Scandinavia is not socialist

[darius]

I read the socialists thread and I was suprised to see how many people cite Scandinavia as an example of successfull socialist economies considering that Scandinavia is nowhere near socialism.
I'll talk about Sweden as it is where I live. Admidetly we do have a welfare state but so does all of western Europe and ours isn't as bad as say France's.
Even if we do have a large public sector we also have a very vital private sector. Compared to Sweden's population we have a very large share of the largest companies in the world (IKEA, Ericsson, Volvo etc). Except for our very high income tax (top income tax of 60%) and our relatively inflexible labour market we have a very free economy.
If you're going to define Scandinavia as socialist you would have to redefine the concept of socialism.

I might also add that those parts of the economy that are rather socialized do not work very well. We have very long waiting times for health care (unless you go to a private hospital). We have a problem with unemployment as it is very expenisve to hire and fire. In spite of being on of the healthiest people in the world we have a very high rate of sick leave (might have something to do with the fact that you get 80% pay).

[Erik]

I read the socialists thread

And you still decided to create a new thread rather than post this there?

If you're going to define Scandinavia as socialist you would have to redefine the concept of socialism.

Or perhaps your own concept of socialism is flawed or simply out of date?

[Freddie]

I read the socialists thread and I was suprised to see how many people cite Scandinavia as an example of successfull socialist economies considering that Scandinavia is nowhere near socialism.
I'll talk about Sweden as it is where I live. Admidetly we do have a welfare state but so does all of western Europe and ours isn't as bad as say France's.
Even if we do have a large public sector we also have a very vital private sector. Compared to Sweden's population we have a very large share of the largest companies in the world (IKEA, Ericsson, Volvo etc). Except for our very high income tax (top income tax of 60%) and our relatively inflexible labour market we have a very free economy.
If you're going to define Scandinavia as socialist you would have to redefine the concept of socialism.

I might also add that those parts of the economy that are rather socialized do not work very well. We have very long waiting times for health care (unless you go to a private hospital). We have a problem with unemployment as it is very expenisve to hire and fire. In spite of being on of the healthiest people in the world we have a very high rate of sick leave (might have something to do with the fact that you get 80% pay).

I think the Morden term for describing the system of government in Sweden is 'Social Democracy',

[darius]

And you still decided to create a new thread rather than post this there?

I don't believe the topic there was to discuss socialism in Scandinavia.

Or perhaps your own concept of socialism is flawed or simply out of date?

If a welfare state is the defintion of socialism then practically all of the industralized world would be considered socialistic, that is not a very practical defintion. Especially considering that many people still use it in the original marxist sense.

[wilpuri]

I think the Morden term for describing the system of government in Sweden is 'Social Democracy',

No, Social Democracy is a political current. The system of Government in Sweden is called "Parliamentary Democracy".

[Daneboy]

Well, in Denmark, specially in Copenhagen where I live, the economy is doing exellent. Allmost everyone has turned millionare, (I am nearly there) mostly due to housingprices and as a result we have a withnewed drive. Education and oppurtunity is the driving force. My point is that you can have a booming economy and wellfare at the same time. We have less than 100.000 unemployed of a population of 5,4 millions, and the wages are high, no matter what you do.

We have been in a 10-15 year long boom. Still wellfare system, a very generous one, but scandinavian wellfare politics combined with a european liberal (not the American kind of liberal) govermet for 8 years in a row has proven extremely effective.

[Nick_Since_1985]

Well, in Denmark, specially in Copenhagen where I live, the economy is doing exellent. Allmost everyone has turned millionare, (I am nearly there) mostly due to housingprices and as a result we have a withnewed drive. Education and oppurtunity is the driving force. My point is that you can have a booming economy and wellfare at the same time. We have less than 100.000 unemployed of a population of 5,4 millions, and the wages are high, no matter what you do.

We have been in a 10-15 year long boom. Still wellfare system, a very generous one, but scandinavian wellfare politics combined with a european liberal (not the American kind of liberal) govermet for 8 years in a row has proven extremely effective.

We'll done, that are some numbers other country's could be jealous about

[Daneboy]

yeahh...but how come other countries aren´t copying. It would be SOOO easy. It is all written down and tested. Out of govermental budget of 1.200 billion danis kroner the supplus is 90 billion and that is with a awesome wellfare system..We owe nothing any more.

