
Equality builds the strong society.
Why should low-paid workers, those looking for work, those born with a disability or those whose working life is cut off live significantly differently from ordinary people. And why should ordinary people be significantly worse off than the rich?
We red-greens must believe in freedom under responsibility and equality if people are to vote for us.
In the 1970s came neoliberalism. It wanted to reduce our equality and introduce a deregulated market and minimized public sector. After Reinfeldt, neoliberalism transitioned into austerity policies. This means that the state must save, which means that production is minimized unnecessarily. Private individuals, companies, associations and all the public sector that is not the state may run the economy by taking out loans.
(In fact, Sweden and other countries with an independent central bank have enormous resources. The government can print money as long as this increases productivity. Read more here.)
The basis of the austerity policy's social outlook and distaste for equality is related to the radical right debater Ayn Rand's message. She wrote that solidarity is the highest evil. Rand said that the elite at the top of society drive society forward and not those at the bottom.
Those in power must deliver equality
But in many societies there have been dictatorships now as then. What has made these last? Yes, if they delivered welfare to the people.
According to Marx's dialectic, we got bourgeois democracy in the 1800th century when democracy as an institution became more effective in delivering welfare to the people.
Our equality is reduced via reduced social security, minimized contributions and weakened trade unions and labor rights. This should pressure them to take the worst jobs they can get, so society moves towards us all striving for our worst moods fear. Then the works will be worse for everyone.
This leads to an excess of job seekers in bad jobs. The more people looking for bad jobs, the worse these will be according to the principle of supply and demand and the iron-clad wage law.
The pension issue is an electoral issue
Now 36% ready to switch parties depending on who delivers the best retirement pensions. This shows that we build power from below. Delivering equality builds power. The red-greens cannot retain power unless they deliver significantly more decent conditions for low- and middle-income earners.
At the same time, it is the production capacity of the many, the purchasing power of the many, the leisure time of the many (to consume), the know-how of the many and the creativity of the many that determine the economy and industry we get.
People perform better on work in organizations with equality and where people are given the opportunity to prioritize and to work under relaxed conditions.
The public sector historically builds a labor market with equality, full employment, stable economic development even in recession and is necessary for a country to have a competitive technology and drug development.
We may have some pay differences to favor those who deliver results, those who have studied, those who have risky jobs or those who have a lot of responsibility.
But the red-greens must not forget that ordinary people must have a good time.
Market rents destroy the strong society
Market rents are an abomination. If the government prints money, we can afford it by subsidizing rental properties with regulated rents. Market rents mean that low- and middle-income earners cannot afford to live or that they have to live in unhealthily cramped conditions. In addition, purchasing power decreases when people receive market rents. This disadvantages the majority of the country's entrepreneurs who are not property owners. Equality builds the good, regulated capitalism.
What is good then? Yes, really, no one, regardless of whether they are employed or unemployed, should receive less than SEK 20 after tax.
A few years ago, ETC wrote that Sweden was so rich that if everyone had received the same salary, we would have received 40 before tax.
So 20 as a minimum level for everyone after tax per month should be the goal and this level must be regulated by both the price and wage index so that the minimum level is not hollowed out over time. The social contribution may be a few thousand lower but not below 000 net.
Why should low-paid workers, those looking for work, those who are born with a disability or whose working life ends up living significantly differently from ordinary people. And why should ordinary people be significantly worse off than the rich?
We red-greens must believe in freedom under responsibility and equality if people are to vote for us.
At the time the labor movement was placed in government, however, it was about more than "people voting for us". Then it was about building a people's movement society around a backbone of active trade unions that organized a continuous wave of strikes from 1917 until well into the 30s.
So about self-employment, together. Not just voting for some elites.
Today's election campaigns, say David Graeber & David Wengrow in the book The dawn of everything, actually a book about our prehistory, are actually a modern version of ancient horse races and other elite sports that "strong men" engaged in to increase their charisma. That is, as far from democracy as you can get.
Democracy is nourished by popular politics of the kind our forefathers conducted a few generations ago. Cooperatives, unions, temperance associations, etc etc etc, which together conquered a political and cultural hegemony that made it natural to also have a labor movement government.