******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
> > It's also worth noting that when you start low (in terms of e.g. gini > coefficient after tax and transfers), you can have "rapid growth" > (dozens or even hundreds of percentage points) without absolute numbers > changing that much. Late 2000s Sweden (or Finland) still had more equal > distribution of income than countries like France, Holland, Canada, UK > etc. ever had. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient.2C_after_taxes_and_transfer A fair point, but even so, the consistent trend of Sweden leading the pack in a situation where inequality is exploding in all these other first world nations is still significant. Furthermore, in areas such as the school system, railways and communications, and health care Sweden now has systems that are as or more neoliberal than most other nations. This is especially true regarding the school system, which is generally considered the most extremely marketized in the first world (and a complete disaster in terms of outcome when it comes to students’ result - Finland who has a system very similar to what we had 30 years ago is held up as a shining example these days). The marketization and selling off of public housing and the price hikes and housing shortages this has led to in major cities is another example. >> > > 'Welfare state as a capitalist trick' sounds too instrumentalist to be > credible as a materialist explanation for the rise and dismantling of > the welfare state. Politically I don't see it as too useful either, as I > don't welcome the dismantling of the Finnish welfare state, whether it > originally was a capitalist trick or not. > > > One might argue, well the *objective outcome* of the process, regardless > of any conscious goal of domesticating the workers etc. is that of > "making the working class almost completely defenseless" in the end. > That's all very well, but I don't see the point in that kind of "I told > you so" kind of revolutionary metaphysics. After all, you can throw that > on the table every time some gain turns out to have fallen short of > accomplishing socialist revolution. > Firstly, surely objective outcome is an important point in this discussion? Secondly, though there have been genuine reform socialists in the social democratic movement up until the 1980s or so, the idea of the handshake between capital and workers and the de-mobilization of the rank and file in favour of building a human-faced capitalist society, jointly administered by social democratic bureaucrats and representatives of capital, has been the ideology of the majority of the leading social democrats. It wasn’t a ”trick” or a conspiracy, they have been very open about it. There is no shortage of evidence (for instance from the ”employee funds” debate in the 1970s and 80s) that leading Swedish social democrats absolutely hate the idea of workers’ control of production. Furthermore, this doesn’t mean I am for the dismantling of the welfare state or oppose genuinely progressive reforms. The very opposite. But we most be aware that reformism always comes up against the limits of capitalism sooner or later and the choice then has to be made whether we want to save and build on these reforms or save profits. In this situation social democrats as good as always choose profits. That’s just an historical fact. And a working class dominated by social democratic bureaucracies will be a weak force at such times. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
