INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:
SWEDEN TURNS RIGHT:


Last week's national elections in Sweden returned the present right wing government to power and, most disturbingly, the extreme right made unprecedented gains. The following report from the Swedish anarchosyndicalist website Anarkisterna says it all, and it raises some important points.


Molly would add her two cents worth by noting the following. Despite the antique Marxist fantasy followed by all too many anarchists and non-Marxist socialists the advent of 'hard times' seems to have not led to any resurgence of left wing class based movements that fundamentally challenge the present social order anywhere in at least the developed world. If anything the right seems to be 'on the march' worldwide. Where left wing social movements opposed to further tightening of the screws have arisen the main thrust seems to have been an attempt to hold on to what little the lower classes already have, and a more or less implicit (sometimes quite explicit) endorsement of social democratic policies and parties. This despite the fact that in many countries, Spain and Greece come to mind, it is actually "socialist" parties that are doing the dirty work.


Meanwhile the general electorate remains quite cynical, perhaps rightfully so, and opts to vote in many cases for parties whose desire to shift wealth from the lower classes is explicit rather than implicit. This goes hand in hand with an increase in what may best described as the "political superstition" that somehow "immigrants" are responsible for the difficulties that ordinary people face in these hard times. How this can possibly be true is best left to the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists. Even if minorities are not "blamed" it may at least feel satisfying to work up a hate for something that can be so easily identified. The left, in general, offers no such easy fantasy. Its social democratic wing has long since abandoned any pretence to having so crude a thing as "enemies". Its orthodox communist wing has not only been disgraced by its history of being worse than the old order. Its idea of the enemy as the 'top-hatted capitalists' ( excluding government bureaucrats of course ) rings hollow in the modern world.


Too much of the rest of the left beyond the social democrats and commies spends its time tilting at the windmills of "isms" having abandoned all hope of a rational road to a better society. It takes a developed taste for either masochism or the 'one downmanship' of identity politics to find this sort of "politics" satisfying...especially as "the enemy" can easily be defined as something approaching 98% of the population. This is not politics. It is psychology gone cancerous.


The Swedish comrades end their article with some questions rather than with assertions. This is undoubtedly the best way to proceed. As an anarchist I am convinced that the anarchist tradition contains many of the ideas that are necessary to oppose the rightward drift of most of the developed world. I am not, however, so unrealistic as to suppose that either I or any wing of the anarchist movement today have a magic pocketful of 'solutions". What is sure is that the main opposition to the right has no practical plan. For anarchists the balancing act is an age old one, one of walking the fine line between collaboration (leftism under an anarchist name) and irrelevancy( either 'purism' or defining away the concerns of ordinary people to focus on 'psychoboo' ). Where the tightrope is depends upon both time and place. Let's hope there are enough political acrobats in our ranks.


Here's the article from Sweden.
@@@@@@@@@@
Where do we go from here?
On how to challenge rightwing racist class politics
Lördag 25 September

The elections of September 19th in many ways mark a sad turning point in Swedish history. Since of that date, Sweden joins the growing number of EU member states run by rightwing governments with the participation of the extreme right.

For the first time, a rightwing government was re-elected in Sweden. For the first time, a populist racist party, Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) – with roots in the extreme right scene – entered the Parliament. And for the first time a Nazi party gained entrance into a municipality. The leader of Svenskarnas Parti (Party of the Swedes) – formerly Nationalsocialistisk Front – got a chair in the small town of Grästorp.



The reaction to the election was swift: demonstrations in Malmö, Gothenburg and Stockholm the following day gathered thousands of people, in Stockholm up to ten thousand. Numerous demonstrations have since taken place in different places and many more actions are planned for the coming weeks and especially for the grand opening of the Parliament.

Many people are appalled and outraged at the results of the elections. Bit by bit, the right wing government has been dismantling the welfare state, labour laws and social security systems, replacing them with the freedom of the individual consumer – thereby paving the way for the extreme right. But so have the Social Democrats, the Left and the Greens: By not challenging the politics of the government and putting forward a concrete red and green vision, the stage was set for the racists, posing as the sole alternative to the status quo.

The Sweden Democrats have rather successfully spread the myth of immigration as the one political issue none but them dares to address. This being far from true (quite the opposite, by being tough on immigration any politician comes across as determined and energetic), it nevertheless gained them a lot of attention. And even though being false, it still was a simple answer to a number of important questions: Why is society not as solidaristic as it used to be? Why are so many – especially young – people unemployed? Why is all this downsizing occurring?

Everything was played out to be the fault of “mass immigration”.

These questions are relevant to a lot of people in everyday life today, and so is addressing them. The anxiety is real, it is the result of precarious labour, money that is never enough, climate change that is being neglected, insecurity, frustration, violence and welfare cuts – in other words the results of political decisions. The question radical social movements have to ask themselves is how to address these issues and challenge these politics?

