> Instead, following and citing the Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright who argued much the same, Dragsted proposes that societies are hybrids, frequently containing noncapitalist elements — cooperatives, public institutions, solidaristic welfare systems — even under capitalism.
That depends. Are there literal seas of oil money available in a modern democracy, allowing to do all these programs and things without requiring free or very cheap labor from socialists?
If the answer is no, then it's very controversial.
Socialism works on paper and maybe the first couple of years, but we who are living with it now can clearly see the downsides. I would prefer capitalism over socialism and communism and to be honest I now believe socialism is the road that leads to communism in the end, it just take longer time to get there. If you want to see how we have progressed over time time please watch the debate between Olof Pamle and Thorbjörn Fälldin from 1982 and compare that to any "modern" debate. Same topics, same "solutions".
The examples given are from Sweden, so I guess that's where they're from. I live in Sweden and this is absolutely not a socialist country. Capitalism is very strong here, you're mostly free to invest capital in whatever you want with many ways to avoid taxes, just like in the USA, for example. There's higher taxes for the average, salaried person (though it's not at the highest levels compared with similar OECD countries[1]), but for investors, it's not so bad.
Also, salaries vary wildly between professions, lots of things, like rail lines, which are usually thought of as government concerns are privatized, neighbourhoods are more and more unequal (in Stockholm, you can go from a place where the humblest dettached house costs above 12 million SEK - around 1.3 million USD) to another where the starting price is more like 3 million SEK without travelling very far). It's definitely not "the same" everywhere (segregation based on ethnicity is crazy high, but that's another story).
So, I find it hard to consider Sweden to be anything like what you would associate with socialism (the only "socialist" thing in my opinion is the sales of alcohol - which is monopolized by the Government - but even that started opening up recently as they allow producers to started selling directly to the public from their production locations - like breweries).
as opposed to the "workers control the means of production" idea of Marx, Lenin and such. You tax individuals and businesses and use those provide certain services. There's also the idea that you have legislation to protect workers (minimum wage, 40 hour week), consumers (air bags in cars) and the environment (no lead in gas.) Other than that you let capitalists do what they do best.
What I can't get is that so many people get so angry at the idea that poor people, or at least poor people younger than 65, could have access to health care in the US.
> What I can't get is that so many people get so angry at the idea that poor people, or at least poor people younger than 65, could have access to health care in the US.
That's a pretty glib dismissal for real pain. Before Obamacare, in the nearest major city I could make an appointment with a gastroenterologist on a Thursday and see him on the following Tuesday. Now it is over six months for an appointment, and then for every subsequent appointment ... to see a nurse, not a doctor. There used to be five doctors in my rural county, now there are zero. While insurance premiums have skyrocketed. From my point of view healthcare has crumped. You then summarize my dismay as anger at the idea of poor people getting access to healthcare, like what else could it be other than class bigotry?
On the flip-side, before Obamacare, my parents had a hell of a time finding an insurance that would accept us because of my pre-existing condition (childhood cancer). Definitely had its tradeoffs.
After steeping in Fischel's tract on the proximate cause of housing inflation (linked to from Klein)..
I gather that the main (meta-)issue, as you are kind of insinuating here, is that, for healthcare, there is a conflation of inflationary and deflationary processes..
(Sorry to go on what might seem to be a reductive tangent here, as I often do when pressed. I have further takes on Klein vs Shapiro for later)
My roughshod framing of (one) solution is that there has to be sustained deflationary pockets in a mildly inflationary phase
Probably mirrored by such proposals for housing as
There are lotsa issues in healthcare, not least that the medical association practices "birth control" for doctors. Plus the residency process to get board certified is absolutely grueling [1], I knew more than one doc who quit when they got their MD and got into startup land because it's an easier life!
It does seem that, against all odds, Obamacare really did "bend the cost curve" and slow down the growth in health care costs. After a rough patch decade or so when we didn't get new "blockbuster" drugs we are now getting drugs like Wegovy and Cobenfy which cost a lot but promise savings elsewhere.
