Sweden is fairly unique as it’s economy wasn’t destroyed by WWII, and it’s stance on banking, foreign exports, and foreign ownership has enabled it to make massive profits. But the economy is seriously struggling today. The average home loan takes 100 years to pay off.
Finland economy replaces oil with timber and an extremely educated population. Both of which are not sustaining the model well as the country is in recession. The timber industry isnt producing sustainable profits like it used to. The debt-to-GDP ratio is extremely high. The highly educated population is leaving and people don’t typically immigrate to Finland.
So arguably the model isn’t working anymore, without something like oil to fall back on.
Clearly no Nordic country is a panacea. But the issues you mention are relevant to a whole bunch of northern European countries, many of which are pretty “socialist” by American standards.
On the oil question, Norway is in any case the international exception. Most countries with oil are not socialist paradises but rather repressive police states. Or semi-failed, like Venezuela. Even before the climate crisis made it unethical, oil was a decent predictor of bad social outcomes. Norway aside, the world’s most successful countries, as measured by HDI rather than GDP, tend to have few natural resources. Or almost none at all, like Japan and Germany.
It irritates me that, even today, people keep mentioning oil as some kind of magic solution. It’s the opposite and always has been.
I’m not sure if people are suggesting that oil itself is a magical solution or if they’re suggesting that having exclusive access to an extremely profitable resource (oil) enables a country with a tiny population to make socialism work.
I have a strange feeling that if oil became worthless Norway would quickly stop doing socialism well
Not sure I understand this obsession with Norway. Its neighbors are doing just as well, and are just as “socialist” by American standards. The only substantive difference is that they don’t have sovereign wealth funds worth trillions. Because, all that oil money - Norway does not spend it. It keeps it for a rainy day. What makes Norway successful is not the oil money. The winning formula is human capital, not natural capital.
Denmark is as successful a country as Norway on pretty much any metric.
The point I was trying to convey is that the only democratic socialist countries that I’m aware of are rich off of either abundant natural resources or rent-seeking from more exploitative countries like the US. Is it a sustainable model for poor countries too? Historically they’ve fallen into autocracy. I want it to work everywhere because I believe in justice, but I can’t prove it with math or precedent.
Firstly, just know that the formula “democratic socialist” is itself almost an Americanism (although it’s true that Orwell used it). In the rest of the world it sounds suspiciously similar to what the former communist countries of eastern Europe called themselves. And they were most certainly not democracies.
Outside the USA the usual term is “social democracy”. That’s what the Scandinavian model called itself. Past tense intended.
For examples of successful, free, and equal societies, I would suggest that the best examples are indeed in northern Europe, with a handful of special mentions like NZ or Japan. The HDI is surely the best indicator.
Of countries that have historically used the word “socialist” to describe their political systems, with or without “democratic” thrown in, none are places that you would want to live.
Sweden and Finland have no oil, and if anything are even more “socialist” than Norway.
Back to the drawing board on your premise.
Sweden is fairly unique as it’s economy wasn’t destroyed by WWII, and it’s stance on banking, foreign exports, and foreign ownership has enabled it to make massive profits. But the economy is seriously struggling today. The average home loan takes 100 years to pay off.
Finland economy replaces oil with timber and an extremely educated population. Both of which are not sustaining the model well as the country is in recession. The timber industry isnt producing sustainable profits like it used to. The debt-to-GDP ratio is extremely high. The highly educated population is leaving and people don’t typically immigrate to Finland.
So arguably the model isn’t working anymore, without something like oil to fall back on.
Clearly no Nordic country is a panacea. But the issues you mention are relevant to a whole bunch of northern European countries, many of which are pretty “socialist” by American standards.
On the oil question, Norway is in any case the international exception. Most countries with oil are not socialist paradises but rather repressive police states. Or semi-failed, like Venezuela. Even before the climate crisis made it unethical, oil was a decent predictor of bad social outcomes. Norway aside, the world’s most successful countries, as measured by HDI rather than GDP, tend to have few natural resources. Or almost none at all, like Japan and Germany.
It irritates me that, even today, people keep mentioning oil as some kind of magic solution. It’s the opposite and always has been.
Norway being the only exception.
I’m not sure if people are suggesting that oil itself is a magical solution or if they’re suggesting that having exclusive access to an extremely profitable resource (oil) enables a country with a tiny population to make socialism work.
I have a strange feeling that if oil became worthless Norway would quickly stop doing socialism well
Not sure I understand this obsession with Norway. Its neighbors are doing just as well, and are just as “socialist” by American standards. The only substantive difference is that they don’t have sovereign wealth funds worth trillions. Because, all that oil money - Norway does not spend it. It keeps it for a rainy day. What makes Norway successful is not the oil money. The winning formula is human capital, not natural capital.
Denmark is as successful a country as Norway on pretty much any metric.
The point I was trying to convey is that the only democratic socialist countries that I’m aware of are rich off of either abundant natural resources or rent-seeking from more exploitative countries like the US. Is it a sustainable model for poor countries too? Historically they’ve fallen into autocracy. I want it to work everywhere because I believe in justice, but I can’t prove it with math or precedent.
Firstly, just know that the formula “democratic socialist” is itself almost an Americanism (although it’s true that Orwell used it). In the rest of the world it sounds suspiciously similar to what the former communist countries of eastern Europe called themselves. And they were most certainly not democracies.
Outside the USA the usual term is “social democracy”. That’s what the Scandinavian model called itself. Past tense intended.
For examples of successful, free, and equal societies, I would suggest that the best examples are indeed in northern Europe, with a handful of special mentions like NZ or Japan. The HDI is surely the best indicator.
Of countries that have historically used the word “socialist” to describe their political systems, with or without “democratic” thrown in, none are places that you would want to live.