It would be soooo easy to implement.

[Count of Montesano]

Well unfortunately Darius, the Scandinavian system is considered quite socialist by American standards.

In America, it's not enough to put in 40, 50, or even 70 hours of hard work and expect a decent wage and the most basic benefits. You also need to be in the right field, with the most lucrative pay often being found in frivolous or downright parasitic careers like NBA star, former gang murderer turned rapper, hedge fund trader, divorce/medical malpractice lawyer, or cosmetic surgeon.

A minimum wage worthy of the third world when you factor in cost of living and inflation is still seen by many as "an outdated socialist concept that's ruining the economy."

America's work ethic dictates you should never be sick, because many jobs either dock your vacation time (all 4 days of it) or you simply don't get paid for that day. Oh wait, in lots of jobs you'll just be fired for coming down with the flu.

[Erik]

If a welfare state is the defintion of socialism then practically all of the industralized world would be considered socialistic, that is not a very practical defintion.

What else would you call them?
Capitalistic? - that would be much further off IMO.

Socialism is more an ideal than an economic system.
It can be implemented in many ways and to various degrees.

I'd say all modern Western countries have a mix between capitalism and socialism, with some countries leaning more to the socialist side and other more to the capitalist side.

Especially considering that many people still use it in the original marxist sense.

Like who? Fidel Castro?
Try listening to the various socialist parties in Europe instead.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

The current government of Sweden is Conservative

http://www.moderaterna.se

[Daneboy]

And the danish even more right wing. Almost scary, shut down pusherstreet in Kristania, and you all heard about the "Muhammed drawings".. And the never gave way to pressure.

Imagine beeing a Dane back then..IT was scarry..

[darius]

What else would you call them?
Capitalistic? - that would be much further off IMO.

Almost all of the swedish (or Scandinavian) economy operates on the basis of a free market (yes I know there's taxes etc. but the prices are set by the market).

Socialism is more an ideal than an economic system.
It can be implemented in many ways and to various degrees.

I'd say all modern Western countries have a mix between capitalism and socialism, with some countries leaning more to the socialist side and other more to the capitalist side.

I agree but Scandinavia is not leaning towards the socialist side.

Like who? Fidel Castro?
Try listening to the various socialist parties in Europe instead.

I am more talking about regular people using the word. But I might also inform you that the social democrats do not call themselves socialists.

[Erik]

Almost all of the swedish (or Scandinavian) economy operates on the basis of a free market (yes I know there's taxes etc. but the prices are set by the market).

i.e.: market socialism.

I am more talking about regular people using the word.

As am I.

But I might also inform you that the social democrats do not call themselves socialists.

They do in my country, as do their millions of followers.

[Freddie]

Well, in Denmark, specially in Copenhagen where I live, the economy is doing exellent. Allmost everyone has turned millionare, (I am nearly there) mostly due to housingprices and as a result we have a withnewed drive. Education and oppurtunity is the driving force. My point is that you can have a booming economy and wellfare at the same time. We have less than 100.000 unemployed of a population of 5,4 millions, and the wages are high, no matter what you do.

I see the housing boom isn't exclusive to the UK, the reality though unless you sell you house and move to a small dwelling or have two properties (i.e. one to live and one as an investment) your not going to reap the benefits of high house prices. It’s good to hear that Demark is doing well considering it large neighbours (France and Germany) have been in doldrums for quite a few years.

As for Sweden’s conservative government I've heard they are fairly left wing compared to the conservatives of Italy, Spain and the UK.

[darius]

i.e.: market socialism.

Market socialism? That's a contradiction in itself; when people hear socialism they don't think, "Ahh free market"

As am I.

Then why use Fidel Castro as the only example of people using socialist in the original sense. I can't believe you've never heard anyone else use it that way.

They do in my country, as do their millions of followers.

Ok but they don't in Sweden, I'm almost positive they don't in Finland considering their history with the Soviet Union, the danes also have social democrats and Norway I don't know maybe. And it is Scandinavia we are discussing not Holland.

[Freddie]

Market socialism? That's a contradiction in itself; when people hear socialism they don't think, "Ahh free market"

I think Erik needs to rephrase that, as far as I understand it market socialism is where a company is formed but it is state sponsored/controlled. And as far as I'm aware companies like Ikea aren't state run, then again I post in green so what do I know.