[1] that said, a doctor really should know what to do when somebody with a rare condition that they'll only see once in their career and working a 996 schedule at a university medical center does give the experience for that.
Right, this take would be "zoning rules for MDs" with the caveat that healthcare outside of pharm can never be as uh industrialized as construction.
Things seem to get muddled with global pipelines (your breakthru drugs come from Nordic R&D) but I'd argue that therein (Obamacare-type bipartisan stewardship) lies the real argument for a "inputs-first" post-fossil Abundance
Forgot to mention that Denmark of TFA is today (culturally*, already) much more socialist than Sweden-- if you are open to that transient but indeed ontopic (state-driven) Nordisk connection
> There's also the idea that you have legislation to protect workers (minimum wage, 40 hour week)
Just an addendum that most Nordic countries don't have that, those are set on collective agreements between employers and employees, typically through an union.
and that's a function of the regulatory environment. In the US it's tough for private sector unions but quite the opposite for public sector unions and for certain private sector contractors.
Right now we have a lot of huge houses with massive master bedroom suites in Arizona and very little high speed rail but if there was union labor to build those houses and non-union to build the rail it would be the other way around. As it is we have a "labor aristocracy" that fought efforts to establish universal health care for 40 years because good health benefits are a reason to take a union job.
Capitalism work on paper too, lots of competition everyone wins but i now believe is the road that leads oligarchy in the end, it just take longer time to get there.
The real thing you can learn from Nordic Socialism: big government programs are easy with oil revenues, where you get goods and services from foreigners with very little effort on the part of your own citizens.
At that point then everyone takes credit for how well that all works.
This is like pointing out that Bill Gates' household proves how communism works on a small scale.
Only norway has significant oil revenue - sweden and denmark specifically are primarily economies driven by a highly educated workforce and well regulated job markets - Lego, Novo, Maersk are all exemples of this kinds of companies depending on those socalled big government programmes to produce highly educated and specialised workers.
For Norwegian situation, I can recommend the book "The country that got too rich" which in fact is very accurate. Socialism works to a point but if it continues to spiral into more aggressive socialism you will end up in a much worse place for everyone, this is where Norway is heading the moment unfortunately even though we are a social democracy on paper.
The book has some valid points when it states that the government has too much money and does not need to make the hard prioritizations.
It has however been heavily criticized. It seems like he had a point to prove and found numbers that fit with his view, and not a neutral description. He also seems to ignore that the trends he points to, also exists in other countries.
That said, he does raise some valid concerns. The number of employees in the public sector grows, even under conservative governments. Part of the reason is that Norway can afford it at the moment. Another reason is that the number of rules and regulations increases, and the government needs more people to enforce them.
The latter is mostly a political issue, and something that also happens in countries that are not wealthy. The author's solution is to reduce taxes and cut public spending.
The socialists’ rallying cry has long been, “Finally, it’s ordinary people’s time.”
But in reality, ordinary people have seen their wealth steadily decline, while the state has only grown fatter and richer.
The slogan should be more honest: “It’s the state’s time now.”
Now the state has more employees and will continue growing to attain more power, and thereby more voters. Having worse public services than 10 years ago while the spending has increased drastically is a bad sign.
That being said, it'll have to get drastically worse before ordinary people realize where their money went, and then it might shift
> Instead, following and citing the Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright who argued much the same, Dragsted proposes that societies are hybrids, frequently containing noncapitalist elements — cooperatives, public institutions, solidaristic welfare systems — even under capitalism.
Is this controversial on the left?
That depends. Are there literal seas of oil money available in a modern democracy, allowing to do all these programs and things without requiring free or very cheap labor from socialists?
If the answer is no, then it's very controversial.
Of the scandinavian countries, only Norway has money, Dragsted is danish.
You forgot the word 'oil' between 'has' and 'money'.
