George Lakey on Capitalism, public health and the Nordic model // In one stunning sentence, Noam Chomsky nails the most overlooked element of the pandemic
George
Russell Lakey (born
2 November 1937) is an activist, sociologist, and writer who added academic underpinning
to the concept of nonviolent revolution. He also refined the
practice of experiential training for activists which he calls "Direct
Education". A Quaker, he has co-founded and led numerous
organizations and campaigns for justice and peace.”
In one stunning sentence, Noam Chomsky nails the most overlooked element of the pandemic The coronavirus is serious enough, but it’s worth recalling that there’s a much greater horror approaching. We are racing to the edge of disaster, far worse than anything that’s happened in human history... there are two immense threats that we’re facing. One is the growing threat of nuclear war… the other, of course, is the growing threat of global warming. Both threats can be dealt [with], but there isn’t a lot of time. Chomsky pressed “If we don’t deal with them, we’re done”.
Vision now threatens the U.S. political center
Establishment political leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, are in trouble. The past four years have not been kind to them, and not only because of the uncontrollable Trump. In 2016 Bernie Sanders emerged from the margins to gain political traction with bold alternatives. He proudly identified as a democratic socialist. He couldn’t be dismissed as an irrelevant left ideologue because he used the Nordic model as a vision-turned-practical, a brilliant success in the real world.
Emergencies have a way
of shaking up old, limiting beliefs. The coronavirus pandemic is pushing people
back to the drawing board. In the United States,
many are noticing the institutional failures forced on us in recent decades,
during what billionaire Warren Buffett calls the “class warfare” waged by the
economic elite. The health crisis opens the door to bolder thinking. Even
establishment politicians today consider moves that cost trillions, but their
motivation is to save the existing system, not to transition to a better one.
In one stunning sentence, Noam Chomsky nails the most overlooked element of the pandemic The coronavirus is serious enough, but it’s worth recalling that there’s a much greater horror approaching. We are racing to the edge of disaster, far worse than anything that’s happened in human history... there are two immense threats that we’re facing. One is the growing threat of nuclear war… the other, of course, is the growing threat of global warming. Both threats can be dealt [with], but there isn’t a lot of time. Chomsky pressed “If we don’t deal with them, we’re done”.
For many Americans,
however, it’s time for a system change. Fortunately, we don’t have to start
from scratch. The American left in recent years has been shaking off its
vision-aversion that began in the Reagan presidency. In 2016 the Movement
for Black Lives took the initiative with its vision: measures needed to make racial and economic
justice a reality. Ever since, activists have been waking up to the need.
Grassroots people in Vermont even created a statewide Vision Summit. This trend is crucial
for all activists, whether or not their favorite thing is to think about
systemic change. History suggests that the social movements that make the most
difference are those that project a vision, especially when it can be expressed
in common sense terms.
Vision now threatens the U.S. political center
Establishment political leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, are in trouble. The past four years have not been kind to them, and not only because of the uncontrollable Trump. In 2016 Bernie Sanders emerged from the margins to gain political traction with bold alternatives. He proudly identified as a democratic socialist. He couldn’t be dismissed as an irrelevant left ideologue because he used the Nordic model as a vision-turned-practical, a brilliant success in the real world.
His argument is
reinforced at this moment when, during the epidemic, we look across the
Atlantic and find dramatic Nordic initiatives that are made possible by the
advantages of their model. In March, the Danes —
looking ahead because that’s what democratic socialists do — realized that
after the epidemic the economy will re-start more quickly and smoothly if
people simply return to their previous work. And the way to guarantee that is
to pay their regular wages in the meantime. Denmark
therefore decided to “freeze” its economy for 13 weeks,
maintaining payrolls while safety requires temporary lay-offs of most workers.
Workers will receive their full wages while at home. The employers pay 25
percent of the cost while the government pays 75 percent. The plan means
spending the equivalent in the United States of a $2.5 trillion stimulus!
The American Dream
has fled the United States and gone to live in Scandinavia.
Even in ordinary times, the Nordic region is where you’ll find the best countries for women, for elders, for raising children, for equality, for environmental performance and even for individual freedom. Black Americans settling down in Oslo even find relief from most of the racism they encounter in the United States. In all these ways and others, the Nordic countries far out-rank the United States — which is why this country is now rated as a “flawed democracy.”
