Is Nordic Socialism okay?

[VCrakeV]

The end goal in most of our heads is Communism, and maybe Socialism for some of us. That said, Nordic "Socialism" is neither of those. But is it a better alternative to traditional Capitalism? Even if you're not a reformist, do you think it could help in the slightest? Or even do worse? I've heard that Nordic Socialism is a way of keeping the people happy enough to not revolt. So, should we discourage it? It seems to be on the right path, but at the same time, it could be counter-productive for revolution. Is traditional Capitalism best until we revolt? Of course, I don't assume there will be a revolution; this is just theoretical.

[Antiochus]

Its "better" in the sense that people eat better. But this isn't predicated on the fact that it is a conscious system by Capitalists to ameliorate Capitalism. It is a bribe that was won by the working class and which (for the moment) does not bother the capitalist class very much. Sweden or Norway could easily become like any other country in a decade if the conditions proved ripe (and at the moment, they kind of are).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

People who think Scandinavia is socialist are clearly confused and deeply misguided and misled. Scandinavia is, all things considered, one of the most deregulated regions of Europe. Labour laws are flexible and loose (A danish atrocity known as 'Flexicurity' a good example of this terrible shit), and when it comes to thinks like state subsidies, Scandinavia is at the very bottom, having basically removed all agricultural support decades ago, something that when proposed down on the continent usually results in tractors blocking motorways; the Swedish state railways were the first to be split and butchered in 1988 (becoming the role model for the European deregulation signed into law in 1996). Sweden introduced a system wide school voucher system in 1993 (this means that all schools are de-facto what Americans think of as 'charter schools'), and in some regions, most or all hospitals are owned and operate as franchises in a similar voucher-reimbursement scheme.

Scandinavia fucking sucks.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is Nordic Socialism okay? Sure, if you like capitalism. It's not at all revolutionary and evidence suggests it's unlikely to even move people in that direction.

[TheIrrationalist]

I think it would be topical to speak about nordic socialism (or model) as a viable alternative if we were living in the 70's. But the Nordic model, if there ever was one, is pretty much dead today. Only thing left for the left in the nordic model is to fight to retain the last social programs that remain.

I'm quite baffled that americans still think that the nordic countries are some socialist fairylands untouched by repugnant neoliberalism.

[VCrakeV]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'd just like to point out that I realize the economic system in Scandinavian countries is not Socialism; it's just what it's called sometimes. I don't support it, as it is still bias to the bourgeoisie. But I was just wondering if it was a sign of things changing, though you guys made me think otherwise.

[Thirsty Crow]

The end goal in most of our heads is Communism, and maybe Socialism for some of us. That said, Nordic "Socialism" is neither of those. But is it a better alternative to traditional Capitalism? Even if you're not a reformist, do you think it could help in the slightest? Or even do worse? I've heard that Nordic Socialism is a way of keeping the people happy enough to not revolt. So, should we discourage it? It seems to be on the right path, but at the same time, it could be counter-productive for revolution. Is traditional Capitalism best until we revolt? Of course, I don't assume there will be a revolution; this is just theoretical.

One thing to keep in mind is that, at least when I'm concerned, communists have no damn business telling anyone that the situation ought to get much worse. It's a no brainer for me that if concrete measures to make working class, unemployed/underemployed, student and retired life a bit better are actually viable, no political pressure, or organizational drive against these should be taken. There's nothing to gain by being pounded into dust.

At the same time, as communists who interact with other workers, it is paramount to point out that such an arrangement is neither stable nor without its adverse effects. Historically, none of the welfare regimes proved to be a stepping stone or a sign of things to come, but that doesn't and cannot justify any notion of *you all need to suffer before you revolt*.

[Sentinel]

Vehemently agreed with the above post, as well as mostly with post #4, although it must be pointed out that as long as we still do have labour laws like the Swedish LAS (Law for Employment Protection, meaning 'first in, last out of the workplace') there definitely are worse places to be a worker. But the Nordic model is definitely a shadow of it's former self, after the capitulation of the Social Democracy to neoliberalism and the adopting of so the called 'third way'.

An attempt was made by the left wing of the SAP - Social Democratic Workers' Party - of Sweden to seize control and change the direction of the party while in opposition in 2011, but that was quickly defeated by a huge media witch hunt of the new leader Juholt and his companions, ordered by the party rightwingers. After this there has yet been no sign of a left turn akin to what Corbyn is doing in Britain etc, in the social democratic parties of Sweden and the other nordic countries.

As for 'accelerationism', it is just plain wrong as pointed out by Thirsty Crow, for a number of reasons. I personally strongly agree with Trotskys message in the Transitional Program, ie marxists should both support, take part in and lead workers struggles for reforms, as it is through their victories that the workers get a sense of power and hope, while defeats demoralise.

And just why would they even listen to us otherwise? But at the same time we must never omit to point out that no amount of reforms is enough, and whatever was gained can be taken away at any time as long as capitalism remains.