Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

September 25, 2015

The economic theory and policies of Swedish social democracy

Filed under: Sweden — louisproyect @ 7:24 pm

Knut Wicksell: the father of Swedish social democratic economic policies and an influence on Mises and Hayek as well.

(This is the eighth in a series of articles on “the Swedish model”. Part one is here. It is an introduction that relates Swedish socialism to Bismarck’s reforms. Part two is here. It is about the persecution of the Samis. Part three is here. It deals with Sweden and the “scramble for Africa”. Part four took up the Myrdal enthusiasm for eugenics. Part five deals with Sweden’s economic partnership with Hitler. Part six covers the social pact that labor and capital agreed upon in 1938. Part seven addressed the question of “Who Rules Sweden”.)

Trying to understand the evolution of the economic theories underlying Swedish social democracy is no easy task. There is not only a dearth of English-language material but in Swedish as well. In “Seven Figures in the History of Swedish Economic Thought”, a specialized text on some of the leading economists associated with the “Swedish model”, author Mats Lundahl refers to their output as “unknown” or “forgotten”.

If the “Chicago School” summons up images of Milton Friedman consulting with Pinochet, what does the “Stockholm School of Economics” evoke? Founded in 1909 as a business school largely from donations by Knut Wallenberg, it was intended to churn out experts who could help Sweden modernize its economy and develop international trade. The Wallenbergs were the Rockefellers of Sweden and well equipped to shape the doctrines that would govern the nation’s future. As it turns out, the Rockefeller Foundation had considerable interest in Sweden’s politics as well, donating large sums to set up a Social Science think-tank under the jurisdiction of the University of Stockholm that would study the impact of wage levels in the labor market among other things. Among the earliest benefactors of Rockefeller funding was Gunnar Myrdal, a Stockholm School graduate who would later on be referred to the Carnegie Foundation for the funding he needed to write “American Dilemma”, widely considered a seminal work on civil rights.

So how did Sweden’s social democracy get hooked up with a business school funded by Sweden’s most powerful capitalist dynasty?

In a way this was inevitable given the social democracy’s ideological drift that began in the 1880s and deepened over the decades. It can best be described as the Swedish version of Eduard Bernstein but unconstrained by any kind of left opposition in the party such as existed in Germany.

One of the key departures from classical Marxism was rejection of the labor theory of value. Party theoreticians became seduced by the theories of Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, who was arguably the first economist to challenge the core beliefs of Marxism on the nature of capitalist exploitation.

As it turns out, the economist who is considered the ideological progenitor of the Stockholm School was one Knut Wicksell, who like Böhm-Bawerk took aim at the labor theory of value. It is of some note that Bohm-Bawerk is considered the father of the Austrian school of economics that includes Mises and Hayek. If Wicksell was an acolyte of Bohm-Bawerk, how did he end up influencing the likes of Gunnar Myrdal who is one of the 20th century’s iconic liberal figures? Furthermore, if the Stockholm School was indeed a pioneer of the kind of economic policies associated with John Maynard Keynes, even to the point of beating him to the punch, how do you explain the odd admixture of neoclassical economics and 20th century liberalism?

Wicksell was as much of an influence on the Austrians as Bohm-Bawerk. If you go to the Mises wiki, you will find a page that pays tribute to Wicksell as a major contributor to their business cycle theories. Since much of Wicksell’s writings involve very technical analysis of interest rates and credit allocation, it is not that hard to understand why he would be of use to reactionaries like Mises.

But the more interesting question is to what degree Wicksell’s neo-Malthusian views that were put forward largely in non-academic writings had an influence on subsequent social democratic policies, especially forced sterilization.

In his chapters on Wicksell, Lundahl finds those writings to be more important than the technical price, interest rate and credit analysis. In lectures to his students at Uppsala University, Wicksell dwelled at length on the vices of the lower class such as alcoholism and prostitution. He was also concerned about overpopulation, thinking that technological breakthroughs could never keep pace with population growth. Much of his writing is focused on determining an “optimum population”. While there is no particular recommendation on the need for forced sterilization, you have to wonder to what extent his fixation on such matters figured in the state policies that would leave many Roma women sterile.

If Wicksell’s emphasis on the need for market relations to guarantee efficient provision of capital, labor and resources seems at odds with Swedish values, keep in mind that his influence can be felt in the writings of Gunnar Myrdal who on first blush would appear to be the anti-Austrian par excellence.

