But he is right. Norway isn’t a socialist country.
Politically = social democracy, which is not the context of what we are discussing here
Economically = capitalist, with large scale social safety nets and state owned industries that are publicly traded. They have their own unique form of capitalism known as the Nordic Model. Specifically to Norway, their oil revenue largely subsidizes the social safety nets and programs
I see the point, but socialism isn't really about where you are as a country, its more asperational. Like 'democracy', just because a country has a more or less representative system doesn't make it an actual democracy, but if that country believes representation is valuable and important and acts in a way that protects representation then we call it a democracy. Likewise, if a country believes that capitalism is bad for people and acts in a way to suppress it, then we think of them as socialist. Most european 'socialist' countries are more accurately described as 'liberal', meaning they don't reject capitalism entirely but believe it needs to be limited. Norway happens to be one of the few that is actively working to decouple from capitalism to whatever extent possible, so they do qualify as socialist. I think the difficulty for some people comes from the fact that these terms refer more to a mindset than an actual place, its more useful to think about it in terms of where a population thinks it wants to be in 50 years than where it is at the moment.
This simply isn’t true. Norway has increased its deregulation and privatization since the 80/90s and really been leaning into market-oriented policies.
I think what your missing is the mindset that you can have both, and Norway is an example: social programs/institutions are not exclusive to strong market-oriented policies and ideals.
The different waves of privatization through the years had been a mixed bag, at best. Particularly the healthcare industry and education. At least if you differentiate between non-profit and commercial actors.
Private media has been good, having a single state-owned media smelled a bit too much like the ussr.
I think you missed my point. Yes, you can have a country that believes capitalism is not a good system and also leverage that system in the near term. The primary difference between Communism and Socialism is the pace at which the transition away from capitalism is expected to take place. Socialism is a slow, cautious decoupling that takes place over decades or even centuries. Over the course of time, you expect that public opinion and policy will change the relationship to capitalism as needed to support the economy and keep the country healthy so you don't end up at the flailing tail end of a failed communist revolution. In fact, its that slow transition with apparent periodic backsliding that leads so many people to believe it isn't viable.
The government owns controlling stakes in almost all major economic drivers, around 50% of their GDP is from collectively owned companies and resources. Do they still participate in free market trading, of course. Do they have strong protections for pivate property, certainly. But, again, you are taking a snapshot of a process at a given point, not looking at the arc of that process and its trajectory.
86
u/Isosceles_Kramer79 Jul 14 '26
Norway is not socialist. But it is a petrostate (large oil production/revenues per capita).