Is Sweden a paradise and a model to follow?

[AmilcarCabral]

Is Sweeden a model to follow?


http://www.socialistalternative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/homelessswedenresize.png
An example of the Sweedish paradise, praised by many progressive social-democratic, centrist reformist liberals

Many “socialists” advocate following the “Nordic model” or the “Scandinavian model“ for the development of society and the economy. Per-Åke Westerlund of Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (Socialist Alternatives’ sister party in Sweden), explains how Sweden has become dominated by neo-liberal capitalism.

Sweden today is no model to follow for workers looking for justice and improved conditions. ”Never before has the class differences in Sweden been bigger”, the daily paper, Aftonbladet, wrote on 9 May this year. One tenth of the population ”owns half of all money” in a population of nine million. Over the last decade, 100,000 jobs have been lost in health care, while 500,000 individuals have become millionaires. It’s true, there was once a ”Swedish model”, but that was in the 1950s and 60s.

Swedish industry – steel, mining, forestry, and shipyards – was unharmed by World War II and made huge profits from the rebuilding of Europe. The state cooperated and supported big business companies like Ericsson, Volvo, Saab etc. In exchange for no strikes, workers gained improved living standards, improved public service and probably the best workers’ pensions in the world. On the basis of strikes and workers’ struggle in the early 1970s, safety conditions and labour rights were improved. The shortage of labour and women’s struggle also led to a huge influx of female workers into the workforce and the establishment of public childcare.

These social democratic policies gave a small ”glimpse of socialism”, but they never challenged the power of the capitalists or fundamentally changed the state apparatus. Eventually, the pressure from global and Swedish capitalism forced social democracy, supported by the trade unions leaders, to dismantle its own reforms. In the early 1990s, a deep three year long recession proved the ”model” – to be like an umbrella, only working in sunshine. Small steps of cuts in the public sector became leaps.

In the 1990s, the social democratic Prime Minister, Göran Persson, boasted a ”world record in cuts”, with 130 billion SEK (€15bn euros) in cuts in a few years. Health care and all public services were under attack, alongside worsened rules for the unemployed, sick and pensioners. A ”pension reform” that neither Italian nor French governments have dared was implemented.

When the crisis argument was long gone, the neo-liberal and EU inspired policies continued. Public transport, the energy sector, post service and telecoms were opened up for private companies. The result was massive job redundancies and higher user fees. The employers’ federations praised the ”brave” government and Göran Persson was for a long time the bosses favorite prime minister. In a global chart of ”economic freedom” (read: capitalist freedom), Sweden climbed from 40th place in the 1970s to 22nd today. The public sector’s share of GDP fell from 70 per cent to 50 per cent.

In 2006, a new right-wing government was elected which immediately stepped up attacks on workers and privatizations. Fees for unemployment insurance were increased by 20-40 euros a month at the same time as the unemployment benefit was cut. One result was workers leaving the trade unions, in order to save money (trade unions are responsible for collecting social insurance contributions). 140,000 members left the unions from January to September this year. The government aims to create a low wage market, forcing unemployed youth to take jobs for 800 euros a month and this in a situation when company profits are higher than ever.

The new government also want to privatize as much as possible. Already before the last elections, many schools and small hospitals were privatized – financed by the public sector but run by profit-making private companies. Now the pace of privatisations is being stepped up. Next year, one third of all pupils in Stockholm, from 7-16 years old, could be in private schools.

This counter-revolution against the reform ”model” has not been unopposed. Workers, school students and women have gone out in struggle to defend the progressive reforms. The main obstacle to organizing struggle, however, is the trade union leadership. They have strong links to the social democratic party. They do not believe in workers’ struggle, but hope for new talks and negotiations with the employers – even about limiting the right to strike – in order to return to ”normality”.
But the time of the ”Swedish model” is gone and its weakness is exposed. What is needed now is to build fighting and democratic trade unions and a new mass workers’ party decisively on the side of working class families.

Link of article: http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/03/22/13527/


.

[tuwix]

That's true but everyone unemployed in Sweden gets approx. $700. If you are unions member, that benefit can get approx. $2000.
If you compare it to some Leninist "paradises" as Cuba or North Korea, you must see great difference. In Sweden, the political opposition isn't put in jail, for example.

Yes, neoliberalism arrived to Sweden, but IMHO the Scandinavian states are still the most friendly countries in the world for a worker. But it doesn't mean it's any socialism. Sweden was never our goal.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That's true but everyone unemployed in Sweden gets approx. $700

No you don't, not automatically. There are people who get no benefits whatsoever, and the sickness benefit for those who are ill during a long time is much lower, and though there are various ancillary benefits to compensate for this, some might not know how to apply for those and/or not be eligible. Consequently you have sick people living on miniscule amounts (especially if they have to pay for medication - cost for medicine is covered by what is called the High Cost Protection which limits the amount you have to pay in a year to around 250 euro equivalent, but this is often a lot. Only a handful of medications are free to the user.

You are only on unemployment benefit for so long before your shit is cut (and the unemployment benefit has in the last years been cut gradually from 90 to 80-75% of the salary upon being laid off/and or leaving due to illness).

Sweden is a rotten piece of shit country where the dominant political trends are all headed by seedy liberals with fancy grey suits and slicked-back greasy hairs and a de-industrialised service-sector society where atomised individualism is the rule of the day and the Employers Federation's offensive has been so successful that it now sets agenda and the worthless media scum kiss the power's bottom.

But then again, to you, Sweden is surely the goal, after all, you're a capitalist.

Also, Nazis. Nazis everywhere.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

But then again, to you, Sweden is surely the goal, after all, you're a capitalist.


A sort of a problem is the fact that many people do consider Sweden as a goal/example. I mean non-radical people. They see that Sweden does provide all sort of social services and high standards of living etc. and you don't need to go through any sort of violent revolutions and other disturbing things. That's why I think many people would satisfy themselves with a social-democratic model of Sweden as their goal as opposed to full-blown communist revolution.

And I think they have a point, that is I can understand the reasoning behind that...

[Comrade Jacob]

Is Sweeden a model to follow?.

Sure it is!..If you are a social-democrat.

[FSL]

A sort of a problem is the fact that many people do consider Sweden as a goal/example. I mean non-radical people. They see that Sweden does provide all sort of social services and high standards of living etc. and you don't need to go through any sort of violent revolutions and other disturbing things. That's why I think many people would satisfy themselves with a social-democratic model of Sweden as their goal as opposed to full-blown communist revolution.

And I think they have a point, that is I can understand the reasoning behind that...

You need to go through a time machine and keep your country out of WW2 or have your country industrialized a few decades before it actually did.


Sweden has a higher productivity than most countries, its productivity is on par with other Scandinavian countries and Germany, a bit below that of the US. These countries will of course have a higher standard of living for the workers, not because the workers get better treatment but because workers produce more in the first place, they get better education, the economy is organized more efficiently etc.


At this point the "social safety net" in countries like Sweden is coming under review because it makes them less competitive. In fact they have some of the most flexible labor laws in these areas.
Calling Sweden a state that takes care of everyone seems akin to calling the US the land of opportunity. That's just the image supporters of social democracy or neoliberalism have cultivated for these countries.

The standard of living is better because workers produce more. The concensus in Sweden is to reduce the social subsidies, the concensus in the US is -or was- to increase them a bit.
It just has to do with what the capitalists think is their priority, minimize the complaints and increase stability or increase profits.


Many people in Europe were mad with Greece's supposed handouts. But I can tell you that even with these handouts poverty was a very real thing in 2008 and that the only reason these handouts were ever given was to buy off sections of the population (and they worked). It was never because some benign government wanted to treat the workers better.

[aty]

A sort of a problem is the fact that many people do consider Sweden as a goal/example. I mean non-radical people. They see that Sweden does provide all sort of social services and high standards of living etc. and you don't need to go through any sort of violent revolutions and other disturbing things.
Thats a myth, the class struggle in the begining of the 20th century was a violent affair with many deaths. The capitalists was forced to write a "peace treaty" with the workers movement, a treaty that the socialdemocrats should never have signed, the capitalists had nothing to put up against the workers movement at that time. If we would have wanted to we could have done anything we wanted without much resistance from the capitalists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's why I think many people would satisfy themselves with a social-democratic model of Sweden as their goal as opposed to full-blown communist revolution.

Most people aren't communists. And they won't become communists if communists pander to their social-democratic impulses.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Thats a myth, the class struggle in the begining of the 20th century was a violent affair with many deaths. The capitalists was forced to write a "peace treaty" with the workers movement, a treaty that the socialdemocrats should never have signed, the capitalists had nothing to put up against the workers movement at that time. If we would have wanted to we could have done anything we wanted without much resistance from the capitalists.

I always thought that Swedish social democracy was a peaceful affair. Could you please suggest some readings on the class struggle in Sweden before its social-democratic period or during it?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I always thought that Swedish social democracy was a peaceful affair. Could you please suggest some readings on the class struggle in Sweden before its social-democratic period or during it?

Well for one you could look up the various strikes from the latter 1800's onwards (1909 general strike was probably the closest Sweden ever got to a revolution), during 1917, with high militancy lasting into the 1930's (the Ådalen massacre where military shot strikers was in 1931) and then there were a great deal of strikes all the way into the 1970's (constant moaning about labour movement & union thugs started to get more popularity in this era). Nowadays it's largely pacified. Tragic story.

[Thanatos]

Even if one isn't a social democrat, one can still admire the good things that social democracy has done (as contrasted with capitalism). I do not know why leftists have such a puritan attitude ... comparable only to the religious folks. it is annoying.:mad:

[Dodo]

Coming from a country like Turkey, I am satisfied with Sweden so far :P


Even if one isn't a social democrat, one can still admire the good things that social democracy has done (as contrasted with capitalism). I do not know why leftists have such a puritan attitude ... comparable only to the religious folks. it is annoying.:mad:

This is immensely true.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Even if one isn't a social democrat, one can still admire the good things that social democracy has done (as contrasted with capitalism). I do not know why leftists have such a puritan attitude ... comparable only to the religious folks. it is annoying.:mad:

(Modern) social democracy is merely one way of managing capitalism. Communists have a "puritan attitude" because we want to smash capitalism, not prettify its putrescent corpse. It doesn't mean we're religious, it means we have principles, something tailists sorely lack.

