5 ms·

This scheme was the consequence of radical Swedish politicians, the Socialdemocrats, that tried to take over Kamprad’s own creation by pure theft. https://sv.m

by tored 2y ago

This scheme was the consequence of radical Swedish politicians, the Socialdemocrats, that tried to take over Kamprad’s own creation by pure theft. https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6ntagarfonder https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6ntagarfonder

ornornor 2y ago
I read the English version (which is rather short) and didn't quite understand: did the government try to buy up shares of IKEA and take it over in the interest of the state/workers?
- tored 2y ago
  Not in the interest of the workers, in the interest of the union (LO), they used the companies own money to do this, ie take the company own money and use that to buy the company’s shares by forcing them to sell by equity issuance. The end goal was to take over companies and be owned by the unions. This had disastrous consequences for Sweden, many companies left, one was IKEA. It created an hostile climate, instead of the previous decades of consensus between buiness and politics it created an antagonistic atmosphere. The Social democrats lost their first election in 40 years. The system was scrapped in the early nineties. Kamprad got paranoid over the realization that politicians and bureaucrats could take over his life work and thus he moves to Switzerland and then created this non-profit to make sure it always remained in his family.
cess11 2y ago
What do you mean by "own creation"? Kamprad was a fascist that started IKEA with financing from another fascist, and workers did all the work. What exactly do you imagine he contributed? And why are you misrepresenting the article you linked? The idea to transfer some of the profits from large corporations into union managed funds came from the largest trade union confederation, not "radical Swedish politicians". Social democrats aren't radical, they're reformists, and the reactionary response to the proposal was arguably much more radical than trying to herd it through parliament.
- tored 2y ago
  I notice that you try to smear Kamprad in order to set the tone in order to defend union take over of companies by force, a typical tactic of the radicals. IKEA was Kamprad's own creation, not the creation of some union bureaucrat. The Wikipedia article, both the Swedish and the English version, is fuzzy about the details how it worked, they took the company’s own money and use that to buy the company’s shares by forcing them to sell by equity issuance. Goal was to take over private companies and create socialism. Social democrats were reformist but became radicals during the leadership of Olof Palme. This was not the only one radical thing that they did, another was the famous Pomperipossa taxation where some Swedes payed more than 100% in taxes. This led to other Swedes leaving the country, like the famous movie maker and director Ingmar Bergman. As I wrote in another comment, this had disastrous consequences for Sweden, large companies left and we went from a consensus culture around business and politics (Saltsjöbadsandan) to a something much more antagonistic. This radicalized the right wing in Sweden to become neoliberal for many decades to come, which led to other negative consequences.
  - cess11 2y ago
    Why the lying? Kamprad was adjacent to Nysvenska rörelsen, a lifelong friend of it's founder Per Engdahl, who also supplied the initial funding for IKEA. It's insane to claim that Olof Palme caused a shift away from parliamentary reformism. And no, we've never had anyone pay "more than 100% in taxes". That's a myth, based on Astrid Lindgrens pretty weird propaganda story about it. The antagonism between labour and capital is inherent, and you either apply force to subdue the exploited party to this conflict, or you negotiate a deal or parliamentary decision. The latter was the core of Saltsjöbadsavtalet, the reformist position represented by the trade union confederation and the Social Democrats. The radical position would be to form militias and engage in militant revolutionary activities, something which the strong reformist movement managed to guard us from. The right and the fascists didn't think that was enough, however. It's absurd to blame the victims of fascism for the rise of fascism instead of those who gain from it. As for the reasoning behind the löntagarfonder, it's quite obviously immoral for people to become rich and powerful by disenfranchising and exploiting other people. Which is how late modern corporations work, you have owners that take the value produced by other people for themselves. The right agrees that this is a correct description, which is why they made sure pensions and wages have been invested in stock markets and investment funds, so every worker is now forced to participate in the casino. You could disagree with the particular construct of löntagarfonder, but you would need to be very religious to claim that nature or some god made it good and right that the rich get to keep generational wealth and persist in disenfranchisement and exploitation of other people. It's close to the idea of divine right of kings.

