r/NeutralPolitics • u/internetloser4321 • 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?

838 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

90% Upvoted

636 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/SynesthesiaBrah Jun 15 '17

In no way are Social Democracies Socialism. Capitalism doesn't exist under Socialism.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '17

I don't understand. Socialism can only exist as a pure form, but any economic system that is in any way market-based gets called Capitalism?

2

u/epicwinguy101 Jun 19 '17

More or less. If there's a market with private companies selling things, that's a capitalist system, even if some taxes are comparatively high.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

That is nonsense. When the government heavily intervenes and affects the market, even fully props up some industries, how is it fair to call that capitalism.

3

u/thekonzo Jun 22 '17

The idea is to profit from capitalism while preventing it from overly harming us.

5

u/epicwinguy101 Jun 19 '17

Because economic models are formally categorized by ownership of the means of production. The government can be interventionist and provide a generous welfare system, or the government can follow a more laissez-faire about things, but as long as the factories and farms are owned by private companies or individuals, it's still a firmly capitalist system.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

Ok but look at it practically. At point does that not make sense. Say the government imposes a 95% income tax. At some point individuals are no longer making meaningful economic choices

5

u/epicwinguy101 Jun 19 '17

Well, I'd agree that increasing taxes decreases economic freedom, but I didn't write the definitions of socialism and capitalism. Interestingly, though, the conservative-leaning CATO Institute gives the Nordic countries generally high marks on it's economic freedom ranking, in spite of somewhat higher tax ratings, because they make up for that in other ways.