bureau of Statistics reported today that since the oil-fueled economy continues to improve while US and Euro banks are battening down the hatches and laying off employees, the average worker (350 000 crowns p.a.) can expect boomtime pay raises (20 000 p.a.) for at least the next three years. As always, managers and owners will be leeching off the booty like there's no tomorrow, but this still means more than the usual share is going back to the workers. As always, a compromise between corporate greed and worker's interest has been reached, and, as usual, it's slightly in the disfavour of the workers, and does not challenge the positions or uneasy peace between the ruling oligarchies.

Seems to me the main problem with norwegian socialism is the half-assedness of the whole thing. Internally, you get many of the benefits of true socialism, but they're frequently reserved for those who can't support themselves on capitalism, they're delivered reluctantly, and with some uncomfortable moral overtones. Externally, I think the EU is just barely starting to rumble about this; after all, functional, unblocaded socialism amounts to a major unfair advantage in the Free Market. We're just getting a few probes in regard to agriculture and fishery so far. The nordic mixed economy model is going to have to hit back hard or be torn apart by neocons and neoliberalists.

The major parties, even the liberalists and conservatives, all want to be the ones to deliver the popular boons of socialism to the people in hope of buying favour, but won't talk about the ideology. They support a mixed centralized and/or communal socialist structure internally, but finance them with blood money from international capitalism, give both necessary and unecessary concessons to capitalists, and thus frequently hand vital, public infrastructure over to capitalists to control and profit on. The labour union appears to be out of touch with its membership base, and supports only the labour party as the party which "represents the interests of their membership the most" - while a large part of the membership is in fact voting populist, neoliberal or socialist. Same goes for the national party organizations, which keep getting into conflict with the commune level organizations while the communes are being leeched of power and resources.

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't know we should call neoliberalism "neo"liberalism. It's just the same liberalism as it was before the Cold War. There is economic growth and the workers pay for it. The scandinavian welfare state, the true heaven of social-democracy, is under attack and is an example of how liberalism is the enemy of the working class. The only new liberalism was the liberalism of the Cold War, where -at least in the West- workers benifited from the economic growth.

I don't say the welfare state is the solution, we knew the capies were going to strike back sooner or later.

[LuXe]

As far as I know, Venstre or left, (Left on the rightist scale) the only liberal party, but without much support.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

However, I will say that SV has alot of good politics, but are a little too much populist for my taste. They do want to remove the welfare system and implement a Socialist one.

The party you say want to implement a "socialist system" was one of the creators of a magnificient system for major stock owners where they can add all their stocks in a holding company that can receive billions in dividends tax-free.

These major stock owners can also export money out of their own stock company tax free for "personal use". That means the richest people in Norway can export billions out of their company for their "personal use" without paying anything in terms of taxes.

So SV is not socialist, it is not even a party in favor of the welfare state, it seems.


The interest rate has been extremely low in the past few years. It's now returning to a more "normal" but still very low level.

It doesn't feel "very low" when one has to sell a house people don't want to buy because one can't afford the interest rate. When all your monthly income goes to house expenses or even fucking exceeds it, how can a person even survive?


Seems to me the main problem with norwegian socialism

There is no socialism in Norway! :angry:

That should of been bloody clear by now. <_< :rolleyes:

[Idola Mentis]

So SV is not socialist, it is not even a party in favor of the welfare state, it seems.

There&#39;s socialism in Norway, but it&#39;s a Gulliver. It got tied down while sleeping and now it can&#39;t get up.

The SV is socialist, or at least has a lot of socialist members (the party leadership appear to be too embarrased to talk much about it). They&#39;re just too willing to compromise in return for positions and power. They don&#39;t seem to realize that compromise means the positions they win are less worth, or even worthless. Consequently, this term in government has been a political stalingrad, fighting over every window, corner and doorway and loosing more than they won. They used to be a leftist wing of the Labour Party, and that&#39;s what they&#39;ve gotten stuck as again.



The interest rate has been extremely low in the past few years. It&#39;s now returning to a more "normal" but still very low level.

It doesn&#39;t feel "very low" when one has to sell a house people don&#39;t want to buy because one can&#39;t afford the interest rate. When all your monthly income goes to house expenses or even fucking exceeds it, how can a person even survive?

Nope, doesn&#39;t feel low, but on their scale it is, and that&#39;s all the capitalists care about.

[LuXe]

SV IS Socialist, and I want to make that very clear. What they have done in government, is compromise for some decisicions while using their current time to reverse many of the politics that the last government implemented. This is partly why they put the debate on a national-church on hold. Remember, a period in government lasts 4 years, and there are still 2 to go.

Now I am extremely critical of the party&#39;s leadership, but I agree much in their principle politics, and thats why I have joined their youth party "Socialist youth". This to possibly rise in their ranks in the future, and uproar a debate within the party itself when the time has come. If I am going to have a chance in politics, SV is my only choice.

[Idola Mentis]

Gotta ask: Now that the results are in, how are your feelings on the above subject?

The Reds got their first mayor, and seven new mandates countrywide. The SV got axed in half, pretty much everywhere - I suspect for doing what I described earlier, and for what you seem to be planning - compromise socialism for influence and position. Or is there some other explanation?

[LuXe]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 11, 2007 01:04 pm
Gotta ask: Now that the results are in, how are your feelings on the above subject?

The Reds got their first mayor, and seven new mandates countrywide. The SV got axed in half, pretty much everywhere - I suspect for doing what I described earlier, and for what you seem to be planning - compromise socialism for influence and position. Or is there some other explanation?
I knew they were going to be pushed back, and I knew they were taking a serious hit.

RV is doing better in certain areas, and worse in some. On a national scale they didnt really grow that much. I belive the Socialist Left will take som form of action internally (not deposing ministers) and I belive they wil do much better in the government elections beeing held in 2 years. Now beeing in the opposition is far more rewarding than the position, and to my great dispair, FRP is still on the rise.

This needs to be fought, preferably by a seriously commited and at least partially respected leftist party like SV. Only then will they distinguish themselves from AP, and gain their voters back, plus gain a real position of power. SV is a socialist party opposing capitalism and selling our society. This combined with their struggle towards socialism, was what convinced me. Socialism through reforms seems for me a bit more realistic than an actual revolution, which would have to get so many parameters right to succeed.

Now I am as said no fan of their current leadership. Only a proper debate and direct action would solve this.

Now for the loosing ground, is simple. They havent dellivered the goods. Some say they shouldnt be in government because of this, but they have still done much good, and them beeing there is far better than their abscense. How can they possibly deliver the goods anyway, when working with AP and especially SP?

Now in pure retrospect, it would probably be wiser to NOT be in government considering the amount of votes lost.. However, if they play their cards right, they may just gain an upperhand in 2 years.