Segment 6—Why the “warmth of collectivism” is a lie: Why Denmark isn’t “true socialism”

Denmark isn’t a “socialist paradise”—it’s a market economy with a big safety net. Segment 6 separates the myth from the model.

When people defend collectivism today, they rarely lead with Stalin or Mao. They lead with Denmark.

It’s the clean example. The polite example. The photogenic example.

“Look,” they say, “Denmark has universal healthcare, free education, a strong safety net, high happiness rankings—and they’re basically socialist. So relax. Socialism can be warm.”

But Denmark keeps trying to tell the world: that’s not what we are.

Denmark’s own national information site calls it “a general misconception” that the Danish welfare model is based on socialist or communist ideology presupposing a planned economy; it says the Danish welfare model is built to facilitate the capitalist market economy that Denmark is part of.

That sentence matters because it draws a line a lot of Americans blur:

• A large welfare state is not the same thing as socialist ownership and central planning.

• High taxes are not the same thing as state control of production.

• Generous benefits are not the same thing as the abolition of markets.

Denmark is not “soft Stalin.” Denmark is not “nice Mao.”

Denmark is something else entirely: a market economy with a big, tax-funded safety net.

And if we don’t name that clearly, the comparison becomes a rhetorical shortcut instead of an honest argument.

Denmark’s leaders have said this out loud

Back in 2015, Denmark’s then–Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen addressed the American habit of calling Denmark socialist. He said, “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Now, you don’t have to agree with Rasmussen about everything to recognize what he’s doing there: he’s defending a distinction that modern political messaging tries to erase.

Because once you blur “welfare” into “socialism,” it becomes easy to sell bigger and bigger claims with smaller and smaller definitions.

What Denmark actually is: welfare capitalism, not planned socialism

One of the simplest outside descriptions comes from the U.S. State Department: Denmark is a “social welfare state” with a “thoroughly modern market economy,” heavily driven by trade in goods and services; exports account for about 60% of GDP.

So Denmark is not built on shutting markets down. It’s built on participating in markets aggressively, globally.

And it isn’t some heavily-regulated anti-business fortress either. Denmark’s official site promotes the country as having a “pro-business environment in a social welfare state.”

This is why the “Denmark = socialism” claim is misleading. The Danish approach isn’t “replace capitalism.” It’s closer to: let markets create wealth, then tax wealth to fund a strong floor.

That’s a different argument than socialism, and it’s a different moral and economic mechanism.

“Warmth” costs money: Denmark pays for it with taxes

If you want one concrete fact that makes Americans uncomfortable, it’s this: Denmark’s standard VAT (Value-Added Tax) is 25%—one of the highest in Europe.

Denmark itself notes that Danes pay some of the world’s highest taxes to finance an extensive set of welfare programs, tax-funded healthcare free for the patient, and tax-funded schools and universities free for students.

So yes, there’s a safety net. But it isn’t magic. It’s paid for. And it’s largely paid for by broad-based taxation, not just “taxing the rich” as a moral slogan.

That matters because a lot of American arguments smuggle in Denmark as a proof without importing Denmark’s price tag.

Denmark’s “secret sauce” isn’t socialism. It’s the labor model.

Another piece people miss is how Denmark keeps a high safety net without making the labor market rigid.

Denmark is famous for “flexicurity”, a labor market model that combines employers’ flexibility to hire and fire with a security net for workers in between jobs.

That’s not central planning. That’s a specific institutional arrangement: dynamic markets plus a cushion.

So when someone says “Denmark proves socialism works,” what they’re often praising is a system that, ironically, preserves many features socialists historically oppose: strong private enterprise, flexible labor markets, open trade, and a high-trust business environment.

Denmark ranks high on “economic freedom” metrics

Here’s another stubborn fact: Denmark routinely ranks among the world’s most economically free jurisdictions.

The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World 2024 report lists Denmark tied for 6th (based on 2022 data) among the most economically free jurisdictions.

I’m not citing that because “economic freedom indexes are Scripture.” I’m citing it because it cuts against the lazy story that Denmark is a planned economy. Planned economies don’t show up near the top of those lists.

The deeper point for this series

So why spend a whole segment on Denmark?

Because Denmark is the modern disguise, the way collectivism tries to borrow “warmth” without owning the historical mechanism that usually delivers it: compulsion.

Denmark has a welfare state, yes. But Denmark is not built on abolishing markets. It’s built on using markets, taxing them heavily, and maintaining cultural and institutional conditions that make the model workable, and difficult to copy. Denmark itself frames the welfare state as something hard to copy, tied to a broader system and social trust.

And this ties back to the “toxic empathy” theme you’re tracing:

If someone says, “We should care for the vulnerable,” we say amen. But if someone says, “And the only proof that you care is surrendering to a bigger centralized program, and if you disagree you’re cruel,” that’s not compassion. That’s emotional leverage.

Real Christian warmth produces generosity without coercion. It doesn’t need to rename disagreement as hatred to win.

Where we go next

Now that we’ve defused the Denmark shortcut, we’re ready for the more personal question: If collectivism fails so often in history… and Denmark isn’t actually “socialism”… why is collectivism still so appealing?