I don´t really believe in this review, I was just "thinking aloud" about our present dire predicament. Reposted for archival reasons only.
This is a curious anthology of
articles and poems by Swedish poet Göran Greider, back when Greider still had
something interesting to say. He was the editor of the magazine TLM (at first
called Thélème), which despite its name was leftist, not Satanist. Uniquely on
the left, Greider and TLM supported traditional Social Democracy, defending the
welfare state against both neo-liberals, the right-wing of the Social
Democratic Party, and leftists of the "self-management" stripe. I
believe they even published an issue defending the police, seeing it as the arm
of Society and Democracy. Greider eventually became editor of a Social
Democratic daily paper, Dala-Demokraten, but judging by his regular column in
the apolitical daily Metro, his views have developed in a more typical leftist
direction. Animal rights, climate change, opposition to U.S. intervention in
Afghanistan and Iraq...these days Greider sounds more like the Left Party,
albeit with an heavier accent on class rather than "identity
politics". He has even eulogized late Iranian Marxist Mansoor Hekmat!
"Det levande löftet" (only available in Swedish) was published in
1994, during Greider's orthodox Social Democratic period. The title means
"The living promise". I'm not sure where the title originally comes
from, but it sounds like a typical Swedish Social Democratic sound bite. The
living promise is, I presume, the welfare state. The contents of the anthology
are varied: a review of P C Jersild's novels, a strange meditation on the
Swedish suburb, an article on Bachtin's view of the carnival, an attack on
Swedish poet Gunnar Ekelöf (who didn't like the living promise of the welfare
state) and a parody of one of Ekelöf's poems.
The main article is a surprisingly forthright and unapologetic defense of the
welfare state.
Greider quite explicitly supports centralization, advanced technology, social
engineering, "a conscientious bureaucracy", the idea that the public
service sector is "productive" and the principle that pure majority
rule is better than checks and balances. All social issues should be
de-privatized and brought into the public limelight, where they will become
subjects of "democratic decision making" (i.e. majority rule and
social engineering). Interestingly, Greider defends the quasi-corporatist traits
of Swedish democracy, where powerful special interests such as labor unions and
employers' organizations are drawn into public decision-making. Presumably, he
believes that this mostly benefits the unions. An interesting point made by the
author is that Swedish democracy was more or less co-terminous with the
industrial revolution, giving it a Social Democratic stamp, while democracy in
the United States existed already before the industrial revolution, giving it a
very different character.
The author attacks decentralization, self-management, individualism, the civil
society, volunteer work and charity, tradition, neo-liberals, and confused
leftists who oppose Social Democracy and its welfare state. Greider views the
welfare state as the pinnacle of "the modern" and the "idea of
progress", since it welds together egalitarianism "in both senses of
the term" (both equality of opportunity and actual equality) with
democracy and collectivism. I have seldom seen such an explicit defense of,
well, creeping socialism. I admit that I used to believe most of this myself
once!
Today Greider feels dated. We can discuss the merits and demerits of his Social
Democratic vision, but it's difficult to see how "the living promise"
can survive in a post-peak oil world. Just as its Western neo-liberal or
conservative competitors, the welfare state was dependent on huge amounts of
cheap energy generated by fossil fuels, dams and nuclear power. The rank
opportunism of the Swedish establishment (including the Social Democrats) which
kept Sweden out of both world wars and "neutral" during the Cold War,
probably has something to do with the Swedish success story, too. In a world
marked by climate change, peak oil, the failure of Keynesian stimulus, rampant
terrorism and increased tensions between the great powers, it's difficult to
see how the welfare state can survive, except in a highly modified form.
Perhaps Greider rejected communitarianism and "the civil society" a
bit too soon?
Greider's article also feel naïve. The author-poet pretends not to notice, or
perhaps really doesn't notice, that even egalitarian, collectivist and
democratic Sweden had its elite groups, including a Social Democratic elite.
Well, at *one* point he does say that there are two elites in Sweden, Social
Democracy and the business community, and at another he implies that minority
action might be needed in order to get the egalitarian-democratic ball rolling,
but overall, he really seems to believe that there are no more elites, and that
the common man is in charge. Yet, the politically astute seamstresses mentioned
by Greider at the start of his article, are surely not representative of the
Swedish working population at large! They constitute a kind of working class
elite, and it's easy to imagine that their sons and daughters might have become
middle class or conscientious bureaucrats...
Greider also has major problems disproving the cynical observation that most
workers join unions, not due to deep political convictions, but because they
confer very tangible material benefits on their members. Nor can Greider
explain why the welfare state (as he saw it) was crumbling during the 1980's
and 1990's (in reality, it's still all around us, although admittedly not in
perfect mint condition). Where were all these enlightened, modern, politically
astute seamstresses when the Social Democratic Party veered "to the
right" or when neo-liberal Carl Bildt was elected prime minister in 1991?
The working class seems to have been beheaded the moment its "elite"
decided that its interests lay elsewhere... Somehow, this doesn't chime with
the super-strict egalitarianism of the author.
I don't claim to have any "solution" to our present predicament, but
unfortunately I think the living promise, while hardly a nightmare (come on, I
live tolerably well over here) is nevertheless an anachronism today, and that
some other formula for living must be sought. Promises be damned.