[Dodo]

(Modern) social democracy is merely one way of managing capitalism. Communists have a "puritan attitude" because we want to smash capitalism, not prettify its putrescent corpse. It doesn't mean we're religious, it means we have principles, something tailists sorely lack.

Yeah but it leads to clouded judgement when people attack things for the sake of capitalism. Sweden is perhaps one of the most progressive countries in the world despite its recent neo-liberalization. It is not a fault of Sweden, that is the tendency of international capital. Sweden does not control world economy.

I mean, of course in the news what has been going on should be "exposed", but puritan attitude is something else, objective analysis another.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah but it leads to clouded judgement when people attack things for the sake of capitalism. Sweden is perhaps one of the most progressive countries in the world despite its recent neo-liberalization. It is not a fault of Sweden, that is the tendency of international capital. Sweden does not control world economy.

I mean, of course in the news what has been going on should be "exposed", but puritan attitude is something else, objective analysis another.

And what is progressive about Sweden? Sweden doesn't control the world economy - no nation does - but it is part of the global capitalist system and exhibits all the faults of that system. Your love for the "progressive" bourgeoisie is disturbing. Are you sure you're not lost?

[Dodo]

And what is progressive about Sweden? Sweden doesn't control the world economy - no nation does - but it is part of the global capitalist system and exhibits all the faults of that system. Your love for the "progressive" bourgeoisie is disturbing. Are you sure you're not lost?

This is the "clouded" judgement I am talking about. You automatically assume that I am lost for pointing out "good" bits about something.

There is a thin line between dogma and progressiveness. The moment you become anti-capitalist and socialist for the sake of socialism you are in dogmatic theory.
A Marxist is a socialist and anti-capitalist because of the contradictions of the capital and the dialectical upside-down analysis of the existing system. If those contradictions did not exists, we would not have been socialists.

Sweden has not "removed" the contradictions but made them more transparent through social democracy and highly productive economy as well as, as we assume "imperialism".
You need however to be more "empirical" here and careful with accusations.

Therefore, you need to be careful with "puritanism" when you deal with countries like Sweden.
Our focus with countries like Sweden should not be what you are doing here but that IT WILL INEVITABLY become contradictionary again. If we cannot prove that, there is no point in being a socialist.
Your attack on "bourgeouisie" as inherently reactionary is also something you should be carefull with. The case of Sweden is a product of a middle-class/peasant alliance that has its roots in the 19th century and relatively equal conditions(lack of strong feudal aristocracy) and how it transformed into the social democrats since 1930s.
The country had been highly representative of the working class needs for DECADES until very recently.

The turn we believe, is a result of the "tendencies of capital" and rising international competition as capital transforms in the rest of the world driving prices down.

I have to pay tuition fees studying here in Sweden right now because of that because the state cannot support education anymore.
It is not because Swedish are evil but because the contradictions of capital are not allowing them anymore, hence the inevitable trouble with capitalism which exists as we believe.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is the "clouded" judgement I am talking about. You automatically assume that I am lost for pointing out "good" bits about something.

No, I assume you're lost because of your Shachtmanism and cheerleading for social-democracy.


There is a thin line between dogma and progressiveness. The moment you become anti-capitalist and socialist for the sake of socialism you are in dogmatic theory.
A Marxist is a socialist and anti-capitalist because of the contradictions of the capital and the dialectical upside-down analysis of the existing system. If those contradictions did not exists, we would not have been socialists.

Sweden has not "removed" the contradictions but made them more transparent through social democracy and highly productive economy as well as, as we assume "imperialism".

And then, a few paragraphs down, you say that:


Our focus with countries like Sweden should not be what you are doing here but that IT WILL INEVITABLY become contradictionary again. If we cannot prove that, there is no point in being a socialist.

The contradictions in Swedish society still exist. Wage labour still exists. Poverty still exists. State racism against immigrants still exists. The subjugation of women to the bourgeois family still exists. And so on, and so on - the problem is that, if you think that Sweden had solved the problems of the capitalist society somehow, even in a transitory and unstable way, your notion of what the problems of the capitalist society are is quite underwhelming.


Your attack on "bourgeouisie" as inherently reactionary is also something you should be carefull with. The case of Sweden is a product of a middle-class/peasant alliance that has its roots in the 19th century and relatively equal conditions(lack of strong feudal aristocracy) and how it transformed into the social democrats since 1930s.

Ha, and what class is the "middle class" exactly? It's odd that you accuse everyone of not paying enough attention to the minutiae of Marxist and "Marxian" theory, and then say something so vague. The point is that the world has changed quite a bit since the birth of the Swedish bourgeoisie - which happened much earlier than the 19th century - and unless you're going to invent some "feudalistic" elements in Sweden, they no longer have any progressive role to play.


The country had been highly representative of the working class needs for DECADES until very recently.

That says it all about your politics, really.

[Dodo]

Holy mother of cow,

This dishonesty really is beyond me here now. You are not debating with me here, you are debating with "social democracy". You have already placed me into categories of reformism and your argument is full of biases that works through that. Put your hand to your heart and think about what you are doing.

I'll make my point one more time. Read it CAREFULLY.


The contradictions in Swedish society still exist. Wage labour still exists. Poverty still exists. State racism against immigrants still exists. The subjugation of women to the bourgeois family still exists. And so on, and so on - the problem is that, if you think that Sweden had solved the problems of the capitalist society somehow, even in a transitory and unstable way, your notion of what the problems of the capitalist society are is quite underwhelming.I did not mean contradiction were gone.
I have NEVER EVER NEVER stated that Sweden solved the contradictions. On the contrary, my point is that, so far, from our analysis of the world, we assume that contradictions are inherent and cannot be SOLVE-ABLE within the given-framework, hence why we are revolutionaries. Are we clear up to here?

My point was however that due to "social democracy" which goes hand in hand with imperialism, -development of underdevelopment- the contradictions became TRANSPARENT, within that I mean softened.
Whether the softness can be kept or not is up to the nature of GLOBAL CAPITAL, and just as we would have guessed, the contradictions of capital is pushing Sweden back into strenghtening the contradictions.
Are we clear up to here as well?


Ha, and what class is the "middle class" exactly? It's odd that you accuse everyone of not paying enough attention to the minutiae of Marxist and "Marxian" theory, and then say something so vague. The point is that the world has changed quite a bit since the birth of the Swedish bourgeoisie - which happened much earlier than the 19th century - and unless you're going to invent some "feudalistic" elements in Sweden, they no longer have any progressive role to play.Within the context of 19th century feudal Sweden, the middle class refers to the "proleteriat" of the towns and the petty bourgeouisie.

Sweden did not go through an identical industrialization process with England. In fact, a lot of countries did not go through identical industrialization.Within the context of -late as in 1870s- Swedish industrialization and the different structures of Swedish society, and the lucky integration of Swedish economy to global market(steel and heavy industry), plus a different institutional framework allowed in Sweden: social democracy.

On another note, Swedish lower classes wre relatively powerful due to the alliance between peasantry and towns-folk as opposed to big capital(hence the high unionization rates in Sweden). Additionally, Swedish state took a unique role. The point is, you cannot apply to history a standard filter of "historical materialism". You can use HM as a guide, a framework and nothing more.

Swedish capital did not behave in the manner of Engish capital nor French capital nor German capital. They all had a unique setting. What we look for are "tendencies" not laws in that sense.



That says it all about your politics, really. Yeah, and what does it say?

[adipocere]

It's also worth pointing out that Sweden, home of the Nobel Peace Prize, is one of the top 10 arms exporting countries (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/9/sweden_ranks_second_in_the_world) in the world. While mostly "neutral", they contribute arms enthusiastically to imperial wars of aggression.

It might be sort of off topic to bring it up, but people also associate Sweden with peace and neutrality which contributes to the rosy perception of Sweden as a bastion of progressive democracy. I think the veneer of respectability over Sweden is pretty thin, but the fact that it shines at all says more about the rest of the West than it really does Sweden.

[Hrafn]

It's also worth pointing out that Sweden, home of the Nobel Peace Prize, is one of the top 10 arms exporting countries (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/9/sweden_ranks_second_in_the_world) in the world. While mostly "neutral", they contribute arms enthusiastically to imperial wars of aggression.

It might be sort of off topic to bring it up, but people also associate Sweden with peace and neutrality which contributes to the rosy perception of Sweden as a bastion of progressive democracy. I think the veneer of respectability over Sweden is pretty thin, but the fact that it shines at all says more about the rest of the West than it really does Sweden.

Hey now, I am deeply offended by these unsubstantiated claims! There is no truth to it, none I say!

Norway is home to the Nobel Peace Prize. I.e. an active member of NATO.

Other than that, yes, entirely correct. Sweden is a de facto member of NATO, what with all the close cooperation and training, joint operations, etc.

[adipocere]

Hey now, I am deeply offended by these unsubstantiated claims! There is no truth to it, none I say!

Norway is home to the Nobel Peace Prize. I.e. an active member of NATO.

Other than that, yes, entirely correct. Sweden is a de facto member of NATO, what with all the close cooperation and training, joint operations, etc.
Well that explain the whole Oslo thing. /facepalm
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee speculates that Nobel may have considered Norway better suited to awarding the prize, as it did not have the same militaristic traditions as Sweden." :lol:

[FSL]

Even if one isn't a social democrat, one can still admire the good things that social democracy has done (as contrasted with capitalism). I do not know why leftists have such a puritan attitude ... comparable only to the religious folks. it is annoying.:mad:
Nope, religion is associated with belief, science is associated with facts.

When you differentiate social democracy from capitalism you seem to suggest that social democracy is a different economic system, one where the aim isn't profitable production of goods through the exploitation of workers.
What is it then? Maybe an economy based on the solidarity of all classes? Is that a thing?


No country is social democratic. All of Europe had a rather extensive wellfare state before 1990. Did social democrats govern then? Most of the time no. Even the US had a government that had become "too big". And they don't even have social democratic parties there, at least in the traditional sense.


