
Did Scandinavia become welfare states because individualists came to the U.S.? - jensgk
https://slate.com/business/2019/01/scandinavian-socialism-might-be-a-product-of-19th-century-us-immigration.html
======
buboard
Do i need to state the obvious that scandis are among the most individualist
cultures in the world? Which is probably precisely the reason why they became
welfare state: when you can't rely on family or friends for old age, you need
to create a faceless contract. Aren't they notorious for their personal
spaces, hard to get to talking and introspection?

~~~
TorbjornLunde
It's complicated. We are also known for being some of the most conformist
cultures in the world.

------
armenarmen
A good Heinlein quote on the matter:

'The cowards never started and the weaklings died on the way.' That was the
spirit that crossed the plains, and such was the spirit of every emigrant who
left Europe. There is good blood in your veins, compadre!"

~~~
elygre
Does this mean that the US is populated by people who don’t mind leaving the
weaklings to die on the way?

~~~
bitwize
Absolutely. It's a little-known and oft-overlooked fact of history that wagon
trains headed west would draw up a "wagon train charter" before setting off,
under which the exact responsibilities of each member of the expedition were
carefully delineated. All but the youngest of children were expected to carry
their fair share of the load; and the punishment for shirking was abandonment,
being left in the wilderness to die. The pioneers could ill afford slackers,
and wouldn't hesitate to leave them to the wolves and the buzzards.

This is why the American ideal of "rugged individualism" is a myth: like any
group of humans in life-or-death circumstances, American pioneers became
_collectivists_. Failure to do your part for the group jeopardized the entire
group, and was met with harsh punishment.

~~~
hajile
Would you call 100 devs "collectivists" because they work together? A
definition that broad is meaningless.

Even if such a definition had any validity, the group was voluntary and was
small enough that individual accountability was immediately enforceable.
Deviation from the contract once signed was punished by death (effectively).
In addition, failure to sign on didn't have a group hunting you down and
punishing you. As a final note, those groups were temporary -- a means to an
end at which point the individual family unit again reigned supreme.

To be comparable with the common political view, every person would have to
agree to join, he arrangement would be temporary, the punishment for violation
would be death, and choosing not to join would not be a disadvantage.

------
helen___keller
It's interesting the article doesn't even discuss the inherent assumption
necessary for the implication, which is whether the individuality of migrants
in the 19th and early 20th century is related to the individuality of their
descendents in modern day.

~~~
philwelch
Even setting aside any genetic component, culture and attitude are also passed
down more explicitly.

~~~
alehul
Very much this.

Different environments result in, over time, different ideologies— humans
follow a typical evolutionary path with this, but the adjustments in this case
are mental rather than physical.

I love to take risk, but some of my family is from the Soviet Union, and
they're extremely risk-averse. Their idea of success in life is to have a
stable career as a doctor, lawyer, or engineer.

One ideology isn't inherently better, it's just about which ideology is better
suited for which environment. If I were placed in the Soviet Union, I would
probably die quickly with my risk tolerance. Meanwhile, while their recipe for
conservative success produces solid results in the United States, I would
argue that a higher tolerance for risk would produce a better average
performance.

The most critical part of this lasting is, of course, what percent of that
ideology is inherited rather than questioned... how 'sticky' that culture is,
when applied to the immigrant's children. While complex, this is often a
function of the closeness of the family unit in that given culture.

~~~
philwelch
This is part of the mythology of the American frontier. Just as America itself
was a land of untapped potential for European settlers who had enough of the
decadent, stifling old countries of Europe, the West was a land of untapped
potential for Americans who had enough of the decadent, stifling East Coast.
Just as unpopular New religious sects left for America, the Mormons left for
Utah. The gold and silver rushes were outlets for an ambitious American Dream.
The verdant fields and valleys of Oregon and California were outlets for
ambitions of their own.

The US ran out of frontier around the turn of the 20th century. And this is
problematic, because no populations is going to stay as risk-tolerant and
ambitious as the population that already risked their lives to travel there in
the first place. Immigration might actually refresh these attitudes, but you’d
expect them to erode over time. Perhaps they have.

------
8bitsrule
This is a weak-ass postulate. Where to even start?

Individualism wasn't responsible for the poverty, lack of land for newborns,
depressions, war and political oppression that caused Europeans to move to the
U.S.

Not to mention the 'agents' of U.S. companies looking for workers who were
sent to Europe to promise the 'individualists' anything. Or the Homestead Act
... it's pretty hard to get more socialistic than more-or-less giving away a
quarter-acre of land to all comers in return for a weak promise.

