Socialism, Part I
"The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" Japanese proverb.
Firstly, we must contend with the view that in the UK we tend to use socialism in a manner which is rather different from the way it is used elsewhere. Socialism elsewhere is either synonymous with Communism or considered as an interim stage towards Communism, but usually in the UK we consider it as an end in itself somewhere between Communism and capitalism. However, in the rest of Europe this is normally described as Social Democracy. Since I have discussed Communism I am more interested in socialism as we perceive it in the UK, i.e. that which is known as social democracy elsewhere in Europe.
For the purposes of discussion I'm going to focus in Swedish socialism. The reason why I am doing this is that Sweden is a purer form of socialism and is often considered a model for the British Labour Party.
To understand Swedish socialism we must first dispel a myth. Sweden does not have a particularly egalitarian social model. Apart from having a royal family, Sweden also has an "aristocracy" consisting of wealthy industrialist families. Amongst the wealthiest of these is the Wallenberg family. The Wallenberg family own Sweden's Enskilda Bank and an investment fund by the name of Investor AB. It is not actually known how much the Wallenberg family is worth. Estimates vary from £5bn to £20bn. The Wallenberg family itself insists it is not rich, as the money is merely funneled into various charities, but there is little evidence of this. The Wallenberg family is easily the most powerful in Sweden, with 30% ownership of all listed Swedish companies, including Ericsson and Electrolux, but they are far from being the only super-rich families in Sweden.
The Swedish Social Democratic Party was formed in 1989. It split in 1917 shortly after the Communist Revolution in Russia, with the Communists leaving the party to leave the Swedish Social Democratic Party as we see it today. Sweden is, of course, rather close to Russia, so one can certainly imagine that rich industrialists like the Wallenberg family were rather concerned about the influence of Marxism over their own employees. Something needed to be done to protect the interests of these families. Swedish Socialism was invented to provide this protection.
Basically the idea was that the capitalists would, in effect, buy off the working class. This would be achieved by giving them a greater slice of the cake in terms of the output of the production. But they were not to get their hands on the means of production. There would also be a "quid pro quo". Swedish workers were to aim to conform to a model of citizenship. This would be enforced by authoritarian policing of a plethora of new laws, strict education emphasising the perfection of Swedish social democracy and the imposition of a new social order where consensus would replace open criticism and debate. A welfare state was introduced, but the Swedes understood immediately the "moral hazard" that would accompany a welfare state. In order to prevent the growth of an unemployable underclass, Sweden embarked on a programme of eugenics. Between 1935 and 1975 over 60,000 people, almost all of them women, were sterilised to ensure that their children could not be a burden on the state. Naturally such programs were of interest to the German Nazis who had by the 30's risen to prominence, and there was considerable co-operation between the two states:-
"A darker chapter is being written now about the Wallenberg family and its extensive business empire, as Sweden confronts dismaying new evidence that the country's wartime collaboration was more extensive than is widely known, and that the Wallenberg family profited from secret dealings with the Nazis. For instance, documents from World War II contain evidence that Jacob and Marcus Wallenberg, Raoul's cousins, used their Enskilda Bank to help the Nazis dispose of assets seized from Dutch Jews who died in the Holocaust."
-Walter V. Robinson, Boston Globe.
Next time you visit IKEA, you might like to consider that its founder, Ingvar Kamprad, was a Nazi sympthiser (oh, and he is estimated to be worth $31bn!).
A strongly nationalistic education and a long history without significant immigration has ensured that Swedish Nazi sympathies remain strong even today. In recent years the grip of the Social Democratic Party has weakened and immigration has grown, but new immigrants are rarely welcomed into Swedish society. Swedes have long practiced the "shunning" of those that do not fit in with a group, and this ensures the total ostracism of newcomers to Swedish society.
Sweden has long since left the policies of eugenics behind. These days it prefers the mechanism by which children are taken from their parents by the state in order to improve the quality of the Swedish "folk". This article by Siv Westerberg, a Swedish children's lawyer, puts the facts plainly and gives an idea of what life is actually like in Sweden.
Fundamentally, Socialism in Sweden is about combining left-wing welfare state economics with authoritarianism. The Swedish people are pressured by the system they live within to conform to a strict model for the ideal Swedish citizen. Middle-class, compliant, uniform and dull. This state is relentlessly de-humanising. Where once Sweden was the home of great thinkers and artists, it is now only the home of pop stars and former tennis players. Where are the great thinkers and writers of modern Sweden? All over Europe, where Social Democracy reigns, this de-humanising process is promoted. The individual gets hammered in, intellectual talent is suppressed. Such a society appears to be stable and successful - but in the manner in which a termites nest might be said to be stable and successful. Is this what a human society should be about?
In Part II I will take a closer look at Socialism in the UK, and compare it with the European model.
Firstly, we must contend with the view that in the UK we tend to use socialism in a manner which is rather different from the way it is used elsewhere. Socialism elsewhere is either synonymous with Communism or considered as an interim stage towards Communism, but usually in the UK we consider it as an end in itself somewhere between Communism and capitalism. However, in the rest of Europe this is normally described as Social Democracy. Since I have discussed Communism I am more interested in socialism as we perceive it in the UK, i.e. that which is known as social democracy elsewhere in Europe.
For the purposes of discussion I'm going to focus in Swedish socialism. The reason why I am doing this is that Sweden is a purer form of socialism and is often considered a model for the British Labour Party.
To understand Swedish socialism we must first dispel a myth. Sweden does not have a particularly egalitarian social model. Apart from having a royal family, Sweden also has an "aristocracy" consisting of wealthy industrialist families. Amongst the wealthiest of these is the Wallenberg family. The Wallenberg family own Sweden's Enskilda Bank and an investment fund by the name of Investor AB. It is not actually known how much the Wallenberg family is worth. Estimates vary from £5bn to £20bn. The Wallenberg family itself insists it is not rich, as the money is merely funneled into various charities, but there is little evidence of this. The Wallenberg family is easily the most powerful in Sweden, with 30% ownership of all listed Swedish companies, including Ericsson and Electrolux, but they are far from being the only super-rich families in Sweden.
The Swedish Social Democratic Party was formed in 1989. It split in 1917 shortly after the Communist Revolution in Russia, with the Communists leaving the party to leave the Swedish Social Democratic Party as we see it today. Sweden is, of course, rather close to Russia, so one can certainly imagine that rich industrialists like the Wallenberg family were rather concerned about the influence of Marxism over their own employees. Something needed to be done to protect the interests of these families. Swedish Socialism was invented to provide this protection.
Basically the idea was that the capitalists would, in effect, buy off the working class. This would be achieved by giving them a greater slice of the cake in terms of the output of the production. But they were not to get their hands on the means of production. There would also be a "quid pro quo". Swedish workers were to aim to conform to a model of citizenship. This would be enforced by authoritarian policing of a plethora of new laws, strict education emphasising the perfection of Swedish social democracy and the imposition of a new social order where consensus would replace open criticism and debate. A welfare state was introduced, but the Swedes understood immediately the "moral hazard" that would accompany a welfare state. In order to prevent the growth of an unemployable underclass, Sweden embarked on a programme of eugenics. Between 1935 and 1975 over 60,000 people, almost all of them women, were sterilised to ensure that their children could not be a burden on the state. Naturally such programs were of interest to the German Nazis who had by the 30's risen to prominence, and there was considerable co-operation between the two states:-
"A darker chapter is being written now about the Wallenberg family and its extensive business empire, as Sweden confronts dismaying new evidence that the country's wartime collaboration was more extensive than is widely known, and that the Wallenberg family profited from secret dealings with the Nazis. For instance, documents from World War II contain evidence that Jacob and Marcus Wallenberg, Raoul's cousins, used their Enskilda Bank to help the Nazis dispose of assets seized from Dutch Jews who died in the Holocaust."
-Walter V. Robinson, Boston Globe.
Next time you visit IKEA, you might like to consider that its founder, Ingvar Kamprad, was a Nazi sympthiser (oh, and he is estimated to be worth $31bn!).
