How Swedes and Norwegians broke the power of the ‘1 percent’

[Starry Messenger]

I'm not a social democrat, but I thought I would post this in light of discussing how people can and have taken economic and political power with mass effort to make inroads against the wealthy.

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/01/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-the-power-of-the-1-percent/

While many of us are working to ensure that the Occupy movement will have a lasting impact, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”

<snip>

Then I began to learn that the Swedes and Norwegians paid a price for their standards of living through nonviolent struggle. There was a time when Scandinavian workers didn’t expect that the electoral arena could deliver the change they believed in. They realized that, with the 1 percent in charge, electoral “democracy” was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change.

<snip>

By 1935, Norway was on the brink. The Conservative-led government was losing legitimacy daily; the 1 percent became increasingly desperate as militancy grew among workers and farmers. A complete overthrow might be just a couple years away, radical workers thought. However, the misery of the poor became more urgent daily, and the Labor Party felt increasing pressure from its members to alleviate their suffering, which it could do only if it took charge of the government in a compromise agreement with the other side.

This it did. In a compromise that allowed owners to retain the right to own and manage their firms, Labor in 1935 took the reins of government in coalition with the Agrarian Party. They expanded the economy and started public works projects to head toward a policy of full employment that became the keystone of Norwegian economic policy. Labor’s success and the continued militancy of workers enabled steady inroads against the privileges of the 1 percent, to the point that majority ownership of all large firms was taken by the public interest. (There is an entry on this case as well at the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)

(I'm posting more than four paragraphs, the piece is licensed under Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ for free redistribution. Thanks in advance to any alerters.)


I don't want to editorialize too much about the piece on where I differ with the "compromises" with private ownership, which is why I'm not a social democrat, but I thought the implications for short term alleviation of the poverty and misery that we are currently undergoing could provide food for thought.

[geckosfeet]

1. Also, WWII destroyed much of what was created pre-war.

IMO, the Norway that emerged from WWII in 1945 was quite different than it was in 1940. It seemed much more focused on social issues even though it remained a monarchy.

[div class="excerpt" style="width:65%;"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany

The occupation had a profound effect on the population's collective psyche. It instilled in many Norwegians an enduring fear of scarcity, which led to a widespread habit of frugality, especially with food.

The adversity strengthened and further defined the Norwegian national identity. The history of the resistance movement may have been glorified excessively, but it has also provided Norwegian military and political leaders with durable role models. The shared hardship of the war years also set the stage for social welfare policies of the post-war Norwegian Labour Party governments. It also led to the abandonment of Norway's neutrality policy, formalized when Norway became a founding member of NATO. Finally, it led to a broad political and popular commitment to maintain armed forces large enough to realistically defend the country against any likely threat, as well as to keep those armed forces under firm civilian control.


Norway is still basically a monarchy. It owes much of it's affluence to it's abundance of natural resources.


[div class="excerpt" style="width:65%;"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

Norway is a unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, with King Harald V as its head of state and Jens Stoltenberg as its prime minister. It is a unitary state with administrative subdivisions on two levels known as counties (fylke) and municipalities (kommuner). The Sámi people have a certain amount of self-determination and influence over traditional territories through the Sámi Parliament and the Finnmark Act. Although having rejected European Union membership in two referenda, Norway maintains close ties with the union and its member countries, as well as with the United States. Norway remains one of the biggest financial contributors to the United Nations, and participates with UN forces in international missions, notably in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Sudan and Libya. Norway is a founding member of the United Nations, NATO, the Council of Europe, and the Nordic Council; a member of the European Economic Area, the WTO, and the OECD; and is also a part of Schengen Area.

Norway has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower. On a per-capita basis, it is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East, and the petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country's gross domestic product. The country maintains a Nordic welfare model with universal health care, subsidized higher education, and a comprehensive social security system. From 2001 to 2006, and then again from 2009 through 2011, Norway has had the highest human development index ranking in the world.


I found this description of the Nordic (welfare) model particularly interesting:

[div class="excerpt" style="width:65%;"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

The Nordic model refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland). This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by "universalist" welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilising the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[1] The Nordic Model however is not a single model with specific components or rules; each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.

[limpyhobbler]

2. very informative article about this bit of history that is often missed.

[white_wolf]

3. I wish we could do that here.

I would love to see the U.S. become a country like Norway or Sweden. I'm not exactly a social-democrat, but I consider myself pragmatic and I do think that America will to achieve socialism by steps. I don't think this country is ready to fully abolish all of capitalism, but I do think it is getting ready to change it greatly and implement some elements of socialism.

[Starry Messenger]

4. I think so too white_wolf.

I think America will achieve socialism by steps. As I understand the difference between social democracy and socialism, the former want to keep the peace with capitalism and think that is an achievable task with a strong social safety net. Socialists know that eventually capitalism will chew back out of the straps and that it must be abolished entirely eventually and work to that eventual end.

But anything would be better than we have now, in terms of building workers back up to strength. It's hard to abolish capitalism when so many people are poor and out of work, homeless, etc. and morale is breaking.

[TBF]

5. Agree. I just can't wrap my arms around the violent approach -

particularly since I think many working class folks would agree with the society we envision if we remove terms that have been divisive. Folks love social security and it is a socialist program - but if you call it that folks freak out. The power of propaganda ... There is a lot of un-learning to do in this country.