4 ms·

> Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation. Perhaps, but something still has to explain why the nordic countries are considerably less so

> Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation. Perhaps, but something still has to explain why the nordic countries are considerably less socialist than they were in the 70's. > That was the time when the nordic countries built their succesful system that's in place today and is widely held in high regard. The argument in the documentary is that the wealth and success was built prior to the period of social democracy, and that abandoning the system was the necessary step to avoid collapse.

fulafel 7y ago
It's probably true that there is some level of prosperity that's needed to bootstrap the system, but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well, and the period of SD has overseen very good economic performance. Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. Strong unions, employee representation in company boards, high income transfers and health/parental/pension/unemployment benefits, free education, wide popular acceptance of high taxation, big public spending on culture/public broadcasting/civic education etc is still all there and popular even though the daily political rhetoric is much less red than it was when these were all first implemented. Keep in mind that in the multi-party nordic systems the right of center parties are much to the left of US democrats, even the anti immigration parties aren't attacking the welfare state. You could say that this is the end goal of SD, it's just the new normal and the pragmatic good solution to running a society, when the system is in place there's less need to have a lot of SD flag waving. People will defend the policies just on pragmatic grounds, without feeling there's ideology involved.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well Other nordic countries, like the market economy of Denmark[1]? > Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. I think it would be pretty drastic to claim that the political situation has been largely unchanged from the 70s, which is the period of Social Democracy which Piketty is defending. [1]https://www.investors.com/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/ https://www.investors.com/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-st...
  - fulafel 7y ago
    I don't know what your link was apart from the hints in the url (won't let me in) but in general in the nordic counries they don't call themselves socialist or socialism, that's true, it's an US phenomenon to use that phrasing. SD parties see the socialism hint in the name as vestigal and prefer to think their policy aims as merely pragmatic. Yes of course things have changed a lot from the 70s, I agree about that, but the strong welfare state is alive and well, though is under attack, and has wide popular support.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      Fair enough, and I'm not claiming that Sweden (or any nordic country) disbanded their welfare system. My claim is that the Social Democracy that Piketty suggests we return (the kind that was present in the 70s/80s) was rejected by Sweden, and for very sound reasons, and that his positive view of those times should be taken with some degree of skepticism.

fulafel 7y ago

It's probably true that there is some level of prosperity that's needed to bootstrap the system, but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well, and the period of SD has overseen very good economic performance. Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. Strong unions, employee representation in company boards, high income transfers and health/parental/pension/unemployment benefits, free education, wide popular acceptance of high taxation, big public spending on culture/public broadcasting/civic education etc is still all there and popular even though the daily political rhetoric is much less red than it was when these were all first implemented. Keep in mind that in the multi-party nordic systems the right of center parties are much to the left of US democrats, even the anti immigration parties aren't attacking the welfare state. You could say that this is the end goal of SD, it's just the new normal and the pragmatic good solution to running a society, when the system is in place there's less need to have a lot of SD flag waving. People will defend the policies just on pragmatic grounds, without feeling there's ideology involved.

lliamander 7y ago
> but the economic situation was and is much different in the other nordic countries and the model still works well Other nordic countries, like the market economy of Denmark[1]? > Claiming SD was abandoned is a pretty drastic interpretation. I think it would be pretty drastic to claim that the political situation has been largely unchanged from the 70s, which is the period of Social Democracy which Piketty is defending. [1]https://www.investors.com/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/ https://www.investors.com/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-st...
- fulafel 7y ago
  I don't know what your link was apart from the hints in the url (won't let me in) but in general in the nordic counries they don't call themselves socialist or socialism, that's true, it's an US phenomenon to use that phrasing. SD parties see the socialism hint in the name as vestigal and prefer to think their policy aims as merely pragmatic. Yes of course things have changed a lot from the 70s, I agree about that, but the strong welfare state is alive and well, though is under attack, and has wide popular support.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Fair enough, and I'm not claiming that Sweden (or any nordic country) disbanded their welfare system. My claim is that the Social Democracy that Piketty suggests we return (the kind that was present in the 70s/80s) was rejected by Sweden, and for very sound reasons, and that his positive view of those times should be taken with some degree of skepticism.