How Norway Avoided Becoming a Fascist State | Hacker News Reader

How Norway Avoided Becoming a Fascist State

yesmagazine.org

55 pointsmathoff11 comments

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.

" 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.” "

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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...

• 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.

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?

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

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

Yup, we're doomed.

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_... , 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com