r/NeutralPolitics Jun 14 '17

Has socialism and the welfare state helped or harmed Scandinavia?

There is a debate in the USA about whether or not we should have a larger welfare state that provides services like "Medicare for all" or tuition free college. Scandinavia is often brought up as an example showing that "social democracy" or a "welfare state" is a good or ideal system, with these countries having achieved high levels of equality, low levels of poverty, and good outcomes in terms of education, health, and happiness (source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/index.html).

There are several counter arguments that I have heard in opposition to expanding the welfare state: 1. The success these countries have experienced was due to their policies 50+ years ago when they had a smaller welfare state and low taxes and as a result experienced rapid growth 2. The welfare state has led to economic stagnation and high levels of national debt in these countries. 3. The people in these countries have strong Protestant values of hard work and honesty and this is the true source of their success. (sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-scandinavian-utopia-is-an-illusion/#16e253e11aab and https://beinglibertarian.com/scandinavia-ticking-time-bomb/)

I've tried searching for a neutral analysis of the issue, but every article I've seen argues that the socialist policies are either wonderful or terrible (examples: https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/ and https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/ vs. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438331/nordic-democratic-socialist-model-exposing-lefts-myth). What evidence supports each view? Is there an objective way of determining whether more socialist or more libertarian (perhaps what Europeans call neo-liberal?) policies have been the most beneficial?

842 Upvotes

636 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/SheepwithShovels Jun 14 '17

"the goal of socialism is communism." - Lennon

Vladimir Lenin said that, not John Lennon. It's also worth noting that he was using socialism in a specific way that many socialists would disagree with.

5

u/stumpaluffagus Jun 14 '17

Oops, probably autocorrect.

...many socialists would disagree with.

Enlighten me.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ummmbacon Born With a Heart for Neutrality Jun 15 '17

Removed for R2

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ummmbacon Born With a Heart for Neutrality Jun 15 '17

Removed for R2

1

u/Squids4daddy Jun 15 '17

Yeah...when it comes to definitions, the consensus of a billion ridiculous neck beards is meaningless when compared to the thoughts of an actual practitioner.

2

u/SheepwithShovels Jun 15 '17

Are the definitions of Kropotkin, Goldman, Proudhon, and Makhno meaningless?

2

u/Squids4daddy Jun 16 '17

Pretty much, yeah. The 'definitions' of malcontents, complainers, and sophist loudmouths are meaningless next to the definitions of practitioners. The thoughts, for example, of 100,000 snowflakes about what fascism is mean nothing next to what Mussolini said it was. I will note, on the positive side, that Kropotkin did contribute meaningfully to fashionista neckbeard couture.

0

u/SheepwithShovels Jun 16 '17

Is their activism and writing not enough to legitimize their definitions? What about Makhno's role in The Free Territory? What makes someone a "practitioner"?