[Erik]

Market socialism? That's a contradiction in itself; when people hear socialism they don't think, "Ahh free market"

It's not a contradiction because socialism is about the end result, not the way you reach it.
Just because most early socialists experimented with heavy state control doesn't mean that socialism must mean state control.
Some forms of communism can even be seen as a completely free market because they don't have any state or government let alone government control.

Then why use Fidel Castro as the only example of people using socialist in the original sense. I can't believe you've never heard anyone else use it that way.

I've heard others too, but they are a small minority now.

Ok but they don't in Sweden, I'm almost positive they don't in Finland considering their history with the Soviet Union, the danes also have social democrats and Norway I don't know maybe. And it is Scandinavia we are discussing not Holland.

OK, here is my theory:
The term "Socialist" is relative, and only applied to the most left-wing parties of any country no matter how socialistic a country is.

In America Ralph Nader is sometimes considered a socialist, but we would consider him center-right in my country.
What Swedes consider the "right wing" and totally anti-socialistic in their country can very well be considered center-left or even far-left socialist in others.

Since the move towards socialism is an ongoing process you could say anyone trying to progress or accelerate this move can be considered a socialist, and anyone who tries to prevent or slow down this move can be considered a conservative/capitalist.

[CENTER][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Green"]I think Erik needs to rephrase that, as far as I understand it market socialism is where a company is formed but it is state sponsored/controlled.

No, market socialism is when the government does high-level planning and regulating such as adjusting tax rates and providing subsidies on certain goods/services but leaves the rest to the market.

For example: when the government wants more people to take public transport instead of cars then they can tax petrol for cars, and give subsidies on diesel for buses and trains.
No need for any government controlled corporations here, the market will simply adjust accordingly and (hopefully) deliver the desired results.

Our school system can also be seen as market socialism:
The government hands out x amount of money for every student a school educates.
We don't have state run schools, only private schools, and they compete with each other like in a free market except they get their money from the government and not directly from the parents.
This means efficiently run schools make more money and survive, while inefficient schools eventually die out. - the benefit of a market economy but still free education for everybody.

[Ma'ahes]

^ aka the school voucher system, right?

Anyways, the Scandinavian area has been quite the odd man out when it comes to economics in Europe....while East Germany has 15% unemployment, Denmark enjoys around 3.4% (going on last seen figure, not sure if too accurate atm). Prolly due to a more relaxed system of labor, but one could argue that the liberlaization of the market is kinda anti-socialist. Yes, there are different ways one can achieve socialism "in theory," but letting the "capitalist dogs" (bourgeoisie) trample over the poor proletariat in a free market doesn't seem too socialist to me.

I could also go into a rant about the ineffectiveness (overall) of subsidies and tax hikes done to target certain sectors of the economy, but that's another story I'm sure. Then again, that's more of a micro-econ thingy, not so much macro. It seems to work well enough anyways though, so go for it!

[darius]

It's not a contradiction because socialism is about the end result, not the way you reach it.
Just because most early socialists experimented with heavy state control doesn't mean that socialism must mean state control.
Some forms of communism can even be seen as a completely free market because they don't have any state or government let alone government control.

And what is the end result of socialism, could you make a clear defintion of socialism?

I've heard others too, but they are a small minority now.

Well clearly we come from different environments

OK, here is my theory:
The term "Socialist" is relative, and only applied to the most left-wing parties of any country no matter how socialistic a country is.

In America Ralph Nader is sometimes considered a socialist, but we would consider him center-right in my country.
What Swedes consider the "right wing" and totally anti-socialistic in their country can very well be considered center-left or even far-left socialist in others.

Since the move towards socialism is an ongoing process you could say anyone trying to progress or accelerate this move can be considered a socialist, and anyone who tries to prevent or slow down this move can be considered a conservative/capitalist.

You might be right. But Í would still say it is a very odd definition when you are making it relative. Furthermore the left/right system is kind of out dated. Chirac was nominally rightwing but he pushed more leftwing policies than our social democrats.
Nor do I want to be so pessimistic as to say that the move towards socialism is moving forward. If we look at the developing world (particularly India and China) we see a strong move away from socialism. And even here in Sweden the social democrats were ousted from power and we've seen some tax breaks.