all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 3 years ago

A lot of "loud" generalisations here or whatever here, ignoring the finer bits. I am a bit drunk, but I will tell the story as I've been told.

After WWII, the labour party in Norway took dominance. Their origin were communist-ish, and their sentiment, in broad strokes, were like that: the people should "seize" control, seize the means of production, and use it to create a society which used is resources to benefit the people. Later, the party turned its back on these roots, and turned to a more moderate way: Bernstein, a german thinker, argued that capitalism didn't "collapse", or eat it self up or something like that, as Marx predicted (?), but rather just worked, in a way. So Bernstein, and others, proposed that rather than overthrow the order, (by force) they should try to moderate, and control it, be reform. From that-ish, social democracy was born. The workers should seize power and control the market and society, to better society for all. I mean, why not (it seems self-evident)?

So, the labour party nationalized the oil (when they discovered it, US companies was at the door, and all natural resources, saying it belonged to the people, and thus could never be sold. They wrote it into the constitution. Again, why not? The workers took political power, and used it to control the "flow" and development of society. They set the term, squeezed the capital owners, but just so much that it would still be attractive to do business. And, in addition, we had oil, and fish... well, everyone wanted it - so why give it away? Why not control it to our benefit? If we have "gold", why give it away?

Plus, from our roots, the population was not divided, of one culture, and the communist emerged from the war as saviours and heroes. Even today most people have backgrounds, and remember, their small towns, and their background of families with simple means: People were frugal, from farming background, homespun and all that, so perhaps thay was why no mafia or anything emerged here, when unions and such developed. Everone knows everbody, it's that kind of vibe, a bit exaggerated. Even today the trust in society, and to the state etc., is sky high. I don't even bother to check my tax returns, I trust the civil servants to do it probably. If I pay too much, I even get interest on the stuff I'm owed.

Fast forwaed, the same-ish principle stands. The labour party rules to share and create wealth for everone, equally. Even if they don't have power: Even the "right wing" parties here are for the same thing (if someone proposed otherwise, e.g. "leave the poor to die", they would be seen be all as pariah, like animals, and shunned by all. It's unheard of, such atrocious attitude would make you appear worse then the worst. the right wingers just want to make it happen through private sector, while the leftists are for doing it through public sector, broadly speakers. Could have said more, for example about the three part collaboration etc., but let's leave it at that. Take it all with a few pints worth of salt, it's enough for a start.

But, I would emphasize, us having such a homogenous population, a kind of stable culture were everone shared the same principles, background etc. - I think that played a big part. Even today, most people believe the integrity of politicans etc. to a high degree. Even if we bicker, it's more like family arguing. Heck, even the children of the crown prince attended public school; the king himself rode the tram when oil was in shortage (a very iconic moment in norwegian history - even if he probably rode with his chaffeur 98% of the time, the principle still stands).

inb4 oil bla bla bla, Sweden has the same welfare level (even though, here my knowledge is more very luck limited).

Thanks for reading, it rocks here (economically speaking; socially, it's as dry as bones, we are probably worse than the finns). Love you all, Cheers!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    The secret is using your natural reaources to responsibly build a sovereign wealth fund rather than fritter it away for short term political gain.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    The secret is having free hydro energy supply, while 50% of their gdp is fossil exports. But also includes making those smart decisions with these riches. Norway should stop selling carbon tho.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Wrong its Finland and thats because the sad people just commit suicide...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Remember; sad people off themselves in Norway too. Finland and Norway are very similar in so many ways. Visiting people in Finland and it's just like visiting people in Norway. Even their coffee tastes the same, which means it's light roasted coffee made in a Moccamaster and drunk from Moomin mugs with cake on the side. Imo Finns are just Norwegians with a cooler language.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    You are just provoking a war..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Provoking a war by telling the truth?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    They are very different, as you can see by the way it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm Norwegian with Finnish relatives and I don't see much difference imo. Finland has better candy though, and they have easier access to the sauna. Norway have plenty of mountains and bad weather, and Norwegians are probably more conservative than Finns, atleast that's my impression knowing both sides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    From my understanding its like Austria, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Germany up there. They are pretty much the same but if you say that they kill you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    It is very much the same and we know it. Still though we're quite elitist and Norwegians will obviously think we're better than the Finns (and everyone else for that matter). And likewise with a Finn, they know that they're the best there is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    For obvious reasons none of the Nordics can be the best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)
  • ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄⠄

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Something something socialism

