In the Nordic countries, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway, this came to be known as "the Nordic welfare model". These societies are popularly presented by many radical reformers such as Bernie Sanders as a kind of “democratic socialist” alternative to capitalism, a so-called "third way". In fact, such a way cannot be found, and what has been developed in Scandinavia is in reality a form of “humane capitalism” which makes the operation of capitalism more smooth and efficient, with the added benefit of appeasing the working class of these countries with various social services as a means of preventing social unrest and perhaps revolution.
The socialist revolution, a socialist society, involves of necessity the self-administration of production and of society by the citizens and the producers of their own behalf and not by any self-appointed clique claiming to rule in their place. Some early socialists declared that property is socialist because it is owned by a workers’ state, that is the organised working class in power. It led to the claim that the state is socialist simply because it owns the property. If that were so, the Catholic Church would be a socialist institution, the Incas and Pharaoh’s Egypt both socialist states. Socialism does not comes in varied brands packaged in different wrappings. To argue that under one brand of socialism the workers may rule and under another they may be enslaved is to deprive the word ‘socialism’ of all its meaning.
Everywhere people are waking up and are understanding that exploitation is a daily fact of their lives. The lies of the ruling class about “prosperity” are being further exposed everyday. There is prosperity alright – but it is for a handful of rich capitalists – the conditions of the working people are getting worse and worse. Wages stay the same, but profits continue to rise. The source of all these conditions and injustices is capitalism. This system of capitalism is set up with one thing in mind – to make the most profits possible for the handful of people who own the big banks and corporations. It is the system under which we, and our parents and grandparents before us, have done all the work. We mine the mines, build the buildings, manufacture all the products: and then get just enough to live on – if we fight hard enough for it!
On the other hand, the small capitalist class builds up huge fortunes off of our labour and do no work themselves, except running all around the world spending the money that we made for them. Is there anything wrong with this idea? Are not the working people the vast majority of the population? Do they not create the vast wealth of the country? Are they not its most useful citizens? Then why must we go, hat in hand, to beg some political appointees of capital on some government board or other for a few cents so that our families will be adequately provided for? What we all require is a system of planned production for use,
The Socialist Party stands for the complete overthrow of the capitalist system. We maintain that the ills that beset the working class arise from the capitalist system of production for the profit of a few. It further maintains that it should be the aim of the workers’ movement to establish a system of planned production for use, which will guarantee plenty of the good things of life for all. We say that the fight for such a system of socialist production is primarily a political fight, for it requires that political power be lodged in the hands of the working people, who form the overwhelming majority of the population. Incorporated within our ideas is the basic belief that capital and labour have no interests in common; that since the beginning of modern industry there has been a constant struggle between the working class, seeking a better living, and the capitalist class, seeking greater profits.
Electoral struggle is one tactic among many. And not all of them are equal in importance and priority. It is quite true that we cannot yet spell out in detail a description of a socialist world. But we do not believe this “vision” is the property of a few intellectuals. It is something that people will forge out of the concrete experiences of fighting oppression. It is wrong to paint some Utopian vision of our own making. Marxism is a science but an inexact human science. It has its laws, principles boundaries and its universalities. What makes us different from other revolutionaries is what we stand for and how we fight. We offer a consistently revolutionary perspective.