Even in ordinary times, the Nordic region is where you’ll find the best countries for women, for elders, for raising children, for equality, for environmental performance and even for individual freedom. Black Americans settling down in Oslo even find relief from most of the racism they encounter in the United States. In all these ways and others, the Nordic countries far out-rank the United States — which is why this country is now rated as a “flawed democracy.”
The researchers
issuing the World Happiness Report were struck by finding the
Nordics consistently at the top. In the current report they devote a chapter
trying to come up with reasons. They conclude that the Nordics’ superior
performance has nothing to do with their size, or even historic homogeneity.
(In recent years Nordic governments have welcomed migrants, diversified and
still managed to hold their place in the top tier.)
What many Americans
forget is that a century ago the Nordic countries were a mess. Poverty,
inequality, lack of freedom drove millions to emigrate to Canada and the United
States. Now the situation is reversed. Even by measures of social mobility, the
American Dream has fled the United States and gone to live in Scandinavia. In
my book “Viking Economics” I tell the dramatic story of how Sweden and Norway
made their big turn-arounds. All these facts cause
worry among American political centrists, who may want some limited reforms
here but nothing like the dramatic changes made by the Nordics — especially not
the power shift within those countries that made possible their new model.
Ignoring the
Nordics is proving impossible.
For decades the American establishment counted on a simple strategy: ignore them! Academia used to conform. While criss-crossing the United States on book tours I’ve asked economics majors, both undergrads and graduate students, what they were being taught about the Nordic model. The answer was almost always “nothing.” “Not even in comparative economics?” I asked. “No, why should we learn about what they do in Scandinavia?”
For decades the American establishment counted on a simple strategy: ignore them! Academia used to conform. While criss-crossing the United States on book tours I’ve asked economics majors, both undergrads and graduate students, what they were being taught about the Nordic model. The answer was almost always “nothing.” “Not even in comparative economics?” I asked. “No, why should we learn about what they do in Scandinavia?”
In the Nordic model
it’s the people who decide the direction of the economy. There’s a reason it’s
called democratic socialism, or social democracy.
I offered a hint. “Because it’s the most successful economic model yet invented.” Happily, the academic abdication is changing. I’m getting invitations from colleges and universities — even a business school — to describe the Nordic model. Bucknell University gathered all its Econ 101 students in an auditorium for the purpose, where I met wide-awake students full of questions.
I offered a hint. “Because it’s the most successful economic model yet invented.” Happily, the academic abdication is changing. I’m getting invitations from colleges and universities — even a business school — to describe the Nordic model. Bucknell University gathered all its Econ 101 students in an auditorium for the purpose, where I met wide-awake students full of questions.
Pundits come to the
rescue of the establishment:
Alert to how dangerously attractive the Nordics are becoming to Americans, establishment writers like David Brooks, Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman are coming to the rescue. Some use the rhetorical device reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984,” in which a banner proclaims: “War is peace.” Or, as Anu Partanen and Trevor Corson put it in the New York Times: “Finland Is a Capitalist Paradise.”
Alert to how dangerously attractive the Nordics are becoming to Americans, establishment writers like David Brooks, Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman are coming to the rescue. Some use the rhetorical device reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984,” in which a banner proclaims: “War is peace.” Or, as Anu Partanen and Trevor Corson put it in the New York Times: “Finland Is a Capitalist Paradise.”
Rather than using the
strategy of an earlier generation, warning us of the dangers of “collectivism,”
current establishment writers acknowledge the Nordic success, then re-brand it
as capitalism. The problem for these writers, however, is explaining how those
pesky Nordics became so much more successful than our country, which is
supposed to be capitalism’s shining star. From my audiences the
answer I hear most often is oil and gas. “The Nordics can provide all these
goodies that we would like to have because they are afloat in oil.” (They
overlook the oil and gas in our own backyard, sometimes literally.) The trouble with the
oil explanation is that only Norway has a treasure trove of oil and gas.
Denmark has little, and Finland, Iceland and Sweden have none. Yet those other
countries join Norway in the top of the heap on multiple international ratings.
The Nordic peoples
exhibit enormous trust in their governments and other institutions. That trust
pays off in addressing emergencies like the coronavirus.