There is a concensus among capitalists. There was a period when both, social democratic and christian democratic parties (why should one wonder), extended social spending and there is this period, these past 2 or 3 decades when again both, social democratic and christian democratic parties, are "reform-oriented".


Sweden is different from India but you're not thinking in increments. How different is Sweden to France, France to Germany, Germany to Italy and Italy to Greece?
Sweden is just one example of what used to happen, it's not a secluded world of fairies.



Was it a coincidence that the wellfare state was expanding until the 80s and was it a coincidence that's its end came first in the anglosaxon countries that had the weakest movement?
And if those aren't coincidences and the wellfare state is in fact something that at the time stabilized capitalist rule, why should we strive to get that back? The minute we start feeling comfortable it will again be taken from us.

And also all these countries at the very height of these "handouts" also fed a capitalist class. The inequality was of course smaller but still there was a gap between owners and workers. Why then should we be settling for only a piece of the pie and even feel generous about it when it is but a part of what we produce and will be taken away in the near future?




It's also worth pointing out that Sweden, home of the Nobel Peace Prize, is one of the top 10 arms exporting countries in the world. While mostly "neutral", they contribute arms enthusiastically to imperial wars of aggression.
Sweden remained neutral in WW2 by agreeing to supply iron to Germany.

[FSL]

Yeah but it leads to clouded judgement when people attack things for the sake of capitalism. Sweden is perhaps one of the most progressive countries in the world despite its recent neo-liberalization. It is not a fault of Sweden, that is the tendency of international capital. Sweden does not control world economy.

I mean, of course in the news what has been going on should be "exposed", but puritan attitude is something else, objective analysis another.
"It's not the fault of Sweden?" You're trying to put an end to anti-swedish racism?

Its recent "neoliberalization" isn't a fault of Sweden, just as much as its previous "socialdemocratization" wasn't its accomplishment.
It is just moving along in whatever direction capital wants to go.
That's the point people are making.


You're saying something different, that Sweden's DNA is progressive and if it wasn't for that pesky capital, everything would be great.
Newsflash, Sweden is also capitalist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Can't we just say that the reforms brought by social democracy do make life a little less miserable for the average worker, but that this doesn't mean that social democracy should not be smashed?

As an example, (admittedly a liberal, not social democratic one) - Obamacare blows in that it was a gift to big pharma and insurance companies, but I like the fact that I can still get health insurance if I fall sick. So clearly that some of the regulations of the health insurance industry are nice in the short term, but I still want to see the health insurance industry demolished from the bottom up.


Really the best argument against Social Democracy is that it almost invariably relies on the exploitation of foreign labor. There are IKEA factories and stores all over the world, not just in Sweden. Do people think that those IKEA workers get the kind of benefits that a Swedish worker is entitled to?

Interestingly IKEA had relations with the so-called "Communist" East German Government. And yes, those relations were economic, and included compulsory labor. That's right - Swedish companies went to the Eastern Block to look for forced labor, thereby establishing for all that both Sweden and East Germany were full of shit when they claimed to be upholding the interests of their working class, or realizing some kind of "socialist" society. Well, I guess Swedish socdems can say that they're no worse than the Stalinists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Use_of_forced_labor.2C_1980s
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/global/ikea-to-report-on-allegations-of-using-forced-labor-during-cold-war.html?_r=0

[Dodo]

@FSL

More Puritan accusations of not being "puritan" enough?
I don't even know how you get this out of what I have written....

Its recent "neoliberalization" isn't a fault of Sweden, just as much as its previous "socialdemocratization" wasn't its accomplishment.erm....yeah? how is this exactly a counter-argument?


You're saying something different, that Sweden's DNA is progressive and if it wasn't for that pesky capital, everything would be great.Elaborate please. What does this even mean?

[Dodo]

Can't we just say that the reforms brought by social democracy do make life a little less miserable for the average worker, but that this doesn't mean that social democracy should not be smashed?

Obamacare blows, but I like the fact that I can still get health insurance if I fall sick. So clearly that regulation of the health insurance industry is nice in the short term, but I still want to see the health insurance industry demolished from the bottom up.


Really the best argument against Social Democracy is that it almost invariably relies on the exploitation of foreign labor. There are IKEA factories and stores all over the world, not just in Sweden. Do people think that those IKEA workers get the kind of benefits that a Swedish worker is entitled to?

Interestingly IKEA had relations with the so-called "Communist" East German Government. And yes, those relations were economic, and included compulsory labor. That's right - Swedish companies went to the Eastern Block to look for forced labor, thereby establishing for all that both Sweden and East Germany were full of shit when they claimed to be upholding the interests of their working class, or realizing some kind of "socialist" society. Well, I guess Swedish socdems can say that they're no worse than the Stalinists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Use_of_forced_labor.2C_1980s
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/global/ikea-to-report-on-allegations-of-using-forced-labor-during-cold-war.html?_r=0

That had been pretty much my point.
People like to hate everything on a motor reaction of Puritanism here. My whole point was objectivity as opposed to the "pamphlet socialist " attitude.

[FSL]

Obamacare blows, but I like the fact that I can still get health insurance if I fall sick. So clearly that regulation of the health insurance industry is nice in the short term, but I still want to see the health insurance industry demolished from the bottom up.

Sure, subsidizing the health care industry so that more people -but not all- get health care is great. It becomes even greater when you consider that these subsidies come from the budget and because the budget can't be derailed, fewer food stamps are being given out.

And also that in 5 or 10 years someone will say "oh know what guys? we can't afford to live the same way anymore, we need some cuts" and everyone will look at the undeniable numbers, agree and start cursing en masse on wellfare recipients.



What makes life better for workers is workers themselves. Workers waiting to have their lives made better by others are in for a treat.

[Dodo]

What makes life better for workers is workers themselves. Workers waiting to have their lives made better by others are in for a treat.

Again, taking workers out of their "relational" conditions as if, worker is an independent, static entity.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sure, subsidizing the health care industry so that more people -but not all- get health care is great. It becomes even greater when you consider that these subsidies come from the budget and because the budget can't be derailed, fewer food stamps are being given out.

And also that in 5 or 10 years someone will say "oh know what guys? we can't afford to live the same way anymore, we need some cuts" and everyone will look at the undeniable numbers, agree and start cursing en masse on wellfare recipients.


I agree with you for the most part, especially about the precarious nature of these benefits, but food stamps aren't being cut because of Obamacare. They are being cut because the unemployed and underemployed are seen as expendable by the various interest groups in the US government, and because there is not so much popular backlash against that budget reduction as there was in favor of health care reform.



What makes life better for workers is workers themselves. Workers waiting to have their lives made better by others are in for a treat.I'm not arguing that we should wait for social democratic bureaucrats to save workers like chivalrous knights. Even the few benefits brought from social democracy and liberalism come from a desire to placate working class dissent. What I'm saying is that one can still talk of the objective material benefits of a certain reform while still criticizing the framework and political system which led to that reform. Another example - the 8 hour workday was awesome but it didn't end economic exploitation. A socialist can oppose the removal of the 8 hour workday without supporting the system which put it in place.


That had been pretty much my point.
People like to hate everything on a motor reaction of Puritanism here. My whole point was objectivity as opposed to the "pamphlet socialist " attitude.

Sure though I think the criticisms people are raising of Swedish Social Democracy are not unfair. Nor do I think it stems from a "puritan" approach but a general irritation at socialism being conflated with Swedish-style social democracy, when Sweden is still very much a Capitalist country (albeit one with more welfare and better public services than others like the US)

[Per Levy]

Even if one isn't a social democrat, one can still admire the good things that social democracy has done (as contrasted with capitalism).

social democracy is a part of capitalism, so it isnt in contrast of capitalism at all.


I do not know why leftists have such a puritan attitude ... comparable only to the religious folks.

well the social democratic ideology is "social peace", the idea that the workers get a bit of wellfare state the capitalists can exploit the workers in peace. and even ignoring this, we want to abolish capitalism not just make it nicer with things that are only in place to pacify the working class.


it is annoying.:mad:

what really is annoying is to discuss things with closet social dems on a forum that is, supposedly, for revolutionarys.

[aty]

Well that explain the whole Oslo thing. /facepalm
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee speculates that Nobel may have considered Norway better suited to awarding the prize, as it did not have the same militaristic traditions as Sweden." :lol:
No, I think it was more the fact that the workers movement in both Norway and Sweden stopped the swedish state when they planned to invade Norway after they declared independence 1905. The swedish workers movement just said that they would declare a general strike if swedish troops went into Norway.

So the politicians did not dare to attack Norway because of working class action. Peace between people, war between classes. Giving Norway the peace prize was a sign of peace between Norway and Sweden.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'll make my point one more time. Read it CAREFULLY.

I did not mean contradiction were gone.
I have NEVER EVER NEVER stated that Sweden solved the contradictions.

No, you stated that Swedish society will "inevitably become contradictory again", which implies that it isn't contradictory now. If you can't make your mind up, that's not my problem.


My point was however that due to "social democracy" which goes hand in hand with imperialism, -development of underdevelopment- the contradictions became TRANSPARENT, within that I mean softened.
Whether the softness can be kept or not is up to the nature of GLOBAL CAPITAL, and just as we would have guessed, the contradictions of capital is pushing Sweden back into strenghtening the contradictions.
Are we clear up to here as well?

This is far too general to be meaningful. Certain contradictions were obscured in Cold-War era Sweden - particularly for the labour aristocracy - whereas others were exacerbated. And this was done, not because the social-democratic bourgeoisie is "progressive", but because it was spooked by the Soviet Union. Once the SU fell, so did the "progressive" Swedish social-democracy.


Within the context of 19th century feudal Sweden, the middle class refers to the "proleteriat" of the towns and the petty bourgeouisie.

You probably mean to say patriciate and not proletariat, but I'm not familiar with the Swedish guild system enough to comment.


Sweden did not go through an identical industrialization process with England. In fact, a lot of countries did not go through identical industrialization.Within the context of -late as in 1870s- Swedish industrialization and the different structures of Swedish society, and the lucky integration of Swedish economy to global market(steel and heavy industry), plus a different institutional framework allowed in Sweden: social democracy.

