from the world's big
What is socialism like in Scandinavia?
We keep hearing that Scandinavia has perfected socialism, but is that true?
- The American left and right often point to Scandinavian countries as examples of what government regulation can do, for good and bad.
- But are they actually socialists? How do their economies work?
- While stealing their social structures and trying to implement them elsewhere probably won't work, they do offer an example of a kinder, gentler capitalism.
When Americans discuss the potential benefits of socialism, they often point to the Scandinavian countries as examples of what is possible. Bernie Sanders references Denmark and Norway rather frequently, and Donald Trump even got in on the action once. Depending on who you ask, they can either be socialist utopias demonstrating the best of left-wing ideology or Orwellian nightmares where extremely pale people are left pathetic by state intervention.
But, for all the rhetoric, what is socialism like in these countries and are they even socialist at all?
The fine line between socialism and severely regulated capitalism
The big problem with asking if the Scandinavian countries are "democratic socialist" or not is that Americans often interchange the terms "democratic socialism" and "social democracy." Socialism is an ideology based around the idea of social ownership of the means of production. This can take many forms, including state or cooperative ownership of large parts of the economy.
However, social democracy is a capitalistic system where the state intervenes in the economy with regulations, welfare, and strong social protections without interrupting the private ownership of the means of production.
In the Scandinavian countries, the lion's share of the economy is still controlled by private investors. No major party is seriously discussing the abolition of the market system, and state ownership is limited to specific strategic industries. The Danish Prime Minister famously corrected Bernie Sanders for calling Denmark "socialist" because of this. For these reasons, it is more accurate to say that the Nordic countries are social-democracies than democratic socialist states.
It should be said that they still have an extremely well developed model of social democracy, with a generous social safety net, high quality public services, and strong regulations on private business to protect both individuals and the community. Unionization rates are high and coordinated collective bargaining agreements are common.However, sometimes the line between 'democratic socialism' and 'social democracy' is blurry. A few years ago in Norway, 37% of the stocks traded on the Oslo stock market were owned by the state. The shares were in good company, as the government also runs the national oil firm Equinor, the largest bank in the country, an aluminum producer, a telephone company, and many other enterprises. In classic market socialist form, income from the state oil company goes into a fund managed for the benefit of the Norwegian people.
There was also that time Sweden wanted to socialize capital
The same economist who helped devise the Swedish welfare state, Rudolf Meidner, collaborated on a plan that would have socialized capital by requiring large firms to regularly issue stock which would go into a worker's fund managed by the relevant trade union.
While the program never went into effect – the electoral defeat of the social democrats all but doomed it – it did enjoy an extensive discussion and even a fair amount of support. If enacted, it would have placed the majority control of the Swedish economy in the hands of the workers in a few decades.
All this is interesting but somewhat academic. What does the system they have look like in practice?
Statistically speaking, the system works well.
The Scandinavian countries are among the happiest countries on Earth. They enjoy some of the best healthcare on the planet. Their trust in other people is very high. Norway has the highest Human Development Index score of any country in the world, with Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland all making it into the top 15.
When the adjustment for inequality is thrown in, since many high-scoring countries have such inequality that not all citizens can enjoy the high development, all the Scandinavian nations make it into the top ten.
They are also rather well off financially, with Norwegians enjoying a GDP per capita of more than $75,000. Taxes are comparatively high, Swedish high earners can face a 70% tax rate and they used to have to deal with a rate that could go over 100 percent, but there is currently no brain drain, suggesting this isn't too much of a problem. Despite what some have argued, their economies are doing rather well and these countries are considered excellent places to do business.
Why are these countries like this? Is it the cold? The Lefsa? Something in the culture?
That is a question that plagues American progressives who desire the social system of the Scandinavian countries without the death metal or lack of sunlight. A few suggestions come up more frequently than others.
The idea that it has something to do with how small and homogeneous the countries are is prevalent; Sweden is barely more populated than the Chicago metropolitan area, and 83.2% of the population of Norway is ethnically Norwegian while 71.5% of them are members of the Church of Norway. This idea is also supported by the recent spike in anti-immigrant sentiment in Sweden.
The community-minded culture of Scandinavians might also have something to do with it. When Norwegian immigrants moved to Minnesota in the 1870s, many of them were able to band together and form mutual insurance companies, which have a strong cooperative element to them, despite the lack of legal protection for such enterprises at the time. After laws offering protection for them were implemented, they did very well despite the poverty of the immigrant community. Steven Keillor argues in the book Cooperative Commonwealth: Co-ops in Rural Minnesota that this was due in part to the strong sense of community and cooperation inherent both to immigrant communities and Nordic cultures.
In an article published in Jacobin, Andreas Mulvad and Rune Stahl point out that these explanations are incomplete at best. Instead, they argue that the Scandinavian countries' social systems evolved along similar lines to other Western European democracies after World War II. However, the strength of the political ties between unions and labor parties along with a few other breaks caused Scandinavian social democracy to reach a point unmatched in the rest of Europe. These same conditions meant social democracy could stand up to the rise of neo-liberalism, unlike it did in other countries.
