Nordic countries

Thread for the discussion of the political and economic system of the Nordic countries, and to clear up misunderstandings.

The Nordics are often pointed to as an example of "socialism that works", especially by social democrats and self-described democratic socialists in the US. The reason for this is their effective welfare states, relatively low inequality, relatively high taxation, and high standard of living. The origins of these phenomena are disputed.

But one things is clear; it is erroneous to call them socialist. the Nordic countries are capitalist and imperialist powers. The means of production remain private property, and these countries are deeply enmeshed in global capitalism and NATO. But because so many people (radlibs and polyps for the most part) seem to not grasp this, it merits emphasizing.

Attached: 37390633_1804463122924871_4606776784908713984_n.jpg (480x480, 10.63K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds
invidio.us/watch?v=vxKBHX9Datw
greenleft.org.au/content/scandinavia-covert-imperialist-role
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Finland
archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_(Sweden)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They were standard socdem, during the 1970s Sweden was on the verge of going full Marxism-Benninism but the PM was shot. Now they are neolib socdem (á la Blair) though Norway is swinging leftwards with a Hard DemSoc party AND an actual Communist party gaining ground.

from what i hear, yes and yes

Attached: 611108ec7e0b9a0408c76a855082085c.jpg (480x360, 16.24K)

Muh Nordic system is fuelled by imperialism and/or oil like any other social democracy.

Nordic countries are crypto-fastist and openly imperialist. Norway is polluting the earth drilling and selling oil and weapons. Sweden is polluting the air drilling and selling metal and weapons. Denmark is polluting the earth with massive and dirty ship and energy industries. And that's just a tip of the iceberg.

They are utopias compared to rest of the world. I know because i live in one.

Yes easily. Best of both worlds i would say.

Literally not because its achieved by democratic action.

AY HOL UP

Attached: Greenland_(orthographic_projection).svg.png (2000x2000, 1.09M)

You forgot about sapmi people. But imperialism in communist context is not the same as colonialism. Words can have many meanings depending on the context.

Whats the deal with thise countries?
Imperialism.

Is nordic socdem the best system?
No.

Is promoting a denmark-like system a revolutionary act?
Maybe in on mars and US.


correct.

Top kek at the green liberal faggot.

Attached: Nordic-greenhouse-gas-emissions-targets-2015.jpg (1500x1286, 132.55K)

Can you explain how neutral countries like Sweden and Finland are imperialistic?

It might sound nice to someone not living her, but the left isn't strong in Denmark and neoliberalism/capitalism is rotting this place up just like the rest of the world. The social democrats which is the largest red party are aligning themselves with the far-right instead of uniting with the left, public housing is being torn down to open up for private investors(This is something that the social democrats and "Socialist people's party" are completely fine with). Xenophobia is actually much worse than people realize and surveillance is among the worst in the world.
Like everything that is emblematic of the so-called welfare-model is being gutted by the right-wing coalition

So in conclusion, please don't say "look at Denmark/Scandinavia" when you want to convince Americans about socialism, the social democratic project has shown its limitations and inevitable collapse since it did not destroy class relations or grant workers democratic ownership of the means of production

And it's still capitalism, but with concessions which mask the worst edge of its predatory nature.
Only temporarily, as the self-destructive mechanisms of capitalism tend to favour short-term profit over long-term stability, leading the bourgeoisie to eventually, in their rational self-interest, work towards dismantling the frameworks which make social democracy feasible by pushing tax cuts for themselves, engaging in considerable tax avoidance, and by utilising other political means to chop at it directly. The latter tends to take form under the banners of "fiscal responsibility" and "de-passivizing the lazy elements of the workforce and incentivizing entrepreneurship"

So-called Nordic socialism is merely welfare capitalism which entails all the contradictions of the capitalist market system. Throughout the 20th century these countries built themselves through corporatist tripartite relations between capitalist-laborer-state. This is a classical fascist mechanism of operation yet after the second world war they were in a strange yet favorable position in which politically they maintained no overt authoritarian control. This was in large part due to historically strong labor movements and proximity to the USSR which meant it was favorable to appease/placate working people so that they weren't infiltrated by the Soviet Union to raise whatever hell they may.