That's nice and all, but the formation of the bourgeoisie usually predates the start of the capitalist mode of production (bourgeois society can develop, to an extent, within feudalism and so on, unlike the socialist society). In this case, I can't put an exact date on the birth of the Swedish bourgeoisie, but I would say that they definitely existed by the mid-18th century, even attaining political power as the "Cap" party.


On another note, Swedish lower classes wre relatively powerful due to the alliance between peasantry and towns-folk as opposed to big capital(hence the high unionization rates in Sweden). Additionally, Swedish state took a unique role.

What unique role?


Yeah, and what does it say?

It says that you think generalised commodity production, wage labour, racism and bourgeois dictatorship are "representative of working-class needs", for one thing.


As an example, (admittedly a liberal, not social democratic one) - Obamacare blows in that it was a gift to big pharma and insurance companies, but I like the fact that I can still get health insurance if I fall sick. So clearly that some of the regulations of the health insurance industry are nice in the short term, but I still want to see the health insurance industry demolished from the bottom up.

Workers' Vanguard has a nice article about why you shouldn't like Obamacare at all (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1035/obamacare.html).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Workers' Vanguard has a nice article about why you shouldn't like Obamacare at all (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1035/obamacare.html).

Except I'm not saying people should "like" Obamacare. I "like" that people with diabetes can get health insurance without their condition causing them to get denied. It's an important change because it is a form of discrimination which clearly harms people, and disproportionately harms working class people (and even the poorer sectors of the petit bourgeois) who then cannot afford to even get minimal health coverage. That doesn't mean I "like" the insurance industry or the law which led to the reform, or that I think the reform solves the systemic inequalities. I support black people being able to vote unmolested in the deep south, that doesn't mean I support the system allowing the vote or the people who put those reforms in place. That article didn't have much I didn't already know (although I think them calling the tea party "neo confederates" is overly simplistic, even though there is a historical continuity between the Civil War and their "State's Rights" rhetoric).

Any reform within the framework of Capitalism will not solve these problems. On that I don't think we have any disagreements. I'm not defending social democracy or liberalism. I think I made that clear when I talked about how Swedish Social Democracy is based on exploitation of labor, and often foreign labor for which even the mild capitalist reforms do not apply to.

[Chris]

The Nordic Model seems to be very hyped up by worldwide leftists in general. I don't know much how it works in sweden, but in Norway it remains a fundamentally capitalist system (referred to by our social-democrats as 'band-aiding the bad aspects of capitalism' originally, but is now referred to as socialism).

The welfare state is better for workers than full-on, no-holds-barred, capitalism, but that's like saying being punched is better than being stabbed. The working class is still exploited and a tiny clique of politicians and entrepeneurs have both the power and the wealth. It's not really progressive any more, but the economy is closer to corporatism than full-on capitalism.

The primary problem with class struggle in nordic countries today, is that there's still many corporatist aspects in the economy. Unions, one of the primary vehicles of class struggle, is a part of the system due to the way norwegian (and presumably danish and swedish) wages are determined; the Employer's Organisations and the large Trade Unions negotiate nation-wide base wages for all professions, and strikes and lock-outs are only legal with state-approval after negotiations have failed.

This do mean we have continuous increase in wages (and a mild one in real wages), and generally workplaces have extensive regulations to provide a safe working environment. However, this is being torn apart by liberal currents both on the left and right, as privatization and loosening of working regulations have been a constant in both "left" and "right" scandinavian governance since the 80s.


Well that explain the whole Oslo thing. /facepalm
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee speculates that Nobel may have considered Norway better suited to awarding the prize, as it did not have the same militaristic traditions as Sweden." :lol:
It was true back in the day, and all the way up till 1940 when pacifism became highly unpopular (the Worker's Party government preceding it, which until 1928 had been left-communist and didn't abandon marxism until 1948, had cut military expenditure vastly, and was flirting with the idea of abolishing the armed forces entirely). Nobel's reasoning was sound, but for Norway to have the prize now is a disgrace.

[Captain Red]

Well that explain the whole Oslo thing. /facepalm
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee speculates that Nobel may have considered Norway better suited to awarding the prize, as it did not have the same militaristic traditions as Sweden." :lol:Yes exactly! It was probably due to that reason that the Nobel Peace prize was given to Norway and not Sweden. /facepalm
But it was still strange seeing how Norway and Sweden was in an union together during that time

[Dodo]

No, you stated that Swedish society will "inevitably become contradictory again", which implies that it isn't contradictory now. If you can't make your mind up, that's not my problem.
I can see the problem in that statement. I apologize if that is how I presented it. What I tried to mean was that those contradictions became softer, not gone.


This is far too general to be meaningful. Certain contradictions were obscured in Cold-War era Sweden - particularly for the labour aristocracy - whereas others were exacerbated. And this was done, not because the social-democratic bourgeoisie is "progressive", but because it was spooked by the Soviet Union. Once the SU fell, so did the "progressive" Swedish social-democracy.Again, you are saying this for the sake of arguing. It is not general. It is pretty much in straight line with what I am saying.
Swedish economy had been highly productive and early industrialized in relation to the world which allowed it to produce a lot of surplus. The surplus is hitting what Marxist economists would call tendency of profit rate to fall due to capital's global development. Therefore, core countries cannot be as profitting as before when China and Brazil starts producing so much.
I.e, developing world stops being just a market but also becomes home to productive capital.
In that context, imperialism is digging it's own grave when combined with "adaptation" by the developing world to capitalism.

Long story short, the whole point is that Sweden will not be able to sustain its social democracy due to lowered revenues.
This is however a very Marxist-economics biased take. I know for a fact that a lot of economists have counter-arguments against this which I am not as familiar with. Such as Gerschenkronian "creative destruction" in explaning busines cycles.



That's nice and all, but the formation of the bourgeoisie usually predates the start of the capitalist mode of production (bourgeois society can develop, to an extent, within feudalism and so on, unlike the socialist society). In this case, I can't put an exact date on the birth of the Swedish bourgeoisie, but I would say that they definitely existed by the mid-18th century, even attaining political power as the "Cap" party.Precisely. We cannot pin-point bourgeouise and a standard bourgeouisie set of relations. Burghers(and its predeccesors) existed in towns without a capitalist market looong before even feudalism and did just fine.
We see it in motion, as in a process, "coming into being and passing away".
Though I do not know why you made this point.


What unique role?The unique role of what is called a "developmental" state. Swedish state, whoever it was made-up off within the ruling classes worked a lot on establishing infrastructure and stimulating capital transformation rather than taking a predatory nature. State intervention was common in Sweden unlike the Laissez Faire thought popular at the time.


It says that you think generalised commodity production, wage labour, racism and bourgeois dictatorship are "representative of working-class needs", for one thing.such reductionism, much honesty, so wow

I really do not understand why you are not capable of the connection I made unless you are doing this manipulation intentionally.
I said, Swedish state, for a long time, due to relative power of labour(as opposed to capital) in the country, had been highly representative of working class. That does not mean it "REPRESENTS"working class, which would mean calling Sweden socialism, but had been highly representative of it's needs.



Sure though I think the criticisms people are raising of Swedish Social Democracy are not unfair. Nor do I think it stems from a "puritan" approach but a general irritation at socialism being conflated with Swedish-style social democracy, when Sweden is still very much a Capitalist country (albeit one with more welfare and better public services than others like the US)

It looks so simple when you put it like that but in my experience so far an objective analysis of Sweden leads people to call you a imperialist-apologist bourgeouisie.
Thats like radical Muslims calling me infidel. This dogma here is all over my nerves.
I have no problem with an objective criticism of anythinh, but throwing around sloganic, reductionist, simplified criticism's of a motor reaction makes me feel like I am part of a stupid group of sheeps who repeat the same things over and over again.

[Five Year Plan]

The moment you become anti-capitalist and socialist for the sake of socialism you are in dogmatic theory.

As opposed to being anti-capitalist for the sake of capitalism or feudalism?


A Marxist is a socialist and anti-capitalist because of the contradictions of the capital and the dialectical upside-down analysis of the existing system. If those contradictions did not exists, we would not have been socialists. A Marxist uses dialectics in his or her analysis. He does not become a Marxist because of dialectics. It is perfectly possible to use dialectics in a way that isn't grounded by proper materialist methodology, and not be a Marxist as all. For more on this, see Hegel.

A Marxist is a socialist because he or she understands that the working class is exploited in a way that is totally unnecessary and inhibits the continued growth of human enjoyment and potential. This growth is something worth fighting for in a principled way, even if bystanders may attack it as "dogmatic."


Sweden has not "removed" the contradictions but made them more transparent through social democracy and highly productive economy as well as, as we assume "imperialism".Social democracy has historically clouded the nature of the contradictions by promoting a program that is nominally socialist while devoting itself to extending the life of capitalism, and attempting to sand off its roughest edges in the name of a gradual anti-capitalist transformation that is hoped to occur "some day" but in reality will never occur on the basis of the social democratic program.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Just a quick question - we do, well, not idolize, but appreciate working-class struggle, I mean all of us (I hope) would side with workers in their fights for better economic conditions even if was a revolutionary fights. And we would appreciate their victory, even if it didn't create a revolution(aries).

Sweden's social-democracy was a result of workers' class struggle, it didn't drop from the sky (as I understood from this thread). Why couldn't we appreciate the fruits of their struggle, i.e. social-democracy, even if we recognize that it's not in any way revolutionary and we recognize that it's bad in this or that way?

[Five Year Plan]

Except I'm not saying people should "like" Obamacare. I "like" that people with diabetes can get health insurance without their condition causing them to get denied. It's an important change because it is a form of discrimination which clearly harms people, and disproportionately harms working class people (and even the poorer sectors of the petit bourgeois) who then cannot afford to even get minimal health coverage. That doesn't mean I "like" the insurance industry or the law which led to the reform, or that I think the reform solves the systemic inequalities. I support black people being able to vote unmolested in the deep south, that doesn't mean I support the system allowing the vote or the people who put those reforms in place. That article didn't have much I didn't already know (although I think them calling the tea party "neo confederates" is overly simplistic, even though there is a historical continuity between the Civil War and their "State's Rights" rhetoric).