While Scandinavia might not be democratic socialist in the precise sense of the term, the experience of these nations in soothing the worst pains of capitalism can still serve as an example to other countries that want to keep a market system while improving the lives of their populations. While it might not be possible to completely copy their systems and implement them elsewhere, their example of how to balance capitalism with social reforms will continue to inspire people all over the world.
But if these benefits require eating lutefisk, I'll be a better capitalist than Ayn Rand.
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
A new study suggests that a century-old vaccine may reduce the severity of coronavirus cases.
- A new study finds a country's tuberculosis BCG vaccination is linked to its COVID-19 mortality rate.
- More BCG vaccinations is connected to fewer severe coronavirus cases.
- The study is preliminary and more research is needed to support the findings.
Professor Luis Escobar.
Credit: Virginia Tech
A study of the manner in which memory works turns up a surprising thing.
- Researchers have found that some basic words appear to be more memorable than others.
- Some faces are also easier to commit to memory.
- Scientists suggest that these words serve as semantic bridges when the brain is searching for a memory.
Cognitive psychologist Weizhen Xie (Zane) of the NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) works with people who have intractable epilepsy, a form of the disorder that can't be controlled with medications. During research into the brain activity of patients, he and his colleagues discovered something odd about human memory: It appears that certain basic words are consistently more memorable than other basic words.
The research is published in Nature Human Behaviour.
An odd find
Image source: Tsekhmister/Shutterstock
Xie's team was re-analyzing memory tests of 30 epilepsy patients undertaken by Kareem Zaghloul of NINDS.
"Our goal is to find and eliminate the source of these harmful and debilitating seizures," Zaghloul said. "The monitoring period also provides a rare opportunity to record the neural activity that controls other parts of our lives. With the help of these patient volunteers we have been able to uncover some of the blueprints behind our memories."
Specifically, the participants were shown word pairs, such as "hand" and "apple." To better understand how the brain might remember such pairings, after a brief interval, participants were supplied one of the two words and asked to recall the other. Of the 300 words used in the tests, five of them proved to be five times more likely to be recalled: pig, tank, doll, pond, and door.
The scientists were perplexed that these words were so much more memorable than words like "cat," "street," "stair," "couch," and "cloud."
Intrigued, the researchers looked at a second data source from a word test taken by 2,623 healthy individuals via Amazon's Mechanical Turk and found essentially the same thing.
"We saw that some things — in this case, words — may be inherently easier for our brains to recall than others," Zaghloul said. That the Mechanical Turk results were so similar may "provide the strongest evidence to date that what we discovered about how the brain controls memory in this set of patients may also be true for people outside of the study."
Why understanding memory matters
Image source: Orawan Pattarawimonchai/Shutterstock
"Our memories play a fundamental role in who we are and how our brains work," Xie said. "However, one of the biggest challenges of studying memory is that people often remember the same things in different ways, making it difficult for researchers to compare people's performances on memory tests." He added that the search for some kind of unified theory of memory has been going on for over a century.
If a comprehensive understanding of the way memory works can be developed, the researchers say that "we can predict what people should remember in advance and understand how our brains do this, then we might be able to develop better ways to evaluate someone's overall brain health."
Image source: joob_in/Shutterstock
Xie's interest in this was piqued during a conversation with Wilma Bainbridge of University of Chicago at a Christmas party a couple of years ago. Bainbridge was, at the time, wrapping up a study of 1,000 volunteers that suggested certain faces are universally more memorable than others.
Bainbridge recalls, "Our exciting finding is that there are some images of people or places that are inherently memorable for all people, even though we have each seen different things in our lives. And if image memorability is so powerful, this means we can know in advance what people are likely to remember or forget."
Image source: Anatomography/Wikimedia
At first, the scientists suspected that the memorable words and faces were simply recalled more frequently and were thus easier to recall. They envisioned them as being akin to "highly trafficked spots connected to smaller spots representing the less memorable words." They developed a modeling program based on word frequencies found in books, new articles, and Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately, the model was unable to predict or duplicate the results they saw in their clinical experiments.
Eventually, the researchers came to suspect that the memorability of certain words was linked to the frequency with which the brain used them as semantic links between other memories, making them often-visited hubs in individuals's memory networks, and therefore places the brain jumped to early and often when retrieving memories. This idea was supported by observed activity in participants' anterior temporal lobe, a language center.
In epilepsy patients, these words were so frequently recalled that subjects often shouted them out even when they were incorrect responses to word-pair inquiries.
Modern search engines no longer simply look for raw words when resolving an inquiry: They also look for semantic — contextual and meaning — connections so that the results they present may better anticipate what it is you're looking for. Xie suggests something similar may be happening in the brain: "You know when you type words into a search engine, and it shows you a list of highly relevant guesses? It feels like the search engine is reading your mind. Well, our results suggest that the brains of the subjects in this study did something similar when they tried to recall a paired word, and we think that this may happen when we remember many of our past experiences."
He also notes that it may one day be possible to leverage individuals' apparently wired-in knowledge of their language as a fixed point against which to assess the health of their memory and brain.