What they do have in common, with some individual differences, is their economic model. Actually, oil doesn’t account for even Norway’s main achievements. The North Sea oil didn’t come on line until the 1970s, and Norway pretty much got rid of poverty before that time — as did their Nordic cousins.The Norwegian oil story does tip us off, however, to how mistaken it is to call these countries “capitalist.” When the oil was discovered the people had a national debate: who will own it, and how will it be handled?
What they do have in common, with some individual differences, is their economic model. Actually, oil doesn’t account for even Norway’s main achievements. The North Sea oil didn’t come on line until the 1970s, and Norway pretty much got rid of poverty before that time — as did their Nordic cousins.The Norwegian oil story does tip us off, however, to how mistaken it is to call these countries “capitalist.” When the oil was discovered the people had a national debate: who will own it, and how will it be handled?
Capitalists believe
the answer to those questions is obvious: private ownership, the same as with
other resources like coal. In the Nordic model,
on the contrary, it’s the people who decide the direction of the economy.
There’s a reason it’s called democratic socialism, or social democracy. After debating,
Norwegians made several decisions. First, oil and gas would be owned by the
people as a whole. Second, the government would set up a nationalized company
to extract, refine and sell it. Third, the company would avoid a boom-and-bust
cycle, protect the integrity of cities near the oil fields, employ a
highly-paid, unionized workforce, and maintain the highest environmental
standards.
Further, the proceeds would benefit the people as a whole, and aside
from a small fraction of profits going to fund national projects, the money
would go into a nationally-owned “pension fund” for future generations.Does this approach in
any way resemble the capitalist history of United States and its global
exploitation of resources, workers and communities?
Maybe it’s the
culture:
In his New York Times column “This is How the Scandinavians Got Great,” David Brooks attributes Nordic achievement to the evolution of their education system. As he says, in mid-19th century Denmark the folk high school movement began to make a powerful and lasting impact. The masses of Danes after World War I launched a nonviolent struggle for economic justice, and then in 1924 became the first of the Nordic peoples to elect a social democratic prime minister
In his New York Times column “This is How the Scandinavians Got Great,” David Brooks attributes Nordic achievement to the evolution of their education system. As he says, in mid-19th century Denmark the folk high school movement began to make a powerful and lasting impact. The masses of Danes after World War I launched a nonviolent struggle for economic justice, and then in 1924 became the first of the Nordic peoples to elect a social democratic prime minister
Between harvest and
spring planting, farmers could take time to attend the residential schools and
learn in an atmosphere that nurtured inner awareness, cooperation, innovation
and big picture critical thinking. Members of Danish working class families
could come, too. Norwegians adopted the growing movement, and then the other
Nordics. David Brooks leaves
out the role of folk high schools in building leadership for the growing
cooperative movement, an alternative to capitalism that enabled both producers
and consumers to “eliminate the middleman” and become more prosperous.
A bigger problem for Brooks is trying to link the new education to the building of “social trust.” True, today the Nordic peoples exhibit enormous trust in their governments and other institutions. That trust pays off in addressing emergencies like the coronavirus. Also true is that the education movement helped ordinary people build trust in each other, hence the coop movement. Brooks clearly wants education to be able to play that role, given his alarm about Americans’ present lack of trust in the U.S. establishment. He seems to hope that, if the battered and starved U.S. educational system could somehow flourish once again, maybe we Americans, too, could trust each other and our institutions — and obtain the rewards of the Danish system!
A bigger problem for Brooks is trying to link the new education to the building of “social trust.” True, today the Nordic peoples exhibit enormous trust in their governments and other institutions. That trust pays off in addressing emergencies like the coronavirus. Also true is that the education movement helped ordinary people build trust in each other, hence the coop movement. Brooks clearly wants education to be able to play that role, given his alarm about Americans’ present lack of trust in the U.S. establishment. He seems to hope that, if the battered and starved U.S. educational system could somehow flourish once again, maybe we Americans, too, could trust each other and our institutions — and obtain the rewards of the Danish system!
The trouble is that
the big-picture — critical thinking featured in Nordic education doesn’t
necessarily yield trust. Instead, it gives tools for citizens to evaluate their
social reality. They learn to discern what is — and is not — worthy of trust. Danes educated in this
way could both experience the positives of their community and see that their
society in the 1800s was stuck between sentimental loyalty to a feudal past and
dreams of riches in a future of competitive capitalism.
