2.8.4 Now, when the Soviet Union has fallen, you are free to liberate your economies!
Description
This article is from the Nordic countries FAQ, by Antti Lahelma and Johan Olofsson, with numerous contributions by others.
2.8.4 Now, when the Soviet Union has fallen, you are free to liberate your economies!
What often seems to be forgotten is that the Nordic countries have the
same balance in political life as Canada and the US - namely
(apparent) democracy. Nordics have a right to choose whether they want
to spend public money on welfare, health care and education or not.
They do so by participating in elections, in numbers varying between
70% and 90% of those eligible to vote (unlike the U.S. where 50% of
registered voters is considered a great turnout). Our representatives
come from many parties in approximate proportion to the vote (whereas
the U.S. is often "winner-takes-all"). They enjoy (relative) freedom
of speech, freedom of religion, and (most) benefits of market
economies. That's why you'll get a cold shoulder if you try to label
them Socialists, plainly state that their welfare system is broken and
needs fixing, that their culture needs to be preserved from outside
influence, and so on. It's a choice, and the Nordics are doing their
best in exercising this choice in a manner consistent with their
values and their culture.
But it is a fact that the countries in the western (democratic) part
of Europe never became "free capitalistic" states as the USA, and
Americans see clear similarities between the western European
societies and the communist ideals.
Some writers use to argue that it's because the US didn't introduce
any of what is now known as libertarian thought, that hardly any
countries in this part of Europe bothered to try them. Or that the
Nazi influence scared most countries off in trying a political
ideology other than communism.
It's a misconception to believe that all of Europe was forced or
tended to adopt a "Socialistic" policy after the 2nd World War. After
the war, the only thing which with force could have been an agent for
Socialist or collectivist policies where the politic, economic and
historic realities in the respective countries. What happened in East
could not enforce Leninism (or related ideologies) in the democracies
west of the iron curtain. Quite the contrary.
An alternative view is that Marxism is a product of collectivist
Old-world thinking, and that it's the Old-world customs which
Americans recognize in Socialism.
One outgrow of this Old-world collectivism and stress on homogeneity
is most probably the way people feel responsible for each other, and
each other's kids, in Scandinavia. Maybe it's wrong to connect this
with press reports on scientifically determined sign of how unpaid
voluntary work is more prevalent in Scandinavia than in any other part
of Europe. But it's tempting when Yanks stress this aspect of their
society as something where they are world leading.
:->>>
One could say that after ww2 not much changed. The societies were as
centralistic and non-individualistic as they had been since
god-knows-when. Democracy was re-established in the parts of Europe
which weren't governed by Soviet troops. That was the main influence
of UK/USA - except for the economical and cultural.
Liberalism was not at all unknown to Europeans. Nor Conservatism. All
the time from the 1848-revolutions is marked by the reaction on the
danger of the urban concentrations of proletarians. Marxism, late
19:th century Social Conservatism and Liberalism are the most obvious
signs. What happened after the first world war, 1918, was the success
of Liberalism with full democracy in all countries, and then a
backlash when non-democrats came to power either through democratic
elections, or as a response to the unstable governmental situation
which the democracy had led to: In short the political map of the
pre-ww2-societies in Europe could be described as consisting of three
blocks. Socialists, Liberals and Conservatives. All three in
opposition to the other two. (The fascistic movements are then
associated with the Conservatives, which is true if one regards
alliances, but not quite true if one looks more directly on propaganda
and programs.)
The Socialistic block was split between reformists and revolutionists.
And in some countries it was the reformists and the Liberals who
together were strong enough to compete with the anti-democratic
forces.
After the second world war the Fascist parties had lost all
credibility.
For the people in the destroyed Europe (well, west of the iron
curtain) non-individualistic solutions were judged as most fit, as
typical in the German sick insurance system or centralized accords for
agreement on wages. I think one could say that most people
(sympathizing with all three blocks, the Conservative, Liberal and
Socialist) favored collectivist solutions, seeing democracy as
collectivist. The most individualistic tendencies were to be
discovered among Liberals.
The difference between Germany and Norden was not the intentions, but
the different positions the societies had to start from.
Germany was destroyed. The Nordic societies were not.
The eastern part of Europe (if Russia included, far more than the
half) learned to know the Russian masters and their ideology. It was
however only a tiny minority in West who aimed at a development as in
the Soviet satellite states.
Continue to:
My Books