A strongly nationalistic education and a long history without significant immigration has ensured that Swedish Nazi sympathies remain strong even today. In recent years the grip of the Social Democratic Party has weakened and immigration has grown, but new immigrants are rarely welcomed into Swedish society. Swedes have long practiced the "shunning" of those that do not fit in with a group, and this ensures the total ostracism of newcomers to Swedish society.
Sweden has long since left the policies of eugenics behind. These days it prefers the mechanism by which children are taken from their parents by the state in order to improve the quality of the Swedish "folk". This article by Siv Westerberg, a Swedish children's lawyer, puts the facts plainly and gives an idea of what life is actually like in Sweden.
Fundamentally, Socialism in Sweden is about combining left-wing welfare state economics with authoritarianism. The Swedish people are pressured by the system they live within to conform to a strict model for the ideal Swedish citizen. Middle-class, compliant, uniform and dull. This state is relentlessly de-humanising. Where once Sweden was the home of great thinkers and artists, it is now only the home of pop stars and former tennis players. Where are the great thinkers and writers of modern Sweden? All over Europe, where Social Democracy reigns, this de-humanising process is promoted. The individual gets hammered in, intellectual talent is suppressed. Such a society appears to be stable and successful - but in the manner in which a termites nest might be said to be stable and successful. Is this what a human society should be about?
In Part II I will take a closer look at Socialism in the UK, and compare it with the European model.
Labels: capitalism, communism, eugenics, Nazi, socialism, sweden
posted by Schadenfreude at
11:40
7 Comments:
Your reference to the Swedish lawyer's speech: what a find! So clear and believable, and nightmarish. And the mixture of ego with bureaucratic power is really poisonous - and relevant here in the UK, I'm sure. Where did you coma across this aticle?
I have spent a lot of time in Sweden and know it very well. I was bemused by the peculiar uniformity of Swedish culture. Everybody seemed to be replicating the parts of Richard Briars and Felicity Kendall in "The Good Life". They were "nice" but also rather dull. Any Swede seemed replaceable by any other Swede.
I started to research Swedish history to understand how this had come about. During that research I cam across the charity www.nkmr.org. This charity was set up by Siv Westerberg to defend child custody cases in Sweden and elsewhere in Scandinavia. I couldn't find a really clear article on the nkmr site for the purposes of my blog, but Google pointed me in the right direction.
If Swedish "society" is as dehumanised and bland as you say, it is no wonder that Our Polly and her idiot friends like the idea of a UK version of Swedish Socialism so much. Ingsocialists would love a situation where, instead of having to force a dull uniformity on us, we would actively ask for it.
I have to say that Polly Toynbee is as thick as two short planks. She failed her 11+ for goodness sake. I doubt she has the first clue of what Sweden is really like, despite multiple visits there. It is amusing that she insists on ramming the benefits of Swedish Socialism down our throats just when the Swedes themselves have started to wake up and slowly dismantle it.
this is a fine piece S.
I think the issue too with Sweden is that the Social Democracy is not as far from communism as we like to think. People think vicious Stalin, Lenin etc when they think of communism - really just a n other tyrants.
The Swedish model is much more towards a communists liking - all to be lower middle class with Political correctness supreme and the state so powerful that none would resist it measures.
I have only been there once, but felt the place very alien in many ways.
Don't forget Baudelaire's comment that the best trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Sweden has a kind of Brave New World wealthy social/communism rather than the USSR-type 1984 communism.
I suppose the test is whether dissent and discussion are tolerated rather than what level of comfort people live in!
CU: It is true that Sweden, in the end, compares well with communist states. In the end both are left wing and authoritarian. Sweden, however, has an economy run by private capitalists, rather than by the state, which is what has made it wealthier for most of the last century. However, this has started to fall apart as Sweden tends to have a large number of working unemployed - people that turn up to work but don't do anything once they are there.
Blue Eyes: I think it should be more apparent why Sweden was able to move in this direction where the UK was not. Socialism took hold in Sweden very early on - in the UK it was just too late. In Sweden a mistreated, under-educated, oppressed working class simply became a mistreated, under-educated, oppressed middle-class. In the UK the bulk of the working class were to find a way to escape this fate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home