I have long admired the Scandinavian kingdoms of Norway and Sweden for being both constitutional monarchies and socialist, two things I think every country should be. Doubtlessly, you fine gentlemen-scholars reading this are gasping with shock and amazement at my positive comment on socialism. Surely someone who goes by the name of that grand old Classical Liberal William Gladstone would not make a positive comment on STATISM of all things.
Well, you're right, because I'm not making a positive comment on statism. However, we must remember that one can be socialist without being statist. Statism, as I understand it, is a system in which the Government controls most or all aspects of a person's life. Fascism is statist, as are most models of communism. I wholeheartedy disapprove of such stuff. Social democracy, on the other hand, in combination with constitutional monarchy, that I wholeheartedly approve of, and with good reason.
Consider the Human Development Index, which I have recently been reading over. For the uninitiated, the HDI is an index of countries, listed from 1 to 182, based on various statistics such as life expectancy, education, literacy, GDP, and other factors. The number 1 spot, according to this index, is the best place in the world to live in. That place is Norway, a fact I'm rather proud of, considering my Grandfather's Norwegian heritage. As you may or may not know, Norway is a notably socialist country, using the highly successful Scandinavian welfare model. With it's constitutional monarchy, Norway maintains continuity and the glorious traditions of the past. And with it's various social programs, Norway has improved the lives of King Harald's citizens in the areas of healthcare, education and social security to the point where Norway is now considered the best country in the world to live in. Not only that, but Norway is also the richest country in the world , and in this ongoing financial crisis, the Norwegian krone is one of the most solid and dependable currencies in the world.
Norway and Sweden (both in the top 10 of the HDI's list, Norway of course at 1, Sweden at 7) represent the great success that a country can enjoy when constitutional monarchy is combined with democratic socialism. Canada and Australia, both social democracies as well, also enjoy high rankings on the HDI. Canada, I'm proud to say, sits at 4, while Australia is at 2. The whole purpose for a country's existence is to provide a better life for the people that live within it. Clearly something is working well in the combination of constitutional monarchy and social democracy.
So, I know the opinions on socialism here at The Monarchist are quite complex, so I would like to open the comments section of this post for discussion: What do you fine gentlemen think of socialism when combined with constitutional monarchy, such as the Norwegians have?
"However, we must remember that one can be socialist without being statist."
ReplyDeleteNo, one can't. If it were possible, it would have happened at least once.
In Sweden the government is forbidding boys from urinating standing up and legislating that men must do half of the housework. Half of foster children there are sexually abused. Here's a couple more tidbits about modern Sweden:
http://www.thelocal.se/22644/20091014/
http://www.thelocal.se/22504/20091006/
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/greatest-betrayal-in-history.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4228131.ece
http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=4383
Government attempts to supplant parents as the primary source of social values are not even limited to totalitarian countries. A particularly disturbing example is evident in the justification given for the creation of Sweden's extensive nursery school system. Declaring that "School is the spearhead of Socialism," Ingvar Carlsson, Sweden's education minister from 1969 to 1973 (and later prime minister), insisted that removing children from the home through "pre-school training is essential 'to eliminate the social heritage'" of undesirable, reactionary parental views. Swedish educational theorists even advocated tax and government employment policies that would "get both parents out of the home, so that children are forced out as well."
-John R. Lott Jr., Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't, p. 189
Take these facts into account before making ludicrous assertions about the imaginary beast of "non-statist socialism" and the idyllic nature of modern Sweden.
Hmm, disheartening that the HDI put such a country at no. 7 on their list. I did most of the research for this post about Norway though, the no. 1 country, and they don't seem to have such problems. If so, point them out, and I will gladly adjust my view to new information being made available.
ReplyDeleteWhile googling, I came across this post featuring more of Sweden's problems. I don't think I would agree with a lot of that blog, but the links seem mostly from reputable sources.
ReplyDeleteOddly, I don't recall ever coming across articles about similar horror stories Norway. I say oddly because I could give you a pile of links for most European nations, but I don't remember any for that one. I'll keep an eye out and let you know.
Gladstone,
ReplyDeleteThere is an old story that I think is illustrative. When Milton Friedman went to pick up his Nobel Prize in Economics, a socialist Swedish economist approached him and stated that in Sweden there was no poverty. Friedman replied that he wasn't surprised, among Scandinavians in America there was no poverty either.
Sweden is a successful country because of the strong cultural values of the Swedes, values that date back centuries. Socialism didn't make Sweden great, it's held them back. And quite a pity too, they're a great lot to work with and very creative.
As for Norway, don't forget the oil. There is so much that they can afford a welfare state paid for, in effect, by the oil consumers of the world. It's the socialism of the rich.
I didn't have any articles about Norway, but Gates of Vienna has several.
ReplyDeleteLady and gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteFarmann, a Norwegian business magazine, where I am an associate editor, did some work on this back in 2005.
Here is the Norwegian press release.
It is an important point that the UNDP statistics is about quantitative measures. This is what the mainstream media base their conclusion upon, for I have yet to see any evidence that it is the conclusion of the UNDP.
Here is an interesting statement from a UNDP FAQ:
Is the HDI enough to measure a country’s level of development? – Not at all. The concept of human development is much broader than what can be captured in the HDI, or any other of the composite indices in this Report.