If a $15 (or better) minimum wage is a demand that resonates with civil rights activists today, it is rather shocking to discover that Myrdal’s take in “American Dilemma” had more in common with Bill O’Reilly’s:

During the ’thirties the danger of being a marginal worker became increased by social legislation intended to improve conditions on the labor market. The dilemma, as viewed from the Negro angle is this: on the one hand, Negroes constitute a disproportionately large number of the workers in the nation who work under imperfect safety rules, in unclean and unhealthy shops, for long hours, and for sweatshop wages; on the other hand, it has largely been the availability of such jobs which has given Negroes any employment at all. As exploitative working conditions are gradually being abolished, this, of course, must benefit Negro workers most, as they have been exploited most—but only if they are allowed to keep their employment. But it has mainly been their willingness to accept low labor standards which has been their protection. When government steps in to regulate labor conditions and to enforce minimum standards, it takes away nearly all that is left of the old labor monopoly in the “Negro jobs.” (emphasis added)

As low wages and sub-standard labor conditions are most prevalent in the South, this danger is mainly restricted to Negro labor in that region. When the jobs are made better, the employer becomes less eager to hire Negroes, and white workers become more eager to take the jobs from the Negroes. (p. 397)

Perhaps the only thing that can be said here is that Myrdal remained committed to neoclassical economics despite his reputation of being some kind of socialist. If supply and demand dictate what Black labor gets, then how can a civil rights movement be built?

You can read a large part of Herbert Aptheker’s critique of Gunnar Myrdal’s “An American Dilemma” on Google Books. It is a reminder of how good Communists could be when they were ready to go for the jugular:

The bourgeois values of Myrdal are also given quite explicitly. He states that to him the terms good and bad are “defined according to our value premise of placing the general American culture ‘higher.” The same bias is apparent in Myrdal’s choice of the “friends” of the Negro. To him, “the Negro’s friend—or the one who is least unfriendly—is still rather the upper class of white people, the people with economic and social security.” And in another place Myrdal names one of these upper class people, Edgar G. Murphy, “who is distinguished as one of the most sincere friends of the Negro among the conservative-minded old Southerners.” This individual, a leader in the Alabama movement to overthrow Reconstruction government and constitution, felt that so far as the Negro is concerned, “the spirit of the South has been the spirit of kindliness and helpfulness…. The South gives to him the best gift of a civilization to an individual, the opportunity to live industriously and honestly. . . The South, must, of course, secure the supremacy of intelligence and property.” Such, to Myrdal, is “one of the most sincere friends of the Negro.”

To a large extent, Swedish social democratic economic policies rest on the notion of a “third way” in which labor and capital can cooperate with each other and avoid the mutual destruction revolutionary confrontations produce—at least according to theoreticians such as Knut Wicksell, Gunnar Myrdal, et al. But to what extent did the bourgeoisie really agree to a compromise that left both major classes in society on an equal footing? Were the Wallenbergs et al swayed by reason or were there other factors that accounted for the class peace that had dominated in Sweden for so many decades?

Unlike the USA, where the Communists were the largest party on the left, Sweden was social democratic territory. The social democrats were a known quantity to the big bourgeoisie in Sweden who regarded them as pushovers. In 1931 there was a general strike over the killings of strikers and their supporters in Adalen, a struggle led by the CP. It was that general strike that ironically led to the election of the SAP (the social democrats). In the 1920s, the SAP had demonstrated its willingness to avoid “extremism”. In an article titled “Forestalling the Business Veto: Investment Confidence and the Rise of Swedish Social Democracy” that was co-authored by Karen Anderson and Steven Snow that appeared in the March 2003 Social Science Quarterly, they document how willing the SAP was to bow to the bosses’ demands:

 The Social Democrats were historically linked to the unions, from which they derived much political support, but as a party often in government, it felt obliged to reduce the economic losses from labor conflicts. In the 1920s the SAP “repeatedly advocated general interests over and above the struggle of individual groups of workers for better working conditions”. Throughout this period, in fact, the SAP often stood with employers on the issue of wage rates. When the employers said that a wage reduction was unavoidable, the Social Democratic representatives in the unions often supported them. In 1920, for example, in response to a recession and in the face of unions’ appeals, the Social Democratic Minister of Finance declared “The demand for increased wages must cease”. The party was also willing to criticize outbreaks of violence in clashes between workers and police. In several labor disputes, even though the police apparently used excessive force, the SAP proved willing to denounce the tactics of striking workers. “Offenses against existing law must always be condemned,” the SAP Prime Minister argued.