Socialism works on paper and maybe the first couple of years, but we who are living with it now can clearly see the downsides. I would prefer capitalism over socialism and communism and to be honest I now believe socialism is the road that leads to communism in the end, it just take longer time to get there. If you want to see how we have progressed over time time please watch the debate between Olof Pamle and Thorbjörn Fälldin from 1982 and compare that to any "modern" debate. Same topics, same "solutions".
What country do you live in where you're experiencing living with socialism?
The examples given are from Sweden, so I guess that's where they're from. I live in Sweden and this is absolutely not a socialist country. Capitalism is very strong here, you're mostly free to invest capital in whatever you want with many ways to avoid taxes, just like in the USA, for example. There's higher taxes for the average, salaried person (though it's not at the highest levels compared with similar OECD countries[1]), but for investors, it's not so bad.
Also, salaries vary wildly between professions, lots of things, like rail lines, which are usually thought of as government concerns are privatized, neighbourhoods are more and more unequal (in Stockholm, you can go from a place where the humblest dettached house costs above 12 million SEK - around 1.3 million USD) to another where the starting price is more like 3 million SEK without travelling very far). It's definitely not "the same" everywhere (segregation based on ethnicity is crazy high, but that's another story).
So, I find it hard to consider Sweden to be anything like what you would associate with socialism (the only "socialist" thing in my opinion is the sales of alcohol - which is monopolized by the Government - but even that started opening up recently as they allow producers to started selling directly to the public from their production locations - like breweries).
[1] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issue...
> I live in Sweden and this is absolutely not a socialist country.
This is where I was going with my question. It seems unlikely that they live in a truly socialist environment
The difference is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
as opposed to the "workers control the means of production" idea of Marx, Lenin and such. You tax individuals and businesses and use those provide certain services. There's also the idea that you have legislation to protect workers (minimum wage, 40 hour week), consumers (air bags in cars) and the environment (no lead in gas.) Other than that you let capitalists do what they do best.
What I can't get is that so many people get so angry at the idea that poor people, or at least poor people younger than 65, could have access to health care in the US.
> What I can't get is that so many people get so angry at the idea that poor people, or at least poor people younger than 65, could have access to health care in the US.
That's a pretty glib dismissal for real pain. Before Obamacare, in the nearest major city I could make an appointment with a gastroenterologist on a Thursday and see him on the following Tuesday. Now it is over six months for an appointment, and then for every subsequent appointment ... to see a nurse, not a doctor. There used to be five doctors in my rural county, now there are zero. While insurance premiums have skyrocketed. From my point of view healthcare has crumped. You then summarize my dismay as anger at the idea of poor people getting access to healthcare, like what else could it be other than class bigotry?
On the flip-side, before Obamacare, my parents had a hell of a time finding an insurance that would accept us because of my pre-existing condition (childhood cancer). Definitely had its tradeoffs.
So what you're saying is that the services are oversubscribed and if more people have access to them than you won't have access to them?
After steeping in Fischel's tract on the proximate cause of housing inflation (linked to from Klein)..
I gather that the main (meta-)issue, as you are kind of insinuating here, is that, for healthcare, there is a conflation of inflationary and deflationary processes..
(Sorry to go on what might seem to be a reductive tangent here, as I often do when pressed. I have further takes on Klein vs Shapiro for later)
My roughshod framing of (one) solution is that there has to be sustained deflationary pockets in a mildly inflationary phase
Probably mirrored by such proposals for housing as
https://devonzuegel.com/for-the-greater-good-the-game-theory...
There are lotsa issues in healthcare, not least that the medical association practices "birth control" for doctors. Plus the residency process to get board certified is absolutely grueling [1], I knew more than one doc who quit when they got their MD and got into startup land because it's an easier life!
It does seem that, against all odds, Obamacare really did "bend the cost curve" and slow down the growth in health care costs. After a rough patch decade or so when we didn't get new "blockbuster" drugs we are now getting drugs like Wegovy and Cobenfy which cost a lot but promise savings elsewhere.
