Why are socialist Scandinavian countries the happiest in the world?

[ataraxia]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:

"From 2013 until today, every time the World Happiness Report (WHR) has published its annual ranking of countries, the five Nordic countries – Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland – have all been in the top ten, with Nordic countries occupying the top three spots in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Clearly, when it comes to the level of average life evaluations, the Nordic states are doing something right, but Nordic exceptionalism isn’t confined to citizen’s happiness. No matter whether we look at the state of democracy and political rights, lack of corruption, trust between citizens, felt safety, social cohesion, gender equality, equal distribution of incomes, Human Development Index, or many other global comparisons, one tends to find the Nordic countries in the global top spots.[1]"
The Nordic Exceptionalism: What Explains Why the Nordic Countries Are Constantly Among the Happiest in the World | The World Happiness Report

So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

 

[AmNat]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

"Living has become better, comrades. Living has become happier." - Joseph Stalin

 

[vegas giants]

"Living has become better, comrades. Living has become happier." - Joseph Stalin

You are a stalinist?

 

[Michael Cole]

The country that comes to mind when I hear "Bernie" is Cuba.

No country comes to mind when I hear "socialism." Should one?

 

[Kyle Phoenix]

You are a stalinist?

It's extremely rare, even amongst the far left, for someone to actually be a "Stalinist" or an Anti-Revisionist, unless they are also specifically denying that any atrocities and excesses took place and "Stalin did nothing wrong". The knowledge of the dangers and abuses of power makes it much easier for people to try to distance themselves from the Stalin era as a model of Socialist development than to defend it, even amongst self-professed Marxists.

 

[vegas giants]

It's extremely rare, even amongst the far left, for someone to actually be a "Stalinist" or an Anti-Revisionist, unless they are also specifically denying that any atrocities and excesses took place and "Stalin did nothing wrong". The knowledge of the dangers and abuses of power makes it much easier for people to try to distance themselves from the Stalin era as a model of Socialist development than to defend it, even amongst self-professed Marxists.

Maybe he is just a marxist

 

[Gator]

So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

Those nations, specifically Denmark, keep telling Bernie they are not socialist. That is because they are primarily capitalistic nations with most of the means of production and distribution privately owned. That is the standard economic definition of socialism (public ownership).

In recent years the term has been distorted to include social welfare programs. Today, both sides use socialism in that manner as conservatives use it to attack liberal programs and liberals use it to defend social programs. But socialist nations (China, Cuba, North Korea) do not have extensive social welfare systems while some capitalist nations (Scandinavian) have extensive social welfare systems but private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You are not correct. Liberals do not have the view of the Scandinavian countries in mind. Maybe the useful idiots do but the intellectuals do not.

I am Norwegian American, I’ve been to Norway, I can speak the language at a basic level, I’ve met relatives in Norway, I have a good understanding of the history, Norway is in no way a socialist country. They have generous social benefits which they pay high taxes for, but they have very low business taxes and regulation. Leftists in the US want a command economy, they openly say this in their green new deal plan.

In Norway, the government discourages drug and alcohol use, liquor can only be purchased from the Vinmolopolet at very high prices, luxury products are subject to massive taxes. This is how the social programs are funded and this is uncontroversial. Children are raised by their own parents, even kids born “Out of wedlock” typically live with their parents who cohabitate for decades basically copying marriage. While most people are secular, there’s a strong undergirding of Christian philosophy underpinning the traditions. Extraction of oil and construction of infrastructure is non controversial.

What’s ironic is that in voluntary behavior the people actually behave more like social conservatives and that’s why the country is successful.

And again no democrat is even proposing to copy Norway’s economic model which is a freer market. Let alone create a socially conservative society where drinking and drug use are heavily discouraged and working is encouraged and single motherhood discouraged.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The country that comes to mind when I hear "Bernie" is Cuba.

No country comes to mind when I hear "socialism." Should one?

Ask Bernie who the King of Denmark is, 20 bucks says he wouldn’t even know they have a queen.

But he knows all about Castro and Sandinistas

 

[vegas giants]

You are not correct. Liberals do not have the view of the Scandinavian countries in mind. Maybe the useful idiots do but the intellectuals do not.

I am Norwegian American, I’ve been to Norway, I can speak the language at a basic level, I’ve met relatives in Norway, I have a good understanding of the history, Norway is in no way a socialist country. They have generous social benefits which they pay high taxes for, but they have very low business taxes and regulation. Leftists in the US want a command economy, they openly say this in their green new deal plan.

