Göran Therborn, one of the foremost Swedish sociologists and a Left activist (and a friend) has just published an excellent article in "The New Left Review", entitled "Twilight of Swedish Social Democracy". Here are the main facts from the article (not the main theses).
Swedish stock market capitalization went from 12% of GDP in 1980 to 128% in 2012 (higher capitalization than in the US).
Wealth & inheritance tax=0
Poorest 30% of Swedes have 0 or negative net wealth.
Life expectancy gap btw highly educated & low educated is 6y (+2y since 2000)
One Swedish city accepted more Iraqi refugees than the entire US
19% of Swedish residents are foreign-born; 11% from Asia and Africa
Foreign-born men employment rate (78%) higher than the EU rate for natives
Swedish Democrats (SD) poll relatively well in university towns
1/4 of SD voters previously voted for Social Democrats
Main supporters of SD: unemployed, early retirees, self-employed
2018: 1st time in history RW parties captured a majority of working-class vote
Unions stronger among white-collar workers (73%) than blue-collar (61%).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(Long thread)
The reasons why and how Balkan countries enter NATO are never discussed in the Western press. Even their membership is not mentioned.
Here are the reasons.
Montenegro has been run for 35y by the same (let's be polite) autocrat.He was first a Serbian nationalist but
in the past 20y has developed great affinity for democracy & the USA. Some people say that the affinity is due to his being involved in the smuggling of cigarettes and perhaps even of some more serious Colombian wares. Good businessman he has became very rich. If he does not do
what the US tells him to, he might end like Noriega or the former president of Honduras who was just arrested, by the USA, on similar charges, two days ago. So MNE president wants to be nice and join NATO. Much better to go to fancy conferences than to be in jail.
It seems that some people do not like to read what I wrote re. Canadian draconian punishment of protesters, but rather imagine things.
1 Protests whose objective is to make life for majority miserable cannot be allowed. Police normally disperses them and arrests the most violent.
2 But seizing money accounts of protesters imposes collective punishment on their families. It is an entirely unusual and very dangerous punishment. Children are not responsible for actions of parents; spouses for that of their partners.
3 Stating that the protest is illegal and hence that any measures are acceptable is wrong and ignorant. In most countries the protests that one would read about in Canadian newspapers are also "illegal"
Stalin's Russia and Maoist China are often considered "totalitarian". But in one insufficiently researched area they followed entirely different policies.
From the few data that we have, we know that Stalin's USSR (say, around 1935) had a fairly high degree of inequality.
Massive use of Taylorism & piecework rewards led to large wage differences. Stakhanovists were paid highly, so much so that Trotsky thought they might create a "workers' aristocracy". Govt and party top cadres had substantial perks. (Inequality decreased significantly after 1953)
But Maoist China went the other way: equalization of wages, abhorrence of material incentives. This was the very opposite from the practice of "payment according to output" & material incentive which is the essence of Taylorism.
"But the struggle between the first set of billionaires, many of whom Westerners, who enriched themselves under Yeltsin, and were unhappy from being excluded from the next division of the spoils, and the second set of billionaires, the Putin’s “team”,
continues to this day, not only in Russia but across the world. Many of the first group have used millions that they have stolen from Russia to set a number of political think-tanks whose main role is to fight Putin,
under the pretext of transparency and democracy, but in reality in the hope that they would again be able to exploit the mineral resources. Putin’s team in order to stay in power applied the same rules:
Some slides from today's discussion on China at Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
The Chinese elite (top 5%) moved from being associated with the government to being composed mostly of businessmen and professionals.
Educational level of the elite increased substantially: from only 12% with university education in 1988 to 44% in 2013.
The share of CPC members among the top 5% and the top 1% decreased.
The problem is as follows. Since the end of communism, Western envoys in EE have behaved like Roman governors in conquered lands. In normal diplomacy, foreign representatives do not comment on domestic devt's. The French ambassador in the US does not comment on Georgia elections.
The change in behavior is due also to EEuropeans who have accepted this subaltern position of limited sovereignty. In part, because they were used to it, in part b/c they were at loggerhead with others around them, in part b/c they were not sufficiently aware of it.
And many countries have become members of the EU which obviously limits their domestic sovereignty. So the line btw domestic & foreign affairs became blurred.
But this attitude is against the rules of international conduct and formal equality of states.