In the 1930s, there was a rising tide of labor strikes in the USA but in Sweden, there was an opposite tendency thanks to the class collaborationism of the SAP as this chart from the Anderson-Snow article indicates:

Screen Shot 2015-09-25 at 3.08.43 PM

In exchange for a housebroken trade union movement, the SAP was able to provide sizable material benefits to the working class until global competition in the 1980s forced Sweden to rip up the accords it had made with the workers and throw them in the garbage can. That will be the topic of my final article in this series.

17 Comments »

  1. I find it strange that your series on Swedish social democracy has nothing to say about various prominent SAP members from Ernst Wigforss to Rudolf Meidner. There were always genuine anti-capitalists in the SAP as well as pro-capitalist social democrats. And the LO (Swedish Trade Union Confederation) was hardly always “housebroken.” Meidner created a proposal in 1976, published by the LO, that called for requiring all companies above a certain size to issue new stock shares to workers, so that within 20 years the workers would control 52% of the companies they worked in. Olaf Palme opposed it and it was never implemented, but that doesn’t sound like a non-radical labor movement to me.

    Comment by jschulman — September 25, 2015 @ 9:20 pm

  2. These articles are not fair and balanced. They are meant to show the dark side of social democracy. There’s a lot of detail I left out. In the 1930s Sweden managed to hold up better than other countries because a devalued currency aided exports, in its case this meant selling iron to Germany so it could put together its killing machine.

    Comment by louisproyect — September 25, 2015 @ 9:32 pm

  3. The Soviet Union was a next door neighbor to Sweden. During the 1930s, many younger workers in the SAP looked to the October Revolution for inspiration. That helped to motivate both the top leadership of the SAP and the big capitalists to strive towards attaining class peace. The collapse of the Soviet Union has helped to convince Swedish capitalists, as it has capitalists elsewhere, that they need no longer rely on things like the welfare state and strong trade unions to preserve class peace.

    Comment by Jim Farmelant — September 26, 2015 @ 1:27 am

  4. 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%.

    If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.

    Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

    You can do better, Sweden. Are you really willing stay number two and let tiny Lesotho, with a lousy 91.6 rapes per 100,000 beat you in the World Rape Contest?

    You can do it, get your rapes to at least 100 per 100,000, and you win.

    At least you’re beating the shit out of Denmark.

    In 2011, 6,509 rapes were reported to the Swedish police — but only 392 in Denmark. Fucking multicultural losers. The population of Denmark is about half the size of Sweden’s, so even adjusted for size, the discrepancy is significant.

    In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists. In Denmark, the state’s official statistical office, Statistics Denmark, revealed that in 2010 more than half of convicted rapists had an immigrant background.

    Welcome Refugees!

    Comment by Carole Lindholm — September 26, 2015 @ 2:53 am

  5. > the theories of Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, who was arguably the first economist to challenge the core beliefs of Marxism on the nature of capitalist exploitation.

    Eugen Böhm von Bawerk challenged contradictions in Capital, and successfully challenged them. His criticisms are serious ones, especially with regards to questions of prices and values. Unanswered, Capital is just a flawed, contradictory work. Even Paul Sweezy said as much, and tried to address these gaps in works such as “The Theory of Capitalist Development”. As did Hilferding, Bukharin, Sraffa. The answers are all over the place though. Prices are pretty important in the economy, what is the Marxist explanation for them? There seems to be as many answers for that question from Marxian economists as there are Trotskyite sects.

    Comment by Adelson Velsky Landis — September 26, 2015 @ 9:59 am

  6. Interesting to read the words of a Swedish nativist here (#4). I don’t expect to see much more but I thought it would be useful to examine a specimen.

