S's new social analysis is for immigration but is it and everything else it is in a way that is most repressive. The class analysis and the workers' needs are absent. S is the big red-green society-supporting party. It must abandon the idea of "saving-in-the-barns". This austerity goal is only focused on subsidizing the wealth of the very few at the expense of the collapse of the rest of society. Read Lisa Pelling's exquisite analysis of the Social Democrats' new manifesto.
Read about how we get council with society here. We can afford society in the same way as before neoliberalism began with the state taking back money creation from the banks. This is called a government deficit.
It is the policy of austerity/neoliberalism/savings-in-the-barns where state responsibility for money creation is prohibited that causes hospitals to close down and welfare to decrease etc.
Are you re-reading deficit policy this shows that when the state controls money creation, we can afford everything we have natural resources, manpower, know-how and infrastructure. We can use this for what we find most useful.
The terrible thing is that the social democrats have so far in their new social analysis blamed all social problems on the immigrants. The problems really depends on the austerity policy which we chose as Kjell-Olof Feldt's words describe well: Sweden needs more billionaires.
The only ones who suffered from the welfare economy 1930-1975 were the richest whose passive financial capital did not grow as fast when production, public health, housing, school, care, care, culture, infrastructure, research, defense and more were going well.
The terrible thing is that when S social analysis blames everything on the immigrants, they are bourgeois first to propose that the state should be allowed to run a deficit again to get the economy going again. Sure, this can bring more welfare, but not as much good working conditions, welfare, diversity and green politics as if the reds understood to abandon save-in-the-barns.
Agree. But will the Social Democrats change their mind? Hardly.
In any case, not until people organize themselves alongside them according to the principles they had at the beginning of the 1900th century: organize disorder, organize cooperative activities, and tie everything together with a popular movement culture.
But I wonder how long it will take before people discover this.
Yes. It's just that we start telling them that this is what is required. All social development begins with agitators pamphlets and and new newspapers starting (probably online these days, it's cheap - so what do you say, are you in? 😀
Also check out Active Hope/the work that reconnects, it's precisely about starting to build up what's missing from the ground up again, because it's the right thing to do to start feeling hopeful again.
And cooperate, cooperate, cooperate!!! 🙂
I think you have to combine. In order to maintain realistic competitive opportunities, we must take support of our party activities and mass media from the state when we have influence in it. Then we also need a living grassroots movement that keeps a check on the chancellery social democrats when the red-greens are in power so that this leadership does not become a chancellery right wing.
The big strategic mistake that Per Albin's generation made was to demobilize their own base.
A government is a compromise body between the forces that exist in society. The compromise can, of course, lean more or less in one direction or the other, but it is still a compromise.
And if you demobilize your own base, e.g. as SAP did from 1932 by guaranteeing labor peace and suppressing with an iron hand all mobilizations it could, in the long run you kill your own ability. As the legendary management prophet Peter Drucker pointed out in his brilliant book The effective executive, you should not start compromising before you have made it absolutely clear what you really want, and also fought for it for a while. Otherwise, you drown in a quagmire of compromises.
The popular movement wave at the beginning of the 1900th century, especially in the 1920s, was so strong that the energy lasted into the 50s, even a little into the 70s thanks to the smaller popular movement wave that prevailed at the time. But in 1980 it was over. Consequently, inequality began to rise again that very year.
It has nothing to do with betrayal or fraud or any other moralizing category. It has to do with the nature of governments as compromise actors. They must take into account the forces that exist in society. And if workers and lower middle classes do not speak up but sit back and wait, they must take all the more account of those who do speak up and have the power to argue. The decisions in the world are a compromise, a result of prevailing forces.
More about this at https://gemensam.wordpress.com/2022/10/05/varlden-styrs-av-kompromisser-gudskelov/
Precisely the Social Democrats need a grassroots counter-embankment movement.
Or as Medha Patkar says: Mass-roots, not grass-roots, https://www.tni.org/en/publication/we-need-massroots-not-grassroots-movements
What's stopping us? Mostly, I think, the notion that all organization is evil because it is by definition authoritarian. But long-term hierarchical resistance organizing with representative democracy is the only way that has historically been shown to achieve any results. Then, of course, it should be supplemented with great initiative possibilities from the base, it should not be *easy* for the top of the movement to close the lid on it.
On the need for such organization see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/the-mass-protest-decade-why-did-the-street-movements-of-the-2010s-fail
Only if you get a power-critical protest movement started in some way.
The basic condition is that you are not satisfied with being on the internet. Humans are such that they must meet physically in order for a collective to arise, see e.g. Randall Collins: Sociological insight – an introduction to non-obvious sociology, https://www.amazon.com/Sociological-Insight-Introduction-Non-Obvious-Sociology/dp/0195074424 (but bought with advantage from Abebooks...)
Registration at http://www.folkrorelser.org/blogg/2021/06/13/vi-behover-fler-gemensamma-riter/
Perhaps the dawn of a spontaneous popular protest movement against the greed and greed of power, originating in the strike against Tesla in Sweden, is beginning. European unions, including French and German, support IF Metall's strike against Tesla and Elon Musk. The protests relate to Tesla's refusal to enter into collective agreements in Sweden and are considered an attack on the Swedish social model. Criticism is also directed at Tesla's alleged anti-union practices in both the US and Europe. Unions in Germany and Norway have warned against Tesla's actions, claiming the company is undermining union organizing and trying to impose American working conditions in Europe. The European union Etuc advocates that the EU should investigate whether Tesla's working conditions are contrary to common EU laws. Musk has publicly expressed his aversion to unions.
https://www.svd.se/a/kEnr3X/strejken-mot-tesla-stodet-vaxer-i-europa