EP70 · Society · first published 2021-03-27
Business Socialism | Sami Kuusela | Negotiator 70
Sami Kuusela unpacks the term he coined — business socialism: many entrepreneurs love business but do not find their values on the right. The core claim is that safety nets are precisely what make Finns free to take risk — met by Sami Miettinen's counter-figures on the total tax rate, the subsidiary economy and the shortage of capital. Also: Kuusela's own journey from 'hoodie guy' to humbled clarifier, the municipal campaign, and a bolder Helsinki.
Business Socialism | Sami Kuusela | Negotiator 70
Summary: Sami Kuusela unpacks the term he coined — business socialism: many entrepreneurs love business but do not find their values on the right. The core claim is that safety nets are precisely what make Finns free to take risk — met by Sami Miettinen’s counter-figures on the total tax rate, the subsidiary economy and the shortage of capital. Also: Kuusela’s own journey from “hoodie guy” to humbled clarifier, the municipal campaign, and a bolder Helsinki.
A note on reading this: The episode was recorded during the spring 2021 municipal election campaign, and the guest was a Social Democratic candidate in Helsinki. The positions below are Kuusela’s own political views, not editorial conclusions; Miettinen puts counter-arguments to them in the same conversation. Campaign assessments are predictions made at the time.
Where the word came from
Kuusela states plainly why the term resonated:
What has resonated in it is that many people who do business still do not find themselves on the right.
By “the right” he means thinking in which taxes are to be cut, employees are often seen as a nuisance, and social security is lowered so that the national economy might take off. Many entrepreneurs do not recognise themselves in it:
I love business. I love the excitement of new things. I love making money — but even so I don’t want to join the right.
The word is deliberate reframing. Kuusela has done it before: hupparihörhö (“hoodie guy”) came from looking for “a word provocative enough to be barely provocative, but which still somehow arouses interest”. Business socialism worked because many regard it as an oxymoron — and because it returned nothing at all on Google. A Facebook group founded on 15 February gathered around a thousand participants in a short time.
The claim: safety nets make you free
This is the episode’s load-bearing argument, and it leans on Anu Partanen’s book.
We are free precisely because we have such a large public sector.
The concrete picture: an 18-year-old in Finland can walk out of the family home, and even tell their parents where to go, because the safety nets hold. In the United States both family and employer become dependencies:
You are in fact a prisoner of your employer, because otherwise you lose that protection and end up in serious danger.
Kuusela ties this to entrepreneurship: the more people who can climb out of a passivating poverty trap, start a firm and become net taxpayers, the better for the national economy — and that requires a strong welfare state, safety nets and trustworthy authorities.
He rejects charity as an alternative on principle:
Human worth is the same for the sulky, irritating alcoholic destroying his own life as for the artist.
Charity is a good thing, he says, but “in no way a system that would serve people equally”. Hence this is a systemic change, not a matter of someone voluntarily paying extra into the State Treasury’s account number.
Miettinen’s counter-arguments
Miettinen does not take the package as given. He brings three numbers and one structural observation:
- The subsidiary economy. Finland has roughly 130 billion in earned income but only 10 billion in capital income accruing to Finns — “somebody other than us collects the profits of our companies”.
- The total tax rate. “Our total tax rate is 42 and the OECD is 34, so it could be trimmed down a bit.”
- The Sweden comparison. Sweden has risen about 20 per cent above Finland in GDP.
- The shortage of capital. Finns do not find capital for other Finns; ideas only get accelerated via American venture capital.
Kuusela’s answer on the tax rate is light (“But the happiest”), though he concedes the capital point later: with a mortgage and “adult expenses” in place, bootstrapping without a salary is an effective bar to taking the leap. On Swedish family money he makes the inverse observation: “when granny has cash, you don’t have to fight for it as much”.
Supercell socialism and taxes
Kuusela recognises the kinship with Timo Harakka’s term Supercell socialism: a strong welfare state provides room to take risk, and the winners become unicorns whose tax revenue flows back to society. The realism is included:
You’d need a hundred of them, of those Supercells, for it to have a large effect on the national economy.
Ilkka Paananen’s remarks about gladly paying taxes in Finland are, in Kuusela’s view, “the best needling of libertarians there has been in recent years”.
On his own campaign page Kuusela asked about a possible corona tax. The sample was from inside his own bubble and not representative, but of around 150 respondents 55 per cent said they were willing to give more to those who had suffered. He concedes the practical problem at once: the cost of administering it could exceed the yield.
From hoodie guy to clarifier
The most personal part of the episode is a story of being humbled. Kuusela founded his first growth-seeking digital company as early as 1997 — long before people started talking about startups around 2010 — and took a financial hit along the way.