by tored 2y ago

ornornor 2y ago

I read the English version (which is rather short) and didn't quite understand: did the government try to buy up shares of IKEA and take it over in the interest of the state/workers?

tored 2y ago
Not in the interest of the workers, in the interest of the union (LO), they used the companies own money to do this, ie take the company own money and use that to buy the company’s shares by forcing them to sell by equity issuance. The end goal was to take over companies and be owned by the unions. This had disastrous consequences for Sweden, many companies left, one was IKEA. It created an hostile climate, instead of the previous decades of consensus between buiness and politics it created an antagonistic atmosphere. The Social democrats lost their first election in 40 years. The system was scrapped in the early nineties. Kamprad got paranoid over the realization that politicians and bureaucrats could take over his life work and thus he moves to Switzerland and then created this non-profit to make sure it always remained in his family.

cess11 2y ago

What do you mean by "own creation"? Kamprad was a fascist that started IKEA with financing from another fascist, and workers did all the work. What exactly do you imagine he contributed? And why are you misrepresenting the article you linked? The idea to transfer some of the profits from large corporations into union managed funds came from the largest trade union confederation, not "radical Swedish politicians". Social democrats aren't radical, they're reformists, and the reactionary response to the proposal was arguably much more radical than trying to herd it through parliament.

tored 2y ago
I notice that you try to smear Kamprad in order to set the tone in order to defend union take over of companies by force, a typical tactic of the radicals. IKEA was Kamprad's own creation, not the creation of some union bureaucrat. The Wikipedia article, both the Swedish and the English version, is fuzzy about the details how it worked, they took the company’s own money and use that to buy the company’s shares by forcing them to sell by equity issuance. Goal was to take over private companies and create socialism. Social democrats were reformist but became radicals during the leadership of Olof Palme. This was not the only one radical thing that they did, another was the famous Pomperipossa taxation where some Swedes payed more than 100% in taxes. This led to other Swedes leaving the country, like the famous movie maker and director Ingmar Bergman. As I wrote in another comment, this had disastrous consequences for Sweden, large companies left and we went from a consensus culture around business and politics (Saltsjöbadsandan) to a something much more antagonistic. This radicalized the right wing in Sweden to become neoliberal for many decades to come, which led to other negative consequences.
- cess11 2y ago
  Why the lying? Kamprad was adjacent to Nysvenska rörelsen, a lifelong friend of it's founder Per Engdahl, who also supplied the initial funding for IKEA. It's insane to claim that Olof Palme caused a shift away from parliamentary reformism. And no, we've never had anyone pay "more than 100% in taxes". That's a myth, based on Astrid Lindgrens pretty weird propaganda story about it. The antagonism between labour and capital is inherent, and you either apply force to subdue the exploited party to this conflict, or you negotiate a deal or parliamentary decision. The latter was the core of Saltsjöbadsavtalet, the reformist position represented by the trade union confederation and the Social Democrats. The radical position would be to form militias and engage in militant revolutionary activities, something which the strong reformist movement managed to guard us from. The right and the fascists didn't think that was enough, however. It's absurd to blame the victims of fascism for the rise of fascism instead of those who gain from it. As for the reasoning behind the löntagarfonder, it's quite obviously immoral for people to become rich and powerful by disenfranchising and exploiting other people. Which is how late modern corporations work, you have owners that take the value produced by other people for themselves. The right agrees that this is a correct description, which is why they made sure pensions and wages have been invested in stock markets and investment funds, so every worker is now forced to participate in the casino. You could disagree with the particular construct of löntagarfonder, but you would need to be very religious to claim that nature or some god made it good and right that the rich get to keep generational wealth and persist in disenfranchisement and exploitation of other people. It's close to the idea of divine right of kings.