So yes, it's absolutely true that they were, and still are to some extent, utopias compared to the rest of the world but any inhabitant of Norway, Denmark, Finland or Sweden who is honest knows very well that it's falling apart and the dream is coming to an end just as all social democracies in the world are gradually coming apart at the seams. As has noted, despite their seemingly humane societies, they are fundamentally built according to capitalist modus operandi and as all other countries are now experiencing the inherent contradictions and their effects.

While it might have appeared reasonable some decades ago, it would be foolish to suggest these kinds of societies as good alternatives today when the world is going to hell due with climate change, the incoming global depression, etc. Demands for welfare, gender equality in the workplace or free education will not save you or anyone when bandits come to rape and murder your family because civilization has broken down so badly that there's no food to eat or clean water to drink. And it'll all happen within this century.

Sweden, when based Palme was prime minister, nearly implemented a sort of socialism lite that would gradually make the means of production collectively controlled by workers and trade unions.

Attached: bigOriginal.jpg (1009x568, 96.17K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

fuck of parasite


see


Also, if you ask such basic questions, you should kill yourself, parasite.

Then what examples to give? Soviet Union and rest of the marxist-leninist countries were total disasters. And the anarchist couldnt even make a society to last longer than 5 years.

IMO market socialism/cooperative economy that eliminates bourgeoisie class combined with a Nordic type welfare state is the best model for society.

Fuck off Unruhe. By your logic every worker in 1st world is a imperialist leecher.

Your answer is unrelated to my original comment.

norway=/= norwegian workers.


kill yourself

There is really not much hope for the left if you cling to system that has failed over and over again. Learn from mistakes and correct them.

That's correct, but market socialism is not the answer.

Than what is the answer? Some childish idea of computers running the economy n shiet like in the cockshott threads?

A mix of things including (as necessary evil)market and cybernetic elements. Having said that mixed economy is a tool to reach full communism, not end goal.

Your suggestion to the left, in a time where the richest are getting more wealth than any time in history, surveillance against the poor is at its worst, the climate is tearing the world apart and workers are alienated more and more from their work, is that we should compromise with capitalism? Like things are looking bleak and just begging for a revolution isn't going to any favors but the reality of our world is that we either achieve socialism or extinction.

De-anchoring with edits to the OP. It's a useful topic of debate considering the misconceptions surrounding the topic.

Yeah and he was fucking assassinated for it lmao, likely by the police themselves, who never seriously investigated it then years later scapegoated some random guy. They were calling for his death win the weeks leading up to the shooting

No. In a time when planned economy has been proved to be a total failure and the people have no alternatives that the left can give them.

Market socialism has its faults but its the best thing can offer at the current moment. Maybe in some distant future we can have your cybernetic sci-fi socialism with planned economy.

A compromise with market economics but not with capitalism. Workers own the MOP in market socialism and there is no bourgeoisie to ruin everything like they now do in Nordic countries.

Cool. This is good moderation.

You forgot arms sales.

Not true.

First time I am saying it, but well done, mod's. The edit to OP is well written and very correct.

Why did imperialist Sweden secretly aid Viet Cong? Really makes me think.

This

Attached: socdem gang.png (1024x830, 131.02K)

I assume you are talking about SV and Rødt!. SV is a left-wing liberal party pandering to the empathy of their voters, and has no support in the working class and labour movement.
Rødt! is a hard demsoc/socialist party with some basis and support in the labour movement, and as such has the potential to be a peoples movement, although they are moving a tad more in the direction of a party for the empathic middle-class atm.
SV also has the foreign policy you would expect from a US vassal state, while Rødt! remains anti-imperialist, being the only Norwegian party that was against the bombing of Libya in 2011.
Also the ground they are gaining now is only small parts voters fleeing the labour party due to it being a bunch of incompetent sellouts with no clue on the needs and interests of the Norwegian working class, nothing to get too excited about

Samis are not heavily oppressed (anymore) in Scandinavia, and there is doubt regarding their arrival to Scandinavia compared to the Germanic peoples (not that I think that even matters).
Important part is though, they are hardly populous enough to support their own state, and most of them live in areas were they make up a small minority, so there is hardly any feasible solution that is better than the one there is now.