How do we turn protests against the Sweden Democrats into resistance against the racist class politics of the right wing government? And how do we transform our resistance into a constructive force – self organizing local communities and building strong popular movements?

Where do we go from here? Share your experiences with us!

ANN COULTER NAKED:

Molly often tracks back on her visitors, and thus she came upon the gem (perhaps) illustrated to the left. The original source is a Vancouver Island blog, Word of Mouth Blog, that Molly has just added to her links list under the 'Blogs' section. Seems only fair as Molly's Blog is listed there too. The blog is quite interesting. Its motto is "no word too conservative or too radical". When you go to this blog you will see the connection 'Ann Coulter Naked'. Be prepared to search as it merely connects to a list of links. The photo to the left comes out in one of the links that Molly finally found, but it takes some digging. Other photos can be found as well, some of them far less flattering. Whether they are all "true" or not is a matter that Molly has very little interest in searching down. Better things to do, like pick the dirt out from under my fingernails. The photo to the left, if real, has obviously been "enhanced". Coulter, after all, is one of those people who put the "S" back in "scrawny". Not that I think she wouldn't agree to this sort of thing. Let nobody accuse Coulter of "libertarian sentiments" which might make the posings consistant. "Libertarian" is the last thing you could accuse Coulter of being. If the pics are true then what they are an example of is "the arrogance of a criminal". Many criminals are eventually caught because they come to have a vastly underestimated view of the intelligence and persistance of both their victims and the police. Political would-be baby terrorists take note.

But speaking of Coulter... she's a crook plain and simple. She has discovered a scam that produces reams of money for practically no work. Her potty mouth may not equal Molly's at its worst, but she has the distinction of being able to sustain the the sort of "pissed off" pose in all her writing that others could only hope to achieve. Nobody can achieve it in reality, but Coulter is not real. Who knows what she believes in real life, if she believes anything at all besides the fact that Ann Coulter should have fame and money. Molly has seen this sort of psychopathy in action amongst anarchists where the perpetrator has chosen his victims well. What Molly has seen there says that at least some anarchists are more willing than the conservative audience that Coulter writes for to come out swinging against people who are embarassments to their beliefs. Some conservatives have indeed attacked Coulter in a half-hearted way, but the "tribal politics" has been such that sensible conservatives have generally ignored her, no matter how detrimental she may be to their cause. Well, gonorrhea doesn't go away just because you ignore it.

She's a crook, plain and simple. A con-artist. If the pictures are true they what they show is, once more, "criminal arrogance". In this case Coulter has chosen to mock her victims, conservative Americans who provide her with an inflated income. Will she be caught in this act ? Molly seriously doubts it. Most people are willing to forgive any number of transgressions as long as they can delude themselves that any attack on the enemy is good. That's the way of the world. Offenses by one's own side are considered less than an offense by the other side. Actually much less. No offense to conservative sensibilities will ever lead to any serious withdrawal of the sort of sponsorship that Coulter's income depends upon.

The seemingly endless series of scandals that have exposed the underbelly of American fundamentalism (like they have to a lesser degree exposed same in conservative parties across the world who don't depend on the taliban-like mixture of politics and religion that American conservativism does) is actually living proof that a large number of people (hopefully a minority) in the most powerful country in the world have got their moral priorities all back assward. To them putting your bad thing in the wrong place is such an obviously greater sin than theft (also fraud in the case of not just Coulter but many others) that theft can hardly be seen at all. To such people Molly might reply that the "social" prohibitions of the ten commandments (seperate from the ritual prohibitions) are overwhelmingly against either thievery or fraud (false witness). Jesus was even more emphatic on this point than the Old Testament. According to Jesus "misusing your bad thing" was a minor pecadillo that would always be forgiven while economic oppression (a subset of theft) was the "sin" that desrerved attention and correction.

Coulter's little act would convince any business person dealing with her to only accept cash or a credit card presented at the time of sale. No cheques from her. She might decide to scam you just for the sheer joy of it. Scamming can actually be fun for some sick puppies without a sense of honour, dignity, shame or conscience (pick any of the four). It is a source of pleasure seperate from the financial gain involved. Look at Coulter in this light, and you will understand her very well.

THE SILLY SEASON COMES EARLY: PART 2:

As Molly said before the Silly Season seems to have come early this year. Here in Manitoba we are having a provincial election (voting next Tuesday, May 22nd). Now almost every election is an example of a silly season so perhaps this isn't so anomalous out here on the lone prairie. This time around the various parties, NDP, Conservative and Liberal are truly falling over each other promising goodies with the money stolen via taxes. It seems that the overflowing cornucopia is even more magnificent in this round than Molly can remember it in previous elections. Pride of place, however, has to be awarded to the provincial Progressive Conservative Party. The flavour of the campaign can be gauged by a running tally that the Winnipeg Free Press prints every few days. As of May 12th the total cost of the NDP's promises ran to about $400 million. The Liberals tipped in with a similar amount. The clear "winners', however, were the Conservatives with a total estimated give away of $888 million.

