6 ms·

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

by 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.
- tored 2y ago
  I have not lied, another smear from you. It doesn't matter what Kamprad's political opinions was in his youth, using socialism to take over private companies as the Social democrats did is still wrong regardless. Are you going to call the family Rausing (creator of Tetra Pak) for fascist as well because the didn't want union bureaucrats to take over their creation? In what way would union bureaucrats be better stewards than business owners? We had union bureaucrat recently who ran the country, Stefan Löfven, probably the worst prime minister in history. Social democrats during the leadership of Olof Palme were definitely radicals. During this era they expanded the government and increased taxation massively, which led to a high currency devaluation, i.e made the Swedes poorer, typical socialism. As Olof Palme's successor Göran Persson said it, something like ~ Social democrats always puts democracy before socialism, Olof Palme did the opposite ~. Fitting end that Palme got murdered like something you hear about from 3rd World Marxist kleptocracies. More than 100% in taxes is 100% true, here you can read all about it https://timbro.se/smedjan/den-sanna-sagan-om-pomperipossa-i-monismanien/ https://timbro.se/smedjan/den-sanna-sagan-om-pomperipossa-i-... That is why the Government reacted and made a change to the tax legislation within two months, why would they if it wasn't over 100%? Even the most radical couldn't defend this absurdity. Saltsjöbadsavtalet was not about parliamentary decision, it was about consensus between employers and employees, which led to the Golden years. A consensus that the Social democrats broke when they passed LAS in the seventies. (Also Social democrats is again abandoning the Swedish model by accepting that EU can pass minimal wage legislation) Without Kamprad there would be no IKEA, thus nowhere for workers to work. That is the thing to understand, Kamprad was one in a billion, radicals exists in the thousands, useless of course because they don't create anything of value. Why everything is tied up around the stock market is because of neoliberalism, a consequence of the right wing's radicalization as I described earlier, typical for neoliberalism and marxism is that they both believe in printing money out of thin air and then speculate with it. Who benefits? Not the poor of course, it is the receivers of that printed money, for neoliberalism that would be bankers and capitalists and in marxism that would be bureaucrats and politicians, as it was in the Soviet union.
  - cess11 2y ago
    Obviously you belong to the same political movement as he did. A few years before his death he said in an interview the his friend Per Engdahl was a great man. He was a fascist when he died. It made a solid impression on IKEA as a company. It's why unions have never been able to form there, it's why the company 'culture' has a distinctly parasocial 'family'-character, it's why the trust invests heavily in keeping refugees in desert camps, it's why Kamprad was disgusted by the idea to pay taxes, it's why IKEA does its sourcing in countries like Russia, Romania and so on, and avoids ecological destruction in Sweden. Your link confirms what I wrote earlier. Maybe you know someone who could help you translate it? You're using radical in some highly personal sense, in common parlance it means you're trying to cause social and political change through means like civil disobedience, direct action, mutual aid, militant revolution, rather than parliamentary deliberation and compromise. Palme was likely murdered by the fascist Gladio/Stay Behind network. So yes, it's how the political hegemony you support usually does it. Either buy the mafia and make money from drugs, or hire upper class murderers that are already financed by their exploitation of workers. Kamprad had some luck and Engdahl had some money. He wasn't special, Sweden has been lenient with fascists and oligarchs during all of modernity.

by tored 2y ago

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.

tored 2y ago
I have not lied, another smear from you. It doesn't matter what Kamprad's political opinions was in his youth, using socialism to take over private companies as the Social democrats did is still wrong regardless. Are you going to call the family Rausing (creator of Tetra Pak) for fascist as well because the didn't want union bureaucrats to take over their creation? In what way would union bureaucrats be better stewards than business owners? We had union bureaucrat recently who ran the country, Stefan Löfven, probably the worst prime minister in history. Social democrats during the leadership of Olof Palme were definitely radicals. During this era they expanded the government and increased taxation massively, which led to a high currency devaluation, i.e made the Swedes poorer, typical socialism. As Olof Palme's successor Göran Persson said it, something like ~ Social democrats always puts democracy before socialism, Olof Palme did the opposite ~. Fitting end that Palme got murdered like something you hear about from 3rd World Marxist kleptocracies. More than 100% in taxes is 100% true, here you can read all about it https://timbro.se/smedjan/den-sanna-sagan-om-pomperipossa-i-monismanien/ https://timbro.se/smedjan/den-sanna-sagan-om-pomperipossa-i-... That is why the Government reacted and made a change to the tax legislation within two months, why would they if it wasn't over 100%? Even the most radical couldn't defend this absurdity. Saltsjöbadsavtalet was not about parliamentary decision, it was about consensus between employers and employees, which led to the Golden years. A consensus that the Social democrats broke when they passed LAS in the seventies. (Also Social democrats is again abandoning the Swedish model by accepting that EU can pass minimal wage legislation) Without Kamprad there would be no IKEA, thus nowhere for workers to work. That is the thing to understand, Kamprad was one in a billion, radicals exists in the thousands, useless of course because they don't create anything of value. Why everything is tied up around the stock market is because of neoliberalism, a consequence of the right wing's radicalization as I described earlier, typical for neoliberalism and marxism is that they both believe in printing money out of thin air and then speculate with it. Who benefits? Not the poor of course, it is the receivers of that printed money, for neoliberalism that would be bankers and capitalists and in marxism that would be bureaucrats and politicians, as it was in the Soviet union.
- cess11 2y ago
  Obviously you belong to the same political movement as he did. A few years before his death he said in an interview the his friend Per Engdahl was a great man. He was a fascist when he died. It made a solid impression on IKEA as a company. It's why unions have never been able to form there, it's why the company 'culture' has a distinctly parasocial 'family'-character, it's why the trust invests heavily in keeping refugees in desert camps, it's why Kamprad was disgusted by the idea to pay taxes, it's why IKEA does its sourcing in countries like Russia, Romania and so on, and avoids ecological destruction in Sweden. Your link confirms what I wrote earlier. Maybe you know someone who could help you translate it? You're using radical in some highly personal sense, in common parlance it means you're trying to cause social and political change through means like civil disobedience, direct action, mutual aid, militant revolution, rather than parliamentary deliberation and compromise. Palme was likely murdered by the fascist Gladio/Stay Behind network. So yes, it's how the political hegemony you support usually does it. Either buy the mafia and make money from drugs, or hire upper class murderers that are already financed by their exploitation of workers. Kamprad had some luck and Engdahl had some money. He wasn't special, Sweden has been lenient with fascists and oligarchs during all of modernity.