Bring. It. On.
They didn't call it Fist of the North Star for no reason.

Attached: 100retsu.gif (283x279, 14.83K)

People often bring up the lack of barriers to enterprise in Nordic countries in order to argue they aren't as socialist as otherwise thought. This form of argument is mistaken. There is no reason to suppose that starting and managing enterprises in a socialist economy is any more difficult than under capitalism. In fact, I'd argue it would be much easier, given that the necessary resources (physical and intellectual) are more centrally available. The USSR went against this potential because they didn't yet have the necessary information infrastructure.

I agree that they aren't socialist in any meaningful sense, but they do prove the strength social democracy had last century. They were formed by following socialist ideological precepts. Also, there might be something to the claim that they are "more socialist" than other countries.

agree with this.

omae wa … mou shindeiru

invidio.us/watch?v=vxKBHX9Datw

Attached: nani.gif (500x360, 2.47M)

So you want capitalism mixed with central planning and think its a better choice than market socialism mixed with central planning?

Attached: Lmao9-30-2014-2.jpg (1000x708, 153.02K)

define nordic imperialism and prove that we are selling enough weapons to profit significantly

so this is the power of dengism

Except cybernetic planning has been possible for quite sometime now, computers have been powerful enough to perform economic calculation since the 80s. There's literally no need to use markets anymore (other than to allocate consumer goods and services.

nobody claimed that, fuck off.

Harold Wilson was pretty based too tbh, made links with the USSR, signed an economic cooperation deal with Cuba, and kept the UK out of Vietnam.

Attached: Harold, Brezhnev, Cherneko.jpg (1300x993, 153.95K)

That's not what I said.


suck my anti-imperialist dick. If you ask such easily googleble questions, stop posting on Zig Forums

Norway's weapon export profits total only 0.7% of total exports, lol

weapon sells is just one part of scandinavian imperialism.

This article, gives only small glimpse into nordic sumbagary, but's it's good insight.
greenleft.org.au/content/scandinavia-covert-imperialist-role

They are not oppressed at all. Nowadays most of them are indistinguishable from the swedes and finns, culturally and economically.
The ones that stick out are the reindeer owning ones which has come to represent sami people as a whole both politically and in media. They regularly claim ore prospecting and mining constitutes oppression of them as a people, but of you were to look at the entire sami population instead of this minority within the minority you'd find most to be positive to such development as it would bring work opportunities. Reindeer owners are as a general rule pretty fucking well off and would hardly fit the image of an oppressed minority. Reindeer losing sub-1% of grazing grounds due to mining is a low cost given the benefit of nearby industries.

t. 1/4 sami

Are they basically kulaks?

Pretty much.

3/5 countries seems hardly "deeply enmeshed".

Sweden participated in the NATO bombing of Libya. When the rubber hits the road, they know where their bread is buttered. Probably same for Finland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Finland

The whole "Nordic countries are socialism" shtick exists to my knowledge ONLY in the US. Nobody in Europe would call Denmark and Sweden socialist. It's just another example of absolutely retarded burger politics permeating the online sphere, trying to appropriate all definitions despite that burger politology is a fringe section within social sciences.

Same shit already happened with "libertarianism" (now only meaning nutcase Alex Jones tier AnCaps), "liberals" (now meaning SJW Hillbots who want all white people to die with heavy state intervention), etc.

I was told by a Swede parts of Sweden are run by Communists.

Well a lot of Europeans are poisoned by thinking like Americans over the internet.

Should be remembered as another Allende tbh

Attached: 07240638e2f0c25cc1465bffdcd048b86b3aa2cc02944c897b34a5a3ae70c410.jpg (255x247, 19.04K)

the Zig Forums-tier brainlet teenage conservatives who think everything left of the republican party is communism are all over the place.

I live in Finland and I think this system is only good because of "social chauvinism"( we benefit from imperialism).

