Uncategorized

Socialism doesn’t work in Sweden


20130402-141013.jpg

“Socialism works in Sweden” is one liberal refrain I’ve found difficult to rebut. At the American Conservative, Samuel Goldman writes:

Even after significant cuts, Nordic governments still spend about half of their GDP, just a bit less than the U.S. spent at the peak of the Second World War. It’s true that the Scandinavians have impressively low debt and responsible fiscal policies. But that’s because their citizens take on a considerably higher tax burden than Americans are willing to accept.

It’s worth asking, then, why Scandinavians are consistently willing to spend more and pay more than Americans. An important part of the answer is that members of small, homogeneous societies are much more willing to bear the burden of supporting their fellow citizens than members of large, diverse ones.

Schwartz contends that “the publics in these countries trust government because the social democrats built their welfare state upon a vision of comprehensive and universal social rights.” That’s partly true. But it neglects the crucial fact that this vision was achieved in societies where the vast majority of the population looked the same, talked the same, had names and relatives in common, went to same churches, and so on.

As the political scientist Robert Putnam has found, increased diversity tends to decrease social trust and willingness to make sacrifices for others. And that’s just what’s happened as the generous North has experienced its first encounter with mass immigration, as The Economist obliquely acknowledges.

Charles Murray observed the same in Coming Apart: Diversity decreases public trust. The Scandinavian population is relatively homogenous. The centralized state acts in the interests of the whole community and is seen as an extension of that community. Nowadays, they don’t go to the same churches, they don’t go to church period!

I am troubled by this. A government like Sweden’s in America would be seen by traditional Americans as an enemy of the people and our culture and traditions. Not because of our diversity, but because of America’s unique character. In fact, the case for revolution against a Sweden-like government was stronger when America was less diverse, when most of the population was directly descended from white European Protestants.

The reason Swedes get along with a Sweden-like government and Americans don’t comes down to national character. Swedes like big, secular government; Americans—rather, about half of us—don’t. The polls say 29% of Americans are satisfied with the country’s direction. Most of these are ignoramuses and Fabian socialists who are in not too big a hurry to fundamentally transform America. Of the dissatisfied 71%, most are conservatives, and the rest are radicals applying various purity tests to our institutions and finding them not sufficiently subdued to state power.

A people get the government they deserve. And people do change—not just as individuals, but as a group. Change can come from the top down or the bottom up. Too often the change comes from the top down, and we decry the government imposing change on the people. But really the measure of change is not the direction it flows, but the merits of the change itself. Whether or not America goes through another civil war to become like Sweden, in the end it will be like Sweden.

What is bad about that? For starters, it is sterile. There is no zest for procreation in the materialist state, which is why Sweden’s native population is aging. Also, it is objectively poorer, leaving to citizens less of the product of their labor to invest in what matters to them and in a legacy worth protecting. It is a hedonic, literally barren culture that cannot survive the erosion of time.

About Joseph Dooley

I’m 28 years old and I’ve been writing since I learned how to type. I grew up in Texas but I lived nearly 5 years in the belly of the liberal beast, Maryland. Through my writing, I hope to convince readers of the truth and help to reverse the suicidal momentum of the present. As Francis Schaeffer wrote: “Any ways in which the system is still working is largely due to the sheer inertia of the continuation of the past principles. But this borrowing cannot go on forever.” Check out my blog, "Life's complexity and mortal weight."

Discussion

3 thoughts on “Socialism doesn’t work in Sweden

  1. The Swedish Economic Model. Why Sweden’s success has nothing to do with socialism.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/204219375/The-Swedish-Economic-Model-A-Socialist-or-a-Free-Market-Success

    Posted by Iakovos Alhadeff | February 3, 2014, 10:08 am
  2. Although I agree that Sweden and other Nordic systems “work” only because of their small diversity and the people willing to sacrifice for their own kind (racially), it is always important to point out that these sacrifices mean that one is constantly walking on egg shells. The level of political-correctness there is intense, as must be for any society where all are, by necessity, “equal”.

    I will, however, disagree with your last comment: a smaller growing economy does not necessarily mean that it will not survive the passing of time. In fact, I find it more likely that they will. In a free-market society the social inequality should be a direct consequence of abilities (where the most able quickly detach financially from the least able) and therefore the lower strata of society would, eventually, be entirely detached from the higher strata, providing natural selection with its usual course of evolution.

    In this socialist system we attempt to bring all of humanity along, both the great and the meek, the evolution path. It is not impossible, I don’t think, but it is a terribly slow crawl compared to the running away of a more realistic, competitive market. In a socialist world, for example, chimpanzees would never exist as we would never have branched out in the first place.

    (I hope comments are coherent…)

    Posted by Satanas | March 22, 2015, 10:15 am
    • Great comment.

      I actually think the fascism/central banking of the current era accelerates inequality and social division and the coming revolution faster than any other system.

      There is a healthy balance in a Christian, communitarian ethos between the family and technology-abetted economies of scale. In short: we should be free to act like we are worthy of freedom.

      Posted by Joseph Dooley | March 23, 2015, 10:51 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt." -John Adams 1826

PLEASE SHARE US ON FACEBOOK & TWITTER

Red Pill Report is a labor of love for the many contributors who post here. They share their thoughts and talents with us because, like you, they love this great Country and hope to contribute in some small way to returning America to the principles on which it was founded. How can you help? Please share our articles with friends and family. Share buttons for Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and Email are found at the bottom of each article. Our writers also love your comments, so please share your thoughts with us, when you can. We appreciate our readers, and would love to have more! Thank you!

Archives

Topics

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,787 other followers

%d bloggers like this: