Solidarity during the austere age
5.27.2013 Leave a comment
Aditya Chakrabortty, writing for the Guardian, considered Sweden’s recent and surprising troubles:
More than 20 cars torched in one night. School classrooms gutted by fire. Fifty far-right extremists chasing immigrants around a suburb.
You probably haven’t seen much about it in the papers, but for the past week Sweden has been racked by rioting. The violence began in a suburb of Stockholm, Husby, and spread around the capital’s edge before other cities went up in flames. Police have been pelted with stones; neighbourhoods have turned into no-go areas, even for ambulances. Such prolonged unrest is remarkable for Stockholm, as those few reporters sent to cover it have observed. Naturally enough, each article has wound up asking: why here?
It’s a good question. Don’t surveys repeatedly show Sweden as one of the happiest countries (certainly a damn sight cheerier than Britain)? Isn’t it famous for its equality, its warm welcome to immigrants? Whatever happened to Stockholm, capital of progressivism, the Mecca towards which Guardianistas face for their daily five minutes of mindfulness?
We all know the cliches, but the reality is they no longer fit the country so well. Whether it’s on the wealth gap, or welfare, or public services, Sweden is less “Swedish” than it has ever been. As in other continental capitals, the Stockholm version of the “European social model” is an increasingly tattered thing, albeit still appealed to by the political elites and still resonant in the popular culture. But the country seized by turbulence last week is becoming polarised, and is surrendering more of its public services over to private businesses (sometimes with disastrous effects). Those riot-scene correspondents ought not to be asking: why here? A better question, surely, is: if such instability can happen here, what might unfold elsewhere — including Britain?
Rioting has occurred in other OECD countries. Most notably, they took place in Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Spain and Turkey since the onset of the Great Recession. The United States also produced the peaceful Occupy Movement, which the various governmental bodies suppressed with rioting police forces. The causes of unrest are the same across Europe and in the United States: Growing inequality, social polarization, austerity and, in some instances, economic stagnation. Sweden is a special case, as Chakrabortty avers. Its welfare state was notable for its commitment to collective security and to economic growth. The Swedish economy continues to grow. But the Swedes are slowly jettisoning their commitment to collective security, to solidarity. This is when the authorities need the police to keep order. This is when the democratic class struggle becomes class warfare.
Related articles
- Night 7 in Sweden: Cars ablaze, police attacked as nation debates immigrant policy (rinf.com)
- STOCKHOLM RIOTS Leave SWEDEN’S DREAMS OF PERFECT SOCIALIST SOCIETY UP IN SMOKE (secretsofthefed.com)
- Sweden: Muslim riots rage in Stockholm for sixth night (warsclerotic.wordpress.com)
- Contagion: Muslims Riot For Sixth Night In Sweden As Red Cross Warns ‘Civil Unrest’ May Spread Across Europe (midnightwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Sales success at Borgarfjord 4, Stockholm (savills.co.uk)
- Sixième nuit d’émeutes dans la banlieue de Stockholm – 24 mai 2013 (berthoalain.com)
- Sweden Riots Put Faces to Statistics as Stockholm Burned (bloomberg.com)
- Sixth night of riots in Stockholm as immigrants protest shooting (heraldsun.com.au)
- Stockholm calls in reinforcements over riots (nation.com.pk)
All Tied Up and Nowhere to Go 
Failure?
9.24.2012 1 Comment
Recently, political conformists in the United States celebrated the diminished presence of the Occupy Movement. To be sure, the lack of standing, active occupations — mostly due to the repression of such by America’s local militarized police forces — promoted a sense of relief among the conformists. The system worked! The Occupation failed; America remains intact; the natural aristocrats are still in charge. And their relief makes sense (to them) since the Occupy Movement was the first significant social challenge to America’s capitalist democracy and the austerity-minded political culture which emerged after the Recession of 2008. It is, after all, to this capitalist democracy that the conformists wish to conform. Failure, irrelevance ludicrousness of the Occupy Movement — these are the beliefs about the movement that pass muster among the corporate media.
Yet, we ought to ask, “Did the Occupy Movement fail?” The obvious answer: No! As Michael Niman points out:
The Occupy Movement was and is a social movement, not an embryonic political party or new faction within the Democratic Party. Its goal: Radical change. Revolutions are instances of radical change. They are also improbable events just as radical change is improbable. It is because such change is improbable that demanding it from the Occupy Movement is tantamount to creating a pretext for judging the Movement a failure. Yet popular dissatisfaction remains intact, has real world motives and therefore must be considered a politically relevant variable in any analysis of America’s capitalist democracy that wants to be both sober and supported by evidence. The expression of this popular dissatisfaction only awaits an occasion which calls its name.
Related articles
Filed under Commentary Tagged with Austerity Politics, Capitalist Democracy, Democratic Party, Neoliberalism, Occupy Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Police Brutality, Police Repression, Popular Contention, Social movement, United States