Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls ‘an enviable standard of living.’

Neither country is a utopia, as readers of the crime novels by Stieg Larsson, Henning Mankell and Jo Nesbø will know. Critical left-wing authors such as these try to push Sweden and Norway to continue on the path toward more fully just societies. However, as an American activist who first encountered Norway as a student in 1959 and learned some of its language and culture, the achievements I found amazed me. I remember, for example, bicycling for hours through a small industrial city, looking in vain for substandard housing. Sometimes resisting the evidence of my eyes, I made up stories that ‘accounted for’ the differences I saw: ‘small country,’ ‘homogeneous,’ ‘a value consensus.’ I finally gave up imposing my frameworks on these countries and learned the real reason: their own histories.

Then I began to learn that the Swedes and Norwegians paid a price for their standards of living through nonviolent struggle. There was a time when Scandinavian workers didn’t expect that the electoral arena could deliver the change they believed in. They realized that, with the 1 percent in charge, electoral ‘democracy’ was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change.

In both countries, the troops were called out to defend the 1 percent; people died. Award-winning Swedish filmmaker Bo Widerberg told the Swedish story vividly in Ådalen 31, which depicts the strikers killed in 1931 and the sparking of a nationwide general strike. (You can read more about this case in an entry by Max Rennebohm in the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)

The Norwegians had a harder time organizing a cohesive people’s movement because Norway’s small population—about three million—was spread out over a territory the size of Britain. People were divided by mountains and fjords, and they spoke regional dialects in isolated valleys. In the nineteenth century, Norway was ruled by Denmark and then by Sweden; in the context of Europe Norwegians were the ‘country rubes,’ of little consequence. Not until 1905 did Norway finally become independent.

When workers formed unions in the early 1900s, they generally turned to Marxism, organizing for revolution as well as immediate gains. They were overjoyed by the overthrow of the czar in Russia, and the Norwegian Labor Party joined the Communist International organized by Lenin. Labor didn’t stay long, however. One way in which most Norwegians parted ways with Leninist strategy was on the role of violence: Norwegians wanted to win their revolution through collective nonviolent struggle, along with establishing co-ops and using the electoral arena.

In the 1920s strikes increased in intensity. The town of Hammerfest formed a commune in 1921, led by workers councils; the army intervened to crush it. The workers’ response verged toward a national general strike. The employers, backed by the state, beat back that strike, but workers erupted again in the ironworkers’ strike of 1923–24.

The Norwegian 1 percent decided not to rely simply on the army; in 1926 they formed a social movement called the Patriotic League, recruiting mainly from the middle class. By the 1930s, the League included as many as 100,000 people for armed protection of strike breakers—this in a country of only 3 million!

The Labor Party, in the meantime, opened its membership to anyone, whether or not in a unionized workplace. Middle-class Marxists and some reformers joined the party. Many rural farm workers joined the Labor Party, as well as some small landholders. Labor leadership understood that in a protracted struggle, constant outreach and organizing was needed to a nonviolent campaign. In the midst of the growing polarization, Norway’s workers launched another wave of strikes and boycotts in 1928.

The Depression hit bottom in 1931. More people were jobless there than in any other Nordic country. Unlike in the U.S., the Norwegian union movement kept the people thrown out of work as members, even though they couldn’t pay dues. This decision paid off in mass mobilizations. When the employers’ federation locked employees out of the factories to try to force a reduction of wages, the workers fought back with massive demonstrations.

Many people then found that their mortgages were in jeopardy. (Sound familiar?) The Depression continued, and farmers were unable to keep up payment on their debts. As turbulence hit the rural sector, crowds gathered nonviolently to prevent the eviction of families from their farms. The Agrarian Party, which included larger farmers and had previously been allied with the Conservative Party, began to distance itself from the 1 percent; some could see that the ability of the few to rule the many was in doubt.

By 1935, Norway was on the brink. The Conservative-led government was losing legitimacy daily; the 1 percent became increasingly desperate as militancy grew among workers and farmers. A complete overthrow might be just a couple years away, radical workers thought. However, the misery of the poor became more urgent daily, and the Labor Party felt increasing pressure from its members to alleviate their suffering, which it could do only if it took charge of the government in a compromise agreement with the other side.

This it did. In a compromise that allowed owners to retain the right to own and manage their firms, Labor in 1935 took the reins of government in coalition with the Agrarian Party. They expanded the economy and started public works projects to head toward a policy of full employment that became the keystone of Norwegian economic policy. Labor’s success and the continued militancy of workers enabled steady inroads against the privileges of the 1 percent, to the point that majority ownership of all large firms was taken by the public interest. (There is an entry on this case as well at the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)

The 1 percent thereby lost its historic power to dominate the economy and society. Not until three decades later could the Conservatives return to a governing coalition, having by then accepted the new rules of the game, including a high degree of public ownership of the means of production, extremely progressive taxation, strong business regulation for the public good and the virtual abolition of poverty. When Conservatives eventually tried a fling with neoliberal policies, the economy generated a bubble and headed for disaster. (Sound familiar?)

Labor stepped in, seized the three largest banks, fired the top management, left the stockholders without a dime and refused to bail out any of the smaller banks. The well-purged Norwegian financial sector was not one of those countries that lurched into crisis in 2008; carefully regulated and much of it publicly owned, the sector was solid.

Although Norwegians may not tell you about this the first time you meet them, the fact remains that their society’s high level of freedom and broadly-shared prosperity began when workers and farmers, along with middle class allies, waged a nonviolent struggle that empowered the people to govern for the common good.”

This article, written by George Lakey, was originally published here.

Photo by Swedish National Heritage Board

The post How Swedes and Norwegians broke the power of the ‘1 percent’ appeared first on P2P Foundation.

From Janne Eikeblad’s homeplace

Viking Women: Interview with Janne Eikeblad

BY BJØRN ANDREAS BULL-HANSEN ON MARCH 2, 2016

I recently had a chat with Janne Eikeblad, an ecovillage designer, permaculturist, tree hugger and social media influencer with 60.000 followers. I was interested in learning more about the recent trend among mainly young people in Scandinavia: Spending time out in the wild without a focus on hunting or fishing. Traditionally, the Scandinavian hunting culture has been dominating – too dominating – and just going out in the forest to be close to nature has been looked upon as very strange. I am glad to say that this is now changing, and more and more people are starting to understand that nature has a value that can not, and should not, be measured in pounds of potential elk meat and truck loads of timber.

The post Viking Women: Interview with Janne Eikeblad appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The suburbs spreads across the Norwegian mountain landscape like an invasive species nobody knows how to get rid off

Nikos Salingaros summarizes the suburban typology with five short points:

• People buy into the utopian dream
• But suburban sprawl represents a toxic disconnectedness
• Isolated houses without community
• Great deception: “suburbia celebrates nature” – no, it violates nature
• Replaces nature with dead typologies

The sad fact is that Norwegians are brainwashed with these suburban typologies, repeating the same flawed patterns all over the country, from the city to the country towns to remote mountain areas.

Before I continue to my errand I will tell that your book is absolutely fantastic and a great inspiration. I start my days here on the balcony with a cup of coffee and your book on the table, partly enjoying the view of the lake and the mountains, partly reading your book. What is most beautiful, your book or the mountains, I can’t tell.

Chapin’s book might be even more beautiful than the Norwegian mountains

Unfortunately, I’ve bad news to bring. I grew up close to Skreia, a small country town close to Lake Mjøsa. As it’s situated somewhat away from everything, it has remained some of its old charm, and the Lena River is crossing straight through.

Skreia with the Totenåsen Hills

Here the bureaucrats of Østre Toten municipality have found a long forgotten plan in a drawer with a fully regulated suburban dwelling area above Skreia, dating back to 1974. It’s regulated for 39 houses with about 1000 square meters of land for each house. The politicians are overwhelmed with enthusiasm, and the major tells that they would never have been allowed to do this today. They behave like they have found a long forgotten treasure. They decided to sell the area for the symbolic amount of 5 million Norwegian kroner to Østre Toten Real Estate Company, which is owned by the municipality, to develop it into a well documented failure, what the urban writer Nathan Lewis correctly has named Suburban Hell.

The area in question is situated in the forest above Skreia, with an exceptional view to the Totenåsen Hills, Lake Mjøsa and pleasant agricultural land.

The problem is that this is exactly the same area as where I a long time dreamed about making an ecovillage full of pocket neighbourhoods, just like the world’s first real ecovillage, David Holmgren’s Chrystal Waters Ecovillage in Australia. They did so from inspiration of the Alexandrine pattern 37, HOUSE CLUSTER. Today the permaculture founder Holmgren is working hard to transform the failure of suburbia into pocket neighbourhoods, probably with inspiration from your book. And he’s doing so with a remarkable success.

Here, above the old buildings in the middle of the picture, in the forest above Skreia, my dream is to build an ecovillage full of pocket neighborhoods, while my politician’s dream is to repeat the suburban typology of the early 1970ties

James Howard Kunstler has named suburbia as the worst waste of recourses in the history of humankind. Now, my politicians, the bureaucrats and developers want to waste this gem, rather than making it into a real community with people living in true relationship with one another and the beautiful nature of the place. With your book you’ve surely shown that we now have the knowledge to make it a success.

They knew about my dreams, I’ve wrote about them in the local newspaper. But for them I’m just an outsider, a lonely wolf with strange opinions.

But you, an awarded architect from the USA, they will listen to. In your last email you told me I could write to you if I had something on my heart. I surely have.

I hope you can tell them what a terrible mistake they’re about to do, crowning Skreia with just another Suburban Hell. Rather than rejoice they’ve re-found this forgotten area now to be destroyed by suburban typologies, they should celebrate that this extraordinary place has NOT been sacrificed to Suburban Hell. Please make them understand this!

In addition a real estate company has thrown its eyes upon the now abandoned industrial area along the Kvernum Waterfalls in the Lenaelva River, where Skreia was born. Kvernum means water mills in plural, so here were several mills for making grain and cutting lumber. My forefathers carried the family name Fossemøllen, which directly translated means the mill by the waterfalls. Maybe the name was taken from one of the mills along this waterfalls?

Skreia was born by the Kvernum Waterfalls

This area must NOT be developed into sterile dwellings, but become a part of the ecovillage for small scale peer-to-peer production.

The sawmill at Kvernum is now closed, and a real estate company wants to fill this historical area with modernist drywall apartments. Here has been small scale industry for centuries, I think a better idea is to regain the area for peer-to-peer production and connect it with the ecovillage.

But this is rather a task for Michel Bauwens, who is promoting peer-to-peer production. Your expertise is on peer-to-peer living.

I don’t know if or how you want to respond? If you want to write an article, I’ll post it here at the p2p-blog and translate it for Kulturverk.com and my local newspaper, in addition to sending it to the politicians, bureaucrats and developers of Østre Toten municipality.

The post A Lost Opportunity for Skreia (A letter to Ross Chapin) appeared first on P2P Foundation.