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    And low density. And low population. And petrol money.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Always wondered how it works. Anyone know what is the difference between social democracy and classic capitalism aside good social programs and taxes?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    But in both cases capitalists run the government. Why with social democracy they still have good social programs while in capitalism they tend to reduce them? I doubt that with social democracy they have more generous capitalist, it's should be something else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Social Democratic countries tend to take a lot of money from taxes and invest into public services and infrastructure. If you want to look at it in an optimistic light it's a middle term to reach true socialism. I agree with it's problems, I don't identify as a social Democrate mostly because I feel it's an ideology with the mere goal of trying to slow capitalism and that's a goal too small for my liking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's how I understand it, but why rich people may want to pay huge taxes?

    Usually they try to avoid them as much as possible. I mean if capitalists run the country they could reduce them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I think that's part of the issue. Social democracies tend to be far more run by the people. They tend to be highly influenced by capital power but not directly and that's a huge difference. Most countries where this exists don't have a gigantic money moving machine from corporations to politicians like the USA it's subtle by way of capital flight.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Also oil to pay for all og this.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Social democrats want to pretend they can have their cake and eat it too.

    EDIT unf downvote me harder Lemmy libs! It only makes me harder!

    Oil barons get the fucking wall in Minecraft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The rest of the nordic countries have the cake and eat it too without oil money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    Pay no attention to the legacy of colonialism and slave trade, and certainly not modern imperialist extraction from the third world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, Finland (which didn't exist as an independent state until 1917) definitely has a long history of colonialism and slave trade in the last *checks notes* 106 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago

    Finland, Iceland, and Greenland are certainly different from their cultural contemporaries. They are, historically, victims of colonialism instead of perpetrators like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. That's worth recognizing!

    They still benefit from modern imperialist extraction like every other Western State.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    In what way has any of their imperialistic actions benefited them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.

    Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.

    Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.

    Like, come on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.

    Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.

    So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would've thunk.

    Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.

    You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?

    Like, come on.

    Yeah, come on. Use your brain for once and don't just spew tankie bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would’ve thunk.

    Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren't really allowed to benefit from imperialism.

    Surely you've noticed how much worse off they are? Do you think that's just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven't recovered? Do you not realize how much better things were before the West's so-called "shock therapy" destroyed all of their social programs?

    You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?

    Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?

    Use your brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    that's just because the USSR ruined them...

    Germans still pay solidarity tax lil bro... USSR was one of the most talented entities in fucking up entire countries for decades to come, politburo was producing most vile, scheming and backstabbing ruling class ever to imagine. The very same people were running privatization and scraping all the social security programs in place, your boys from the West in Yeltsin's team were simply lacking and couldn't keep up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren’t really allowed to benefit from imperialism.

    Lol, what? Do you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don't end up in post-soviet countries? Do you think they still drive Ladas there? Those countries ABSOLUTELY have cheap commodities imported in to subsidize their developed country lifestyles. Not to the same extent as the big players, but we'll get to why that is.

    Surely you’ve noticed how much worse off they are?

    Are they? They are worse, but depending on the region not by much. Take a look yourself, The same report that puts Nordic countries at the top has Czechia (formerly a part of Czechoslovakia) just a smidge below US and UK and actually above Belgium and France. Now you can argue "that's a satellite state and not an actual USSR aligned country" but it's not like Estonia is that far behind and according to the CCCP Estonia was hardcore in the CCCP, you know ECCP.

    Do you think that’s just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven’t recovered?

    Well, kinda. Most of those countries have issues with a Russian minority who refuse to integrate into the local culture. It creates tensions in their societies which then hinders their progress. It's going to take at least another generation or two before that issue essentially "solves itself". And remember, that's an issue only because the CCCP did deliberate mass deportation of locals into foreign lands. You can still find some Baltic people in Siberia, not because they want to be there but because they were forced to be there.

    Do you not realize how much better things were before the West’s so-called “shock therapy” destroyed all of their social programs?

    Unlike you I actually know how thing were before and things were pretty shit before the collapse, it's literally one of the reasons the Soviet union collapsed. Sure things right after the collapse were worse but guess what, in less than 10 years it was already better than the end of union. The "shock therapy" didn't destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.

    Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?

