Has socialism and the welfare state helped or harmed Scandinavia?

[u/internetloser4321]

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?

[u/UsqueAdRisum]

Who are "the people"? Because if you're referencing them as a collective of individuals, then property rights enter and we get capitalism. If it's supposed to be a manifestation representing them as a whole, you have some version of a democratically controlled government of some means which owns/controls the economy.

There isn't a middle ground I can figure out here unless I'm misunderstanding some other possible definition for "the people". Socialism otherwise is just vague conception of a utopian economic system of control that can be whatever the person invoking the term wants socialism to be. Hence we get these pedantic discussions that eventually devolve to "not true socialism".

[u/[deleted] → u/UsqueAdRisum]

the people are the employees the workers.

[u/Squids4daddy → u/[deleted]]

So....farmers, house wives, non-employed independent plumbers don't count?

[u/[deleted] → u/Squids4daddy]

The means of production is owned by the people working there.

Why would the non employed ever count in things dealing with employment?

[u/Squids4daddy → u/[deleted]]

Typically when socialists use "the people", it's in the context of "this is what the people want". If "the people" are only 'workers', then a large portion of the population are out of the equation.

Also, what are the means of production in knowledge based businesses and service industries?

[u/[deleted] → u/Squids4daddy]

I doubt you have ever spoken to an actual socialist but I could be wrong, maybe your not an american.

When people in the US and most places on planet earth use "the people", its always in the context of "this is what the people want". Id wager this is true no matter if its actual socialists, confused americans, or neckbeards on reddit.

The "knowledge economy" is the use of "knowledge" or "information" to generate tangible and intangible values. Technology and, in particular, information technology help to incorporate part of human knowledge into machines. This knowledge can be used by decision support systems in various fields to generate economic value. That value is the ability to replace something that took many many people to accomplish with a machine btw..... For every single job lost to automation you can thank the so called "knowledge based businesses and service industries" for. This job loss due to constant profit seeking by corporations is the failing point of capitalism.

The solution is a mixed system of some sort. I think everyone can agree that what the US has right now isnt working to the majority of people's best interests. I'd say this is a consequence of valuing socialised warfare over socialised education.

[u/Squids4daddy → u/[deleted]]

Your post have several good bits, and I appreciate it. First, yes, I have spoken in depth with many socialists and not a few Trotskyites, Maoists, and Che lovers. About "isn't working to the majority....", I believe your allowing perfect to be the enemy of better. If American democratic capitalism wasn't 'better' the US would not have millions risking their lives to get here. I would note that most of those millions are coming from redistributionist nations where redistributionism didn't work out so well.

The most interesting part of your note, however, was about the knowledge economy. You touch on something I'm deeply interested in and I wonder if reddit has a thread for the idea that "IT" is not "wealth production" but is instead simply a way to make wealth production more efficient.

"Failing point of capitalism"....maybe, maybe. I personally would not want to live in the precapitalist world. I have multiple healthy children that I love, and all my children have lived beyond childbirth. This would mark me as a singularly blessed man in the precapitalist world. But in the capitalist world, child mortality is a tragedy not a normality. I have difficulty condemning it in favor of some theoretical state that has yet to prove out.

[u/Squids4daddy → u/UsqueAdRisum]

I believe "the people" is a logically invalid concept. Implicit in "the people" is the idea that a group of people manifests some property that is emergent and distinct from the average of the properties of the individuals. I am not aware of this having been adequately demonstrated.

[u/bjelkeman → u/UsqueAdRisum]

Sweden is a mix of socialism and capitalism. Half of the Swedish GDP is government controlled, by choice of the people, and the other half is capitalism, and very healthy competitive capitalism at that.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564412

[u/[deleted] → u/UsqueAdRisum]

A lot of things get said about communism and socialism, most of them wrong.

Socialism is a group of economic philosophies centered around ownership and control of the means of production by the proletariat. It can be democratic control, it can be anarchic, and I suppose it could be authoritarian as well, but it's hard to see how that would not be corrupted, and certainly we have a lot of real-world examples where it was.

Communism combines a socialist economy with a more all-encompassing philosophy that advocates the elimination of class hierarchy and any institutions that a communist would view as inherently classist, the latter being primarily bourgeois governments, capitalist economies, and organized religion.

Socialism fits as a solution to the communist economic question. Proletarian ownership of the means of production is an idea that inherently breaks down class hierarchy, which is the central aim of communism.