The Harsh Nature Forces People to Cooperate More in Order to Survive. Hence the community and solidarity in the history of Sweden. Can Lithuanians, who have been blessed with a good climate, adopt the traditions of such neighbors and focus on survival in difficult times?

Historical experience shows that Lithuanians are characterized by great focus precisely in the face of existential crises, so adopting or reviving the traditions of community is entirely possible.

 

Here are some key aspects of this transformation:

 

Crisis as a catalyst: The Swedish concept of “Folkhemmet” (people’s home) and solidarity were formed not only due to the climate, but also due to the challenges of the industrial revolution and the need to create a safe society.

 

From individualism to community: After the restoration of independence, strong individualism prevailed in Lithuania (a reaction to forced Soviet collectivization). However, the past decade has seen a strong growth of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local communities. For example, volunteering during crises shows that “shyness” is superficial – the deep solidarity gene is alive.

Adaptation of the Scandinavian model: Swedish togetherness is based on trust in institutions and each other. Lithuanians are increasingly adopting forms of horizontal cooperation (community gardens, neighborhood groups, sharing economy), which reduce exclusion and increase resilience to external threats.

Survival instinct: Historically, Lithuanians have survived for millennia in harsh conditions and at a geopolitical crossroads. The current generation, although living in comfort, tends to return to rational, communal solutions typical of their northern neighbors in the face of crisis (energy security).

 

Thus, Lithuanians are not so “selfish” that they have lost the instinct for self-preservation. On the contrary, there is a visible directional movement towards a Western, Scandinavian model of solidarity, in which individual well-being is inseparable from the strength of the community.

 

“Modern democracies are experiencing a serious existential crisis. Especially due to polarization and confrontation. The USA, many Western European countries, and some Central and Eastern European countries, such as Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland, are polarized and in conflict. The situation in Lithuania is not much better.

 

What else do we know about unity and solidarity in Europe? Are the cases we know of exceptional, specific, impossible to repeat and implement in other countries? Or, on the contrary, are there some common laws, common conditions that can generate unity and community, at least in critical circumstances, if this cannot be achieved in the natural, everyday flow and routine?

 

I think it is worth remembering Sweden in the mid-20th century, which was characterized by three ideas that were of great importance for unity and listening in the economic, social and political affairs of this country. These are Per Albin Hansson’s idea of ​​the “People’s House”, Gunnar Adler-Karlsson's idea of ​​"Functional Socialism" and Rudolf Meidner's idea of ​​"Foundation Socialism".

 

Until 1932, Sweden was ruled for most of the time by right-wing, so-called bourgeois parties. The Swedish state at that time corresponded in most general features to the composition of other Western European capitalist states. However, from 1932 until the end of the 20th century, and to some extent also in the 21st century, Sweden was ruled mainly by social democrats, sometimes in coalition with the Left Party and the Green Party.

 

From 1932 to 1945, the chairman of the Social Democratic Labor Party, P. A. Hansson, who was the Prime Minister of Sweden from 1932 to 1945, proposed the idea of ​​the "People's House" (Swedish: "Folkhemmet") to the Swedish state - as an ethical ideal, towards which all traditional social democratic values ​​could be realized. It can be said that P. A. Hansson succeeded in implementing this task in practice. And not just in any conditions, but in extremely difficult conditions for global democracy, when totalitarian systems such as Nazism and Stalinism were established in neighboring countries, and Sweden itself was very much under threat from an external enemy (Nazi Germany's intentions to occupy Sweden).

 

According to P. A. Hansson, the basis of the "People's House" was a sense of psychological community among its members. In the "People's House", according to him, no one was to be privileged or undervalued. There were to be no members who looked down on others, who tried to gain advantage at the expense of others, and the stronger would oppress the weaker. Equality, cooperation, respect and support for each other prevailed in them.

 

Such behavior, in P. A. Hansson's opinion, was to destroy all social and economic barriers that still divided citizens into privileged and oppressed, into rulers and ruled, into rich and poor.

 

P. A. Hansson's idea of ​​the "People's House" was the basis for his criticism of liberal capitalism. His humanistic idea of ​​a harmonious society found resonance in broad circles of Swedish society, which always surprised foreign observers. It was supported both by individual representatives of the bourgeoisie and by the so-called Swedish bourgeois parties.

 

The impact of the "People's House" idea was so great that it was remembered later - in the 1980s, when conservatives, relying on the idea of ​​"People's House", criticized the Social Democrats themselves.

 

However, in any case, the "People's House" was not a communist idea, since a strong private sector remained in the country. In fact, Sweden at that time can be called a country of a social market economy or "capitalism with a human face".

 

The second unifying idea of ​​society in the history of Sweden in the 20th century was Gunnar Adler-Karlsson's idea of ​​"functional socialism", which meant curbing the most obvious and repulsive contradictions of capitalism by means of "functional socialism", which allowed to achieve a record among democratic countries in the redistribution of gross domestic product (GDP) for public needs - 67 percent. of GDP (in the 1970s).

 

“Functional socialism” generated other examples of state regulation in the economy in pursuit of social justice (e.g. in architectural planning, as well as by restricting the rights of real estate owners and strengthening the rights of tenants of residential space, etc.).

 

The third idea that united Sweden in the 20th century in the field of economics was the so-called idea of ​​Rudolf Meidner’s “working funds” or “fund socialism”. Its essence was no longer “functional”, but direct socialization of ownership of the means of production. During it, the share capital of companies was to gradually pass into the control of society, primarily trade unions.

 

However, in practice, this idea of ​​R. Meidner was only partially realized, by the 1983 law, according to which shares in “working funds” were to be transferred to a very limited extent and only for a short time. They were to be financed partly from the profits of companies and from the wage fund of employees.

 

In this way, through these funds, people became owners of shares and acquired certain rights to manage the affairs of companies. The goal of “fund socialism” was to develop social and economic democracy in the workplace. The main source of financing for the funds was special deductions from the profits of companies. In this way, renewal funds, funds for improving working conditions, etc. were created.

 

A characteristic feature of the functioning of these funds was “participation” in the management of various public organizations, primarily trade unions.

 

Later, new features of the development of “fund socialism” began to emerge – a transition from the state level to the local level, and funds began to be brought closer to solving the issues of the branch of the economy, the region, and an individual company.

 

Thus, the history of 20th-century Sweden is rich in ideas of unity and solidarity both on a national scale and on a local level. And not only on a cultural-psychological, as the rightists would claim – national basis, but also on an economic-social basis, when economic-production relations were changed, but they did not lead to greater confrontation and polarization, but on the contrary – served the goals of community, solidarity and social justice. Perhaps, such a system of “social peace” in Sweden has been admired by a large part of the Lithuanian people for many years, not without reason?”