This makes Norway not only strongly capitalist, but also a pretty bad climate offender on a per capita basis.
So socialism
- Thread starter Lohrenswald
- Start date
But does it make it also more socialist? Those funds are ear marked for its citizens.
sophie
Break My Heart
Well sort of. My understanding was that the oil money was the seed, but since then the citizen’s fund works like any other investment fund.
Altogether the Norwegian state owns some 70% of the total wealth of the country as a public trust.
And Walton's wealth went to his kids. The very nature of the way the wealth is stored is capitalist. Just because it's distributed internally doesn't change that.
Won't deny that they're better than oiligarchs owning the mineral wealth taken from the citizens.
But the wealth was built by aggravating the climate crisis and then stored in the lands of counties with strong capitalist protections.
Won't deny that they're better than oiligarchs owning the mineral wealth taken from the citizens.
But the wealth was built by aggravating the climate crisis and then stored in the lands of counties with strong capitalist protections.
sophie
Break My Heart
The critical difference would be that the people as members of a democracy get say over what the fund invests in and how it distributes payments. The fund also has an imperative to act in the public good. This is distinct from a private enterprise or capitalist who only has to act in his own self-interest, or in the interest of profit, and is accountable to nobody. Walton didn’t have to give his money to his kids, and he could choose to exclude any child he so desired, or forego this option and instead give it to someone wholly unrelated to him. A social wealth fund in a functioning democracy cannot simply decide “nah” at the 11th hour and give the money to the Saudi Royal family or the managers of the fund. Nor could they, say, decide to invest money into clearcutting operations in the Amazon or Qatari building projects.
A critical component of socialism is the recognition that investing supreme economic power in the hands of a small unaccountable elite is cruel, dangerous, and unjust, in precisely the same way that liberals in the 18th and 19th centuries came to recognize monarchies are cruel, dangerous, and unjust. And so the goal is to alter the arrangement of power such that society decides collectively what to do with the wealth it creates.
You are right to note that a public or collectively owned enterprise operating within a capitalist system is still subject to capitalist dynamics and flows. It isn’t the individual moral failing of any capitalist that produces exploitative and destructive behaviors, but the logic internal to the system itself. This is why I am no market socialist or social democrat. But if your contention in political analysis (as it is for many such democratic socialists) is with the distribution of power and accountability, then a state enterprise subject to ethical imperatives and public scrutiny via direct referenda and indirect representative elections will always be morally preferable to a privately held one.
Last edited:
How does one (person or state) grow wealth in a socialist regime?
Pensions in Norway
An English language guide to the daunting world of pensions and saving for retirement in Norway. With a high cost of living, retirement in Norway can seem like a daunting prospect. We’ll try to demystify it
www.lifeinnorway.net
You grow wealth by value-adding to assets in a virtuous cycle to allow future productivity to be higher, so that people with a claim on that productivity can partake of those gains.
The factory you own makes more stuff. You don't also own a Bangladeshi factory as well as your own.
I've often noticed that both the Norwegians and the Swiss own tremendous amounts of foreign assets. And kinda for the same reason, to weaken their currency and maintain exports. But, their accounting is slightly different, but also in important ways I can't grasp.
The factory you own makes more stuff. You don't also own a Bangladeshi factory as well as your own.
I've often noticed that both the Norwegians and the Swiss own tremendous amounts of foreign assets. And kinda for the same reason, to weaken their currency and maintain exports. But, their accounting is slightly different, but also in important ways I can't grasp.
Ok, but how does that work as a business model? Not all industries or businesses can be forever more productive. New and innovative production will push towards endless consumerism. More productivity will lead to fewer workers. Will a growing number of nonworking workers who have claims on some production stream just be a leisure class clipping coupons?
I don't know how it works, tbh. I'm not sure how savings and investment works in socialist models.
Capitalism also creates claims on future productivity, but it also has an easier time generating savings in a way I understand
Capitalism also creates claims on future productivity, but it also has an easier time generating savings in a way I understand
Perhaps in a socialist society there is no need for savings? I'm not sure how or if interest rates would be a part of any model. The Shakers were a pretty closed society and only sold goods to the outside world to generate cash for things they needed to buy that they could not make or produce themselves. The leaders of each community controlled that and sent money to the national Shaker organization for distribution to other communities or to create new communities. Members had no need for money at all.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Socialism would need to be defined before the question could be answered. From what I’ve seen in this thread, we’ve seen the Soviet model rejected and the Norwegian model (I contend they are not socialist, but they have been mentioned) has also been rejected, so I’m left wondering where the definition lies.
But as a general answer to the question, if the financing is nationalized, then I suppose money would be put into a state bank and interest paid on the investment.
But as a general answer to the question, if the financing is nationalized, then I suppose money would be put into a state bank and interest paid on the investment.
There is no individual need for savings and it also seems to be discouraged past certain levels. But I'm speaking in more economic terms, where 'savings' are the excess and unconsumed resources that are then re-invested.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I think one of the tenets of some strands of socialism would be that there would be no “savings,” all product of the firm going to its worker-owners. If it’s a market of cooperatives that uses money exchange, those worker-owners could collectively decide on reducing their own personal take of the firm’s income and use that money to make capital improvements.
Why would government money put in a government bank need to earn interest? Why would banks be needed beyond a place other than ones closet to hold money. Would anyone be borrowing money from a bank? Why?
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Sorry for the dodge, but this gets back to my question of defining socialism and how much, and in what form, of the industry currently in private hands is owned and operated.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Well in the Norwegian case the oil itself fuels economic activity, that growth and maintenance is purchased, the profit has to go somewhere, it goes into asset ownership. In a long sense they are trading oil in exchange for ownership of what uses oil.
I don’t think it’s to weaken their currency so much as they have been paid more than they can use the money to stimulate jobs and therefore more production. What’s left is basically a debt to them for their oil that transfers into a higher rate of aggregate ownership. They don’t have that much wealth at home, no bidding will go to inflate domestic company value before they would chose ownership of foreign assets.
Dunno what the Swiss are doing.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It is indeed ill-defined and therefore hard to debate.
Narz
keeping it real
Seems to me like redistribution without a shift towards more individual and community self-sufficiency won't change much. The masses will get a little more and spend it on electricity, food, fuel, amazon, paying off debt w a small percent going to small businesses.
Of course what corporate interests/media are gonna promote community gardens, DIY culture, co-op markets, community resiliency of any kind? Sure maybe in a safe way in a segment once a year like "look @ these inner city kids growing lettuce isn't that precious" and then go back to the usual distraction & fear.
Act locally simply cannot compete w gigi-corporate culture, we can adopt more socialist govt policies and this may alter the power balance a lil bit but I fail to see how it will create a sea change. It's like a better prison warden who makes life better for the inmates but they're still inmates who are dependent on the outside for their survival.
Of course what corporate interests/media are gonna promote community gardens, DIY culture, co-op markets, community resiliency of any kind? Sure maybe in a safe way in a segment once a year like "look @ these inner city kids growing lettuce isn't that precious" and then go back to the usual distraction & fear.
Act locally simply cannot compete w gigi-corporate culture, we can adopt more socialist govt policies and this may alter the power balance a lil bit but I fail to see how it will create a sea change. It's like a better prison warden who makes life better for the inmates but they're still inmates who are dependent on the outside for their survival.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Growing up in Yugoslavia for 14 years, and now reaching the age of 45, after long and frequent deliberations on the question whether socialism, communism or capitalism are better, all I can say is the following:
Every human being looks at you, in your current situation, and asks him/herself the question "how can this benefit me, or my personal universe". From Einzatzgruppen looking at rotting Sondercommandos, to innocent children
looking at puppies that need saving in a shelter, this is fundamentally true. Even this post I'm writing is definitely fueled by my motivation of being heard, as much as it is an honest attempt at informing you of my thoughts (and possibly helping you grow your own).
On the other hand, we, as a species, are social creatures, as well as being self-aware, so there's inherent affinity for others. This is personal, though. Are you really a member of the tribe because you like the tribe as a unit, or are you merely pretending, aware that you can't kill a mammoth on your own? Both can and are usually true.
I'm deliberately stripping down our façade of humanity with these statements, because there are two types of "skins" we can wear over it. One is personal, one is ideological. And both are fueled by danger. In it's essence, civilization is barely more than a very complex communal danger management. Swapping a disease killing us at the age of three, for a ponzi schemer stripping us of our pension. Most, if not all dangers we face as both individuals and groups, can be only dealt with in a group. You can't really develop cancer therapy by being a hunter-gatherer. Groups require to control, change or replace some of our individualism for something else. But... Like with the color of your bathtub, there's nothing inherently good or bad about any particular color, ideology, religion or any other switch/level in ways of building a civilization, because ultimately every ideology wants to do the same things: generate rich people that live a prosperous and long life, have poor people that the first group feeds upon, and the rest being in the middle, trying to get into the first group and avoid being sent to the latter one.
The only thing "communism" and "capitalism" really did, and both did exactly the same, but in different ways – was to shuffle the cards.