    The fuck kind of a stupid question is this? Obviously US wouldn't allow it, but it's not like the EU would allow it either. And it's a stupid question because Sweden (and most neighbors of Russia) wouldn't even need the umbrella of protection if Russia wasn't such a fucking asshole towards its neighbors. Just to prove that point Finland and Russia had normal relations, until Putin decided to threaten them out of nowhere and now Finland is in NATO because Russia acted like an asshole. The umbrella of protection point has literally nothing to do with how well Nordic countries are doing. You could argue that the umbrella would mean they don't have to spend that much on defense, but guess what else would make them spend less on defense? If Russia wasn't such a fucking prick. Regardless they're still doing well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don’t end up in post-soviet countries?

    I think they don't benefit from it. Products made from the resources from southern countries end up in southern countries too! That's not the point.

    The benefit of superexploitation is being able to make commodities artificially cheap in the imperial core relative to wages in the imperial core. In post-soviet countries these products aren't actually cheap relative to their own incomes, they have to pay a significant portion of their wages to afford them.

    The “shock therapy” didn’t destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.

    I'm working my way through Red Hangover, and that really doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe 1 in 10 people living in the post-soviet sphere have benefitted. Neoliberalism is nightmare.

    The fuck kind of a stupid question is this? Obviously US wouldn’t allow it, but it’s not like the EU would allow it either.

    So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    In post-soviet countries these products aren’t actually cheap relative to their own incomes, they have to pay a significant portion of their wages to afford them.

    Have you lived there? Because it sure as shit talk about it like you have, except you clealy haven't because if you did you'd know how disingenuous your point is. Obviously post-soviet countries don't have the buying power of countries that generally have existed for more than a century. Like you should be aware, post-soviet countries had to restart their economy following the collapse of the union. You're rubbing in the fact that people had to live through the collapse. But it doesn't mean you couldn't afford those cheap products. I was able to buy Coke and Mars back in 1994 despite the economy being probably in its worst state ever and most people probably could until the start of this year. The looming recession is killing buying power right now, so this year really isn't a good comparison on how big part of the wage goes into actually living.

    I’m working my way through Red Hangover, and that really doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe 1 in 10 people living in the post-soviet sphere have benefitted.

    I guess my parents, me, my friends and most people I know just happen to live in some magical bubble where we're the 1 in 10? I know not everyone is well off, but it's not like everyone in the Nordic countries are well off either. It's definitely not 1 in 10 who have benefited.

    Neoliberalism is nightmare.

    Maybe the only statement we mostly agree upon. I wouldn't call it a nightmare but I agree that we could do better. However soviet era socialism is definitely not better.

    So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.

    And this is where you go off the deep end. At no point was western militarism even a point of discussion. The discussion was the welfare state of Nordic countries and western militarism has nothing to do with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago

    I was able to buy Coke and Mars back in 1994 despite the economy being probably in its worst state ever and most people probably could until the start of this year.

    lol wtf is this how you measure prosperity? Mexico drinks 7 times more Coke than the rest of the world, would you call them prosperous? I think I remember something about Coke being more readily available than baby formula there?

    I guess my parents, me, my friends and most people I know just happen to live in some magical bubble where we’re the 1 in 10? I know not everyone is well off, but it’s not like everyone in the Nordic countries are well off either. It’s definitely not 1 in 10 who have benefited.

    Only 1 in 10 saw improvement from before, and specifically in ways unrelated to technological development.

    Is your water cleaner? Are you healthier? Do you have more free time? Maybe! Not most people, though.

    And this is where you go off the deep end. At no point was western militarism even a point of discussion. The discussion was the welfare state of Nordic countries and western militarism has nothing to do with that.

    It has a lot to do with it! It's easier to spend money on welfare when you don't have to spend it on defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    "If you are not rich because you were lucky, you are rich because you took it."

    Gotcha. So, what does social democracy have to do with it again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Social democracy is a way for capitalism to mask its cruelty by fully exporting all of the suffering it generates. It's totally unsustainable without other countries to steal from or wrecking the environment, because at the end of the day it's still capitalism and everything that entails.

    We don't need to tax the rich. We need to do something else to them. 😘

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Would you say that the average citizen of a developed nation is one of these rich or is benefiting from the rich? They probably make up the most of these statistics about happiness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago

    I would say that social democracy is better at distributing the superprofits from imperialism among its citizens. I'm even somewhat cynical about it, and believe Norwegians have a legitimate interest in opposing international socialism because they benefit more from imperialism than they would if they were forced into equality with the rest of the world (at least until international socialism uplifted the rest of the world)

    I also don't think it is sustainable. Blowback is inevitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)