Section 6 of 6 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6

   system is the difference. The cost for living and health care during
   your last years won't change if you live in a libertarian state or in
   the nanny-states of Europe. The only difference is the method of
   paying. Here you pay in advance via the tax system.
   
   The same goes for primary and secondary education. All who earn money
   have once upon a time used the pre-schools and schools, and in our
   society you pay for it through the tax some years later. In other
   systems you "borrow" it from your parents when you use the service,
   and then "pay back" to your kids when they grow up.
   
   Neoclassical economists use to argue that the high taxations in the
   Nordic countries must lead to high unemployment, low productivity, low
   rates of investments and too little incentives to work and innovate.
   Now and then these arguments are presented in s.c.n., and regularly
   the following will be presented:
   
   The Nordic experience shows that 50% taxation is not too high to keep
   most people from working. In the 80s there was full employment despite
   high taxes and an extensive social security system. People still
   prefer work to unemployment. Sweden could maintain full employment
   until 1990s, but now the open unemployment is higher than in the US,
   although the criteria of the statistics differ.
   
   The Nordic model worked well till the 90'ies economic depression, but
   it may have gotten into trouble in some of the countries now. On the
   other hand, one could argue that thanks to this model the recession in
   the beginning of the 90'ies became moderated in a very favorable way,
   compared for instance to the development in the United Kingdom.
   
   It's often noted that the level of investments in Finland only some
   5-10 years ago was very high, maybe too high, and that Sweden has a
   trade surplus (i.e. producing to a higher value than they consume)
   whereas USA has a trade deficit.
   
   Productivity is relatively high in Norden. Social security does not
   lower productivity. In fact U.S. style low pay employment does not
   have as great incentives to high productivity as the Nordic union
   negotiated pay model.
   
   Among the positive sides of this high-taxation system, one can note:
     * almost no poverty or starvation, as is the case in American
       ghettos
     * virtually no homelessness problem
     * very little crime
     * equal opportunity to education & health care, regardless of the
       wallets
       
   Another example is that if a US worker is forced to have an expensive
   car and drive for two hours each way to get to work, spending money
   burning gasoline, that shows up as a bigger contribution to GDP than
   that of the Finnish worker who lives in a comfortable cogeneratively
   heated house out in Käpylä, doesn't need a car, and rides an
   inexpensive tram in to work.
   
   
   
  2.8.4 Now, when the Soviet Union has fallen, you are free to liberate your
  economies!
  
   What often seems to be forgotten is that the Nordic countries have the
   same balance in political life as Canada and the US - namely
   (apparent) democracy. Nordics have a right to choose whether they want
   to spend public money on welfare, health care and education or not.
   They do so by participating in elections, in numbers varying between
   70% and 90% of those eligible to vote (unlike the U.S. where 50% of
   registered voters is considered a great turnout). Our representatives
   come from many parties in approximate proportion to the vote (whereas
   the U.S. is often "winner-takes-all"). They enjoy (relative) freedom
   of speech, freedom of religion, and (most) benefits of market
   economies. That's why you'll get a cold shoulder if you try to label
   them Socialists, plainly state that their welfare system is broken and
   needs fixing, that their culture needs to be preserved from outside
   influence, and so on. It's a choice, and the Nordics are doing their
   best in exercising this choice in a manner consistent with their
   values and their culture.
   
   But it is a fact that the countries in the western (democratic) part
   of Europe never became "free capitalistic" states as the USA, and
   Americans see clear similarities between the western European
   societies and the communist ideals.
   
   Some writers use to argue that it's because the US didn't introduce
   any of what is now known as libertarian thought, that hardly any
   countries in this part of Europe bothered to try them. Or that the
   Nazi influence scared most countries off in trying a political
   ideology other than communism.
   
   It's a misconception to believe that all of Europe was forced or
   tended to adopt a "Socialistic" policy after the 2nd World War. After
   the war, the only thing which with force could have been an agent for
   Socialist or collectivist policies where the politic, economic and
   historic realities in the respective countries. What happened in East
   could not enforce Leninism (or related ideologies) in the democracies
   west of the iron curtain. Quite the contrary.
   
