Free Viking Economics by George Lakey Page A

demonstrators, some of whom supplemented the power of their numbers by throwing stones and pieces of iron pipe.
    Quisling’s solution was to send in the army, evoking a storm of popular protest.
    Quisling grew more contemptuous of what he regarded as weakness in the Agrarian-led government. In 1932, he secretly laid plans to overthrow the elected prime minister so he could seize power with the help of the military. He couldn’t secure the support of top military officers.
    In 1933, since his personal popularity was soaring among right-wing Norwegians, Quisling decided to strike out on his own and organize a new political party: the Nasjonal Samling (National Unity). The party mixed romantic nationalism and Norse paganism with admiration for the Nazi movement. In parallel with the early days of similar movements in Britain, Italy, and Germany, Quisling’s uniformed paramilitary wing was called the
Hird
, an ancient Norwegian word for warriors. The
Hird
held marches to provoke violent clashes with working-class activists.
    In national elections, Quisling’s new party never got more than 2.5 percent of the votes. Still, its drama reflected the polarization of the country. Because Norwegians knew about the Nazis’ attackson German unions and the left, and knew about the support Hitler received from the German owning class, Quisling’s activity heightened their sense of urgency about resolving Norway’s own question: which class will direct the future of Norwegian society?
SWEDEN MAKES A CHOICE
    Sweden, too, wrestled with that very question. As in the Norwegian labor battle in Skien, the boiling point in Sweden’s Ådalen Valley was the use of strikebreakers. By 1931, three lumber mills were involved. Four thousand striking workers picketed and rallied against the owners and the political authorities who backed them. National soldiers were mobilized, killing five and injuring five more.
    Thousands attended funerals of the slain workers.
    The parties representing the owning class had been losing ground in elections, while the labor-based Social Democrats made steady gains. The Liberal-led coalition government’s choice to defend capitalism by killing workers lost the coalition most of its remaining credibility with middle-of-the-road Swedes. The government fell, an election was called, and Swedes elected the Social Democrats in 1932 to give them a fresh start.
    The policymakers faced an economy in deep trouble. One of the creative Swedish economists they turned to was Gunnar Myrdal, a name familiar to many Americans for the landmark study of black-white relations in the United States entitled
An American Dilemma
. 30
    Myrdal had broken with the classical economists and offered breakthrough thinking that later won him the Nobel Prize in Economics.He argued that the reason the classical economists were unable to imagine an economy that included well-being for workers was because they were not holistic enough. He believed that it was possible to design an egalitarian economy that would prevent poverty and be productive at the same time. His theory encouraged an investment in the individual person as a resource for economic growth—a pillar of what came to be called the Nordic model.
    Myrdal urged the new policymakers in the Swedish government to let go of the old, negative understanding of incentives for work held by classical economists—that it was a struggle for existence—and design a positive framework of incentives for economic participation.
    Swedish voters reelected the Social Democrats to lead their society almost without a break until 1976, by which time the Nordic model was firmly established.
    In 1932 in Norway, however, the battle continued.
NORWAY AT THE BRINK
    In 1933, the government continued to flounder in the face of depression. More Norwegians went hungry. Farm families could find something to eat, but they were unable to keep up payment on their debts. Banks tried to foreclose on farmers, and crowds