    Comment by louisproyect — September 26, 2015 @ 12:32 pm

  7. This is reason I left Somalia and came to Sweden.

    One afternoon three militia men raped me. There had been a bad clash between Al-Shabaab and another group that day. The news, that I had been raped, went around the area and I was ashamed. I returned to my farm after two months. One day, someone I knew, a young man, came to my farm just as I was finishing work. People from Al-Shabaab saw this and said, ‘you have been raped and now you have committed adultery.’ They declared I would be stoned as a punishment.

    On my way to Europe I was held in a detention center in Sabratah, in norwestern Libya, where officials beat a pregnant woman to death, and regularly beat and strip-searched the women.

    They used to beat us with pipes on the back of our thighs; they were even beating the pregnant women. At night, they would come to our rooms and tried to sleep with us. Some of the women were raped. One woman even got pregnant after she was raped. No one touched me because I was pregnant. This is why I decided to go to Europe. I suffered too much in prison. One of the pregnant women died there—they took away her body, but we don’t know what exactly happened to her. They hit her on the stomach—she was seven to eight months pregnant and died. During the day, they would force us to come out of our rooms to clean or cook. They used to touch our breasts when we were working. They would beat us if we dared to shout.

    Comment by Istaahil — September 26, 2015 @ 3:12 pm

  8. “Marxian economists”

    An oxymoron if there ever was one.

    Economics is bourgeois; a fake science meant to explain a system that can’t be justified.

    Marx was no economist. He was a revolutionist.

    Capital was “a critique of political economy” not an addition to it!

    It’s clear so many “Marxists” and anti Marxists alike have never read Marx, or at the very least never understood him. A tragedy of our time!

    Comment by Dana — September 27, 2015 @ 3:57 am

  9. The Marxist theory of value is not a Marxist theory of price. It isn’t really an explanation for why commodities have the specific proces that they have, but why they have prices at all, and what the prerequisites are for capitalist pricing (i.e., abstract labor).

    Jim Devine explains:

    http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/notes/Law-of-Value.html

    Comment by jschulman — September 27, 2015 @ 5:48 pm

  10. The Sweden Democrat party (the country’s most radical extreme right) now leads in polls for the first time ever.

    Political scientists were split on how to interpret the poll which was carried out last week, following both a high profile campaign by the Sweden Democrats to ban begging on Stockholm’s subway, and a double stabbing outside an Ikea store, for which two Eritrean asylum seekers were arrested, with one admitting to the crime.

    http://www.thelocal.se/20150820/swedens-nationalists-lead-polls-for-first-time

    Comment by anonymous — September 27, 2015 @ 7:15 pm

  11. “Human rights, dissidence, antiracism, SOS-this, SOS-that: these are soft, easy, post coitum historicum ideologies, ‘after-the-orgy’ ideologies for an easy-going generation which has known neither hard ideologies nor radical philosophies. The ideology of a generation which is neo-sentimental in its politics too, which has rediscovered altruism, conviviality, international charity and the individual bleeding heart. Emotional outpourings, solidarity, cosmopolitan emotiveness, multi-media pathos: all soft values harshly condemned by the Nietzschean, Marxo-Freudian age… A new generation, that of the spoilt children of the crisis, whereas the preceding one was that of the accursed children of history.”

    ― Jean Baudrillard

    Comment by Ballard — September 27, 2015 @ 11:56 pm

  12. > Economics is bourgeois

    I went to a rally some years ago and some Trotskyite sect/cult, which of course had done nothing to organize the rally, but just set up their table to be parasitic on it, was selling newspapers. One of the Trots told me they sold newspapers because Trotsky has once written about the importance of selling the party newspaper. Luckily Trotsky lived in the time of the printing press, otherwise they may have had to have written it out in pen and ink like scribes, perhaps in Latin.

    If I was explaining things to an average working class American (oops, I used the word “American” just to refer to someone from the USA!) I would be more worried about using the world bourgeois than economist. Don’t worry though, I’m sure Worker’s Vanguard and 1917 will stick to that precise proletariat language you seem to crave.

    Comment by Adelson Velsky Landis — September 28, 2015 @ 4:11 am

  13. > Jim Devine explains
    >> In Marx’s analysis, price and value should be seen as two different characteristics of each commodity. The price represents how a commodity is “valued” by individuals in the market.

    This is such a vague and ambiguous explanation that it fits not only the labor theory of value, but the subjective theory of labor. Hayek, von Mises, and Milton Friedman all believed that “price represents how a commodity is ‘valued’ by individuals in the market” also.