Any reform within the framework of Capitalism will not solve these problems. On that I don't think we have any disagreements. I'm not defending social democracy or liberalism. I think I made that clear when I talked about how Swedish Social Democracy is based on exploitation of labor, and often foreign labor for which even the mild capitalist reforms do not apply to.

Except Obamacare isn't just about one provision that you happen to like. It needs to be analyzed in its totality, and in the context of the social role it will play in propping up private insurance.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sweden's social-democracy was a result of workers' class struggle, it didn't drop from the sky (as I understood from this thread). Why couldn't we appreciate the fruits of their struggle, i.e. social-democracy, even if we recognize that it's not in any way revolutionary and we recognize that it's bad in this or that way?

Because these are not the 'fruits' of the struggle so much as they are the method by which the bourgeoisie in Sweden chose to combat them. Which is why when labour militancy declined, Social-democracy became irrelevant and was conveniently abandoned over-night. The little scraps which the ruling class throws at the plebians to distract them from pulling the rug from under their feet is not what we ought to recognise.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Because these are not the 'fruits' of the struggle so much as they are the method by which the bourgeoisie in Sweden chose to combat them. Which is why when labour militancy declined, Social-democracy became irrelevant and was conveniently abandoned over-night. The little scraps which the ruling class throws at the plebians to distract them from pulling the rug from under their feet is not what we ought to recognise.

I was writing with that in mind. But then again isn't it true about any non-revolutionary workers' struggle? Or do you mean that in non-revolutionary struggle they get what they want, while in a potentially revolutionary struggle social-democracy just distracts from revolution and buys workers off? Hm, if the later then I think I understand what you mean. I guess I will take my words back then, I suppose. Hm.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So I think we can all agree - Swedish social democracy is not a useful model to follow. The more interesting question is how we convince all the left liberal/soc dem types to recognize the fact that their system is not socialism and does not challenge capitalism to its roots.



Except Obamacare isn't just about one provision that you happen to like. It needs to be analyzed in its totality, and in the context of the social role it will play in propping up private insurance.

Jesus Christ, if you're going to strawman me at least make sure what you're saying I said doesn't so obviously contradict what I've been saying in the very quote you use:


Except I'm not saying people should "like" Obamacare. I "like" that people with diabetes can get health insurance without their condition causing them to get denied.

Look, all I'm saying is, when we criticize certain reforms and so on, we should not want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. It's that simple. Yes we should oppose the expansion of the private health care industry and big pharma. No we should not oppose the private health care industry at the expense of people with pre existing conditions or 25 year olds on their parent's healthcare plans.

[Dodo]

As opposed to being anti-capitalist for the sake of capitalism or feudalism?


A Marxist uses dialectics in his or her analysis. He does not become a Marxist because of dialectics. It is perfectly possible to use dialectics in a way that isn't grounded by proper materialist methodology, and not be a Marxist as all. For more on this, see Hegel.There are tons of dialecticians that are non-Marxists as well. I mean today, even certain groups of studies.
The difference is, Marxist analysis is to "change the world" rather than reproduce existing society.


A Marxist is a socialist because he or she understands that the working class is exploited in a way that is totally unnecessary and inhibits the continued growth of human enjoyment and potential. This growth is something worth fighting for in a principled way, even if bystanders may attack it as "dogmatic."The dogma I attack here is something else, it is the "positivization" of Marxist analysis.
I dont know what makes me a "bystander" if you are an active struggler..I had been involved in multiple protests, clashes with police with a lot of tear gas(for the teenager revolutionary) and actively argue for critical view of the world everywhere that I am known by almost everyone around me as the -marxist- guy and am considerng an active Marxist-academic path to spread the word in more legitimate ways.
What more can I do besides individual terrorism?

The problem is, if you go around the way you do to people.....you are pretty much the guy who goes "excuse me, have you accepted jesus christ as your saviour"....thats not helpful if you cannot beat them in their own world.
You are repeating your own reified conceptual world.


Social democracy has historically clouded the nature of the contradictions by promoting a program that is nominally socialist while devoting itself to extending the life of capitalism, and attempting to sand off its roughest edges in the name of a gradual anti-capitalist transformation that is hoped to occur "some day" but in reality will never occur on the basis of the social democratic program.It depends on from what relations you look at social democracy. I am not defending social democracy here nor opposing it but simply analyzing it.

[Luís Henrique]

Is Sweden a paradise and a model to follow?

Just finished reading Hannes Råstam's book on the Thomas Quick scandal, which shows that, contrary to what William believed, it is in Sweden, not in Denmark, that something is rotten.

Really scary.

Luís Henrique

[Црвена]

They have a private sector. Enough said.

[p0is0n]

The country had been highly representative of the working class needs for DECADES until very recently.
lol

i'll tell myself that tomorrow morning when i have to get up for work.

[ProletariatPower]

I'd say for a capitalist world it is the most preferable model to follow and I do like the Scandinavian system, not saying they're perfect of course, far from it, it's just that until we have Socialism established properly in the world then they are I suppose the best model to follow, I'd rather live there than any other capitalist country at least. To be clear I'm not a Social Democrat, I'm simply saying that the Nordic Social Democratic system is at least preferable to living in a much more conservative capitalist nation, and if you're country's capitalist, Sweden would be a more preferable model than say America.

[Hrafn]

How about you fucking try living in Scandinavia, then we'll see if your "system" is so nice, or if it even exists.

[Atsumari]

How about you fucking try living in Scandinavia, then we'll see if your "system" is so nice, or if it even exists.
Keep in mind that even the worst of social democracy sounds heavenly to many living in America. The fact that many bleeding heart American liberals look to Burkean conservatives and Christian democrats for inspiration should speak for itself to how ridiculous our situation is.

[Hrafn]

Keep in mind that even the worst of social democracy sounds heavenly to many living in America. The fact that many bleeding heart American liberals look to Burkean conservatives and Christian democrats for inspiration should speak for itself to how ridiculous our situation is.

We are not a social democracy, of any type.

[Hrafn]

Keep in mind that even the worst of social democracy sounds heavenly to many living in America. The fact that many bleeding heart American liberals look to Burkean conservatives and Christian democrats for inspiration should speak for itself to how ridiculous our situation is.

We are not a social democracy, of any type.

[ProletariatPower]

Hrafn, I never said it was "so great", what I said is it would be preferable to most places in the world, I mean do you think the UK is any better? Or the US for that matter?

[Remus Bleys]

Hrafn, I never said it was "so great", what I said is it would be preferable to most places in the world, I mean do you think the UK is any better? Or the US for that matter?

All capitalist States oppress and attack the Proletariat in some way shape or form. The only time a bourgeois state can be supported is in destroying feudalism or otherwise helping capitalism develop to a sufficient point where proletarian dictatorship is possible. Do you see either of these two conditions applicable on anywhere on the whole globe? I don't. Those are the demands that the communists have - the demands that actually benefited capital - now such demands are inapplicable and that part of the program "fulfilled" - all that is left is developing an autonomous class struggle (and class struggle organs) which will smash the bourgeois state and establish the proletariat's totalitarian dictatorship. Legal demands no longer are applicable nor acceptable. This has always been the principle.

[ProletariatPower]

I'm sorry but this is getting insane and dogmatic at this point, I never supported any capitalist state, I recognise the oppression and damage they cause to the proletariat, I merely said that if I must be in a capitalist country, from what I've seen and heard I would rather be in a country like Sweden than one like the USA or the UK. The reason for this is the less income inequality and the more open-mindedness that exists in such countries. Not really to do with Social Democracy, it's not like I support their systems it's just a 'lesser of two evils' essentially, that in no way justifies it, and I would rather have a truly Socialist system of course, I'm just saying what I'd prefer.

[Remus Bleys]

Sweden oppressed and oppresses its class in a different manner, and as Takayuki points out, with the decline of the labor movement comes the Decline of social democracy, as it fulfilled its purpose and becomes moot. I mean it's no surprise to hear the eclectic cry out DOGMA whenever exposed to an inkling of Marxist theory. The manner however, is still as violent and exploitive, just in a more mystified way.
And what does it mean to call something a lesser of two evils if not to support it?

[vijaya]

The disintegration of hard-won worker's rights and other reformist socialist/social democratic policies is a global trend, or perhaps a Western trend (maybe worker's movements in the 'developing' world are having more success). However, Sweden is still better than the UK and the US in terms of it's relationship with socialism, I believe.

It's that old argument of whether it's better to live in a quasi-fascist uber-capitalist society and have the people brought to the breaking point of socialist revolution; or to constantly try to improve the post-War liberal welfare state and elevate it to a point where capitalism becomes more and more difficult to exist. Is 'liberal' social democracy a capitalist illusion; or is it a valid, commendable way to try and realise socialism?

I'm skeptical of revolution in the traditional Marxist sense because I'm a pacifist. But, today I believe it's possible to have a gradual, bloodless worker's revolution which doesn't have to be at loggerheads with the state at every turn. Sweden is far from paradise, but it's closer than most.

[ProletariatPower]

I mean it's no surprise to hear the eclectic cry out DOGMA whenever exposed to an inkling of Marxist theory. The manner however, is still as violent and exploitive, just in a more mystified way.
And what does it mean to call something a lesser of two evils if not to support it?
It means to prefer it, it does not mean to support it. The reason I said "dogmatic" was because it was basically a chain effect that one person accused me of essentially supporting Social Democrats when I never said such a thing, nothing to do with Marxist theory, but with blindly accusing someone for something they did not even do. I suppose you're going to call vijaya here a Capitalist or a counter-revolutionary too just because they did not state that they follow 'traditional' Marxist theory.

