Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
We certainly live in interesting times. The blame game has already begun, and on a massive scale.

What I don't understand is how prime minister Löfven allowed himself to be painted into this corner.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Dec 5th, 2014 at 12:25:43 AM EST
Is he a Social Democrat? That would explain how...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2014 at 03:02:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One really must start to question what's going on here. Last night he commented on television that "the difference between nazism and fascism is that fascists respected democratic principles".

That's quite some news to me, as I'm sure it also is for our e.g. Spanish and Italian users.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Mon Dec 8th, 2014 at 03:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"the difference between nazism and fascism is that fascists respected democratic principles". --

One might be forgiven for suspecting that the respect for 'democratic principles' is more focused on areas where they enjoy an absolute majority in (poorly informed) public opinion. And I doubt that they are so supportive where opinion is against them.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Dec 8th, 2014 at 03:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Say what?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 8th, 2014 at 07:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Dec 9th, 2014 at 03:20:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US South the things that unite 'populism' these days are racism, homophobia and gynophobia - in addition to xenophobia. Prior to WWI and during the '30s there was some more left-wing populism focused on economic oppression and trying to unite races, religions and genders. After WWI in the US all left wing populism was deliberately tied to World Wide
Communism, first by the Red Scare then by J Edgar. But you knew that.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Dec 9th, 2014 at 09:12:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 9th, 2014 at 04:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Continuing with:

"They say that they respect democracy, but they don't want a democracy where other people with other skin color and other religion is participating and says - like the Sweden democrats says - that the biggest threat since Adolf Hitler is moslems. Then they have gone very far, and then I should not be the one to answer what their opinions are, I think they should do so themselves."

Which makes them racist. The lesson to be learned is that when introducing new terms, make sure your party leader is up to speed about it.

In general I don't think it is wrong to call them neofacist, depending of course on the definition of fascism and neofascism. As an organisation they are in direct descendence from nazi and neonazi organisations in Sweden, they celebrate "the people" and point out which inhabitants do not belong to "the people". Yes, they claim to respect democracy, but that does not mean more then not actively planning to overthrow the government with violent means.

Also, calling them neofascist increases the cost to cooperate with them.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Dec 9th, 2014 at 10:06:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I think it's absurd. They certainly aren't either fascist or neofascists. Unless we have regressed to calling all the people we don't like fascists, like the Moscow-aligned communists did before WW2 (when social democrats were called "social fascists").

Mr Löfven is basing these views on a book written by a revisionist historian (without a degree), a Mr Arnstad, who has been massively criticised by real historians. His view is basically that anyone who is a nationalist is a fascist, because the fascists were nationalists. This makes most governments fascist I suppose. He has particularly focused on Norway, which is an especially fascist county as far as Mr Arnstad is concerned.

If this make it sound like the hapless prime minister of Sweden is basing his decision-making (or at least his rhetoric) on the scribblings of a modern day Swedish Rasputin, then well... I couldn't possibly comment on that.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue Dec 9th, 2014 at 11:38:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This eyebrow-raising comment by the prime minister, bolstered by comments from the finance minister and an op-ed by the prime minister in our paper of record, has of course ignited a debate on the issue: are the SD fascists or not?

On the one hand we have Mr Arnstad and his followers. On the other hand we have pretty much everyone else. So what do the experts say? Well... "Scientists agree - SD are not fascists."

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue Dec 9th, 2014 at 12:07:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As far as I have followed the debate, Arnstad uses Griffins definition of facism as palingenetic ultranationalism. It is debated but remains one of the main definitions of fascism. Lööw, one of the experts quoted, used it in her phd thesis.

I am glad that Dick Harrison, another of the experts, gives a definition of fascism. According to him they would be fascists if and only if they marched on Stockholm in uniforms to violently over-throw the government. And that is fine as historical definitions go, however it is pointless if you want to identify fascism before a revolution.

Sverigedemokraterna was founded by neo-nazis and actual 1940ies nazis and had nazi-uniforms every now and then until the current gang of four gained control - and they have total control over their party. Since then they have donned uniforms, let the hair grow out and cleaned out the official documents, in order to not look like fascists. Their militia is kept at arms lenght, and it can only rarely be proven that organised Sverigedemokrater is active in death threats against opponents.

Of course ever so often they slip up and if it becomes a big thing the gang of four kick them out temporarily.

So yes, I think we have enough to conclude that they are indeed fascists and I think that using their official documents instead of their behaviour is a mistake.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Dec 9th, 2014 at 03:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series