Socialism is like Sweden y'know.

This one is a variant of the "Omigod the Soviet Union!" phenomenon which made the rec list a couple of months back.  People who use devices like "socialism is like Sweden y'know" are essentially trying to confuse the issue, so that they don't have to talk about real socialism.

Real socialism, as I discussed it in this earlier diary, is defined by the dictionary as follows:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

So real socialism is when the public owns and controls the means of production.  Oh, sure, you can say that such a thing hasn't happened yet, at least not on a scale like what we see with the capitalist world-system.  There is, however, no natural law that says that socialism is impossible in the future.  But that's another issue.

At any rate, let's, like, discuss Sweden for a little while y'know.  Here's a fun paper on the Swedish economy which might also serve the additional gratification of enlightening us about Swedish "socialism":

THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF
CORPORATE OWNERSHIP IN SWEDEN

Written by a genuine Swede no less.  So when we talk about "public ownership of the means of production," we're not talking about corporate ownership of the means of production.  Here's what the paper says about the Swedish economy:

By not encouraging outsiders to create new firms and fortunes, and by
not fully activating the primary equity markets, the heavy politicized system has redistributed incomes but not property rights and wealth. The result is an ageing economy with an unusually large proportion of very old and very large firms with well-defined owners in control

In other words, not only is the Swedish economy a capitalist economy, but social democracy in Sweden, with strong unions and a strong welfare state, serve as a strategy whereby a fraction of global capital (let's call it "Swedish capital") maintains its control over the Swedish economy over and against other fractions of capital.  

You will note, moreover, that the rest of global capital seems to be doing just fine without the sort of social provisioning offered to the Swedish public -- Sweden, then, is a MARGINAL entity within the global capitalist world-system.  So, whereas we might like the idea of having a Swedish-style social democracy in our country, we should come to grips with the idea that, outside of northern Europe, the rest of global capital likes conditions that are far less favorable to the rest of us.  We cannot pretend that anything will happen if we write sweet letters to our politicians and corporate leaders saying "please let us have social democracy." Our best bet in this regard is to advocate for, and work for, socialism, and if social democracy end up being a "compromise position" then that's what it will be.

My main point here, however, is to distinguish between "social democracy," a form of capitalism, and "socialism," which isn't capitalism at all.  I think that the point of conflating social democracy and socialism is politically reactionary -- the opponents of "socialism" can attack Sweden for its social benefits, claiming that we need to have fewer social benefits, and the proponents of "socialism" do not have to discuss the matter of REAL socialism (never mind actually agitating for such a thing), and can settle for less.