    I can accept that the “the Marxist theory of value is not a Marxist theory of price”, but then the only explanation we have for why commodities have the price they do is mainstream economics. There must be some rational reason why commodities have the prices they do. The only people who have (copious) explanations for why they do are mainstream economists though.

    Comment by Adelson Velsky Landis — September 28, 2015 @ 4:51 am

  14. Some of the early marginalists, like Jevons were already publishing when
    Marx was still around and was still working on Capital. Marx never addressed
    the work of the early marginalists. On the other hand, he did provide
    critiques of the work of those people, who he called the vulgar economists,
    like Say or J.S. Mill, who were precursors of the marginalists.

    Probably, the best known Marxist response to the marginalists, was
    Bukharin’s book, The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class
    (https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/),
    which focused on the work of the early Austrian School, which Bukharin was
    intimately familiar with, since while living in Vienna, he spent time
    attending the lectures of Austrian School economists like Eugen von
    Böhm-Bawerk, who was famous for his critique of Marx, as expressed in his
    book, Karl Marx and the Close of His System
    (https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/bohm/). Bukharin defended
    Marx’s labor theory of value against the marginalists subjectivist approach
    towards value theory. In critiquing the Austrians, Bukharin drew upon the
    work of earlier Marxist writers like Hilferding.

    The British economist, Joan Robinson, was not a Marxist, as such. But as
    someone who had been originally trained in the neoclassical economics of
    Alfred Marshall, who became a disciple of Keynes, she became increasingly
    drawn towards Marxism. She was very much a socialist, but she abjured the
    label of Marxist because she rejected the labor theory of value as well as
    dialectical materialism, styling herself as a traditional English
    empiricist. Despite her neoclassical training, she became of the great
    critics of neoclassical economics. Whereas, many of the American Keynesians,
    like Paul Samuelson, had held that Keynesian economics could be reconciled
    with and incorporated into neoclassical economics (what Samuelson called the
    new neoclassical synthesis), Robinson would have none of this. She held that
    if Keynes’s insights into macroeconomics were correct then neoclassical
    economic theory must be deeply flawed. Joan Robinson, in her 1962 book,
    Economic Philosophy, attacked both the labor theory of value as well as the
    marginalists’ subjectivist approach to value. Both approaches, in her
    estimation, relied on the making of assumptions that were not empirically
    faslsifiable. Both approaches were viewed by her as being metaphysical
    rather than scientific.
    (https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/joan-robinsons-critique-of-marginal-utility-theory/)
    (https://archive.org/details/EconomicPhilosophy)

    Many Marxist economists have sought to make peace with marginalism. The
    Polish economist, Oskar Lange, was a noted example of this trend. He sought
    to be both a Marxist and a neoclassical economist. He thought Marxism
    provided the key to understanding the historical evolution of capitalism
    (including its ultimate displacement by socialism), but he regarded
    traditional Marxist economics as inadequate in several ways. He considered
    the “labor theory of value” (as shared to a great extent by Adam Smith and
    David Ricardo as well as Marx) unscientific, and held that a Marxian concept
    of exploitation could be restated without it. He made statements like

    “If people want to anticipate the development of Capitalism over a long
    period, a knowledge of Marx is a much more effective starting point than a
    knowledge of [Friedrich von] Wieser, [Eugen von] Bohm-Bawerk, Vilfredo
    Pareto or even [Alfred] Marshall (although the last-named is in this respect
    much superior). But Marxian economics would be a poor basis for running a
    central bank or anticipating the effects of a change in the rate of
    discount.”

    and

    “[I]n providing a scientific basis for the current administration of the
    capitalist economy ‘bourgeois’ economics has developed a theory of
    equilibrium which can also serve as a basis for the current administration
    of a socialist economy. It is obvious that Marshallian economics offers more
    for the current administration of the economic system of Soviet Russia than
    Marxian economics does, though the latter is surely the more effective basis
    for anticipating the future of capitalism.”

    Over time, Lange’s approach became quite popular among Marxist economists in
    eastern Europe, as did his advocacy of a kind of market socialism.