Now Molly has to interject a certain observation here. Anybody who votes for social democrats such as the NDP with the hope that they will deliver greater social equality is sorely deluded. Government money that supposedly will go to "help the poor" is inevitably filtered through the "great sponge" of the new class that staffs the bureaucracies that produce nothing but social control. If you want to "prevent poverty" amongst the graduates of social work faculties this is fine, but if you want to alleviate existing poverty it is not exactly the way to do things. Whether you vote for social democrats with equality in mind really depends upon whether you believe that it is better to head shrink the poor and gradually chip away at their allowances- or sometimes not so gradually if circumstances require the cuts- or whether you believe in dramatic "revenge gestures" ala the conservatives. Neither solves much of anything, but the social democratic option leaves you with a "slightly" better taste in your mouth.

That's fine, but the other side of this coin is that anybody who votes for a conservative party with the expectation that they will practice fiscal probity, spend less than the social democrats and thereby reduce the debt that demands higher taxes to service is even more deluded than those who vote for social democrats expected social justice out of them. Sometimes the social democrats do indeed let a few crumbs fall to the lower levels, even if this is only occasional as the long list of social democratic "betrayals" testifies (their proponents would call them "adjustments to reality"). Often it takes dicing apart the minutiae of departmental spending to see just how tiny the crumbs are. Conservative governments, however, ever since the "neo-con revolution" have been in your face about the contradiction between what they say and what they do. Without oil money to prop them up they inevitably outspend their opponents and increase the government debt because of their high rolling habits. They are also even more visibly corrupt than their opponents- something that is sometimes hard to do but they do it nonetheless. Their" favourite charities" may be different, but the result has hardly varied across the world in the past few decades. Drop welfare rates but spend twice as much in building new prisons, the construction contracts for which, by the way, go to "favoured sons" who attend the same schools, churches, and parties as the politicians. If this is not lucrative enough for the hangers-on then privatize the prisons and create a whole new money making field for your friends.

The drunken sailor promises of the provincial Conservatives have to be seen in this light of how they fit in to what their brethren have been doing across the world for the past few decades. Not that you should expect them to actually carry out too many of their promises. Politicians are a rattite breed. But if you subtract the various promises that social democrats are simply lieing about and you also subtract the same type of thing from the conservatives' "promises" then you are still likely to come out with a figure about double of what the NDP would spend. If you want to know "which" promises will be kept look carefully as to which one give an opportunity for "a friend of a friend" to make money from. These are the most likely ones to be fulfilled.

Which brings us to the grand finale. The estimate of the cost of the Conservative promises excludes one particularly expensive item- bringing back the Jets. The Conservative leader, Hugh McFadyen, made this "promise about a week ago, and he has been mocked for it ever since. The difficulty of luring back a NHL franchise to a city that proved it could not support one some years back has been pointed out over and over in the local media. Estimates of the cost range from a quarter of a billion to an half billion, and the logistics of ticket sales to make even these estimates assumes that every single game would be sold out, and that the ticket prices would be something like $70 per game. Not bloody likely !!!! The actual cost would be far higher than these estimates as the Province would probably end up opting for both a new arena and continued subsidization of what would be a privately owned team under both Conservative ideology and Conservative self interest. How many billions ? Who knows.

McFadyen compounded his mistake by saying that this tied in with "keeping young people in Manitoba". Too bizarre for words. Fort McMurray doesn't have a hockey team either. If you can make twice as much in Alberta as you can here in Manitoba then I would say that there may be one or two individuals thick enough to not opt for the great oil pool to our west because we have a hooookey teeeeam. No more than two. These two shouldn't be trusted to operate machinery anyways. Let them flip burgers in Winnipeg- oops I lie; they shouldn't be trusted with anything hot either.

McFadyen hasn't played up his silly promise much since it gained such mockery. I guess his advisers sobered up after their 12 martini lunch. Wheeee !!! The ancient Persian way was to make plans during a big booze-up but then to always re-examine them during the hangover. Seems like our little modern day followers of Darius have forgotten the latter injunction. Speaking of twelves this brings Molly to her award for silliness. The party of the rich, the Conservatives, have been caught in the act of pouring their Chivas Royale into empty bottles of Labatt's Blue with more than a little contempt for the intelligence of the "beer and hockey crowd". It bounced back on them. If there are "white wine socialists"-there are indeed- then there are also "mature whiskey conservatives". They really shouldn't try to put on "prole costumes" because they just look silly in them.

Molly awards this effort at silliness her "twelve pack award", with the bottles filled with faux beer.