Also, are you supporting the principle of encouraging Right Wing movements simply for the intent that it will increase the likelihood of Communist revolution? I'm sorry but that has been tried and tested, the KPD did little to oppose the Nazis in the 1930s due to the believe the rise in their support was the precursor to a Communist Revolution in Germany and refused to cooperate with the SPD in any way at all simply because they considered them 'Social Fascists'. Just look at the end result of that. While the KPD could not of been likely to prevent the Nazi takeover, supporting it doesn't help, and it certainly did not lead to a Communist revolution in Germany.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not even saying to support the Social Democrats, all I am saying is that I'd rather be in a country with policies such as Sweden than I would a Fascist state, or one with much less support for the poorest citizens (e.g. the USA with it's lack of healthcare). Am I saying Sweden's state is not oppressive to it's own proletariat? No. Am I saying Sweden's state is not oppressive to other nations? No.
Am I even saying to support Sweden's state? No. I am a Socialist.
What I am saying is simply that I'd prefer a slightly less oppressive nation to one that follows a full neo-liberal doctrine (now I do realise Sweden has been increasingly neo-liberal, but such a society is still preferable to many other Capitalist societies). I want revolution, not just in my own country but in Sweden, in the world, I want Socialism, but until that exists I would rather not have Fascism at the least, or complete neo-liberalism at the least.

[Remus Bleys]

Firstly, that twit is a bourgeois idealist that I am not going to bother with. Secondly, how dare you accuse me of accelerationism: I do not oppose social Democracy, I just do not support it. I am for communism
I am for class struggle. Thirdly, what is the point of calling fascism a lesser evil, of saying that liberalism is better (not to even delve into that specifically leftist theory that neo liberalism is fascism - fascism =/= what I don't like) if you are not going to fight for it. If it's so much better then why not fight for it?

[ProletariatPower]

how dare you accuse me of accelerationism
Overreaction much? If it was unrelated to previous comments then fair enough, it simply seemed as though people were blindly accusing me of supporting Social Democracy when I don't, even if it wasn't a down to accelerationism it still seems that way...


I do not oppose social Democracy, I just do not support it. I am for communism
Which is fair enough, but you seem to think I do support Social Democracy, which I do not, or for some reason that I 'should' support Social Democracy given my viewpoints, which I shall not.

what is the point of calling fascism a lesser evil, of saying that liberalism is better
I may not understand you here so I do not necessarily think you are saying that I did suggest it, but I do not think in any way of Fascism a lesser evil, nor was I suggesting you did I was just constructing a comparison of how favouring anything that may be deemed to bring about revolution faster at the expense of giving in to Fascism or Neo-Liberalism may not be a good idea. As for 'liberalism', well the point is that at least at the moment we are allowed to discuss this, if we lived in a Fascist state we could not, me rather having Social Democracy than Neoliberalism or Fascism does not mean that I would rather not have revolution or that I am a Social Democrat or support Social Democracy.

If it's so much better then why not fight for it
Because I would rather have a genuine Socialist revolution and not Social Democracy, I'm just saying given the choice between a neo-Liberal state (e.g. the USA) and a Social Democracy (e.g. Sweden) I would rather have a Social Democracy given there are somewhat better circumstances under one. I am not denying the exploitation in states such as Sweden I just think it is less than exists under states like the USA or the UK.

[Ven0m]

sadly i don't think most countries have enough natural resources to be like Sweden.

[Hrafn]

Sweden is a neo-liberal state. The only difference with, say, the UK, are the superficial remnants of a prior system.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Delicious meatballs and moderately priced furniture does not a utopia make.

[Luís Henrique]

Sweden oppressed and oppresses its class in a different manner, and as Takayuki points out, with the decline of the labor movement comes the Decline of social democracy, as it fulfilled its purpose and becomes moot. I mean it's no surprise to hear the eclectic cry out DOGMA whenever exposed to an inkling of Marxist theory. The manner however, is still as violent and exploitive, just in a more mystified way.
And what does it mean to call something a lesser of two evils if not to support it?

Mkay.

Here is a jail cell in Sweden:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/29/1385749055420/Kumla-prison-in-Sweden-009.jpg

and here is a jail cell in Brazil:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_770_Q-_EPr4/SaaFogPwTWI/AAAAAAAAB8s/HS2Rc_sZF5w/s400/brasil_prison_17.jpg

Indeed, Sweden oppresses in a quite different way.

Now, I am opposed to any prisonal system, be it that of Sweden or of Brazil. But to say that they are the same, or that the Swedish one is just as brutal, only somewhat "mystified", is the safest way to make people realise that we are indeed total nuts.

But perhaps this is what the left does? Convince people that we are not serious, so that we don't ever run the risk of being put in charge of anything?

Luís Henrique

[Remus Bleys]

The entire thing is a difference in quality of violence, not in quality. The prisons in Sweden are certainly "nicer" but why is that? Could it perhaps be because that normalizes prisoners back into civil society, making them content members of society. The prison system in Sweden and in Brazil are not "the same," but isn't the prison system in Sweden "more effective"? Its certainly not as dangerous, that would be absurd to say. But isn't the system Sweden uses the best way to normalize "outlaws" into capitalist society? I'm not saying that the lumpen are somehow more progressive or should live in shit and dangerous conditions, but I am saying that the prison system in Sweden ultimately benefits Swedish capital and world capital more than it does in say, Brazil. Of course I'm not saying "Oh wow its the same to live in a brutal and dangerous Brazillian system" but the fact that Sweden lacks such "extremes" and therefore makes the violence always inherent in capitalism seem "okay" and "non existent."
My argument is that capitalism can either brutally and totally dominate the proletarian and semi proletarians OR it can still brutally oppress these people, but to a lesser extent, normalizing capitalist violence and making the working class content to be a mere function of capital. Both of these options are violent and repressive. If anyone thought social democracy truly could liberate humanity in anyway, then why be a communist?

[Ven0m]

The entire thing is a difference in quality of violence, not in quality. The prisons in Sweden are certainly "nicer" but why is that? Could it perhaps be because that normalizes prisoners back into civil society, making them content members of society. The prison system in Sweden and in Brazil are not "the same," but isn't the prison system in Sweden "more effective"? Its certainly not as dangerous, that would be absurd to say. But isn't the system Sweden uses the best way to normalize "outlaws" into capitalist society? I'm not saying that the lumpen are somehow more progressive or should live in shit and dangerous conditions, but I am saying that the prison system in Sweden ultimately benefits Swedish capital and world capital more than it does in say, Brazil. Of course I'm not saying "Oh wow its the same to live in a brutal and dangerous Brazillian system" but the fact that Sweden lacks such "extremes" and therefore makes the violence always inherent in capitalism seem "okay" and "non existent."
My argument is that capitalism can either brutally and totally dominate the proletarian and semi proletarians OR it can still brutally oppress these people, but to a lesser extent, normalizing capitalist violence and making the working class content to be a mere function of capital. Both of these options are violent and repressive. If anyone thought social democracy truly could liberate humanity in anyway, then why be a communist?

yeah yr right. comforting prisoners only deradicalizes them.

[ProletariatPower]

I cannot speak for that user who posted about prisons in Sweden, however I think for a few people at least people are misunderstanding what is being said. People can recognize the problems in Sweden and it's very system while also believing it preferable to the state of other nations.


Sweden is a neo-liberal state. The only difference with, say, the UK, are the superficial remnants of a prior system.
Yes, I have heard about the neo-liberalisation taking place in Sweden and it is a shame, although I'm not sure it's merely 'remnants', there is still less harsh treatment in Swedish prisons and less income inequality than in other nations.

Now, I realise by their nature all Capitalist states continue to be oppressive to the proletariat, Sweden's 'less harsh' treatment probably is largely down to effectively a way of 'duping' people, somewhat like a concession to increase support of the state. However, I'm not saying that we should not have a revolution and have Social Democracy, all I'm pointing out is that at least Sweden is preferable to other states. This doesn't make it a utopia or justify the actions of such governments to be clear.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I cannot speak for that user who posted about prisons in Sweden, however I think for a few people at least people are misunderstanding what is being said. People can recognize the problems in Sweden and it's very system while also believing it preferable to the state of other nations.


Yes, I have heard about the neo-liberalisation taking place in Sweden and it is a shame, although I'm not sure it's merely 'remnants', there is still less harsh treatment in Swedish prisons and less income inequality than in other nations.


Why are we even arguing about fucking prisons? The importance of incarceration depends on the surrounding situation; U.S. prisons are terrible shit holes for a multitude of reasons. Swedish prisons are pretty average for a (West) European country. The repressive machine has other tools than direct incarceration, you know.

Sweden is not much different from the UK. The Swedish health care system is actually more deregulated and private than the NHS of today - many large hospitals are run as franchises by venture-capitalist funds. There's a great disparity between areas of the country in provision of services. In Northern Sweden, you might have to wait for an hour for a health service car that is not an ambulance.

What the fuck is actually preferable? It's not a different system to other countries. It's the same system. It adapts, changes, as it confronts challenges to its rule, strengthens itself. I don't think you who see it as preferable know anything about the situation, other than daft shit you've read on the fucking right-wing ex-pat shit-rag THE LOCAL or whatever quasi-orientalist (in the sense of making it sound different and "exotic") deranged view some foreign media might present.

Sweden has also topped the OECD countries in most rapidly increasing income inequality since around 2004.

[Luís Henrique]

The entire thing is a difference in quality of violence, not in quality. The prisons in Sweden are certainly "nicer" but why is that? Could it perhaps be because that normalizes prisoners back into civil society, making them content members of society. The prison system in Sweden and in Brazil are not "the same," but isn't the prison system in Sweden "more effective"? Its certainly not as dangerous, that would be absurd to say. But isn't the system Sweden uses the best way to normalize "outlaws" into capitalist society?

Nice, but if I was an "outlaw" I would prefer to be "normalised" into capitalist society in Sweden, instead of Brazil.

Not being an outlaw, but being concerned with the fate of fellow humans who are, I would like Brazilian prisons to be more like the Swedish ones. Being an active member of society, I will throw Swedish prisons as arguments against those Brazilians who argue that prisons should be hellish places. Because, to me, just shutting up when people demand even more brutal jail conditions is much worse class betrayal than weighing lesser and bigger evils.


I'm not saying that the lumpen are somehow more progressive or should live in shit and dangerous conditions, but I am saying that the prison system in Sweden ultimately benefits Swedish capital and world capital more than it does in say, Brazil.