At the same time I think lot of this discussion is misguided and dominated by yank liberals. The praising of "social democracy" ( what of that even exists anymore after the neo liberal turn) is usually the worst kind of banal nationalist propaganda out of touch with real life experience.

Its still capitalism, you just get welfare bux if you fill up some forms and subject yourself to the arbitrary control of the welfare byro.
Public healthcare is fine but underfunded and under stress by ageing population. All the middle class use private anyway.
School system is good but theres a clear class divide as vocational schooling is underfunded and entrance to uni is limited.
Lot of the state owned corporations have been sold to foreign capitalists.


Real socialism is the way to go, possibly ecological and decentralized that if not a form of democratic social patriotism imo.

people from the CP in France have been mayors for decades, nothing happened. they're just doing social democracy.

everybody's always complaining about "imperialism", isn't imperialism and ressource extraction gonna happen anyway? isn't it basically just capitalism? isn't it better for it to go to welfare instead of private profits?
no it's not socialism, but come on

I was about give up home on Zig Forums. Thank you red Finn for good post!

You don't need to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, agitate genocide in Sudan against people living on land with oil or send jets to bomb Libya for that.

Read this book to get good insight into how socialists should engage in fair trade

archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying

Those are Zig Forums tier idiots, exceptions. No normal person in Europe thinks that. This is also because socialism has actually existed here, or countries that were at least run by socialists/communists, so nobody would ever confuse them. But there is an increasing trend amongst new hipster right-wingers here like Generation Identity, AfD, etc. to basically overtake 1:1 burger talking points which is quite ironic - the group that shills so much for European traditions and identity has copy-pasted their entire ideology from overseas.

American cultural hegemony is still a thing, despite American global influence getting more and more challenged militarily and economically. When you take all your music, movies, trends, fashion etc. from burgerland, there is no way arround that political identities also become "americanized", especially since politics by the recent generation is often treated like a lifestyle choice (which is a huge problem for communist orgs as well).

Nobody ever claims that capitalism and imperialism are seperable. Imperialism, as communists define it, is just a stage of capitalism, the era of monopoly capital seeking to conquer the world market.

There is, of course, the colloquial meaning of imperialism, which is basically "when soldiers do stuff". But this is quite as retarded as AnCaps with their "voluntary transaction" definition of capitalism, you might as well just argue that the Holy Roman Empire was imperialist in Italy. Absolute bollocks of course.

How the HRE was not imperialist towards city-states,republics and other formats of Italian states trough?

Imperialism is capitalism, HRE's expansion was feudalistic in nature. It was about to secure socage and to expand the German feudal tenure system onto Italy. The Italian city states were, in this sense, just another "imperialistic" faction as they were representing the papal interests, with the pope being a feudal lord himself, against the emperor.

There were, of course, progressive proto-bourgeois elements in some Italian city communes against their own Patrician upper class but those elements were crushed from the inside most of the time, or by one of the factions of the Guelfs or Ghibbellines, their downfall wasn't a result of "HRE imperialism" or whatever. Sometimes progressive elements were at war with each other. For example, Frederick II introduced relatively progressive secular laws, replaced nobility with trained officials, which included Jews and Saracens, etc. but the city states still rebelled as they traditionally identified with the papal side.

To give another example, Heinrich IV. annexion of lower Italy and Sicily is often quoted, but let's not forget that these entire constructs were taken by invading Normans first who established these kingdoms, and were consequently hired by the pope as mercenaries/vassals to be used against anti-papal city states.

To be short, in these cases we don't have an equivalent of "comprador capital" that inhibits growth and progression in a society which is hold back. The concept of "empire-building" is personalized in the Middle Ages, and not institutionalized through states, borders and regular armies.

I'm Swedish and they got maybe three or four municipal seats in some backwater parts of the country. From what I can tell they're not even communists in the sense, more like SocDems raving about workers rights.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_(Sweden)

We do have a "left party" who constantly screams at the mainstream SocDems sellout to neoliberalism. Though they have themselves tanked pretty hard to idpol.

So what do you call waging wars of aggression to acquire resources and/or influence when the aggressor state is not capitalist?
Sage cause off topic