The idea of transcending capitalism in America into that of “Democratic Socialism” has clearly become a primary talking point for politicians on the far left. Thankfully, however, many individuals on both sides of the political spectrum are opposing the recent socialist movement because they clearly understand the consequences of a socialist economy when taken to its extreme, which is, of course, nationalization of industry and shutting down private industry through force of government regulation.
What makes socialism so attractive to the left – particularly to the young progressive types – isn’t the economic down trot of socialist countries such as Cuba and Venezuela (nor the murderous revelations of the Soviet Union during the 20th century), rather its countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. So when the Nordic countries are brought into the conversation of socialism it’s extremely important to note the difference between wealth redistribution programs versus socialist economies.
Die-hard capitalists could grant the recent push for democratic socialism in America the benefit of the doubt and assume that the goal at hand is to mimic the accomplishments of the Nordic countries. However, the peoples advocating for a socialist-like America are clearly implicit about what they mean by democratic socialism, and it also fails to take into consideration these three simple facts: first, Nordic culture and American culture share little to nothing in common. Next, the overall population in Nordic countries pale in comparison when it comes to the densely populated areas in America, and lastly, wealth redistribution programs in Nordic countries haven’t necessarily proved to be as effective as many would assume.
For example, if you were to analyze Sweden’s one-hundred-year growth beginning in 1870, you’ll notice that the Nordic country had the highest growth rate in the industrialized world thanks to capitalism. The late Lennart Schön of Lund University cited that “modern economic growth in Sweden took off in the middle of the nineteenth century… this is largely thanks to the transformation of the economy and society from agrarian to industrial.”
However, wealth creation began to take a turn for the worse in the mid-1990’s, due in large part to the Swedish government implementing wealth redistribution programs in the early 1960’s. Andreas Bergh, a Swedish economist, pinned the substantial economic problems on “policy mistakes”. Bergh mentions in a paper titled Rise, Fall, and Revival of the Swedish Welfare State that “Sweden began to subsidize problem-stricken industrial sectors and devalue the Swedish currency to maintain industry competitiveness.” He continues to state that “a number of labor market regulations were introduced in the 1970s, contributing to increased labor costs… high marginal taxes caused high levels of inefficiencies and tax avoidance.” These mistakes ultimately caused Sweden to drop from the fourth richest nation in the world to the thirteenth richest nation in the world.
One could ask “has a functional socialist order ever existed in terms of morality?” This is the number one question that democratic socialists hate to hear because they view it as the easiest route to take when debating whether socialism is a viable approach or not; but are we just supposed to somehow forget what socialism led to under Stalin’s regime? How about under Mao’s regime? Are we supposed to act like there might be a better outcome just because socialism could be implemented in the land of the free? If so, why? Here’s an even more notable question: what happens if a clear majority of Americans decide to vote against democratic socialism come November 3, 2020? Will those people be publicly ridiculed, harassed while grabbing a bite to eat, and be viewed as a supporter of the “patriarchy”? As the radical left in America continue to pull out at all stops when searching for an enemy, it’s safe to say that nothing would come as a surprise.
It certainly sounds good to claim, “when we say democratic socialism, we’re obviously referring to the Nordic countries, not the atrocities of the failed socialist countries.” Also, it sure looks good when the face of your movement is an attractive 28-year-old woman who appears to be as whole-hearted and genuine as can be. But the fact of the matter is, there’s an entire century’s worth of evidence backing up the immoral nature of the socialist state. Maybe in a perfect world where rainbows shine nice and bright twenty-four-seven can socialism function morally and ethically. However, we live on a rock hurling its way through space and time where personality pathologies tend to run rampant; where human beings aren’t always as rational as we may prefer; where chaos and order need to co-exist if we intend to alleviate the suffering of our human existence. Perhaps healthy debate and intellectual discussion is where the next step lies when we’re searching for viable outcomes for the future of our species, other species, and the planet. Because let’s face it, the hypothetical ideology of a socialist utopia, a world where “equality for all” is the ethical standard, sounds brilliant in theory but has proven to be catastrophic by nature.