Most Danes wanted
neither their feudal past nor a dog-eat-dog capitalist future. They were far
more inspired by the socialist vision brought to them by the Social Democrats,
which became Denmark’s largest party. Having gained literacy and confidence,
they could read socialist materials and discuss them. Factory workers could
form study groups. Far from blessing
capitalism, the masses of Danes after World War I launched a nonviolent
struggle for economic justice, and then in 1924 became the first of the Nordic
peoples to elect a social democratic prime minister. Networking with their
socialist comrades in other Scandinavian countries, they laid early groundwork
for what economists now call “the Nordic model.”
I found while teaching
in a Norwegian high school that, even in modern times, Nordic education
supports students to notice that there is such a thing as a class structure.
The name of one of Norway’s government-subsidized daily newspapers is Klassekampen,
or “Class Struggle.” The pay-off of Nordic
education continues, but not in the way David Brooks imagines. When in the
mid-1980s Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were urging the view that
economies thrive through deregulation, the Danish government tried to follow
the neoliberal example. In response, Danish
workers declared a general strike and 100,000 surrounded the parliament
building to stop neoliberal legislation from getting through. The government
was forced to back off.
Denmark thereby
avoided a deep recession of the kind that later, in 2008, marked the United
States, United Kingdom and many other countries. The reason we know Denmark
dodged the bullet in the 1980s is that the workers of Norway and Sweden were
not so alert. Their governments went for the Reagan/Thatcher line and deregulated
their banks. The bankers went wild,
created a bubble, and in the early 1990s most banks tottered, sending both
countries toward the financial cliff.
The U.S.
establishment is afraid to describe accurately the Nordic achievement because
its success shows pragmatic Americans that a really different model is
practical.
The crisis returned Sweden and Norway to their senses. Because their basic social democratic model was still intact, their governments could seize the largest banks, fire the senior management, make sure the shareholders didn’t get a krona and restore the previous regime of heavy regulation.
The crisis returned Sweden and Norway to their senses. Because their basic social democratic model was still intact, their governments could seize the largest banks, fire the senior management, make sure the shareholders didn’t get a krona and restore the previous regime of heavy regulation.
Norway learned its
lesson so well that it chose public ownership of Norges Bank, the country’s
biggest. By 2015 Norway’s public institutions (co-ops, municipalities, the
state) owned roughly 60 percent of the country’s wealth — again not exactly
what we expect of capitalism! The lesson for David
Brooks from the Nordics is the opposite of his hoped-for trust: a good
education prepares workers and other thoughtful people to expect that, even
within the Nordic model, class struggle will continue.
Why we must counter
attacks on the Nordic model:
In the next part of this series I’ll respond to more writers in the mainstream media who mis-characterize the Nordic model. There’s a reason to counter their effort to co-opt the most attractive vision we have. The reason lies in how we win. Successful movements lift up a vision of change that we can describe in common-sense terms. A vision supports us to move from protest to change, from reacting to going on the offensive. A vision enables us to reach the scale we need to win. It inspires people to sacrifice and transform their anger into a positive spirit that moves others to join.
In the next part of this series I’ll respond to more writers in the mainstream media who mis-characterize the Nordic model. There’s a reason to counter their effort to co-opt the most attractive vision we have. The reason lies in how we win. Successful movements lift up a vision of change that we can describe in common-sense terms. A vision supports us to move from protest to change, from reacting to going on the offensive. A vision enables us to reach the scale we need to win. It inspires people to sacrifice and transform their anger into a positive spirit that moves others to join.
The U.S. establishment
is afraid to describe accurately the Nordic achievement because its success
shows pragmatic Americans that a really different model, even though
technically a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, is practical. Of course U.S.
radicals may want to go farther than today’s Nordics’ achievement — Nordic
radicals do, too. But our call in the United States to “go farther” will be
credible only when we show we can sustain a mass “movement of movements” to
force major change. If our movements
cannot generate the power to get what the Nordics have, why would people join
us when we proclaim even loftier goals? These are some of the
questions alive in this moment of motion and change.
see also
Delilah Friedler: Capitalism Is
America’s Religion. The Virus Makes That Clear
American capitalism has dropped the mask — and its face is cruel and selfish
American capitalism has dropped the mask — and its face is cruel and selfish
