Why is Sweden such a great place to live?

[CesareBorgia]

What are the reasons for this from a Marxian perspective?

[Sentinel]

Of course there are much worse countries to live; extremely poor countries, dictatorships etc. I know that. But Sweden certainly isn't a 'great place to live' from a marxist pespective, certainly not to justify this myth of a socialist paradise prevailing around the world.

Despite once having a social democrat party that pushed through some important welfare reforms, Sweden today is still a capitalist country, with one of the most aggressive right wing governments in Europe sitting it's second term now.

As I see it, the only positive aspect from the past era that remains is the in relatively socially progressive atmosphere with strong (but still far from perfect) womens, queer etc rights, with laws against discrimination and so. As for the world famous welfare state, there is very little left of it; it started to be torn down already by the social democrats themselves in the 1990s.

Socialism isn't about welfare, it's about workers control of the means of production, and in Sweden the ultimate power in society always remained in the hands of capital. Thus when the political situation in the world changed, the capitalists could force the social democrats to roll back all the reforms again, and they did so without much protesting.

The situation today reminds of any other western european country, really:

- Nearly all public property and infrastucture is sold out and privatised to finance tax cuts and give new opportunities for exploitation to the bougeoisie. And what remains will be sold out.
- After the right wing health insurance 'reforms', sick people -- in some cases terminally ill ones -- are forced back into the labour market.
- Unemployed people are hunted and ridiculed by the system, and eventually forced to work for free.
- No rentable housing is being produced and the prices of apartments to buy are skyhigh, so poor people have to rent illegally or live in each others corners.
- People looking for asylum are forcefully sent back, often to a certain death in their countries of origin.

The list goes on, but yeah you get the picture :(

[CesareBorgia]

Of course there are much worse countries to live; extremely poor countries, dictatorships etc. I know that. But Sweden certainly isn't a 'great place to live' from a marxist pespective, certainly not to justify this myth of a socialist paradise prevailing around the world.

Despite once having a social democrat party that pushed through some important welfare reforms, Sweden today is still a capitalist country, with one of the most aggressive right wing governments in Europe sitting it's second term now.

As I see it, the only positive aspect from the past era that remains is the in relatively socially progressive atmosphere with strong (but still far from perfect) womens, queer etc rights, with laws against discrimination and so. As for the world famous welfare state, there is very little left of it; it started to be torn down already by the social democrats themselves in the 1990s.

- Nearly all public property and infrastucture is sold out and privatised to finance tax cuts and give new opportunities for exploitation to the bougeoisie. And what remains will be sold out.
- After the right wing health insurance 'reforms', sick people -- in some cases terminally ill ones -- are forced back into the labour market.
- Unemployed people are hunted and ridiculed by the system, and eventually forced to work for free.
- No rentable housing is being produced and the prices of apartments to buy are skyhigh, so poor people have to rent illegally or live in each otehrs corners.
- People looking for asylum are forcefully sent back, often to a certain death in their countries of origin.

So nope, Sweden isn't socialist and never was. All that happened was that the class collaborating, reformist soc dems temporarily created that appearance with welfare reforms in order to avoid a revolution in a period where socialism was historically strong.

But socialism isn't about welfare, it's about workers control of the means of production, and in Sweden the ultimate power in society always remained in the hands of capital. Thus when the political situation in the world changed, the capitalists could force the social democrats to roll back all the reforms again, and they did so without much protesting.

I never said it was socialist.

The country has about the greatest level of equality anywhere in the world, according to the, of course imperfect, gini coefficient.

My question is about its history and how it was able to achieve this without intense struggle of the working class. We know capitalist regimes will make compromises if the threat of revolution is great and if they can guarantee thier rule. But as far as I know Sweden didnt have any civil wars or threats of civil war to make these concessions.

[Sentinel]

My question is about its history and how it was able to achieve this without intense struggle of the working class.It didn't. While the external factor of the world political situation also played in, of course there was a strong workers movement in Sweden as well, and very intense class struggle (although no armed revolution). The social democrats used to score almost half of all the votes in the past, and controlled the then very powerful labour unions even tighter than nowadays.

Within and around the social democrat party there were more radical parties, organisations and movements, and the pro-soviet communists were quite strong back then as well.

Otherwise none of the reforms could have been possible, and that's why they are removed today that such a workers movement is missing.

[CesareBorgia]

It didn't. While the external factor of the world political situation also played in, of course there was a strong workers movement in Sweden as well, and very intense class struggle (although no armed revolution). The social democrats used to score almost half of all the votes in the past, and controlled the then very powerful labour unions even tighter than nowadays.

Within and around the social democrat party there were more radical parties, organisations and movements, and the pro-soviet communists were quite strong back then as well.

