Ann, regarding your post about the nature of collectivism in Sweden: it occurs to me that what you're describing is not exactly collectivism. Yes, the core concepts are collectivist, but their practice seems to have been carried out in a very open-minded fashion.
This was what really gave it away:
This created a minor stir in Sweden in 1938, but there was never a scandal. Why? Because Barbro Alving's pregnancy and single motherhood didn't hurt anybody else.
If the people of Sweden actually thought this way, then the society you describe is more liberal than you give it credit for. There is no such thing as "none of our business" in the machinations of a collectivist system.
Collectivism is all about making each member of society conform rigidly to a set pattern of thought and behaviour. It's not just about saying, "these are our mutual goals, we must strive towards them". It's about saying, "these are our goals and this is HOW we must strive towards them, and these are the only ways we must strive towards them and anyone who tries to break these patterns will be seen as immediate or potential threats to the system and shall be eliminated". If Babro Alving had really lived in a collectivist society, her unmarried status would have been said to incite promiscuity in other women and her very success as a single mother would have guaranteed persecution by proponents of the traditional family module.
So no, you can't quite hold up Sweden on the mid-1900s as being representative of pure collectivism. The reason Barbro Alving was able to live her life the way she chose in the midst of a collectivist atmosphere was that her society's ideology was also tempered by a measure of liberalism.
That's the point I was trying to make earlier - that the best social models always lie between liberal individualism and conservative collectivism.
Well done, Sweden!
