I’d argue the only reason it was possible to implement in the first place was the post-war context of having to rebuild everything from scratch; the power dynamics in place before the war were left in the rubble. The father of Norwegian social democracy spent the years before the war in and out of jail, the war years in a prison camp, and the post war years as prime minister.
They also had to contrast the USSR, which had a very good quality of life for most citizens. Without socdem, people would have seen the difference between the USSR and Europe as positive due to things like eliminating homelessness, a right to food, and guaranteed healthcare. In the ~30 years since the Soviet Union fell, the EU is slowly crawling back in line with the US.
Even if you do, the past is a complicated thing. Plenty of people are nostalgic to the USSR, and many of them might very well have been better off under communism.
That said, in terms of standards of living, I think it’s fair to say the Nordic countries were comparing themselves to the US way more than the Soviet Union in the postwar era. The Finns would rather be dead than associated with the Soviets, which many of them demonstrated quite forcefully during the war. As for the other Nordic countries, the Marshall Plan certainly didn’t weaken the admiration of the US.
If anything, what made the Nordic model such a success was the decision to look away from the Soviets - the influence the Soviet Union had over European socialist parties somehow didn’t catch on in the North. Marxist-Leninist parties existed (and still exist), but they were mostly sidelined (to a degree that is, in all fairness, problematic in its own right).
that poll is only of people currently living in russia… none of the former soviet states and other parts of the world. and of course we all trust the moscow times. when you do speak with them they mention never having tried fresh fruit until the 1990s, standing in line hours for bread… not being able to leave their apartments because strung out muggers took over the lobbies and always having to take the stairs, and not being able to control the temperature of their homes because the govt controlled the boilers, and having to use rugs as insulation against concrete, and all the drivers were terrible because the drivers tests were just a vodka buyoff, and the cars were constantly falling apart and the movies and music and artists in general were never allowed to criticize anything there, and the news didnt bother trying to be reality based etc
It definitely is just reforming capitalism tho. If you want it in America you don’t have to overthrow any government, just vote them out of the white house
Yep, just support and vote left for the next few decades. Take a page from the conservative handbook and mobilize a base that will actually turn out to vote. Conservatives have spent the last 50 years fine-tuning their messaging and tapping into a base that will get involved in politics down to a local level and it’s working.
We have conservative schoolboards across the country deciding what will be taught, activist ideological judges waiting for Federalist Society-trained lawyers to bring the next case deregulating another corpo safeguard and religious fundamentalists regulating peoples genitals.
I can’t think of any successful implementation of socialism following from voting alone. Unionising tends to be where the power comes from.
The historical success rate of overthrowing the government and replacing it with something more ideologically pure doesn’t really inspire confidence either. Sometimes it might be a necessary step on the winding path of history, but in terms of making anything better in the short term the track record is a bit iffy at best.
So like, every co-op, worker-owned company, and software company is socialist since their workers own the means of production?
Also, couldn’t you say that if the workers control the state, (i.e. through a democracy) that they own the “means of production”? Or does socialism have a requirement for more direct ownership?
Worker co-ops are probably the closest thing to a glimpse of a socialist workplace under capitalism, yes, but unfortunately these companies must exist in a capitalist economy. This means they still must compete against profit-driven companies and do things that are not in the interests of their workers in order to stay afloat. If you’re interested in learning more about how this directly related to socialism, I recommend this article: https://monthlyreview.org/2015/02/01/cooperatives-on-the-path-to-socialism/.
To your other question, the answer is no. Under a capitalist framework, corporations (the ruling class in Marxist terms) own the means of production in that they are the primary owners of private propery (the factories, machines, offices, etc that produce goods and services). They take the profit that workers generate and keep it for themselves - it isn’t distributed back to the workers. Just because the US is democratic does not mean the workers own this private property or have a say in how it is used.
lol yeah the lib approach of “vote harder” - look at how that goes. the closest thing they had was Bernie sanders and he was railroaded by the dnc. you’re asking the wolf to watch the wolfs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Which is a fix, not possible to implement in the chaos after a revolution, and not remotely a replacement.
I’d argue the only reason it was possible to implement in the first place was the post-war context of having to rebuild everything from scratch; the power dynamics in place before the war were left in the rubble. The father of Norwegian social democracy spent the years before the war in and out of jail, the war years in a prison camp, and the post war years as prime minister.
They also had to contrast the USSR, which had a very good quality of life for most citizens. Without socdem, people would have seen the difference between the USSR and Europe as positive due to things like eliminating homelessness, a right to food, and guaranteed healthcare. In the ~30 years since the Soviet Union fell, the EU is slowly crawling back in line with the US.
you might want to speak with someone who lived in the USSR.
Even if you do, the past is a complicated thing. Plenty of people are nostalgic to the USSR, and many of them might very well have been better off under communism.
That said, in terms of standards of living, I think it’s fair to say the Nordic countries were comparing themselves to the US way more than the Soviet Union in the postwar era. The Finns would rather be dead than associated with the Soviets, which many of them demonstrated quite forcefully during the war. As for the other Nordic countries, the Marshall Plan certainly didn’t weaken the admiration of the US.
If anything, what made the Nordic model such a success was the decision to look away from the Soviets - the influence the Soviet Union had over European socialist parties somehow didn’t catch on in the North. Marxist-Leninist parties existed (and still exist), but they were mostly sidelined (to a degree that is, in all fairness, problematic in its own right).
Removed by mod
Maybe YOU should speak to someone who lived in the USSR. 75% of people from the former USSR polled want to live in the USSR again.
that poll is only of people currently living in russia… none of the former soviet states and other parts of the world. and of course we all trust the moscow times. when you do speak with them they mention never having tried fresh fruit until the 1990s, standing in line hours for bread… not being able to leave their apartments because strung out muggers took over the lobbies and always having to take the stairs, and not being able to control the temperature of their homes because the govt controlled the boilers, and having to use rugs as insulation against concrete, and all the drivers were terrible because the drivers tests were just a vodka buyoff, and the cars were constantly falling apart and the movies and music and artists in general were never allowed to criticize anything there, and the news didnt bother trying to be reality based etc
It definitely is just reforming capitalism tho. If you want it in America you don’t have to overthrow any government, just vote them out of the white house
Yep, just support and vote left for the next few decades. Take a page from the conservative handbook and mobilize a base that will actually turn out to vote. Conservatives have spent the last 50 years fine-tuning their messaging and tapping into a base that will get involved in politics down to a local level and it’s working.
We have conservative schoolboards across the country deciding what will be taught, activist ideological judges waiting for Federalist Society-trained lawyers to bring the next case deregulating another corpo safeguard and religious fundamentalists regulating peoples genitals.
What left? There is no left in mainstream American politics (but that’s what they want you to think so they can get your vote)
I can’t think of any successful implementation of socialism following from voting alone. Unionising tends to be where the power comes from.
The historical success rate of overthrowing the government and replacing it with something more ideologically pure doesn’t really inspire confidence either. Sometimes it might be a necessary step on the winding path of history, but in terms of making anything better in the short term the track record is a bit iffy at best.
Does public ownership and maintenance of infrastructure count as socialism? If so, that definitely happened.
Which countries do not have public ownership and maintenance of infrastructure?
And no that isn’t socialism.
Then what is socialism? What does a socialist society look like?
I think by public here you mean “state” ownership. Socialists believe in workers owning the means of production.
So like, every co-op, worker-owned company, and software company is socialist since their workers own the means of production?
Also, couldn’t you say that if the workers control the state, (i.e. through a democracy) that they own the “means of production”? Or does socialism have a requirement for more direct ownership?
Worker co-ops are probably the closest thing to a glimpse of a socialist workplace under capitalism, yes, but unfortunately these companies must exist in a capitalist economy. This means they still must compete against profit-driven companies and do things that are not in the interests of their workers in order to stay afloat. If you’re interested in learning more about how this directly related to socialism, I recommend this article: https://monthlyreview.org/2015/02/01/cooperatives-on-the-path-to-socialism/.
To your other question, the answer is no. Under a capitalist framework, corporations (the ruling class in Marxist terms) own the means of production in that they are the primary owners of private propery (the factories, machines, offices, etc that produce goods and services). They take the profit that workers generate and keep it for themselves - it isn’t distributed back to the workers. Just because the US is democratic does not mean the workers own this private property or have a say in how it is used.
Removed by mod
You really think the American Revolution created or had good ideals? Like, it was made by slave owners who wanted to evade British taxes
lol yeah the lib approach of “vote harder” - look at how that goes. the closest thing they had was Bernie sanders and he was railroaded by the dnc. you’re asking the wolf to watch the wolfs.
Bernie Sanders lost by 3 million votes, so yes “vote harder” would absolutely have changed that situation