No, he believes in the eradication of “über” capitalism, as his new book states: It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. He is a There Is No Alternative, Nordic model welfare capitalist. He never has and never will call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
He specifically describes himself as a democratic socialist instead of a social democrat but I also haven’t read the book so feel free to quote an excerpt from it saying he thinks the capitalist model is the only viable one.
During Sander’s 2020 presidential campaign he called for corporate accountability reform which would have given workers the ability to elect a portion of the board of directors for the corporation they work for.
I’m about as far-left as they come. I want to understand.
What would it mean in terms of policy to “call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production”? Would you prefer something closer to the Meidner Plan? Because that’s further left than Bernie’s plan but could also be considered part of the “Nordic Model”.
As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.
Socialism can develop differently in different countries. As such I believe that it’s better to engage in international solidarity, rather than nit pick differences.
As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.
One might argue that they are both “mixed economies,” but they are very different.
The Nordic countries are imperial core countries that benefit from neocolonialism. They are bourgeois democracies, meaning that the state enforces the dominance of the capitalist class over the working class. Because of this, something like a Meidner Plan, which proposes slowly eliminating the capitalist class, will never be allowed to happen in these states.
In China, the capitalist class is not in control of the state, though some limited capitalism is being allowed in the short term, with a plan to eventually eliminate it altogether. And China is not an imperialist state (despite NATOpedia’s false claims of “debt trap diplomacy”).
Socialism can develop differently in different countries.
This is true, though they can’t develop in any old way they’d like. All of the Western European attempts at socialism in the 20th century failed. All anarchist attempts have failed. The only successful ones so far have rested on a Marxist–Leninist foundation.
No, he believes in the eradication of “über” capitalism, as his new book states: It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. He is a There Is No Alternative, Nordic model welfare capitalist. He never has and never will call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
He specifically describes himself as a democratic socialist instead of a social democrat but I also haven’t read the book so feel free to quote an excerpt from it saying he thinks the capitalist model is the only viable one.
During Sander’s 2020 presidential campaign he called for corporate accountability reform which would have given workers the ability to elect a portion of the board of directors for the corporation they work for.
That is a feature of the Nordic model—as I said above—and is still capitalism: Worker representation on corporate boards of directors
I’m about as far-left as they come. I want to understand.
What would it mean in terms of policy to “call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production”? Would you prefer something closer to the Meidner Plan? Because that’s further left than Bernie’s plan but could also be considered part of the “Nordic Model”.
As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.
Socialism can develop differently in different countries. As such I believe that it’s better to engage in international solidarity, rather than nit pick differences.
But, I’m open to being wrong.
One might argue that they are both “mixed economies,” but they are very different.
The Nordic countries are imperial core countries that benefit from neocolonialism. They are bourgeois democracies, meaning that the state enforces the dominance of the capitalist class over the working class. Because of this, something like a Meidner Plan, which proposes slowly eliminating the capitalist class, will never be allowed to happen in these states.
In China, the capitalist class is not in control of the state, though some limited capitalism is being allowed in the short term, with a plan to eventually eliminate it altogether. And China is not an imperialist state (despite NATOpedia’s false claims of “debt trap diplomacy”).
Gabriel Rockhill - How The Left Should Analyze the Rise of a Multipolar World, China, Russia & BRICS
This is true, though they can’t develop in any old way they’d like. All of the Western European attempts at socialism in the 20th century failed. All anarchist attempts have failed. The only successful ones so far have rested on a Marxist–Leninist foundation.
As a Swede, what he’s been advocating for doesn’t sound like the nordic model to me.