Why is Finland capitalist? Scandinavian countries in general seem to do so much for their people. Why did Neoliberalism not impact their welfare states? And what’s stopping the Scandinavian socialists from taking hold of the state machinery (via DemSoc means or otherwise) and using it to push socialism? They seem far closer to the ideal than the rest (whether that’s countries in the Global South who, after a socialist revolution, would have to build the state). I don’t know. I’m just confused.
You didn’t ask me, but I do live here. So I’ll try to add something. The state of socialism here is non-existent(at least here in Sweden). Trade unions are not much better. It’s important to remember that social democracy does not actually help advance the cause of socialism. It is instead one of the most efficient blockers of it. Right after the Russian revolution, Sweden was almost on the verge of following suit. But most revolutionary movements were “calmed down” by the social democrats, like Hjalmar Branting. But even that is withering away. Things are getting privatised, tax cuts, market rents, etc. We wanna be Neo Lib America so bad. Even our work culture(every type of culture really I mean look at our covid deniers), is trying to emulate america. All this entrepreneur bullshit, startup culture, grind culture, company is a family, etc is becoming the norm. On the electoralism side we seem to think that the only solution to our problems is doing racism and taking away parental leave for fathers.
As a bonus, I remember getting my first history book in school and reading through it. It stated 300+ million people died due to communism and why its important we never let it happen in sweden. I also remember a book that stated that its bad when to much socialism(which was defined as when the government does stuff), is bad, but also when there is too much privatisations. IE social democracy=Best thing ever.
I am a bit tired so sorry if this was un-readable or very rambly.
Right after the Russian revolution, Sweden was almost on the verge of following suit. But most revolutionary movements were “calmed down” by the social democrats
God damn succdems. Getting Hitler elected instead of the communist party; killing Rosa Luxemburg; preventing Sweden from going communist along with the USSR. Is there anything they don’t ruin?
It’s important to remember that social democracy does not actually help advance the cause of socialism. It is instead one of the most efficient blockers of it.
I can see this being the case in a country with a long history of social democrats in power, and where anticommunism has been baked into social democracy for just as long. But in the U.S., where the type of social democracy that ends homelessness throughout the country would be a big step left of anything we’ve ever had on a national scale (and an even more dramatic change from anything we’ve seen in the last half century or so), I can see that being a gateway to further leftward movement. Especially because the only notable American politicians who are even flirting with a break from anticommunist orthodoxy are (roughly) social democrats.
Maybe, but anti communism is inherently baked into social democracy. It does not seek to advance itself into socialism, it seeks to preserve capitalism by making it slightly less(openly), hellish(at least for those living in the global north). Even in the US, I do believe it had it’s biggest communist movement before the new deal(which tbf, was not a social democratic project, but it worked the same in practise). Not after. And although I believe that it would be a massive step left as you said, I don’t believe it would necessarily lead to moving outside of the extremely capitalistic framework. But I don’t live there. So I’d rather not comment on it further. I’m just sceptical I guess.
Also as to not confuse people. I am not some insane person that believes we should not be happy when places like Finland reduces human suffering. It should be celebrated(When good things happen its good? What a concept). I also think it’s important to separate global north social democracy and global south social democracy. For reasons I think many already understand(I probably should have specified that earlier sorry).
The issue I see is that “social democracy” means all sorts of different things depending on the context. In Europe, where there are parties that self-identify as social democrats, that hold real political power, and that have had to distinguish themselves from other significant leftist parties, yeah, social democracy has crystallized into capitalism with nice social programs. But as you point out, this might not perfectly capture global south social democracy, and I don’t think it captures “social democracy” in the U.S., either. I don’t think any significant U.S. politician actually calls themself a social democrat – the (relatively) big organization in that space is the Democratic Socialists of America, who openly want socialism, not capitalism. But because all of this is a level or two deeper than most people dig into American leftist politics, and because the DSA doesn’t have tight party discipline, you can certainly find DSA members who fit the European definition of social democrat (hence leftists derisively calling DSA politicians “social democrats”).
All this is to say that “social democracy” in the U.S. has a somewhat vague definition, and probably has a lot more potential for movement further left than social democracy in Europe. If nothing else, the larger “social democracy” movement in the U.S. is the only place close to mainstream politics where virtually any flavor of leftism can be seriously entertained.
Damn. Thanks for that.
The state of socialism here is non-existent(at least here in Sweden). Trade unions are not much better.
That’s disappointing. Are the trade unions controlled by reactionary forces?
Sweden really does show how, as you said, “social democracy does not actually help advance the cause of socialism”.
I wonder how do we advance proletarian consciousness. I guess achieving workers’ rights without the necessary socialist education cannot improve things long term.