   An alternative view is that Marxism is a product of collectivist
   Old-world thinking, and that it's the Old-world customs which
   Americans recognize in Socialism.
   
   One outgrow of this Old-world collectivism and stress on homogeneity
   is most probably the way people feel responsible for each other, and
   each other's kids, in Scandinavia. Maybe it's wrong to connect this
   with press reports on scientifically determined sign of how unpaid
   voluntary work is more prevalent in Scandinavia than in any other part
   of Europe. But it's tempting when Yanks stress this aspect of their
   society as something where they are world leading.
   :->>>
   
   One could say that after ww2 not much changed. The societies were as
   centralistic and non-individualistic as they had been since
   god-knows-when. Democracy was re-established in the parts of Europe
   which weren't governed by Soviet troops. That was the main influence
   of UK/USA - except for the economical and cultural.
   
   Liberalism was not at all unknown to Europeans. Nor Conservatism. All
   the time from the 1848-revolutions is marked by the reaction on the
   danger of the urban concentrations of proletarians. Marxism, late
   19:th century Social Conservatism and Liberalism are the most obvious
   signs. What happened after the first world war, 1918, was the success
   of Liberalism with full democracy in all countries, and then a
   backlash when non-democrats came to power either through democratic
   elections, or as a response to the unstable governmental situation
   which the democracy had led to: In short the political map of the
   pre-ww2-societies in Europe could be described as consisting of three
   blocks. Socialists, Liberals and Conservatives. All three in
   opposition to the other two. (The fascistic movements are then
   associated with the Conservatives, which is true if one regards
   alliances, but not quite true if one looks more directly on propaganda
   and programs.)
   
   The Socialistic block was split between reformists and revolutionists.
   And in some countries it was the reformists and the Liberals who
   together were strong enough to compete with the anti-democratic
   forces.
   
   After the second world war the Fascist parties had lost all
   credibility.
   
   For the people in the destroyed Europe (well, west of the iron
   curtain) non-individualistic solutions were judged as most fit, as
   typical in the German sick insurance system or centralized accords for
   agreement on wages. I think one could say that most people
   (sympathizing with all three blocks, the Conservative, Liberal and
   Socialist) favored collectivist solutions, seeing democracy as
   collectivist. The most individualistic tendencies were to be
   discovered among Liberals.
   
   The difference between Germany and Norden was not the intentions, but
   the different positions the societies had to start from.
   Germany was destroyed. The Nordic societies were not.
   
   The eastern part of Europe (if Russia included, far more than the
   half) learned to know the Russian masters and their ideology. It was
   however only a tiny minority in West who aimed at a development as in
   the Soviet satellite states.
   
   
   
  2.8.5 What are the differences of the economies of the respective Nordic
  countries?
  
Norway  - the oil incomes, the fish industry.
Denmark - virtually none. (Lower beer taxation.)
Sweden  - lower income taxes; other taxes and national debt higher.
Finland - the highest unemployment rate.
Iceland - the dependency on fishing.





[ the sections above are available at the www-page
  http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/faq28.html ]

   
   



------------------------------

Subject: 2.9 Valborg, Midsummer and other festivals


(in production)

   
   
  2.9.1 Valborg
  
   Val Davies  wrote:
   I recently came across a reference to an occasion called "Valborg" and
   on looking it up in the dictionary find that it apparently translates
   into English as "Walpurgis Night". I confess to being none the wiser.
   :-(
   
   [ Henrik Ernoe: ]
   Valborg is the Scandinavian name for the Catholic Saint Walpurgis.
   Walpurgis is believed to be the patron of witches (this is of course
   not certified by the Church). Her day is the 1st of May. Walpurgis
   night is the night before May 1st. On which nature was suppossed to be
   potent. So if a girl wanted to get pregnant the following year she
   would go and bathe in a holy well or creek on that night. There was
   also a number of magical rituals supposed to make livestick fertile
   that were carried out on Valborgs eve.
   