[1] that said, a doctor really should know what to do when somebody with a rare condition that they'll only see once in their career and working a 996 schedule at a university medical center does give the experience for that.
Right, this take would be "zoning rules for MDs" with the caveat that healthcare outside of pharm can never be as uh industrialized as construction.
Things seem to get muddled with global pipelines (your breakthru drugs come from Nordic R&D) but I'd argue that therein (Obamacare-type bipartisan stewardship) lies the real argument for a "inputs-first" post-fossil Abundance
*Danish R&D; Swedish R&D lives for the friggin' optics
On the downside, claiming to speak for all of Nordica is quite a Danish thing to do
Forgot to mention that Denmark of TFA is today (culturally*, already) much more socialist than Sweden-- if you are open to that transient but indeed ontopic (state-driven) Nordisk connection
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania#Culture
would be considered uh unglamorous in Sweden
> There's also the idea that you have legislation to protect workers (minimum wage, 40 hour week)
Just an addendum that most Nordic countries don't have that, those are set on collective agreements between employers and employees, typically through an union.
and that's a function of the regulatory environment. In the US it's tough for private sector unions but quite the opposite for public sector unions and for certain private sector contractors.
Right now we have a lot of huge houses with massive master bedroom suites in Arizona and very little high speed rail but if there was union labor to build those houses and non-union to build the rail it would be the other way around. As it is we have a "labor aristocracy" that fought efforts to establish universal health care for 40 years because good health benefits are a reason to take a union job.
Capitalism work on paper too, lots of competition everyone wins but i now believe is the road that leads oligarchy in the end, it just take longer time to get there.
I often wish I lived in a world where people understood that social democracy, socialism, Marxism, and communism are not synonyms.
Especially among the people who advocate for them.
The real thing you can learn from Nordic Socialism: big government programs are easy with oil revenues, where you get goods and services from foreigners with very little effort on the part of your own citizens.
At that point then everyone takes credit for how well that all works.
This is like pointing out that Bill Gates' household proves how communism works on a small scale.
Only norway has significant oil revenue - sweden and denmark specifically are primarily economies driven by a highly educated workforce and well regulated job markets - Lego, Novo, Maersk are all exemples of this kinds of companies depending on those socalled big government programmes to produce highly educated and specialised workers.
> big government programs are easy with oil revenues
Sweden doesn't have much oil revenues as far as I know
[dead]
For Norwegian situation, I can recommend the book "The country that got too rich" which in fact is very accurate. Socialism works to a point but if it continues to spiral into more aggressive socialism you will end up in a much worse place for everyone, this is where Norway is heading the moment unfortunately even though we are a social democracy on paper.
That sounds vaguely terrifying!
Seriously tho, care to elaborate?
The book has some valid points when it states that the government has too much money and does not need to make the hard prioritizations.
It has however been heavily criticized. It seems like he had a point to prove and found numbers that fit with his view, and not a neutral description. He also seems to ignore that the trends he points to, also exists in other countries.
That said, he does raise some valid concerns. The number of employees in the public sector grows, even under conservative governments. Part of the reason is that Norway can afford it at the moment. Another reason is that the number of rules and regulations increases, and the government needs more people to enforce them.
The latter is mostly a political issue, and something that also happens in countries that are not wealthy. The author's solution is to reduce taxes and cut public spending.
The socialists’ rallying cry has long been, “Finally, it’s ordinary people’s time.” But in reality, ordinary people have seen their wealth steadily decline, while the state has only grown fatter and richer. The slogan should be more honest: “It’s the state’s time now.”
Now the state has more employees and will continue growing to attain more power, and thereby more voters. Having worse public services than 10 years ago while the spending has increased drastically is a bad sign.
That being said, it'll have to get drastically worse before ordinary people realize where their money went, and then it might shift
You could say the same about the US, regardless of if you meant the last year, last 5 years, or last 30 years.
Remove their fish and oil and see 5 years span