Otherwise none of the reforms could have been possible, and that's why they are removed today that such a workers movement is missing.

OK thanks. And how do you explain the rising of right-wing forces and the weakening of the left in Sweden, is it part of a global trend or specific to Sweden for whatever reasons? I take it you are from Sweden?

Also, I dont know much about Norway in recent years, has there been a sharp turn to the right there as well?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

OK thanks. And how do you explain the rising of right-wing forces and the weakening of the left in Sweden, is it part of a global trend or specific to Sweden for whatever reasons?

To be short I would say that its because of

1. Globalization and the entering of neo-liberalism.

2. The SocDem's betrayal of anything worth calling socialism, which resulted in a abandoned feeling among the working class. Togheter with theire reformist unions (LO) they also have had a hard extermination campaigne against any revolutionary movement.

[svenne]

Yeah, the socialdemocrats hit the communists (VPK) and the syndicalists (SAC) pretty hard. There was a scandal in the 70's when it was shown that the governing party had registered something like 100 000 communists via IB. Nowadays, LO and SAP (the trade union and their party) seems more interested in stopping the fight against cuts, rather than be a part of them. The only workers whom are part of LO who seems to be able to use it for good is the waste collectors... (and it's said that's because they threatened to join SAC (the syndicalists) instead of staying...)

Norway seems to be a lot better off today, with lower unemployment rates and a more aggressive trade union. But that, of course, could be because the bloody oil. (grr)

[Old Mole]

Sweden has historically had a strong workers movement. In the beginning of the 20th century hard struggles occured between the workers and capital until the social democrats at one point started to make alot of deals with the capitalists. They had control of the biggest union in Sweden so they control the workers, this they used in order to get capitalists to cooperate. This is the 'Swedish model'. Social democracy has essentially controlled Sweden in a big part of the 20th century. Until 1987 the social democrats could, and did, collectively affiliate whole leages and clubs in the union (LO). In order to control the workers high progressive taxes and a big public sector has historically been championed by the SAP.

However this system is currently on the way down (if it even exists anymore). During my entire youth this country has been suffering from constant privatizations, cuts in the public sector, etc., etc. But it takes some time to make us less 'equal' (if weve ever been) even if the government i currently doing everything in its power for greater inequality. Not very good phrased, but I guess this description gives some leads about my country.

[Olentzero]

Sentinel and Old Mole are right on the money. Sweden didn't get where it was even in the 60s and 70s without fierce workers' struggle around the turn of the last century right up through the 1930s. One of the bloodier episodes in Swedish labor history occurred 80 years ago this month in a town up north called Ådalen, where five unarmed demonstrators were shot by a military detachment sent to protect strikebreakers working at a paper mill. Prior to that, of course, Sweden was as badly affected by the Great Depression and all the other economic ups and downs of global capitalism as the rest of the world. Workers tried to form unions, they got smashed; revolutionary socialists and communists tried to organize and were persecuted; joblessness and starvation were ever-present threats to the lives of Swedish workers.

What got them out of it was the Saltsjöbaden Agreement of the late 1930s, which essentially gave the national union leadership a bigger piece of the pie at the expense of things like the unrestricted right to strike. Sweden's neutrality (which had more to do with profitable business arrangements than with a pacifist outlook) allowed its economy to remain relatively stable throughout World War II, putting it in a better position for postwar economic recovery and growth than pretty much the rest of Europe. So that of course made the bosses a little less grabby with profits and the Social Democrats could steer a relatively easy course for several decades.

The downturns of the 80s and 90s changed all that, and once Swedish capitalism saw its profits start to shrink they started getting antsy about all the public welfare spending they had to subsidize. The Social Democrats saw the writing on the wall as well and started slashing benefits, which only helped give the Moderates more appeal as they could say "We can trim the fat better than the Soshies can because they're too soft to do what needs to be done." So that got Sweden its first conservative government in over half a century, and the Alliance (the center-right bloc in Parliament, headed by the Moderates) started privatizing everything they could and cutting back everything they couldn't.

Now, of course, Sweden is pretty much like every other neoliberal country in Europe with rising unemployment problems and disappearing social benefits. The resulting anxiety and uncertainly has, unfortunately, been fertile breeding ground for Nazi movements of every stripe - they've become more active over the last few years. The Sweden Democrats, their 'respectable face' political party, shocked last year's elections by winning 20 seats in Parliament, where they have pretty much free reign to spout anti-immigrant hate.

So, in short, Sweden ain't as great a place to live as it used to be; even when it was, it was the result of working class struggles that got them to that point.

[Rafiq]

For the same reason Lassaie faire capitalism in The United States 1930's, and in 90's Russia was an absolute nightmare for most people.

There isn't only one way to put capitalism in motion, however, we should treat such a system, no matter which way it's ran, with total opposition.