   [ Antti Lahelma: ]
   It's the 1st of May. A important holiday in these parts; you wear a
   white student cap (supposing you ever graduated), a silly nose
   (optional), drink a whole lot of alcohol and walk aimlessly in the
   crowd downtown. In Helsinki, one of the main events is the crowning of
   a statue of a mermaid (Havis Amanda, a symbol of the city) with said
   white cap. I presume it's old pagan festival to welcome the spring;
   the Christian excuse for celebrating it has to do with a certain St.
   Valborg, a German 9th (?) century abbess who probably did something
   pious that has nothing to do with Valborg (Vappu in Finnish) as we
   know it.
   
   [ Alo Merilo: ]
   In Estonia the Walpurgis Night (in Estonian "Volbriöö") is basically
   when all self-respecting present or past university students who
   belong to either a fraternity /sorority ("korporatsioon") or a student
   society, have probably the biggest party of the year. The tradition
   probably has its roots in Germany.
   
   [ Johan Olofsson: ]
   The festival has its roots in on of the pagan rites to honour the
   return of Spring. In Sweden the important part is the Eve, the last
   day in April, when people make big bonfires and greet the Spring with
   a lot of singing.
   
   
   
  2.9.2 Midsummer
  
   Midsummer's eve is The Greatest Festival during the year. This day
   huge phallic poles are dressed in green leaves and lot's of flowers,
   erected, and then people dance ring dances around it, and play games
   and make babies.
   
   It's easy to see the connection with the pagan rite with the purpose
   to help give good harvests in the autumn. Due to the heavy partying
   no-one is able to work the day after, why at least the Swedish
   government has moved the holliday from the real midsummer's eve to the
   nearest Friday.
   
   
   



------------------------------

Subject: 2.10 Nordic alcohol customs

   There are a few facts which often tend to be forgotten when discussing
   the alcohol habits of North-Europeans.
   
   The maybe most important explanation for the Nordic behavior is the
   very long tradition of mead and beer drinking. At least since the
   stone age Germanians have left traces of brewing intoxicating
   beverages from grain. Wine was grown by Germans first at the time of
   Charlemagne, when the Nordics since long had established our own
   cultural identity, and still today it's almost impossible to grow wine
   in Scandinavia.
   
   Mead can however not be stored. Mead has to be prepared for each time
   there is a need for it, as at festivals, and then all of the mead has
   to be consumed or it will be wasted. The Nordic all-or-nothing
   attitude to alcohol has a plausible explanation in our historic and
   geographic conditions.
   
   Secondly beer and mead are made from grain, which otherwise would be
   used as food. Richness and power made it possible to afford brewing;
   poverty, failure of the crops and starving meant "no booze or you'll
   die!" To be able to serve ones guests a plenty of alcohol is a deeply
   rooted signal of richness, authority and good times worthy lords and
   magnates.
   
   The holiday behavior of Finns staggering off and on their ferries in
   Tallin, Sundsvall and Stockholm, and the Swedes reeling off and on the
   ferries in Helsingør, Fredrikshavn and Copenhagen, is nothing but the
   traditional way of celebration for a people not used to wine.
   Parallels are seen in the traditions on Ireland and in Scotland.
   
   Wine has become available and affordable outside of its traditional
   areas since only a few decades (no time at all compared to the
   millenniums the beer tradition has had to root in the culture) - let's
   see if we Northerners will learn to use alcohol in a wine-like manner
   before the good times have changed and we are back at the home brewed
   mead again. Other cultures have had long time to learn a suitable
   pattern for wine consumption: regularly but in dosages so small that
   one will be able to function as a human, as a parent and as a worker
   also the day after the consuming - and immediately as a witty
   companion and a good lover.
   

[ the sections above are available at the www-page
  http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/faq29.html ]


 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- END OF PART 2 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

   © Copyright 1994-98 by Antti Lahelma and Johan Olofsson.
   You are free to quote this page as long as you mention the URL for the
   original archive (as: ),
   where the most recent version of this document can be found.
--
  e-mail: jmo@lysator.liu.se
  s-mail: Majeldsvägen 8a, 587 31  LINKÖPING, Sweden
  www:    http://www.lysator.liu.se/~jmo/

Section 6 of 6 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6

© allanswers.org | Terms of use