Sweden

to be honest though, there are a lot of cut-backs going on in the scandinavian countries as they try to keep up with the global markets and as they try to work out some sort of way of dealing with EU membership (although i think one of them is still not a member, i forget who).

i think the next couple of decades will be interesting for them, politically. not 'revolutionary', but interesting.

LR, i really dont understand where you get this idealised version of swedish capitalism. What flexible democracy? LOL! Its a proportional representation, much like in scotland.

The differences really are minor, and workers struggle the same than here. The differences could be explained as benefits being perhaps 20% higher than here, universities free with student benefits, but not covering all costs, minimal class movement like here, perhaps few % higher, more progressive taxation, better environmental regulations and so on.

Nothing to write home about!

So stop idealising swedish capitalism

ftony, norway and iceland are not members, but the EU membership hurt finnish welfare capitalist model less than feared, at least for now. In fact it has probably made it stronger.

well, we'll see about that when i go to finland in july. i will conduct lots of rigourous econometric tests while i'm there and return with my conclusions forthwith 8)

Could you step down from your high horse for a second please?

Even in this thread i DEFENDED the marginal improvements, i think they are enormously important. What i am questioning is that these marginal changes would change the class relations in any fundamental way.

Honestly, i dont even know what you are trying to ask here, but then again i rarely seem to understand what you mean by your posts.

So in summary, so that you dont have to do strawman stuff:

1. I defend any and every improvement in the conditions of our class and think of them as important (this position is contrary to many ultra leftists and some anarchists).

2. I dont think swedish capitalism is sufficiently different that it would alter our politics as libertarian communists and would require any shift in our fundamental positions.

no you are not, if we can both aggree on the two points above, then we are on the same page again comrade and can stop sniping past eachother.

there are many factors in play and i dont think any of them have anything to do with the model of swedish social democratic capitalism economics. The reasons are more historic and cultural, not to mention nature of the libertarian "movement" and individuals in this country, and of course the nature of groups like SolFed.

sweden has perhaps the largest libertarian movement per capita in the world at the moment (not done the maths, just throwing this out there), so it seems like workers are responding well to the political idea at least there.

Under the decadence theory, capitalism will supposedly not outlive its usefulness until its ability to innovate and increase productivity expires. Therefore, in order to support it as a theory would mean necessarily participating in and encouraging capitalism to thrive so that it can achieve this goal (however many centuries that takes). Perhaps I am misinterpreting it, but that seems akin to deciding that Jesus Christ was in fact the son of God, but resolving that it's better not to become a Christian until one completely runs out of ideas for committing sins and thus getting their full worth out of divine forgiveness.

LR there is an IWW member in Luxembourg. I think this gives us the highest-per-capita syndicalist organization in the world. (However we almost kicked him out when we found out he was part of the Luxembourgeoisie).

The SAC is only halfway tied into the statee at best. Anyways even the most ultra-leftist would say that a large radical union like that exists to trap a militant proletariat...

Except I've met people from SAC and they are a mixed bag. Some are exactly the sort of working class militants that seem to disturb LR so much. Others reminded me of the ageing non-stalinists in CND and like - if they were here they'd be in the Green Party and reading New Internationalist over their Nicaraguan coffee. Still others were in it as it was a useful place for them to do their "national disservice" as Albert used to characterise the period of general youth rebellion that usually stops in the late 20s with a proper job and family.

I don't think it does a particularly good job for the bourgeoisie (should someone tell them?)

regards

Martin

BINGO!

not only that, but d.t. remains agnostic about when this innovative and productive will expire. many centuries indeed. i just can't get out of my head that quote, "after late capitalism comes more capitalism."

Decadence Theory sounds extraordinarily fatalistic, not to say barmy. Thanks Ghostzart and Newyawka. Does that sum it up satisfactorily for you LR or is there more to it than that?

Martin they put a lot of work into recruiting in youth subcultures right? maybe thats what anarchists are doing wrong in the UK

Ned you should know that there are several theoriees going under the name of decadence. Some tend to place it central, others place it as the 'late capitalism, qfter which comes more capitalism.' For more check out Loren Goldner or the IBRP.

You've now lost all rights to make fun of WSM's bad humor sense.

Thanks OT. I am currently in desperate need of a shower but I had a quick trawl and also looked at a sample of the writings of Monsieur Dupont.

Now I see why LR makes a point of calling me comrade; he takes me for a leftist and he associates himself with the post-left. I read a copy of that journal of desire armed and I was impressed by both the intelligence of much of the writing and the bile manifest throughout.

I don't see why a consciousness raising model and a decadence model couldn't run along quite nicely together. I would never trust any mono-causal explanation of social change, and I do believe that capitalism cannot but create the social and ecological crises that will eventually bring its demise; it's just that it seems to me that we can't wait for that to happen as if the results will automatically be pleasant, and neither should we give ourselves over to fatalism. People make history.

The weakness in the argument that only decadence theory can bring about communism would seem to me to be that capitalism is in fact quite horrible everywhere, even in its social democratic form. There are lots of reasons to try to get rid of it now, rather than to wait until it brings us all to the global disaster it seems certain to deliver.

Not to mention that the class conflicts which arise from the end days of the modes of production in the past were limited in size. Under serfdom, imperial slave states of ancient times, feudalism, mercantalism, and so on, the haves weren't capable of dropping a few nuclear bombs on the have-nots to quickly quell unrest. Even looking at Iraq, Afghanistan (both in the 80s and now), Timor, Colombia, etc., it is clear that world governments aren't as effective in completely wiping out resistance as they would like to portray. Do the d.c. supporters really want to sit around and wait for capitalism to find not only the highest point of technology and most productive machinery, but also the most lethal weapons to arm the state with? What was that quote again? "Choosing between annihilation and communism", right? Another 50-100 years of steady weapons development and riot gear for police and there will be no Plan B. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole ICC website was written by a group of finance majors playing a practical joke on their left-wing classmates.

I don't think decadence theorists (?) say that we shouldn't do anything now and should just wait until dacadence theory brings about communism for us, they just believe that it means that capitalism is forced to attack us more and more because it can't afford to grant us a decent standard of living anymore, so class conflict will increase, which may eventually bring about a revolution. The ICC are all in favour of defensive struggles to maintain our living standards, I think they see these as where a revolutionary movement will come from.

Yeah I think that's what a lot of us have been saying, I'm not sure what LR's point is, apart from that we are all shit because there hasn't been a libertarian communist revolution in Sweden yet

Hmmmm, okay. Please forgive the depths of my ignorance but what's a Brintonite?

Stop idealizing swedish weather!