All this is why ideologies in general are extremely dangerous. Because they ask you to replace your own morality and desires with that of an incel philosopher that "figured it all out" in some random mom's basement, and is then picked up by a power hungry primate that wants to become the next president, tycoon, bishop or warlord. The most "potentially lucrative" ideologies are those that usually do the most social damage. Kill all the <insert social group name> is way more damaging than "lets make basic education and healthcare free". And yes, both are damaging or profitable. To someone.
Ultimately, what I think constitutes a good civilization and a good social structure, regardless of what you call it, is one that respects and allows for personal power and personal needs, and provides the means (including education and training) to excercise both. In return – you pay – one way or another, a social tax, one that can be acquired in some shape or form by all members of the community, without going too much into personal detail (why I think money is still the best of the worst options out there for this).
Every human being looks at you, in your current situation, and asks him/herself the question "how can this benefit me, or my personal universe". From Einzatzgruppen looking at rotting Sondercommandos, to innocent children
looking at puppies that need saving in a shelter, this is fundamentally true. Even this post I'm writing is definitely fueled by my motivation of being heard, as much as it is an honest attempt at informing you of my thoughts (and possibly helping you grow your own).
On the other hand, we, as a species, are social creatures, as well as being self-aware, so there's inherent affinity for others. This is personal, though. Are you really a member of the tribe because you like the tribe as a unit, or are you merely pretending, aware that you can't kill a mammoth on your own? Both can and are usually true.
I'm deliberately stripping down our façade of humanity with these statements, because there are two types of "skins" we can wear over it. One is personal, one is ideological. And both are fueled by danger. In it's essence, civilization is barely more than a very complex communal danger management. Swapping a disease killing us at the age of three, for a ponzi schemer stripping us of our pension. Most, if not all dangers we face as both individuals and groups, can be only dealt with in a group. You can't really develop cancer therapy by being a hunter-gatherer. Groups require to control, change or replace some of our individualism for something else. But... Like with the color of your bathtub, there's nothing inherently good or bad about any particular color, ideology, religion or any other switch/level in ways of building a civilization, because ultimately every ideology wants to do the same things: generate rich people that live a prosperous and long life, have poor people that the first group feeds upon, and the rest being in the middle, trying to get into the first group and avoid being sent to the latter one.
The only thing "communism" and "capitalism" really did, and both did exactly the same, but in different ways – was to shuffle the cards.
All this is why ideologies in general are extremely dangerous. Because they ask you to replace your own morality and desires with that of an incel philosopher that "figured it all out" in some random mom's basement, and is then picked up by a power hungry primate that wants to become the next president, tycoon, bishop or warlord. The most "potentially lucrative" ideologies are those that usually do the most social damage. Kill all the <insert social group name> is way more damaging than "lets make basic education and healthcare free". And yes, both are damaging or profitable. To someone.
Ultimately, what I think constitutes a good civilization and a good social structure, regardless of what you call it, is one that respects and allows for personal power and personal needs, and provides the means (including education and training) to excercise both. In return – you pay – one way or another, a social tax, one that can be acquired in some shape or form by all members of the community, without going too much into personal detail (why I think money is still the best of the worst options out there for this).
Last edited:
Norway's oil fund is similar to an investment bank or a real pension fund, that happens to be state owned. The oil fund invests similar to how a pension fund invests. Note: pension funds in the Nordics, are not like some pension funds in the US. In the US, employers often have access or control over pension funds saved up/reserved to their workers. In the Nordics, the pension funds are 100% independent entities, separate from the employers. The employer can't withdraw a single krone from the fund assets as they have no access; the funds belong to the worker, in which name the money have been deposited.
As for Socialism, here is an idea: two major pillars of Socialism are the wellbeing of the working class and to which degree it has some leverage, control or ownership over 'the means of production'.
As an example, any nations public sector is essentially owned and controlled by the state (or its municipals), which means it is essentially all the taxpayers - including the working class - that 'own' it. So, can you measure the impact of Socialist doctrine by the size of the public sector, relative to the size of the private sector?
You can also look at the private sector and approximate how much leverage the workers have in the workplace. Does a company's workers have a representative on the board or in the management?
The leverage of workers unions is also a component you can draw upon.
As for Socialism, here is an idea: two major pillars of Socialism are the wellbeing of the working class and to which degree it has some leverage, control or ownership over 'the means of production'.
As an example, any nations public sector is essentially owned and controlled by the state (or its municipals), which means it is essentially all the taxpayers - including the working class - that 'own' it. So, can you measure the impact of Socialist doctrine by the size of the public sector, relative to the size of the private sector?
You can also look at the private sector and approximate how much leverage the workers have in the workplace. Does a company's workers have a representative on the board or in the management?
The leverage of workers unions is also a component you can draw upon.
Similar threads