    The young Sidney Hook in his 1933 book, Towards the Understanding of Karl
    Marx, took an interesting approach to the issue of the LTV versus
    marginalism. He argued that from the standpoint of pure logic one cannot
    prove or disprove any theory of value. He drew an analogy with theories of
    geometry. Just as physical space can be described in terms of multiple
    systems of geometry (Euclidean, Lobachevskyian, Riemmanian etc.), so the
    same is true for the description of economic phenomena in terms of multiple
    theories of value. Experience cannot disprove any given geometric system,
    only make description in terms of a system, more or less complex. For the
    physicist, that geometric system, will be “true,” to the extent that it in
    combination with other physical hypotheses, yields the simplest description
    of his experimental findings. However, to the extent that experimental
    control is not in question, the physicist can always save the appearances by
    introducing subsidiary assumptions and ad hoc hypotheses so that he can
    describe physical reality in terms of any geometric system that he chooses.
    Hook contended that the same was true for theories of economic value as
    well.

    He argued that economic reality can be described in either marginalist terms
    or in terms of Marx’s LTV. In either case, the economist must necessarily
    rely upon subsidiary hypotheses, such that it is not possible to refute
    either Marxian value theory or marginalism on the basis of empirical
    observations. And Hook argued that Marx in *Capital* anticipated all of the
    major objections to LTV. In any case, LTV can with sufficient tweaking of
    subsidiary hypotheses, always be saved from refutation. And in any case,
    neither LTV nor any other alternative theory possesses any predictive power
    .

    But then Hook asks, if it is the case that we can always save LTV from
    empirical refutation, why would we want to save it. And his answer was
    because LTV is ultimately not a Sorelian myth or an ideology but is “. . .
    the self-conscious theoretical expression of the practical activity of the
    working class engaged in a continuous struggle for a higher standard of
    living – a struggle which reaches its culmination in social revolution. . .
    To the extent that economic phenomena are removed from the influences of the
    class struggle, the analytical explanations in terms of the labor theory of
    value grow more and more difficult. The labor theory of value is worth
    saving if the struggle against capitalism is worth the fight.”

    Comment by Jim Farmelant — September 28, 2015 @ 9:56 pm

  15. Odd that we’ve drifted into a discussion of Marx’s value theory, but what the hey…

    I think Fred Moseley does a great job of explaining why Marx’s theory makes sense:

    “It is certainly true that one can assume that value is determined by
    corn or oil or peanuts or whatever, and deduce from this assumption the
    conclusion that e.g. peanuts are exploited. However, what else can one
    explain on the basis of this assumption? By contrast, by assuming that
    value and surplus-value are determined by labor, Marx is able to explain
    such important phenomena of capitalism as: conflict over the working
    day, conflict over the intensity of labor, inherent technological
    change, periodic crises, etc. The case for the LTV over these other
    contenders is not based on a purely logical argument — that labor is
    the only possible source of value and surplus-value — but rather on the
    greater explanatory power of the LTV compared to its rivals.”

    “The LTV… explains the precise mechanism
    through which exploitation takes place in capitalism — workers are paid
    a money-wage and then produce value greater than this wage. The payment
    of the money-wage makes it appear as if there is an equal exchange
    between capitalists and workers, and hence no exploitation. The LTV
    dispels this illusion and reveals the reality of exploitation beneath
    the surface appearance of equality.”

    “The LTV explains both profit and exploitation,
    i.e. it explains exploitation be providing a theory of profit. This
    theory of profit is in turn used to explain the important phenomena of
    capitalism mentioned above.”

    Source: http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1994/94-11-30.000&msgnum=152&start=9481&end=9629

    Comment by jschulman — September 30, 2015 @ 2:45 pm

  16. #6 Interesting to read the words of a Swedish nativist here (#4). I don’t expect to see much more but I thought it would be useful to examine a specimen. (Comment by louisproyect)

    In real life, I am a mixed-race lesbian Swedish immigrant who was abused as a child by a conservative Republican white politician and kept as a sex-slave by neo-Nazis with Confederate-flag tattoos

    Comment by Carole Lindholm — October 2, 2015 @ 4:01 am

  17. […] labor and capital agreed upon in 1938. Part seven addressed the question of “Who Rules Sweden” Part eight looked into the Stockholm School of economics that served as as the foundation for Social Democratic […]

    Pingback by How Swedish Social Democracy became neoliberal | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — November 10, 2015 @ 9:49 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: