Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * As a Swede I can only agree. It’s also worth noting that for about two decades now Sweden has lead the first world in terms of rapidly growing economic inequality (and neoliberal extremism in other areas such as school privatizations). Sweden is as good an example as any of how social democracy saved capitalism from itself and disciplined the working class, making it almost completely defenseless when the boom ended and neoliberalism was launched as the only alternative. Website: http://filmint.nu/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FilmInt Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/FilmInt 24 maj 2015 kl. 22:45 skrev Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu: 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. * Bob Schieffer: Let me just start out by asking you, what is a socialist these days? I mean, I remember when a socialist was somebody who wanted to nationalize the railroads and things like that. Bernie Sanders: When we talk about Democratic socialism, I think it’s important to realize that there are countries around the world like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, who’ve had social democratic governments on and off for many, many years. And we can learn a whole lot from some of those countries. —Face the Nation interview, May 10, 2015 Sweden is a funny country to call socialist. In France or Austria the government owns a much larger share of industry, and I would expect that in a socialist country personal income taxes would be low and company taxes high, whereas in Sweden it is the opposite. It has the world’s highest personal income taxes and it’s a tax haven for companies! –A statement made in 1976 by Rune Hagelund, a member of the board of the Swedish Employers’ Federation (SAF), a former professor of economics, and president and chairman of the board of two of Sweden’s major corporations. full: http://louisproyect.org/2015/05/24/the-swedish-model-part-1/ _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/daniel.lindvall%40filmint.nu _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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.
*
On 05/25/2015 01:36 PM, Daniel Lindvall via Marxism wrote:
As a Swede I can only agree. It’s also worth noting that for about
two decades now Sweden has lead the first world in terms of rapidly
growing economic inequality (and neoliberal extremism in other areas
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_transfers
such as school privatizations). Sweden is as good an example as any
of how social democracy saved capitalism from itself and disciplined
the working class, making it almost completely defenseless when the
boom ended and neoliberalism was launched as the only alternative.
'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.
Well was it a trick or not? Concerning Finland, the breakthrough of the
welfare state came in late 50s and early 60s, when most of the basic
legislations and institutions for social insurance was laid down. At the
time it certainly wasn't seen as a convenient way to domesticate the
workers' movement by the Finnish capitalist class. They fought it tooth
and nail, and gave in to some options rather than others because they
thought that if they don't accept this, then worse (for them) decisions
will be made without their input.
My source, Päivi Uljas's dissertation ('Hyvinvointivaltion läpimurto',
2012) is available only in Finnish. (The English summary is available
here: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/28892)
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.
--
jjonas @ nic.fi
_
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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * On 5/25/15 8:39 AM, Joonas Laine via Marxism wrote: 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. The real question is not whether a welfare state should be defended against austerity. That should be clear from my defense of Syriza. However, my main goal is to make the case that this type of state as it existed in Sweden is very much the product of a particular congruence of interests between the ruling class and a section of the trade union movement against a backdrop of a long wave of economic expansion. In a way, Bernie Sanders proposal for the USA becoming like Sweden is a form of Ostalgia that was widespread in eastern Germany. _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * On 5/25/15 9:29 AM, Daniel Lindvall via Marxism wrote: 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. I should mention that my next post will entail a look at the Stockholm School of Economics that was founded with Wallenberg money and inspired by the theories of one Knut Wicksell, who taught at Uppsala. You've probably heard of Gunnar Myrdal and Dag Hammarskjold, who did teach at the Stockholm school. Their ideas were a conscious break with Marxism. Wicksell in particular was influenced by Böhm-Bawerk, who was one of the first bourgeois economists to attempt to disprove Marx's labor theory of value on the basis of marginalism. It should be mentioned that Wicksell was embraced by both the Swedish social democratic think-tank at Stockholm as well as by Mises and company. There's lots more about the peculiarities of a Second International party that broke with the theoretical consensus of sister parties that still embraced Marxism--at least in theory. _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Joonas Laine via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: 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. That seems like an oversimplified approach. All of us would oppose the rolling back of racial integration in the United States, but its implementation doubtlessly had an element of capitalist trickery, as the federal government sought to expand its influence in African and other black countries while minimizing the Soviets'. Tooling around with domestic backwardness helped in that regard, at minimal cost. Of course this doesn't mean we should reject these changes, but understanding them requires consideration of all the factors that went into them, not just the ones it's easy for us to retrospectively lionize. Otherwise, how can we even think of achieving comparable ones in the future? And how can you meaningfully support the welfare state without sober consideration of its origins, good, bad and ugly? -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * On 05/25/2015 04:29 PM, Daniel Lindvall wrote: '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 [...] 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 Sure, though I tend to think that that outcome is somewhat contingent, and what the sdems wanted is just a factor; even if something that the sdem's wanted happened, did it happen because they wanted it and tried to achieve it, or because of something else. Afterwards it seems much more inevitable than it probably was. When e.g. after a revolutionary situation the agitated mood of the masses ebbs, and institutions of some kind tend to replace the power of the streets, anarchists always find the ones that betrayed the movement, because they think the revolutionary situation can and should go on indefinetely. So if it doesn't, it's because of someone's betrayal. But the will and actions of those who rise to the top in the post-revolutionary institutions (which I believe will always happen in one form or another) are just a factor. IMO the same contingency was there with the Finnish struggles in the 50s–60s. Just before the major outbreak of the social movements in 1957 the prevailing feeling on the ground (as can be seen in the minutes from trade union meetings, CP meetings etc.) was that nobody is interested in doing anything, interest in taking part in meetings and demonstrations is dwindling etc. The social-democratic party had just split after the general strike in 1956, and with it the trade union federation SAK was split and other miserable stuff that doesn't really raise fighting spirits etc. When the movement broke out, the press claimed it was a CP conspiracy, but as Uljas documents, the CP was just as surprised as anyone else, though they later ended up as a major factor for the movement on the institutional level. Likewise I believe it took mostly other things than the sdem's (or anyone else's) will to strike a deal with the capitalists (or anyone). But afterwards it's easy to say, of course, the writing was on the wall. 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 Looking at your mail again, I think I read too much into it. Sorry. I think what you write above is true. However, I also think that you mail had a lot of what I thought was the same what happens whenever two leftists from two different countries meet: there is an immediate comradely one-upmanship of whose bourgeois government is the most hideous oppressor of the workers. While fun, IMO it tends to distort the perspective. 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 Revolutionary politics may just as well come up against the limits of capitalism, as can be seen in Greece. If and when they do, it's easy to say that the ones originally thought to be revolutionary weren't really so revolutionary after all. Also to answer Joseph Catron's reply here, probably you're right that if generalised, it's too simplified to just say welfare state, 100% for or 100% against? without further nuances. E.g. I think it'd be right to campaign against unnecessarily controlling aspects of the social welfare benefit system, like is a person's benefit dependent of the spouse's income or not. In the context (or what I, perhaps incorrectly, took
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * On 5/25/15 11:48 AM, Jim Farmelant via Marxism wrote: Also, concerning the Myrdals, they were influential not only as economists but also as sociologists and as policy wonks. They were among the lead architects of the Swedish welfare state. They were also staunch advocates of eugenics. Eugenics policies were in fact implemented in Sweden between the 1920s and the 1970s and often involved forced sterilizations of women. I'll be covering this in some detail. It is tied to the Malthusian beliefs of Knut Wicksell who was a fervent believer in birth control as a cure for poverty. _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * -- From: Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist On 5/25/15 9:29 AM, Daniel Lindvall via Marxism wrote: 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. I should mention that my next post will entail a look at the Stockholm School of Economics that was founded with Wallenberg money and inspired by the theories of one Knut Wicksell, who taught at Uppsala. You've probably heard of Gunnar Myrdal and Dag Hammarskjold, who did teach at the Stockholm school. Their ideas were a conscious break with Marxism. Wicksell in particular was influenced by Böhm-Bawerk, who was one of the first bourgeois economists to attempt to disprove Marx's labor theory of value on the basis of marginalism. It should be mentioned that Wicksell was embraced by both the Swedish social democratic think-tank at Stockholm as well as by Mises and company. There's lots more about the peculiarities of a Second International party that broke with the theoretical consensus of sister parties that still embraced Marxism--at least in theory. Also the Stockholm School, independently of John Maynard Keynes, arrived at many of the same conclusions concerning macroeconomics that are usually associated with the British economist. In a number of respects, the Stockholm School was a bridge between the mainstream neoclassicals, the Keynesians, and the Austrian School. Also, concerning the Myrdals, they were influential not only as economists but also as sociologists and as policy wonks. They were among the lead architects of the Swedish welfare state. They were also staunch advocates of eugenics. Eugenics policies were in fact implemented in Sweden between the 1920s and the 1970s and often involved forced sterilizations of women. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/farmelantj%40juno.com Protect what matters Floods can happen anywhere. Learn your risk and find an agent today. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3165/55633b1fa02623b1e0f6fmp07vuc _ 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
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: The Swedish model (part 1) | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
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. * How does Olaf Plame fit into this? On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: 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. * On 5/25/15 11:48 AM, Jim Farmelant via Marxism wrote: Also, concerning the Myrdals, they were influential not only as economists but also as sociologists and as policy wonks. They were among the lead architects of the Swedish welfare state. They were also staunch advocates of eugenics. Eugenics policies were in fact implemented in Sweden between the 1920s and the 1970s and often involved forced sterilizations of women. I'll be covering this in some detail. It is tied to the Malthusian beliefs of Knut Wicksell who was a fervent believer in birth control as a cure for poverty. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/sranz18%40gmail.com _ 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