In Norway, the government discourages drug and alcohol use, liquor can only be purchased from the Vinmolopolet at very high prices, luxury products are subject to massive taxes. This is how the social programs are funded and this is uncontroversial. Children are raised by their own parents, even kids born “Out of wedlock” typically live with their parents who cohabitate for decades basically copying marriage. While most people are secular, there’s a strong undergirding of Christian philosophy underpinning the traditions. Extraction of oil and construction of infrastructure is non controversial.

What’s ironic is that in voluntary behavior the people actually behave more like social conservatives and that’s why the country is successful.

And again no democrat is even proposing to copy Norway’s economic model which is a freer market. Let alone create a socially conservative society where drinking and drug use are heavily discouraged and working is encouraged and single motherhood discouraged.

Let's do what they do in Norway and get what they get. You in?

 

[AmNat]

It's extremely rare, even amongst the far left, for someone to actually be a "Stalinist" or an Anti-Revisionist, unless they are also specifically denying that any atrocities and excesses took place and "Stalin did nothing wrong". The knowledge of the dangers and abuses of power makes it much easier for people to try to distance themselves from the Stalin era as a model of Socialist development than to defend it, even amongst self-professed Marxists.

The account that replied to me is not one that I have ever seen engage in good faith discussion of any issue.

But in case it's unclear to anyone else, my post was a comment on the Orwellian notion of a "happiness index".

 

[Good4Nothin]

It's extremely rare, even amongst the far left, for someone to actually be a "Stalinist" or an Anti-Revisionist, unless they are also specifically denying that any atrocities and excesses took place and "Stalin did nothing wrong". The knowledge of the dangers and abuses of power makes it much easier for people to try to distance themselves from the Stalin era as a model of Socialist development than to defend it, even amongst self-professed Marxists.

But since the communist party must have absolute power, how can you avoid totalitarianism under Marxist communism?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Let's do what they do in Norway and get what they get. You in?

Why don’t you just move to Norway?

I love Norway, But here’s the thing, you can’t just copy another country’s legal structure and get the results they get.

If you ever read the Writings of Russel Kirk (great conservative writer and philosopher, who draws heavily from Edmund Burke whom you should also read, in fact the Norwegian Høyre party which forms the current government openly cites Burke as an influence) he writes about societies forming over a long period of time and all changes must be organic and in keeping with their traditions. The United States has radically different history then Norway and so imposing the structures built by Norwegians for Norway will not make us Norwegians, it would likely instead disintergrate the country

 

[Kyle Phoenix]

The account that replied to me is not one that I have ever seen engage in good faith discussion of any issue.

But in case it's unclear to anyone else, my post was a comment on the Orwellian notion of a "happiness index".

As I recall, Stalin's phrase "Life has become more joyous" did become the butt of many jokes amongst Soviet citizens (such as suddenly falling off your chair). So even they knew it was BS during the 1930's given the hardships of rapid industrialisation, collectivisation and over-crowding as people moved from the countryside in to the cities. The propaganda and the reality of everyday experiences didn't line up.

 

[vegas giants]

Why don’t you just move to Norway?

I love Norway, But here’s the thing, you can’t just copy another country’s legal structure and get the results they get.

If you ever read the Writings of Russel Kirk (great conservative writer and philosopher, who draws heavily from Edmund Burke whom you should also read, in fact the Norwegian Høyre party which forms the current government openly cites Burke as an influence) he writes about societies forming over a long period of time and all changes must be organic and in keeping with their traditions. The United States has radically different history then Norway and so imposing the structures built by Norwegians for Norway will not make us Norwegians, it would likely instead disintergrate the country

Hahahaha.


I knew it.


Its socialism only when you want it to be socialism

 

[ttwtt78640]

Let's do what they do in Norway and get what they get. You in?

Step one cut defense spending to about 1.5% of GDP. Step two get rid of state governments entirely - leaving only county, city and federal governments to be funded. Step three cut business taxes and raise 'luxury' consumption taxes.

 

[vegas giants]

Step one cut defense spending to about 1.5% of GDP. Step two get rid of state governments entirely - leaving only county, city and federal governments to be funded. Step three cut business taxes and raise 'luxury' consumption taxes.

So far I'm in.


Now come the benefits

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Hahahaha.


I knew it.


Its socialism only when you want it to be socialism

What does this even mean? I gave you a lot of information about Norway. It is not a socialist country. If you asked King Harald or Statsminister Solberg if Norway is a socialist country they would emphatically tell you no. They do not have socialism or socialist structures or command of the economy from Oslo. There is a socialist party in Norway, it has a grand total of 11 seats in Stortinget out of 169.

 

[Rogue Valley]

As I recall, Stalin's phrase "Life has become more joyous" did become the butt of many jokes amongst Soviet citizens (such as suddenly falling off your chair). So even they knew it was BS during the 1930's given the hardships of rapid industrialisation, collectivisation and over-crowding as people moved from the countryside in to the cities. The propaganda and the reality of everyday experiences didn't line up.

One apt phrase was "Много не бывает!" (Can’t have enough of a good thing!)

 

[ttwtt78640]

So far I'm in.


Now come the benefits

OK, let's get to naming our (cerimonial) hereditary monarch (to appoint the prime minister) after re-writing our constitution.

Politics of Norway - Wikipedia

 

[vegas giants]

What does this even mean? I gave you a lot of information about Norway. It is not a socialist country. If you asked King Harald or Statsminister Solberg if Norway is a socialist country they would emphatically tell you no. They do not have socialism or socialist structures or command of the economy from Oslo. There is a socialist party in Norway, it has a grand total of 11 seats in Stortinget out of 169.

Good. Then tell that to rush limpballs and fox news when we try to get single payer in this country.


It's not socialism

 

[Sweden]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

But Sweden is not a 'socialist' country. Very little of industry or commerce is state owned. 'Welfare capitalist' is a more accurate description - and much of this welfare is delivered by companies. The same is true of the other Nordic countries.

(Btw the Scandinavian peninsula is a geographic term. It comprises only Norway and Sweden).

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Good. Then tell that to rush limpballs and fox news when we try to get single payer in this country.


It's not socialism

Single payer is not in and of itself socialist.

But the Americans wanting it seem to want socialism

 

[vegas giants]

Single payer is not in and of itself socialist.

But the Americans wanting it seem to want socialism

Tell it to hannity and the gop

 

[Kyle Phoenix]

But since the communist party must have absolute power, how can you avoid totalitarianism under Marxist communism?

First off, the concept of totalitarianism was developed to represent Italian Fascism's ideal conception of the state. As Mussolini put it: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". Whilst comparisons between Fascism,Nazism and Communism were part of the conversation in the 1930's, both Nazis and Communists denied they were equivalent. So Nazis believed they were "Ayran socialists" and were opposed to the "Jewish Socialism" of Bolshevism/communism. The Communists supported Socialism as the rule of the working class, but considered Fascism as the terrorist rule of finance capital as the most reactionary section of the capitalist class. Only after the second world war did the conversation change and references to Soviet "Totalitarianism" become more commonplace. But it had nothing to do with Marxist theory.

To put it laymen's terms, the Soviets thought of themselves more as a "tyranny by majority" in which the working class, constituting the majority of the population, would exercise it's power to deprive the exploiting minority of capitalists of their property and liberties to the extent they believed they were capable of a counter-revolution. So they would claim they were *more* democratic than the United States by eliminating the rule of wealthy plutocrats who would frustrate the will of the people. This is why they felt comfortable naming countries like East Germany, the "German Democratic Republic" or North Korea, the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". They believed they were a democratic movement in which the people asserted their rights to become self-governing and depriving capitalists of control of the economy, the state and society.

So they would argue that the Press cannot be free if it is privately owned by the capitalist class and used merely as a propaganda tool for getting people to buy stuff. The press is only free when the "working people" themselves own the press. As the Communist Party believed they represented the people and the Soviet Union was a people's state, "freedom of the press" meant that the state owned and controlled the newspapers- not "capitalists".

When it comes to the abuses of power such as labour camps in the gulag and purging the communist party, the Soviets would have argued that this was "democratic" violence by the people in defence of the people's power against its enemies (much like the reign of terror in the french revolution). This is why they referred to such individuals as "enemies of the people".

If anything the Soviets would have claimed they were fighting for freedom and democracy against the "fascist" military-industrial complex in the United States, with it's racial segregation, international wars of aggression, suppression of progressive groups in the McCarthy era and under Nixon.

Make of it what you will, but those who claim Marxism was totalitarian usually do so by downplaying the ideological differences between Nazism and Communism or ignoring them all together. The totalitarian model focuses on the abuses, but oversimplifies the situation in the Cold War and was never an accurate model of how the Soviets behaved either in foreign relations or in domestic affairs as they shifted from relatively more liberal times (such as Khrushchev or Gorbachev) to more hard-line periods (such as under Brezhnev).

This isn't the same as saying the Soviets were the "good guys", but even if you think they were the villains, there was an elaborate effort to justify their behaviour to themselves, their own people and the rest of the world that went beyond crude propaganda. You can't understand why they were so successful and effective without admitting they knew how to inspire people to the cause, even if it was folly in the end. The totalitarian model is so rigid, that it makes communism doomed to fail- so it cannot explain why it spread so far and so fast in the space of a century.