Tag Archives: politics

A system in which institutions are controlled privately and for profit…

I have no clear definition of where I stand on the political left-right spectrum*. Left in theory and right in practice, I suppose. To most people that makes no sense. Think about it though: one camp wants things that are all wonderful, it’s just that the methods they want to use to get there could be devastating to large parts of society. The other camp has a harsher view on human beings, less appealing goals, yet a political agenda that’s far more functional in the reality we live in.
For what is capitalism, if not a raw and unyielding strategy for survival and profit, favorable for the masses only when tamed by various laws and regulations?
It’s perhaps most apparent in the animal industries, where slaughter, torture and rape are profitable and, as a result, have been normalized. Small scale farms have long since been replaced by gigantic compounds, where cows have no names and workers have no time; where feed formulas are carefully calculated; spaces confined; sprinkle scarce and beaks trimmed. Animal rights activists are necessary to maintain the status quo.  Would this be a reality if farm owners had not been striving towards profit? Of course not. Our entire society is based around the concept of profit and many would be impoverished if they let compassion get the upper hand.
The problem is that we have nothing better. The only alternatives I can think of are a socialist planned economy and small hunter-gatherer societies. The first has, through the course of history, proved to be inefficient and rarely (if ever) compatible with democracy. Communism (which isn’t synonymous with socialist planned economies, but have enough in common to be treated as the same thing in this short, unqualified post) has, historically and invariably, meant that a totalitarian regime has replaced the aristocracy then led millions into poverty and starvation. Few humans are willing to work hard without personal gains, and that’s basically a requirement for socialism to work.
The second alternative – a hunter-gatherer lifestyle –  was abandoned a very long time ago, in our ancestors’ strife for a better life. I think it would be pretty counter productive to return to that, and anyway, nobody would do it willingly.
Bottom line: It’s a horrible system. Deeply dysfunctional. But it’s the best we’ve got.

* Unfortunately, there isn’t really a standardized political spectrum. I think of it as illustrating both economical models – socialism to the left, capitalism to the right – as well as ideologies about the role of the state, where the left tends to stress equality and communion, whereas the right is more about personal freedom.

Advertisements

Shalom, Mr. Speaker of Parliament!

many A couple weeks ago, Swedish PM Löfven announced a re-election, leaving my country in chaos. His government has been a failure from start to finish. A coalition of Social democrats and Green party, it never had a majority in the parliament, thus couldn’t pass their budget.

Who’s fault was it? Everyones of course! Read: it was the fault of the new “political climate”. Read: it’s because Sweden democrats became a weigher, so that no established bloc was in majority.

30 years ago it was a neo-nazi party (though in recent years some of the most extreme members have been excluded and the opinions that are expressed in public are not as extreme as Hitler’s). Their slogan is “Safety and tradition”, their goal to reduce asylum immigration by 90%. Their leader recently spent 60 000 € on gambling. Three members attacked a popular comedian with iron pipes. Another couple of top-cats made the following statements: “Art should not provoke”, “Rape is a deeply rooted part of Islam”, “homosexuality is unnatural”, “Jews and sami can have a swedish citizenship, but they are not Swedes”.  The list goes on.

They are bullied and ostracized by all mainstream parties. Which is to be expected, nobody with any ounce of intelligence would want anything to do with them. But, that has enabled them to play the role of the victim. It has – worse – enabled them to play the role of the only real opposition. Because that’s what they have become. That, and 13% in September’s Parliament election. And that scares me.

Nazi or not, do they have a point? Is immigration harmful? To answer that question you have to look beyond the why question, because reducing the number of refugees we take in will of course ruin thousands of lives. People will be forced to stay in war torn Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, et.c.

No, the question is wether immigration is beneficial for US. Unfortunately, many mainstream politicians are afraid of discussing this. Immigration does mean that more homes will have to be build. Education in Swedish will cost money, and without it employing them anywhere will be nearly impossible. There is a risk that extremist islamists will be among the newly arrived. But, they will also  contribute workforce to a community with an aging population. They will also enrich the culture of a falafel-loving people. They will also – hopefully – be given the chance of a better life.

And yes, our beloved Swedish culture will change. Of course it will change. Would you rather that we froze time? That we got stuck in a specific period, a specific culture, a specific degree of development? Sweden would change any way. 

Note (to any non-swedish reader): The Swedish democracy is based on three levels: commune, county and Riksdag. The Riksdag is  our parliament, formed in accordance to percentage of votes. A government in then formed by the bloc which received the most votes. Right now, eight parties are represented (on the national level). That gives a nuanced debate, but also difficulties. As for the current situation, the government didn’t manage to get a serious cooperation with the center-right bloc, something which would have made a passable budget.