Democratic Socialism: The Extended Version that Most of You Won't Read (lol)
If you have not read 'Part 1' please click here.
Bernie Sanders is a pretty interesting guy. I've heard many others refer to him as a "self-proclaimed socialist" or "self-proclaimed democratic socialist" but he rarely ever proclaims these things himself.
From what I can figure, Bernie appreciates the Nordic Model of democratic socialism (like you find in Scandinavian countries like Finland, Sweden, and Norway). I have seen every big city in Norway from Oslo to Bergen to Trondheim to Tromsø. They are all lovely, charming cities, with very nice, helpful people. I saw so many daddies out alone pushing baby carriages and mamas catching the comfortable (and environmentally friendly) public transportation to work. People still have cars; they just don't really need them. I did not see one, single homeless person. Not one.
Norway and the United States have nearly identical GDP per capita. This means that we essentially have the same amount of money/resources per person, despite having a much larger population than Norway. A lot of people like to point out that Norway is a smaller country with fewer people. This is true. But it isn't about how many people a country has, it is about available resources divided by number of people, and by that measure, Norway and the U.S. are very close to equal. It's much more important to examine 1) how those resources are managed and 2) how evenly wealth is distributed from its poorest people to its richest.
Norway has quality universal healthcare, childcare, and eldercare. It also has tuition free public colleges and universities plus 12 months of paid parental leave for parents. It is fully expected and encouraged for fathers to take paternity leave. All of these things are considered "social safety nets." Norwegians, by and large, also live by a moral code called The Law of Jante. The Law of Jante means this: be humble and preserve social harmony and social stability.
You can trust a Norwegian. The well-being of the community as a whole takes precedence over that of the individual. But not so much that your personal freedoms are taken from you. Additionally, every person who comes to the table is treated with respect and given equal time and space to provide input into decision-making. Norwegians also do not flaunt their wealth. I would say it is frowned upon if one does flaunt their wealth, but a Norwegian would also never give any indication that they were frowning upon you. Interestingly, Norwegians also still get the majority of their news through newspapers, so there is far, far less sensationalized, profit-driven news attempting to foster outrage and sway public opinion. There are no media monopolies. Wouldn't that be nice?
Opponents of Democratic Socialism try and persuade people to think that the government would try to control and interfere with free markets, take control of utility industries, and subsidize favored industries. But the fact is, Nordic countries don't actually do a lot of those things.
Here is the really cool part. The Norwegian government primarily achieves control over the economy by purchasing stocks on the public market on behalf of its citizens. The government rarely forces nationalization of industries. It does happen sometimes, but it is only in times of crisis.
During the Norwegian Banking Crisis of 1988-1992, the government responded by nationalizing the three main commercial banks. Once the situation stabilized and trust in the banking systems was restored, the government released control and scaled down to how it is currently managed (with roughly one-third of the banking systems being owned by the public and two-thirds owned by private corporations).
The Norwegian public collectively owns about 40% of the stocks traded on the Oslo Stock exchange and hold a majority (meaning 34%) of over half of those stock holdings. This creates a really strong method of oversight because publicly accountable government representatives are present at every board meeting, controlling a third of the votes on important economic decisions that will impact the country.
Let's compare this to how the U.S. handled the banking crisis in 2008. The U.S. government bailed out the banks with estimates of up to $29 trillion dollars of our hard earned tax dollars, but We the People did not receive a return on our investment. The U.S. government also did not implement an effective means of oversight to prevent this from happening again.
Norway survived the Great Recession relatively unscathed because the people's tax dollars were used to clean up the messes made by irresponsible capitalism, but the return on that investment was fair. The public now owns a third-share of Norways three largest banks and can effectively rein in risky behavior before it's too late.
Norway's government also implemented these large scale social welfare programs when its economy was strong (unlike in other countries, such as Venezuela). According to President Trump, our economy is the strongest it has ever been. I don't know if this is true, but I believe economists generally agree that the economy is currently quite strong.
When FDR was elected during the Great Depression, this was not the case. Unemployment was at record highs. Farmers were in deep trouble, two million people were homeless, infrastructure was crumbling, and the banking industry had basically collapsed. On his second day in office, FDR declared a four-day national bank "holiday" along with a special session of congress, and passed the Emergency Banking Act, effectively stabilizing markets.
Through his series of radio talks (known as "fireside chats"), he presented his proposals directly to the American public. I mean, I don't know about you, but I would really love a fireside chat right about now. I'm tired of tweet tirades. "Who-can-think-of-the-best zinger-in-140-characters-or-less" is NOT effective communication.
FDR ended the bank panic, established relief for state governments, and implemented large scale public works and infrastructure projects (dams, bridges, schools, etc.), which provided a lot of people with good paying jobs.
He ended prohibition, put the un-and-underemployed to work as part of the Civilian Conservation Core, provided mortgage relief to homeowners and farmers, spurred major agricultural relief, encouraged the formation of unions, pushed for wage increases, and implemented Social Security. And all of this was pursued through federal spending.
These things were not radical, they were necessary, just as they are not radical now. They.are.necessary. All of this spending spurred the economy into the golden era of the 1950s and 60s when most people, with a fair bit of work, could realize their own American Dreams.
Right now, there is a big misconception about "Socialism" being spread by corporate media and the political establishment in both parties. They would like to have you think that socialism isn't "collective ownership" but rather government-controlled and mismanaged "collective ownership."
Meanwhile, back in Norway, the people are largely trusting of their government officials. Their elections are basically run like many groups of Vikings coming together in what they call a Storting or "The Great Council." Like, Winter is Coming, people! Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, let's assemble "The Great Council" because many heads are better than one - and you're my people - so I've always got your back.
I love Norwegians! (And so does Donald Trump, if you'll recall.)
Norway also has eight political parties. So, instead of playing traditional tug of war with one rope, you have eight groups pulling a giant ring. No one face-plants in the mud. No one single group can overpower the rest. It may occasionally pull harder in one direction or another, but eventually, it will find its center. It creates balance.
The United States can no longer function as a democracy in a two-party system. And really, we have already started breaking into smaller groups; this is a necessary and good thing.
We MUST also move to publicly funded elections and ranked-choice voting. I cannot stress this enough. No one person should be able to afford to use millions and millions of their own money to effectively buy an election simply through television advertising. This is not democratic and it is not ethical. If some certain billionaires manage to become the democratic nominee, we will have completed the transition from a democracy to a plutocracy. Your freedoms could be taken from you at any time. I'm not saying that to foster fear. I am saying it because it is true.
There's no need to be afraid of Democratic Socialism. It is not radical; it's REASONABLE.
We the People must take control of our government. Right now, our government is controlled by an increasingly smaller and smaller chunk of ultra-wealthy people. This is not red or blue or any other color. Moving toward publicly funded elections in a multi-party system is the only legitimate way to truly drain the swamps (of which there are two, by the way: the government and the financial elite). Right now, they are in cahoots.
I really feel like this is our last chance.
Bernie is the only one fighting to truly represent We the People at that table in those board rooms. He always puts country before party because he is, and always has been, independent from the corruption on both sides of the aisle. He has proven that he is not beholden to or influenced by people with money and power. He has a long, long history of fighting for the people he represents. Democratic socialism is not radical, it's reasonable. Please consider voting for Bernie in your state's primary and again come November.
Excuse me now while I go put on my "Votes for Bernie" sash. I have one for you too, if you'd like it :)
References:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/29/what-the-right-gets-wrong-about-socialism/
https://www.norwegianamerican.com/how-norwegians-do-it-national-elections-in-norway/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
Bernie Sanders is a pretty interesting guy. I've heard many others refer to him as a "self-proclaimed socialist" or "self-proclaimed democratic socialist" but he rarely ever proclaims these things himself.
From what I can figure, Bernie appreciates the Nordic Model of democratic socialism (like you find in Scandinavian countries like Finland, Sweden, and Norway). I have seen every big city in Norway from Oslo to Bergen to Trondheim to Tromsø. They are all lovely, charming cities, with very nice, helpful people. I saw so many daddies out alone pushing baby carriages and mamas catching the comfortable (and environmentally friendly) public transportation to work. People still have cars; they just don't really need them. I did not see one, single homeless person. Not one.
Norway and the United States have nearly identical GDP per capita. This means that we essentially have the same amount of money/resources per person, despite having a much larger population than Norway. A lot of people like to point out that Norway is a smaller country with fewer people. This is true. But it isn't about how many people a country has, it is about available resources divided by number of people, and by that measure, Norway and the U.S. are very close to equal. It's much more important to examine 1) how those resources are managed and 2) how evenly wealth is distributed from its poorest people to its richest.
Norway has quality universal healthcare, childcare, and eldercare. It also has tuition free public colleges and universities plus 12 months of paid parental leave for parents. It is fully expected and encouraged for fathers to take paternity leave. All of these things are considered "social safety nets." Norwegians, by and large, also live by a moral code called The Law of Jante. The Law of Jante means this: be humble and preserve social harmony and social stability.
You can trust a Norwegian. The well-being of the community as a whole takes precedence over that of the individual. But not so much that your personal freedoms are taken from you. Additionally, every person who comes to the table is treated with respect and given equal time and space to provide input into decision-making. Norwegians also do not flaunt their wealth. I would say it is frowned upon if one does flaunt their wealth, but a Norwegian would also never give any indication that they were frowning upon you. Interestingly, Norwegians also still get the majority of their news through newspapers, so there is far, far less sensationalized, profit-driven news attempting to foster outrage and sway public opinion. There are no media monopolies. Wouldn't that be nice?
Opponents of Democratic Socialism try and persuade people to think that the government would try to control and interfere with free markets, take control of utility industries, and subsidize favored industries. But the fact is, Nordic countries don't actually do a lot of those things.
Here is the really cool part. The Norwegian government primarily achieves control over the economy by purchasing stocks on the public market on behalf of its citizens. The government rarely forces nationalization of industries. It does happen sometimes, but it is only in times of crisis.
