How Norway and Sweden both overcame the power of the 1%: through long, victorious, non-violent struggle

On this day when Indiana comes even closer to becoming the first state in the industrial midwest to enact an Orwellian “right-to-work” law, I find this article.

We need to pay attention to history. To others’ history. To our history. To making history. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Thanks to Source: Waging Nonviolence

A march in Ådalen, Sweden, in 1931.

While many of us are working to ensure that the Occupy movement will have a lasting impact, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

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, Kurt Wallender and Jo Nesbro 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.


George Lakey is Visiting Professor at Swarthmore College and a Quaker. He has led 1,500 workshops on five continents and led activist projects on local, national, and international levels. Among many other books and articles, he is author of “Strategizing for a Living Revolution” in David Solnit’s book Globalize Liberation (City Lights, 2004). His first arrest was for a civil rights sit-in and most recent was with Earth Quaker Action Team while protesting mountain top removal coal mining.

This entry was posted in culture of secrecy, dark doo-doo, elder wisdom, new economy, Reality Ramp-Up, unity consciousness, Uranus square Pluto, visions of the future, waking up. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to How Norway and Sweden both overcame the power of the 1%: through long, victorious, non-violent struggle

  1. Rich Buckley says:

    The Norwegian thread of history that would seem to NOT find a workable common ground here is: “majority ownership of all large firms was taken by the public interest.”

    Tactics amass themselves into a strategy even though they appear chaotic and random. The anchor points for tactical reform I see us building emerge through a bundle of seemingly achievable, perhaps slower tactics include:
    (A) Currency reform, much like Ellen Brown: “return the privilege of creating the national money supply to the people”
    (B) Amending The Constitution to redefine Corporate Personhood.
    (C) Clergy peaceful activism joining and reinforcing peaceful civil disobedience one city at a time.

    While this list seems short, it seems to retain important cross-partisan common ground issues needed to grow into mainstream and common wisdom over time, i.e., grow into a strategy. Chris Hedges would probably critique this by saying it’s too slow. But is it? What if however, rather than demonizing the Tea Party there were instead a winter strategy effort employed to support a political candidate and exit the winter with a new strategy that married a peaceful sub-element of the Tea Party, with a peaceful core element of OWS around a movement for Ron Paul? It would seem to need to be shaped by people on both sides with an awful lot of humility and probably require an effort now to push Ron Paul forward. In my world, whoever is pushed forward in this joint effort, must not insist on impeaching, jailing, or revenging as any part of a campaign plank.

  2. Rich Buckley says:

    Occupy movements, at least here in the US, would seem to benefit by asking all the Movements to vote to adopt just one symbol.

    The symbol a movement chooses to associate with its cause greatly influences the movement’s outcome and community response. The Oakland, Ca. Occupy Wall Street uses the clinched fist on one of its main movement websites: , a symbol originally adopted by the Black Panthers. No one argues it’s not an Oakland black community copywrite. Most of us do not know however, the creative good and inspiration the original Black Panthers movement represented (passtence intended) within its community and only associate the clinched fist with its founder, The Black Panthers , Olympic protesters, inner-city drug gang violence, and something about Huey Newton shooting an Oakland police officer. To those not close to the movement’s good elements (shelter assistance, school improvement, community improvement) we are only threatened by the clinched fist, and thus migrate towards the pole of security offered to us by law enforcement. I would argue that using the symbol serves the wrong outcomes for the movement and invites the very violence OWS must, at all costs, avoid. If OWS-Oakland expects to succeed in the larger cause for humanity, it may want to revisit its message. This movement is bigger than a clinched fist. In fact the clinched fist is probably counter productive and we need to somehow elevate the debate by modernizing the symbols to convey non-violent change. The clinched fist seems to convey just the opposite of what is needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *