Sweden

*resists temptation to google "Swedish model"*

Problem for Sweden is the lack of goals which is strange given they have Henrik Larsson and Zlatan Ibrahimovic.

Top image result is this (with safe search on I think)

Racial homogeny. Late industrialization. No colonial period. Negative population growth. I'm not sure, having not given sweden much thought, but i'm pretty sure these things made achieving a level of socialism alot easier for that section of the workingclass.

never underestimate what negative population growth and liberal improvements to the position of women can do to the general welfare of the population

Sweden also has the highest unionisation level of the workers, that must count for something.

and a large syndicalist union

I understood that the Swedish social democratic model was indeed showing the strain of its half century and more of predominance.

Along with the other advantages Sweden has enjoyed I think we should take into account its historic neutrality and (I'm guessing here) its low expenditure on "defence".

There are plenty of people hacked off with what Sweden is like and plenty of problems. Imagine living in a society shaped by social democrats for three generations with a state monopoly on beer! Cor blimey, with that and the long dark winters no wonder there's a lot of suicides!

From the ruling Social Democratic Party's platform:

This one is good too

fence sitting sons-o-bitches. Fuck 'em.

Havin healthcare must be nice though.

*sigh*

**writes another check to insurance company, 401(k), and car insurance company**

fence sitting sons-o-bitches. Fuck 'em.

Havin healthcare must be nice though.

*sigh*

**writes another check to insurance company, 401(k), and car insurance company**

as a finn (finland has essentially the same social democratic model) i have heard loads of talk about this "strain" but its usually just right wing propaganda, or what do you mean by strain (as in essentially different from the normal capitalist attacks to any benefits or advances working class has made in any country).

for a "neutral" country they have spend loads on defence and are only now getting rid of the hugely expensive compulsory army. Perhaps they played it well when Saab etc swedish companies made the arms used by the army - kind of like public funded jobs i guess.

sweden doesn have nearly as many suicides as finland

anyways, of course there are loads of problems and it is not workers paradice by any means - but compared to any other capitalist country in the world i'd rather be in countries like sweden, finland or norway arguing for libertarian communism.

but then again i am a reformist bastard who doesn't understand that it is better to have absolutely dire and hopeless conditions for the working class to avert reformist tendencies

Arent most of the North Countries just country bumpkins, who because the ruling classes werent able to consolidate their strength in numbers had to rely on a generous welfare system?

working class is still working class even in the social democratic context, the first ones to lose, first ones to be sent to die in wars, last ones to have any say in their lives, workplaces etc. The usual stuff.

I think a real test for these politics is exactly the question you are asking. I hate it when lib communism/anarchist is portrayed as an ideology of despair, only attractive to people in total utter poverty and desperation. Much of our literature and discussion goes around that as well, hyping up the absolute worst examples all the time etc. This is of course valid as long as these examples exist (and they do in sweden as well mind) but our whole ideology shouldn't be based on that.

aye, look at the production rates for instance, sweden and finland are one of the most productive countries in the world, motorola and nokia are still basing their headquarters and R&D divisions there despites of empty threaths to leave to cheaper countries and so on. The capitalists are not too concerned, of course they would like to cut costs and reduce unions power but the production rates make it up many times over.

Interesting stuff JDMF, yes of course you are right about Swedish arms sales and so on.

On a slightly different tack, I think you are on to something when you argue against libertarian communism and anarchism always being seen as the ideology of despair. Whilst despair certainly has provided a revolutionary stimulus in some places at some times I reckon that the kind of prosperity and security (albeit with a stench rising from the basement) offered by some industrial societies in the 20thC and even perhaps to the present can give people the time and space to think about freedom and post-scarcity.... looking for the post-capitalist truth behind the hollow rhetoric of consumerist abundance.

Examples of this other than Scandinavia might be America in the 1950s and even Britain in the 1960s.

ayup. it's a toughie, when this sort of think works.

before the Great Hack, i was wondering on some thread that i've now forgotten, how we types on this board should expect those with some degree of social/economic/personal security to give it up during the upheval that "must necessarily" precede a deeply libertarian redevelopment. becuase this group isn't just the boozhwah, or the managers; in fact, it would seem to include not a few here. and i don't want to hear anything about "false consciousness", the greatest impediment being not that but laziness, or a perfectly reasonable satisfaction with what they've got.

unless there doesn't have to be an upheval. maybe that's the propaganda key? that "your life will be much the same, but better in every way, and you won't get killed"?

There is something I hate more than being called mate! It's being called comrade! Thanks for reminding me L.R.

I didn't mean to suggest that America in the 1950s was social democratic just that a certain measure of prosperity (I also qualified this) created some space for the development of a new kind of rejection of the status quo. I know it's arguable but I was trying to highlight the possible role of prosperity in allowing utopian or even libertarian dreams to flourish. Behind the health plans, mortgages and pension security of suburbia there is plenty of rage and potential rebellion.

hey i think you are getting the wrong end of the stick here, and knowing you i dont know if it is a deliberate or not

what is the difference between swedish model and UK one? small, reformist, incremental differences, nothing dramatic or radically different. The class relations are the same, the ownership and leadership is as concentrated as elsewhere etc. The "examples" of working class misery are almost the same than here.

While recognising this, it would be silly to throw babies out with bathwater ICC style and not recognise how much better it is for the working class to have even small reformist improvements in our conditions.

I would say swedish working class is more militant and way more leftist than the UK one, that should answer your question i think

But there's a 10000 strong syndicalist union in Sweden

I would've thought JDMF's comment would be accurate.

But I just see this, from the ILO:

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/articles/2003-3.pdf

I would say workers are more left-wing generally in Sweden though.

As for these:

Bits of it can, bits can't. And?

Social ecology is not petit-bourgeois, the first part of this statement is just silly.