During the Norwegian Banking Crisis of 1988-1992, the government responded by nationalizing the three main commercial banks. Once the situation stabilized and trust in the banking systems was restored, the government released control and scaled down to how it is currently managed (with roughly one-third of the banking systems being owned by the public and two-thirds owned by private corporations).
The Norwegian public collectively owns about 40% of the stocks traded on the Oslo Stock exchange and hold a majority (meaning 34%) of over half of those stock holdings. This creates a really strong method of oversight because publicly accountable government representatives are present at every board meeting, controlling a third of the votes on important economic decisions that will impact the country.
Let's compare this to how the U.S. handled the banking crisis in 2008. The U.S. government bailed out the banks with estimates of up to $29 trillion dollars of our hard earned tax dollars, but We the People did not receive a return on our investment. The U.S. government also did not implement an effective means of oversight to prevent this from happening again.
Norway survived the Great Recession relatively unscathed because the people's tax dollars were used to clean up the messes made by irresponsible capitalism, but the return on that investment was fair. The public now owns a third-share of Norways three largest banks and can effectively rein in risky behavior before it's too late.
Norway's government also implemented these large scale social welfare programs when its economy was strong (unlike in other countries, such as Venezuela). According to President Trump, our economy is the strongest it has ever been. I don't know if this is true, but I believe economists generally agree that the economy is currently quite strong.
When FDR was elected during the Great Depression, this was not the case. Unemployment was at record highs. Farmers were in deep trouble, two million people were homeless, infrastructure was crumbling, and the banking industry had basically collapsed. On his second day in office, FDR declared a four-day national bank "holiday" along with a special session of congress, and passed the Emergency Banking Act, effectively stabilizing markets.
Through his series of radio talks (known as "fireside chats"), he presented his proposals directly to the American public. I mean, I don't know about you, but I would really love a fireside chat right about now. I'm tired of tweet tirades. "Who-can-think-of-the-best zinger-in-140-characters-or-less" is NOT effective communication.
FDR ended the bank panic, established relief for state governments, and implemented large scale public works and infrastructure projects (dams, bridges, schools, etc.), which provided a lot of people with good paying jobs.
He ended prohibition, put the un-and-underemployed to work as part of the Civilian Conservation Core, provided mortgage relief to homeowners and farmers, spurred major agricultural relief, encouraged the formation of unions, pushed for wage increases, and implemented Social Security. And all of this was pursued through federal spending.
These things were not radical, they were necessary, just as they are not radical now. They.are.necessary. All of this spending spurred the economy into the golden era of the 1950s and 60s when most people, with a fair bit of work, could realize their own American Dreams.
Right now, there is a big misconception about "Socialism" being spread by corporate media and the political establishment in both parties. They would like to have you think that socialism isn't "collective ownership" but rather government-controlled and mismanaged "collective ownership."
Meanwhile, back in Norway, the people are largely trusting of their government officials. Their elections are basically run like many groups of Vikings coming together in what they call a Storting or "The Great Council." Like, Winter is Coming, people! Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, let's assemble "The Great Council" because many heads are better than one - and you're my people - so I've always got your back.
I love Norwegians! (And so does Donald Trump, if you'll recall.)
Norway also has eight political parties. So, instead of playing traditional tug of war with one rope, you have eight groups pulling a giant ring. No one face-plants in the mud. No one single group can overpower the rest. It may occasionally pull harder in one direction or another, but eventually, it will find its center. It creates balance.
The United States can no longer function as a democracy in a two-party system. And really, we have already started breaking into smaller groups; this is a necessary and good thing.
We MUST also move to publicly funded elections and ranked-choice voting. I cannot stress this enough. No one person should be able to afford to use millions and millions of their own money to effectively buy an election simply through television advertising. This is not democratic and it is not ethical. If some certain billionaires manage to become the democratic nominee, we will have completed the transition from a democracy to a plutocracy. Your freedoms could be taken from you at any time. I'm not saying that to foster fear. I am saying it because it is true.
There's no need to be afraid of Democratic Socialism. It is not radical; it's REASONABLE.
We the People must take control of our government. Right now, our government is controlled by an increasingly smaller and smaller chunk of ultra-wealthy people. This is not red or blue or any other color. Moving toward publicly funded elections in a multi-party system is the only legitimate way to truly drain the swamps (of which there are two, by the way: the government and the financial elite). Right now, they are in cahoots.
I really feel like this is our last chance.
Bernie is the only one fighting to truly represent We the People at that table in those board rooms. He always puts country before party because he is, and always has been, independent from the corruption on both sides of the aisle. He has proven that he is not beholden to or influenced by people with money and power. He has a long, long history of fighting for the people he represents. Democratic socialism is not radical, it's reasonable. Please consider voting for Bernie in your state's primary and again come November.
Excuse me now while I go put on my "Votes for Bernie" sash. I have one for you too, if you'd like it :)
References:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/29/what-the-right-gets-wrong-about-socialism/
https://www.norwegianamerican.com/how-norwegians-do-it-national-elections-in-norway/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
Comments
Post a Comment