• qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was a chart here posted a few days ago that listed countries by happiness. I think Norway and some other countries that are not considered capitalist were near the top. Even with those countries, something like 20-25% were still not happy. That is a large percent. Imagine if the world put just 10% of the effort going into profiting of of AI into figuring out what makes humans happy and implementing it.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ll find pretty much all of the Scandinavian countries up there. Technically Social Capitalist kinda stuff. The problem is the population disparity, income disparity, and number of social services between them and the US. Canada is much the same though pretty far on the Capitalism side of things.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it would be massively misrepresenting the situation to call Scandi/Nordic countries as anything else than capitalist. Social democratic would be the word but even that’s not strictly the case.

      • Cave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Norway is mixed market capitalist, like most developed countries. They do have a strong welfare system, though. I’d imagine it’s similar in the other countries in the list you mention too, but I’d have to see what they are.

        • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The majority of wealth — excluding homes — in Norway is held in its sovereign wealth fund. This fund is invested in a diversified set of foreign and domestic industries. If we can’t call a country in which the majority of wealth is held in collectively owned means of production, socialist. What even is socialism?

          • Wealth is definitely a strong element. It’s easy to forget that socialism is just democratic ownership of the economy, not just “workers owning the means of production” because that forgets all the people who can’t work. In addition, these elements add to Norway’s status as a mixed economy with market socialist elements:

            • 30% of the domestic stock market is owned by the Norwegian state
            • They operate 70+ state owned enterprises (SOEs), including a national bank and telecom
            • Norway has 50% union density, which is pretty high compared to the rest of the world
            • They have works councils where workers get 33%(?) of the seats on the board of larger corporations
            • 20% of Norways population lives in democratically owned housing (housing coops), originally funded by the government but now growing their membership faster than the population is growing
            • Norway uses Georgist-style taxes on land (natural resources - oil, aquafarms, hydropower, wind energy) because no one worked for the creation of those natural resources hence a good cut of the profits should belong to the people

            When you compare these to China, you’ll notice that a so-called communist country gets beaten on many of these in relative terms, which is a strong case for Norway being quite socialist (obviously they also have capitalism hence the “mixed economy” part, before someone goes “well actually”)

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A socialist system would also feature government officials vetoing spending on the basis of cost. If you think about it, there would be even more such instances, since a socialist government has a larger say on economic questions.

      Economic systems are aimed at resolving the question of how to allocate scarce resources. Switching from “capitalist” to “socialist” does not make the allocation problem go away. It only changes who makes the decisions.

      And the results of those decisions would probably not be what you seem to be expecting. Real world experience shows that socialist countries tend to allocate more resources to things like heavy industry, and fewer resources to consumer goods like, say, condoms for students.

      • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A socialist system would also feature government officials vetoing spending on the basis of cost. If you think about it, there would be even more such instances, since a socialist government has a larger say on economic questions.

        Not necessarily, allow me to give a different perspective. Market socialists usually argue in favour of socialised organisations like cooperatives and unions having more power. Socialism doesn’t necessarily equal an all powerful control economy, you can marketise elements in a humane way. In Sweden, for example, the unions handle unemployment benefits through what’s known as a Ghent system[1]. In Norway, 20% of housing is democratically owned through housing coops that were originally funded by the government (but that stopped a few decades ago) and it’s still growing faster than the population itself is, so given enough time Norway will eventually be all democratically owned housing. In Finland, something like 90%+ of the population is a member in democratically owned grocery shops (consumer coops), where anyone can stand in elections for managerial positions - yes, you can literally be democratically elected a manager in a coop shop.

        Also, anecdotally, when I went to high school in Norway I was offered free condoms. This is also the case in Sweden and Finland, now that I look it up.

        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent_system

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Those are all capitalist countries though. The particular coop ownership in question feels 99% of the time like a regular loyalty program, at least to me.

          • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, but “capitalist country” doesn’t paint the full picture. You’re not either capitalist or socialist, you can be both - you can have elements of both. Most of today’s socialist countries are market socialist, e.g. Cuba allows small businesses, and that is a capitalist element within their socialist economy. Similarly the Nordics combine market socialist elements with capitalist ones, for example through worker board representation, unionisation, state owned enterprises, social wealth funds, taxing natural resources, and other forms of coops.

            I’d say look into what you can vote on in your coop and make sure to partake in the democratic elements that it has, because it’s more than just a loyalty programme. Finnish consumer coops are probably some of the best in the world - the UK’s grocery coop pales in comparison in what rights you have and is closer to just a loyalty programme, but you can still vote on issues in the UK Coop.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s not 100% one or another but Nordic countries are without a doubt capitalist countries. The system is capitalism with socialism influenced (social democratic) policies, rather than (market) socialism with some market policies mixed in. That’s what I mean. They aren’t really an example to use to go against capitalism wholly as a system but rather an example of working within capitalism, eg. social democraticism.

              I’d say look into what you can vote on in your coop and make sure to partake in the democratic elements that it has, because it’s more than just a loyalty programme.

              Almost nobody cares since it just feels like a loyalty program with there being an occasional election that very few take part in. Otherwise coop stores just feel like regular old stores and hypermarkets. I guess it’s better if nothing else than on principle but day-to-day (or even year-to-year really), it doesn’t really differ from our other store chains.

              • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There are genuine disagreements within academic circles at which point you tip over into a market/democratic socialist economy. Maybe Finland isn’t as socialist as Norway, but there are economists who argue that the tipping point is at 60-75% of wealth owned by a democratic government, and Norway currently sits at 65%.[3]

                We keep being told the Nordics are capitalist, but we beat China on many of their “socialist” metrics, and yet they call themselves socialist. There’s more nuance to it and I don’t think we should so readily just label the Nordics as “capitalist”. Especially not when “social democracy” itself was born out of Orthodox Marxism and was seen as a market-based wing of socialism focused on a peaceful transition to socialism[2]. The last socialist PM of Sweden (who was assassinated), Olof Palme, quite literally called himself a “democratic socialist” while championing “social democracy”[1].

                Market socialism is also not in opposition to social democracy, it is just a descriptor of a specific kind of socialism, the Nordics have elements of social democracy, democratic socialism, and market socialism all at once.

                [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQqZ8btcbyE
                [2] “Social democracy is defined as one of many socialist traditions. As a political movement, it aims to achieve socialism through gradual and democratic means.”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
                [3] I can provide a source here if you want it, but policy analyst Matt Bruenig covers it in one of his videos https://www.youtube.com/@Matt_Bruenig/videos

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  China calling themselves socialist I think is one big part of the issue of making people unsure of what socialism actually is. Nordic countries are very much in the way of “make capitalism better” and self-describe as capitalist, with nobody I think thinking we are socialist.

                  Peaceful transition to socialism used to be the goal but with time fewer and fewer parties actually want that instead of just softer capitalism. I don’t think it has been the stated goal of Finnish social democrats in quite a while, definitely hasn’t been any sort of actual goal for a long time.

                  Socialism seems to be in the sort of funny position where Nordics are sometimes used as an example of socialism because it shows that they’re doing well and what we traditionally call “socialist states” aren’t socialist because they’re not something a lot of people see as great inspirations. It does a lot to muddy the waters.

    • Uranium3006@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In CA we need such a party to run in deep blue seats.where they can easily get more votes than the Republicans

    • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have a voteable communist party in my country, it’s never going to get elected. People are either dumb as bricks or corrupt, and so is the system. The whole system is hopeless, I don’t think we’ll ever see real change without seeing violence first.