Then why doesn't the Brazilian bourgeoisie improve the Brazilian prisonal system, in order to increase their profits?


Of course I'm not saying "Oh wow its the same to live in a brutal and dangerous Brazillian system" but the fact that Sweden lacks such "extremes" and therefore makes the violence always inherent in capitalism seem "okay" and "non existent."

Which is why people think that Sweden is a "paradise". But to really destroy such idyllic image of Sweden, it is necessary that the hellish nature of the capitalist system is exposed. Which cannot be done if its hellish nature is concealed under horrors like those of the Brazilian prisonal system.


My argument is that capitalism can either brutally and totally dominate the proletarian and semi proletarians OR it can still brutally oppress these people, but to a lesser extent, normalizing capitalist violence and making the working class content to be a mere function of capital. Both of these options are violent and repressive. If anyone thought social democracy truly could liberate humanity in anyway, then why be a communist?

Because social democracy cannot liberate humanity in any way, of course.

But "liberation" is very different from a clean floor and a decent mattress. Prisoners in Sweden are still prisoners, not free people. Workers in Sweden are still wage slaves, not owners of means of production.

It is still different to be a prisoner in a decent room than in a crowded cesspool, though.

If you don't agree, it just shows that you have never been a prisoner, have never known one personally, and aren't afraid of becoming one.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Why are we even arguing about fucking prisons?

For a number of reasons. One is that it is easy to put the difference between Sweden and Brazil in a graphic, visible way through pictures of their respective prisonal systems. Another is that prisons are good metaphors of the general situation of the exploited classes. A further one is that the left is usually unconcerned about jails, which is a problem in and of itself. And here is one more: because it should be quite clear that being imprisoned is awful, even if it is in clean and decent cells such as those in Sweden - while I have doubts that people can understand that nice busses or nice hospitals or higher wages are still horrible things in and of themselves.


The importance of incarceration depends on the surrounding situation; U.S. prisons are terrible shit holes for a multitude of reasons. Swedish prisons are pretty average for a (West) European country. The repressive machine has other tools than direct incarceration, you know.

It has. They are however more difficult to present through a single picture though.


Sweden is not much different from the UK. The Swedish health care system is actually more deregulated and private than the NHS of today - many large hospitals are run as franchises by venture-capitalist funds. There's a great disparity between areas of the country in provision of services. In Northern Sweden, you might have to wait for an hour for a health service car that is not an ambulance.

This is one thing to say: Sweden is not, or is no longer, the model that people idealise when they talk about the "Swedish model". A very different thing is to say that it doesn't matter if the "Swedish model" or the Swedish reality is better than the British, or Brazilian, "models" or realities, because indeed "better" is "worse", because actual improvements in our situations under capitalism "deradicalises", "normalises", "dupe", "mystify" us.


What the fuck is actually preferable? It's not a different system to other countries. It's the same system. It adapts, changes, as it confronts challenges to its rule, strengthens itself.

It is the same system. And it adapts and it changes. Due to what, exactly?

Oh, yes, due to class struggle. Which is what moves history, or so that guy with a huge beard told us. So the difference between Sweden and other countries must be a difference in class struggle, isn't it?

This leaves us a few possibilities.

First, it could be that the fact that jails (and hospitals, and busses, and garbage collection, you name it) are better in Sweden than in Brazil because Swedish working class struggle has forced capitalism in Sweden to 'adapt' and 'change' more than Brazilian working class struggle has done to capitalism in Brazil. Which would mean that conditions in Sweden are better because, well, our class has fought better there than here.

Or it could be that it is not the same system; that Sweden is actually capitalist, and Brazil is somehow pre-capitalist. The differences would be due not to working class struggle, but due to bourgeois class struggle (against feudalism, imperialism, landed oligarchy, etc. In other words, the difference would be that Brazil still needs a bourgeois revolution, which Sweden no longer needs) Which would mean that capitalism is still progressive nowadays.

Or, of course, it could be that liberals and conservatives are right, and the guy with the beard is wrong, and history is not driven by class struggle, after all.

Or, finally, it could be that class struggle functions in a completely counter-intuitive way. Maybe it is the Brazilian working class struggle that is tougher and more radical, and has forced the Brazilian bourgeoisie to abandon its schemes to mystify us by improving our situation, making its exploitation more obvious and visible.

If so, I would expect to see the Brazilian working class fighting for more privatisations, lower wages, more brutal prisons, less and worse busses or hospitals. Unhappilly, this doesn't seem to happen, at all. And I would say class struggle is not such a unique struggle; that those who fight best get better, not worse, results, and that the "strategy" of losing all battles in order to win the war is a fiction by those who lose battles but don't want to recognise they are losing the war.


I don't think you who see it as preferable know anything about the situation, other than daft shit you've read on the fucking right-wing ex-pat shit-rag THE LOCAL or whatever quasi-orientalist (in the sense of making it sound different and "exotic") deranged view some foreign media might present.

Are you telling us that the picture I posted above of a jail cell in Sweden is a forgery? That would be a valid argument. What I am countering, though, is a different idea - that things are actually worse (or at least exactly the same) in Sweden because it has better jails.


Sweden has also topped the OECD countries in most rapidly increasing income inequality since around 2004.

Quite probably.

Conversely, Brazil is probably one of the few countries where income inequality is decreasing a bit, more or less during the same period (since 2004). However, as Brazil in 2004 was one of the most unequal countries in the world (and Sweden one of the least), as of 2014 Brazil is still much more unequal than Sweden.

Luís Henrique

[Remus Bleys]

Nice, but if I was an "outlaw" I would prefer to be "normalised" into capitalist society in Sweden, instead of Brazil.

Not being an outlaw, but being concerned with the fate of fellow humans who are, I would like Brazilian prisons to be more like the Swedish ones. Being an active member of society, I will throw Swedish prisons as arguments against those Brazilians who argue that prisons should be hellish places. Because, to me, just shutting up when people demand even more brutal jail conditions is much worse class betrayal than weighing lesser and bigger evils.

Then why doesn't the Brazilian bourgeoisie improve the Brazilian prisonal system, in order to increase their profits?
The point isn't to weigh in on which prison is more "brutal" at all. Of course from the standpoint of the outlaw, the Swedish system is less physically brutal etc. But that should not inherently mean anything, one shouldn't take in the moral question of "does this do more physical damage" and act like this entire thing occurs in a void. Objectively speaking, both of these systems - as a whole, not just the prison systems - are just as violent, but merely express this violence in different ways. The brazillian prison system is of course brutish, hellish and more insanely brutal then the prison system in, say, Sweden is - but this is only because Capital has not fully established its domination. In this regard, I do think that if left to itself, capitalism will develop Brazil to a point where it no longer needs to use such egregious and outrageous level of control, because its lumpenproletariat are not under as much control, it didn't establish the same level of domestication over the workers as Sweden did. In this regard, it has not yet fully dominate society, Capital has not been reified to the point in Brazil where "rebellion" is not almost totally controlled (as an aside, I do not think that Capital can ever "totally control" but that it will strive to) as it is in Sweden. Brazil, however, also exhibits the contradiction that it exists in an already developed capitalist world (not to imply that Brazil needs to "finish the bourgeois revolution" but rather that the rest of the world has hit "modernity").
I wouldn't doubt that as Brazil "modernizes" more you will see an increase in the quality of the prison system - it would be vulgar to say that that will automatically happen, and one nearly needs to look at US prison systems and compare it to Swedish prison systems to show that that link is not necessarily there - but still, the prison system of America in 2014 is better than the prison system (including forced mental institutes that essentially are prisons) of say 1950s or 1920s or 1800s. There is a trend here.
The swedish bourgeois chose to deal with its class struggle (and the suppression of it) via social democracy - by normalizing the worker within capitalism and making capitalism seem "not that bad." This is not to say that it exhibits the brutal violence of Brazil, but rather that it doesn't need to.The difference of that, too me at least, is rather clear. Brazil takes these positions because it is how it deals with any threat to not only capitalism, but the type of capitalism that is most benefiting the Brazillian bourgeoisie and world capital - whereas Sweden doesn't have this threat to its situation at all. It is a difference of suppressing "rebellion" and disorder to capitalism versus not having rebellion nor threats to capitalism.
This leads to the Marxist understanding of Social-Democracy and Reformism. I think I have gone on about what social democracy is a result of in this thread enough, and i shall not repeat myself. This prison system is the exact same situation - a way of dealing with threats, a way of adapting the threats (not necessarily adapting to the threats). As a communist, if someone where to go on about how great neo-liberalism is, I would counter not with points exhibited by social democracy, but rather the sum total problems inherent in capitalism. I take the same stance on prisons.
Luís, I do not disagree that it is different to be a prisoner in Brazil than a prisoner in Sweden. That was never the crux of my argument, nor is it a position I endorse.

[Remus Bleys]

Edit isn't working, so I'll just add this here.
Neither me nor takayuki should seriously respond to your insinuations that we are accelerationists, because that is not the position we are endorsing - and it is an accusation that i have already dealt with in this thread. I will quote myself:

I do not oppose social Democracy, I just do not support it. I am for communism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This leaves us a few possibilities.

First, it could be that the fact that jails (and hospitals, and busses, and garbage collection, you name it) are better in Sweden than in Brazil because Swedish working class struggle has forced capitalism in Sweden to 'adapt' and 'change' more than Brazilian working class struggle has done to capitalism in Brazil. Which would mean that conditions in Sweden are better because, well, our class has fought better there than here.

Or it could be that it is not the same system; that Sweden is actually capitalist, and Brazil is somehow pre-capitalist. The differences would be due not to working class struggle, but due to bourgeois class struggle (against feudalism, imperialism, landed oligarchy, etc. In other words, the difference would be that Brazil still needs a bourgeois revolution, which Sweden no longer needs) Which would mean that capitalism is still progressive nowadays.Or, the answer is both;

That 1. Sweden industrialised far earlier overall than Brazil [by which I mean not that there was no industrialisation in Brazil, but that the overall industrial development in Brazil remained small-scale and restricted], and that 2. Sweden had a very militant working class for some time, which forced the Swedish bourgeois to give concessions aimed at pacifying it, and the general militancy's decline and death at the end of the 1970's represent the turning point for the Swedish "social democracy".

These different starting points of course present different dilemmas and challenges for the ruling classes, and elicit different responses.

Swedish prisons were, even in their primitive 1880's incarnation, rife with abuse and whatnot, not as overcrowded, dirty and terrible as Brazilian ones of today. There's also a populist and ideological component thereto, that the Swedish ruling class was mindful of appearances and wished to appear advanced and tolerant and liberal (because the context allowed it, also), and therefore early on adopted an approach of reforming prisoners, and sentences were comparatively short. There was however, if I remember right, penal labour colonies until the latter 1910's and 20's in far-northern Sweden.


Or, finally, it could be that class struggle functions in a completely counter-intuitive way. Maybe it is the Brazilian working class struggle that is tougher and more radical, and has forced the Brazilian bourgeoisie to abandon its schemes to mystify us by improving our situation, making its exploitation more obvious and visible.

If so, I would expect to see the Brazilian working class fighting for more privatisations, lower wages, more brutal prisons, less and worse busses or hospitals. Unhappilly, this doesn't seem to happen, at all. And I would say class struggle is not such a unique struggle; that those who fight best get better, not worse, results, and that the "strategy" of losing all battles in order to win the war is a fiction by those who lose battles but don't want to recognise they are losing the war.I see what you're trying to do there. I know you have certain reformist proclivities, but..


Are you telling us that the picture I posted above of a jail cell in Sweden is a forgery? That would be a valid argument. What I am countering, though, is a different idea - that things are actually worse (or at least exactly the same) in Sweden because it has better jails.A bit many books. Never seen that many books in a cell before.

Your point is thus that because Swedish prisons are not as horrible as in a far poorer country with a militarised murderous police state, Sweden is therefore good?

While certain things might be better - you don't have shanty towns here, for one, though homeless shacks have started to reappear in the last 20 years - is that where we want to reach? We want to make capitalism a little better? Cops still kill people, just not as many! But no matter how well you dress it up, it's fundamental operations remain the same, and this is the point, that no matter how tolerant and generous you can make the capitalist state, it is still a capitalist state.

This is not to say that it is wrong to oppose cuts and the abuses of the state, but one must be wary to not lose sight of the goal; social democrats, fascists, all the same.


Conversely, Brazil is probably one of the few countries where income inequality is decreasing a bit, more or less during the same period (since 2004). However, as Brazil in 2004 was one of the most unequal countries in the world (and Sweden one of the least), as of 2014 Brazil is still much more unequal than Sweden.Which presumably is a response to the currently somewhat elevated social tensions and struggles in Brazil - whereas in Sweden things are relatively quiet aside from a few spasmodic disintegrations of working class organisation and outright conservatism of the leading union managements, where solidarity is nil and atomisation rules supreme, and consequently, the ruling class celebrates its victories in quiet dignity with expensive wine and new summer homes on the French Riviera.

[Luís Henrique]

Or, the answer is both;

That 1. Sweden industrialised far earlier overall than Brazil [by which I mean not that there was no industrialisation in Brazil, but that the overall industrial development in Brazil remained small-scale and restricted], and that 2. Sweden had a very militant working class for some time, which forced the Swedish bourgeois to give concessions aimed at pacifying it, and the general militancy's decline and death at the end of the 1970's represent the turning point for the Swedish "social democracy".

Good; with that I can certainly agree.


There's also a populist and ideological component thereto, that the Swedish ruling class was mindful of appearances and wished to appear advanced and tolerant and liberal

That, however, is problematic.

They wished to "appear" advanced and tolerant and liberal, exactly to whom? The Swedish working class? Foreign bourgeoisies?


(because the context allowed it, also)

Of course. Nevermind how much the working class pressed them or how much they wanted to look progressive, if they couldn't afford it, it wouldn't happen.


and therefore early on adopted an approach of reforming prisoners, and sentences were comparatively short.

Sentences are quite short here, in comparison with the US; that's probably because our ruling class also adopts the approach of rehabilitation. Or because they also want to appear progressive (to tools of imperialist politics, such as HRW or Amnesty International, for instance).

But short sentences don't cost money; bathrooms, clean floors, beds, furniture, etc., do.


I see what you're trying to do there. I know you have certain reformist proclivities, but..

And what reformist proclivities would those be?


A bit many books. Never seen that many books in a cell before.

Mkay. I suppose it is a photo intended for public demonstration. Or perhaps the intern there is an intellectual one.

Overall, such a cell is more or less what one would expect in a Swedish prison, or is it a complete fabrication?


Your point is thus that because Swedish prisons are not as horrible as in a far poorer country with a militarised murderous police state, Sweden is therefore good?

Well, of course not.

My point is what was stated above: Swedish prisons are not as horrible as in other countries because Swedish working class has been more militant and organised than in the working class in other countries. Consequently, if the Swedish prisons (or busses, or hospitals, or elementary schools, or universities, etc.) are worsening, this is a symptom of decreasing militancy and organisation of the Swedish working class - or, conversely, if the Swedish working class is losing militant power and organisation, expect those things to get increasingly worse in Sweden.


While certain things might be better - you don't have shanty towns here, for one, though homeless shacks have started to reappear in the last 20 years - is that where we want to reach?

No.

What we want to reach is common property of means of production. As long as means of production are owned by a few selected people, such kind of improvements are bound to be at best temporary.


We want to make capitalism a little better?

No, we don't. Or at least, I don't. I am not sure that when people insist so much that there is no difference between the living conditions of workers in Sweden and Brazil, that they are not expressing the point of view that socialism is in fact merely "reformed" capitalism. Thence the insistence that "it is not reformed, too!"


Cops still kill people, just not as many! But no matter how well you dress it up, it's fundamental operations remain the same, and this is the point, that no matter how tolerant and generous you can make the capitalist state, it is still a capitalist state.

Yup.

The point being, we don't struggle for a State that doesn't kill people, nor for a more tolerant and generous State. So it is not the matter that we convince people that the Swedish State isn't "generous enough".


This is not to say that it is wrong to oppose cuts and the abuses of the state, but one must be wary to not lose sight of the goal; social democrats, fascists, all the same.

What does that mean?

That social democrats and fascists should not lose sight of their goals? Or that social democrats and fascists are one and the same?


Which presumably is a response to the currently somewhat elevated social tensions and struggles in Brazil - whereas in Sweden things are relatively quiet aside from a few spasmodic disintegrations of working class organisation and outright conservatism of the leading union managements, where solidarity is nil and atomisation rules supreme, and consequently, the ruling class celebrates its victories in quiet dignity with expensive wine and new summer homes on the French Riviera.

Yes, that's the way it is.

A working class that struggles may well get higher wages and affordable transportation, and fail to achieve socialism.

A working class that does not struggle doesn't get higher wages or affordable transportation. But it doesn't get socialism either.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Neither me nor takayuki should seriously respond to your insinuations that we are accelerationists, because that is not the position we are endorsing - and it is an accusation that i have already dealt with in this thread. I will quote myself:

I am not "insinuating" anything. I believe your positions are "accelerationist".


I do not oppose social Democracy, I just do not support it. I am for communism.

Well, good for you. I do oppose social democracy; but the ways and content of my opposition to social democracy are quite different from the ways and contents of my opposition to conservatism or neoliberalism.

But then I do have to deal with socialdemocrats everyday, and to struggle against them in both party and union. I can't afford not opposing them.

Luís Henrique

[Remus Bleys]

How are my positions accelerationists? I am not calling for Sweden to change to the Brazilian prison system nor am I arguing for a complete overhaul of the Welfare State, I am not saying that wages should be lowered, and I am not stating that it is the job of Communists to make conditions worsened for workers. Obviously in this regard I am not against social democracy, for that would mean to be for the worsening of the economic conditions of the class.
I am for Communism, which means the smashing of the state, be it a "welfare" "neoliberal" or any other trend. In this regard I obviously oppose social democrats and am fully for the struggle against them. I do not call for a Welfare State, as I am for Communism. But I am not like the neoliberal for whom the welfare state must be smashed and replaced by a government that doesn't even throw scraps to the workers.
I thought I made this clear. Oh well. If that is the "argument" you have against me, an argument that throughout this entire thread I have opposed and have shown myself to not be an accelerationist, then I do not see any point in keeping up the "discussion."

[Luís Henrique]

How are my positions accelerationists? I am not calling for Sweden to change to the Brazilian prison system nor am I arguing for a complete overhaul of the Welfare State, I am not saying that wages should be lowered, and I am not stating that it is the job of Communists to make conditions worsened for workers.

No, you aren't. But we know very well that the bourgeoisie doesn't need communists calling for those things - they will do them whenever they have a chance - the system forces them into doing it, even if they honestly dislike the idea.

However, you seem to think that such retrocesses are positive in at least some way - in disabusing workers from their delusions upon the bourgeois State.


Obviously in this regard I am not against social democracy, for that would mean to be for the worsening of the economic conditions of the class.
I am for Communism, which means the smashing of the state, be it a "welfare" "neoliberal" or any other trend. In this regard I obviously oppose social democrats and am fully for the struggle against them.

Good, so we are both for communism, and against socialdemocracy. But this is the reason we both post here, isn't it?

Now, when your co-workers intend to mobilise to get a wage rise, what do you do? Tell them that there is no use in that, because wage rises are not communism?


I do not call for a Welfare State, as I am for Communism. But I am not like the neoliberal for whom the welfare state must be smashed and replaced by a government that doesn't even throw scraps to the workers.
I thought I made this clear. Oh well. If that is the "argument" you have against me, an argument that throughout this entire thread I have opposed and have shown myself to not be an accelerationist, then I do not see any point in keeping up the "discussion."

Well, I cannot know whether you are or are not an accelerationist, since I cannot know your actions. Your words seem to me some variant of accelerationism (not of the Nachaevist kind, of course, but of a more apathetic kind). But you know better than me what you do and what you do not do. If you fight the class struggle, even when you disagree with the goals and tactics the majority of workers chose, then you are no accelerationist.

Luís Henrique

[mindsword]

at least there are no spikes on the ground...........