
How Norway Avoided Becoming a Fascist State - mathoff
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/science/how-norway-avoided-becoming-a-fascist-state-20170216
======
ptaipale
I'm from neighbouring Finland which had a fairly similar situation: far-right
radicalism as well as communism in the 1930's was quelled and rule of law and
liberal values prevailed.

I fail to see how the article answers the question in headline. It seems to
say "because we all became nice Social Democrats with strong suport" but
doesn't really answer the _how_.

Also, the references to Black Lives movement seem very out of place. BLM
activists appear quite confrontational and in many ways the exact antithesis
of how Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark became what they are.

In a word, being divisive (e.g. by bashing Donald Trump a lot, however well
deserved) isn't going to reach out and win over anyone who disagrees with you.

~~~
mathoff
" Meanwhile in Norway, the Norwegian Workers’ Party crafted a vision that
seemed both radical and reasonable and won majority support for their view
despite the dissent of a very small Communist Party. Grassroots movements
built a large infrastructure of co-ops that showed their competency and
positivity when the government and political conservatives lacked both.
Additionally, activists reached beyond the choir, inviting participation from
people who initially feared making large changes.

Norwegians also took a different attitude toward violence. They chose
nonviolent direct action campaigns consisting of strikes, boycotts,
demonstrations, and occupations—a far less fearsome picture than Nazi Brown
Shirts and street fighting. Norway therefore lacked the dangerous chaos that
in Germany led the middle classes to accept the elite’s choice of Hitler to
bring “law and order.” "

~~~
ptaipale
So Norwegian government became strong because co-ops showed that they have
competence and the government does not? This story does still not sound very
logical.

I know that in Finland the radicalization that had lead to a bloodbath in
civil war in 1918 was mended during the next two decades by a land reform
where the poor tenant farmers were able to buy out their own plots and become
independent farmers. The Communist leaders escaped to Russia where they were
later mostly purged by Stalin.

The rising fascist rebellion in Finland in early 1930's was suppressed by
enforcing rule of law. By the time Soviet Union (in pact with Nazis) attacked
in 1939, lots of (formerly) poor people felt they had something to defend, so
even the sons of red-hot revolutionaries held their place in the line against
attacking Soviets.

------
jacobush
While I agree with the optimism, I think the author of the article could take
a cue more from "Additionally, activists reached beyond the choir, inviting
participation from people who initially feared making large changes".

If serious about this, we need to on both sides step away from "signal strong"
words such as "progressive" as much as possible. We need to reach out to the
other person with very very concrete examples of what we want to cooperate
about.

------
maaaats
Another story about why Norway is as it is: I've always liked the story [1]
about how Norway is one of very few countries not going corrupt when
discovering oil. And most of it can be attributed to an Iraqi who happened to
walk into the Norwegian Ministry of Industry one day.

What would Norway look like today if we had closed the border for him?

[1]
[https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0)

------
clarkevans
Interesting in this article is a mention of co-ops. That is, creating worker-
owned and consumer-owned cooperative organizations that directly serve their
communities.

------
GuidoArrezo
This is a highly biased account of history intended to glorify authoritarian
socialism. There is nothing inclusive about leftist authoritarian controls.
Social democracy is about throwing people in prison for not conforming to some
collectivist vision. It institutionalises the violation of human rights and
promotes an ideology (the white-washed narrative promoted in the article) that
rationalises it. Northern Europe began stagnating as soon as it embraced
social democracy on a large scale.

For example Sweden:

"From 1870 until 1970, Sweden was a free market success story. Sweden had the
highest growth rate in the industrialized world. .. [After taxes were raised
in the late 60s and 70s] Sweden stagnated":

[https://youtu.be/D0hnA341AWE?t=5m23s](https://youtu.be/D0hnA341AWE?t=5m23s)

Sweden was the 3rd wealthiest country in the world in 1968. After it created a
massive welfare state in the 1970s and 80s, its growth stagnated, and by 1991,
it was 17th highest income country in the world. Other notable facts:

[http://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/San...](http://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sanandajinima-
interactive.pdf)

• Scandinavia is often cited as having high life expectancy and good health
outcomes in areas such as infant mortality. Again, this predates the expansion
of the welfare state. In 1960, Norway had the highest life expectancy in the
OECD, followed by Sweden, Iceland and Denmark in third, fourth and fifth
positions. By 2005, the gap in life expectancy between Scandinavian countries
and both the UK and the US had shrunk considerably. Iceland, with a moderately
sized welfare sector, has over time outpaced the four major Scandinavian
countries in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality.

• Scandinavia’s more equal societies also developed well before the welfare
states expanded. Income inequality reduced dramatically during the last three
decades of the 19th century and during the first half of the 20th century.
Indeed, most of the shift towards greater equality happened before the
introduction of a large public sector and high taxes.

~~~
mnm1
So what? You think the UK, US, and every other country in the world just sat
around doing nothing to improve their own status for decades?

------
squozzer
The author avoided the obvious and depressing footnote -- the Third Reich
invaded and occupied Norway for several years.

------
JCzynski
All you need is cross-party cooperation and an anti-fascist alliance of urban
workers and rural farmers.

Yup, we're doomed.

------
timonoko
Norway had no functioning defence forces in 1940s, because of this
SocialDemocrat Piss&Løve-attitude. Most conscripts had only few weeks of
training.

Mannerheim (of Finland) sent some doctors as an aid against the German
occupation, but they came soon back after witnessing the pitiful "war" at
Narvik. Norwegians were such worthless pussies that Englishmen refused to
cooperate with them. Read all about it from page 424 at
[http://kansataisteli.sshs.fi/Tekstit/1986/Kansa_Taisteli_12_...](http://kansataisteli.sshs.fi/Tekstit/1986/Kansa_Taisteli_12_1986.pdf)
, it is most comical.

Norwegians are mostly gifted in fabricating their own history. Also this
"Battle of Narvik" is now quite different Heroic Viking Story in Norwegian
history books.