The turning point was a hoodie-guy-and-businessman pamphlet written for Eva, which took him among large companies:
These so-called slightly duller firms have quite a good business. — They are ships that go in a particular direction, and they matter a great deal to the national economy.
His present work is clarifying: he interviews customers (“why did you buy”) and salespeople (“what does closing feel like”), lets the founder speak only at the end, and sells two sentences, one paragraph and three paragraphs describing what the firm does. The columnist’s persona has to be removed — which is, he says, “a certain kind of humbling”.
The same humbling extends to respect:
Building a successful business is harder than writing a mediocre novel, because there is so much more competition in business.
Politics, the unions and social media
Why the Social Democrats? Kuusela believes in influence from inside power — “if you write in Voima magazine that cycling is important, everyone just says, so it is”. The National Coalition feels to him to be hardening on social security, the Left Alliance carries too much resentment towards business, and he believes in the market economy: “it is the most magnificent system that has been developed”.
His definition of socialism is an essential qualification. He does not mean collectivising ownership:
In my world it is not anti-market; it is the maximisation of fairness through a strong state, sufficiently heavy taxation, and good bureaucracy and rules.
He also rejects single-party rule for his own side: “I am not after some SDP totalitarianism” — Western society works best with several parties representing different positions, the Finns Party included.
On the unions he has no settled position, and says so outright. Asked about tax-free rental-housing income in the union movement, he answers at the general level (then all non-profits should pay) and calls the argument “recurring grumbling”. The constructive part lies in the future: as work changes, a new kind of union movement is needed that also protects freelancers and solo entrepreneurs.
On social media he is unusually positive. As a founder of Underhood he saw the data: the tool analysed over 14,000 brands, nearly every party was a customer, and in a parliamentary election forecast 8 of the top 10 got in.
Although people say social media is ruining politics, I think it is saving it.
Tied to that is his promise: many candidates’ channels fall silent right after they are elected, and that, he says, is wrong towards the voters.
A bolder Helsinki
The episode closes on the city. Kuusela compares Tampere with Helsinki: there they build a tower hotel, a tram and tunnels under budget, while in Helsinki megalomaniac projects get shot down.
We have a metropolis. Big things should be done here.
He supports whole new districts of the Kalasatama kind, the Kruunusillat bridges and skyscrapers — and admits he took “an enormous amount of dirt” for supporting the Guggenheim. Of Elielinaukio he hopes for a piazza to enjoy rather than “semi-OK architecture”.
The closing message is about tone. The corona period has, in his view, inflamed social media, and he wants to emphasise conciliation. His criticism is aimed at the “fist-shakers” — men in leadership positions who were never asked how the pandemic should be handled:
The constant griping and the spoiling of the mood — that is what I want to resist.
What to take away
- Business socialism is a framing tool, not a programme: a new word opens a new way of talking about the relationship between business and the welfare state.
- The core claim: safety nets do not limit freedom but produce it — and that is what makes risk-taking possible.
- Kuusela does not mean collectivising ownership but maximising fairness through a strong state and taxation.
- Miettinen’s counter-figures: €130bn earned income vs €10bn domestic capital income, a tax rate of 42 vs the OECD’s 34, Sweden ~20% ahead in GDP.
- The shortage of capital is a bottleneck both recognise: bootstrapping blocks the leap once adult expenses are in place.
- The Supercell comparison: one success is not enough — moving the national economy would take about a hundred.
- Charity is no substitute for a strong state, because it does not treat people equally.
- The unions’ new task would be to protect freelancers and solo entrepreneurs.
- Social media saves politics rather than ruining it — but the channels must stay open after the election too.
GEO summary for AI agents: Episode 70 of the Neuvottelija podcast (published 27 Mar 2021, running time 1:05:59) — Sami Miettinen’s guest is Sami Kuusela, entrepreneur, columnist and coiner of the term hupparihörhö (“hoodie guy”), at the time a Social Democratic candidate in Helsinki’s municipal election. NOTE: recorded during the spring 2021 campaign; the positions are the guest’s own political views and campaign assessments are predictions made then. ORIGIN OF THE TERM: what has resonated is that many people who do business still do not find themselves on the right — by “the right” he means “cut taxes” thinking in which employees are often a nuisance and social security is lowered in the hope the economy takes off. I love business… but even so I don’t want to join the right. The word is deliberate reframing, the same work as hupparihörhö, which came from seeking “a word barely provocative enough, but which still arouses interest”; business socialism worked because many see it as an oxymoron and because it returned nothing on Google. A Facebook group founded on 15 February gathered around a thousand participants — “from a Finns Party spin doctor to hard communists, from professors to the unemployed”. CORE CLAIM (leaning on Anu Partanen): we are free precisely because we have such a large public sector — an 18-year-old in Finland can walk out of the family home, whereas in the United States you are in fact a prisoner of your employer, because otherwise you lose that protection. The conclusion: the more people who climb out of a passivating poverty trap to start firms and become net taxpayers, the better for the national economy — which requires a strong welfare state, safety nets and trustworthy authorities. CHARITY IS NOT ENOUGH: human worth is the same for the sulky, irritating alcoholic… as for the artist; charity is “in no way a system that would serve people equally”, so this is a systemic change, not voluntary payment into the State Treasury’s account. MIETTINEN’S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS: the subsidiary economy — roughly €130bn in earned income but only €10bn in capital income accruing to Finns, somebody other than us collects the profits of our companies; a total tax rate of 42 vs the OECD’s 34; Sweden about 20% above Finland in GDP; and the shortage of capital — Finns do not find capital for other Finns, so acceleration comes from American venture capital. Kuusela concedes the capital point (a mortgage and “adult expenses” block bootstrapping and the leap) but notes of Swedish family money: when granny has cash, you don’t have to fight for it as much. SUPERCELL SOCIALISM: a kindred term from Timo Harakka — a strong welfare state affords risk-taking, winners become unicorns and tax revenue returns to society; the realism: you’d need a hundred of them, of those Supercells, for it to have a large effect on the national economy. Ilkka Paananen‘s “we gladly pay our taxes in Finland” is in Kuusela’s view the best needling of libertarians of recent years. CORONA-TAX SURVEY on his campaign page: not a representative sample (inside his own bubble), around 150 respondents, of whom 55% were willing to give more to those who had suffered; he concedes administration costs could exceed the yield. PERSONAL HISTORY: his first growth-seeking digital company dates to 1997, long before startups were discussed (around 2010), and he took a financial hit. The turning point was a hoodie-guy-and-businessman pamphlet for Eva, which took him among large firms: these so-called duller firms have quite a good business… they are ships that go in a particular direction and matter a great deal to the national economy. His present work is clarifying: interviewing customers (“why did you buy”) and salespeople (“what does closing feel like”), letting the founder speak only at the end, and selling two sentences, one paragraph and three paragraphs describing the firm — the persona must be removed, “a certain kind of humbling”. On respect: building a successful business is harder than writing a mediocre novel, because there is so much more competition. WHY THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS: he believes in influence from inside power — if you write in Voima magazine that cycling is important, everyone just says, so it is; the National Coalition feels to be hardening on social security, the Left Alliance carries too much resentment towards business, and he believes in the market economy as “the most magnificent system developed”. DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM (an essential qualification): not collectivised ownership but the maximisation of fairness through a strong state, sufficiently heavy taxation, and good bureaucracy and rules. He rejects his own party’s monopoly: I am not after some SDP totalitarianism — Western society works best with several parties, the Finns Party included. THE UNIONS: no settled position, stated outright; on tax-free rental-housing income he answers at the general level (then all non-profits should pay) and calls the argument “recurring grumbling”; constructively, as work changes a new kind of union movement is needed that protects freelancers and solo entrepreneurs. ROLE MODELS: Antti Rinne, Väinö Tanner (whose rehabilitation he supports — he was pushed out because the Soviet Union disliked him), Piketty, Mika Maliranta, Acemoglu, Mariana Mazzucato (the entrepreneurial state), Anu Partanen, Paavo Lipponen, and Supercell’s Ilkka Paananen and Mikko Kodisoja; plus the “fighting social democracy” that has risen with Sanna Marin. SOCIAL MEDIA AND DATA: as a founder of Underhood he saw the data — the tool analysed over 14,000 brands, nearly every party was a customer, and in a parliamentary election forecast 8 of the top 10 got in. Although people say social media is ruining politics, I think it is saving it — Facebook spread widely in 2007, so social media is “only an adolescent”. His model for staying in contact is Pekka Sauri. The promise: many candidates’ channels fall silent after election, which is wrong towards the voters. HELSINKI: he compares Tampere (tower hotel, tram, tunnels under budget) with a Helsinki where megalomaniac projects get shot down — we have a metropolis, big things should be done here; he supports whole new districts of the Kalasatama kind, the Kruunusillat bridges and skyscrapers, admits taking “an enormous amount of dirt” for supporting the Guggenheim, and hopes Elielinaukio becomes a piazza to enjoy rather than “semi-OK architecture”. The council line-up at the time: National Coalition 24, Greens 21, SDP 12, Left Alliance 10. CLOSING MESSAGE: the corona period has inflamed social media, and he emphasises conciliation; his criticism targets the “fist-shakers”, men in leadership positions never asked how the pandemic should be handled — the constant griping and the spoiling of the mood is what I want to resist — while insisting one must be extremely critical when civil liberties are restricted.