Olof Palme died 20 years ago

I want to tell you a story. I was first going to write this in Swedish, but it is necessary that everyone who can read it from my leftist friends around the globe do so. Twenty years ago Olof Palme was shot to death, his murder is still not solved.

He represented perhaps one of the last radical social democrats to hold actual power. With his commitment to the rest of the world, with his anti-imperialism and his great courage in foreign affairs. His christmas speech, denouncing the bombings of Hanoi by the United States is a great example of this. He made progressive changes in Sweden for a better nation and he held true to the democratic social ideals. I tell you now, if others had then we would have found ourselves in a far better seat than we are.

He represents a moral hope, and a hope that politics can be effective and that not all politicians are dishonest. He was loathed by the right wing who were always sort of out of touch with reality. Blamed for being anti-american when really, his stance was not against the USA (and being against the USA is a ridiculous notion - try imagining what being against Italy or Norway is like, it makes no sense at all) but against imperialism. Whether it was the Bolsheviks (who don't really deserve the name of 'Soviet Union' as the soviets had lost all power) or the americans.

To me, he remains a champion for justice and the ability for us to make changes. That a small nation must sometimes stand up and speak out when great injustices are done. We have a moral obligation to our fellow man, and an international calling is the only way to ever uphold that and ever to be effective as a socialist. I do wish, firmly, that we hold his person in regard as we consider what we should do. As a radical he was a far better figure than Lenin or Che. But I hope that one day the Social Democrats will awaken and find themselves as Socialists of the form that were the heroes of my nation: Palme, Per Albin Hansson and so many others. And I hope that we around the world can follow his example.


Another world is necessary!

Liberalism och valet.

Det här blir en post på svenska för en gångs skull, eftersom det är viktigt att komma ihåg sina resurser och använda dem, och att inte glömma sitt kulturarv.

Det har skrivits mycket om valet redan, men upptakten börjar nu. Jag måste säga att Lars Ohly imponerar - hetsjakten på honom och vänsterpartiet har varit gigantisk, men nu kanske det till slut kan bli över. Det finns vissa intressanta observationer nu, dock.

För det första, ta faktumet som bland annat Flamman (www.flamman.se) med hur det alltid är socialister som bevakar de liberala tankarna. Det verkar som om liberaler tycker det är mysigt att hålla sin åsikter, kasta tankar som demokrati och frihet i ansiktet på människor - ända tills den punkten då de faktiskt måste göra eller säga någonting som de inte uppskattar.

För det är ungefär så här. När Åke Green sa sina idiotiska saker, och när Jyllands-Posten publicerade de där teckningarna så rusade liberalerna och media till deras undsättning med buller och bång. Men när socialister uttrycker tankar som inte riktigt hör hemma i det offentliga rummet idag så försöker man tvinga dem till apologier.

Det här är löjligt, det är inte så det skall vara. Jag har skrivet ett par poster innan om just det här med liberalismen och skulle vilja framhålla återigen att det finns två typer av liberalism, ideellt. Det finns de som faktiskt håller fast vid idéerna som de framhåller, även om det skulle vara vänstern som säger det - och det finns de som bara är borgare. De som i själva verket bara bevakar borgerlighetens intressen. Ideellt skulle man kanske säga att John Stuart Mill var av den första typen, och, ptja, Stael von Holstein, den andra. Men jag vet inte om det här är sant längre.

Liksom platons idéer existerar bara den liberala idealismen på ett tankeplan. Verkligheten ser inte riktigt ut så här. Jag tror att en historisk analys av hur det har sett ut politiskt kommer att avslöja hur liberaler gång på gång lierar sig med högerkrafter som verkar både nationalistiskt, fascistiskt och allmänt mordiskt. Nicaragua, Spanien, Ryssland och alla andra platser på jorden vittnar om det här.

Det finns också ett annat problem, historielösheten hos liberalismen. Eller än värre, dess naiva historieuppfattning. Kanske är det så jag har fått det om bakfoten, men det liberala systemet verkar knappast ha gjort en fullständig utvärdering av hur saker och ting egentligen är och var.

Jag är oroad, men kanske inte förvånad, av att liberaler som säger sig älska frihet, broderskap och demokrati både har visat sig och i dagligt tal när de är avslappnade visar sig vara väldigt pro militarism, nationalism, inskränkthet, elitism, rasism och mycket annat. Jag har ingen tvekan om att det finns mycket fint i de liberala idéerna, och jag söker själv efter mer bra i dem så att jag inte bara sitter här och kastar paj. Snälla liberaler: bevisa mig fel, försvara era idéer. Var en Voltaire eller en Mill och inte den borgerliga reaktionär som historien har dömt er till. I slutändan tror jag inte att ni kan komma ifrån det, men er intention är viktig för ert moraliska handlande, precis som er konsekvens. Så kanske vi kan mötas och förstå varandra utan de här idiotiska fördomarna, någonstans där på mitten.

Slutligen, jag verkar alltid komma bort ifrån poängen, till valet. Efter debatten tror jag det är en stor chans för vänstern att vinna. I slutändan debatterade högern på vänsterns mark, och det är bara en öppning för katastrof. Jag hoppas Perssons fina ord iaf visar på en viss ihågkomst av socialismen i grund och botten och att hans socialdemokrati inte är allt för borgerlig.

Vi har en värld att vinna - och våra fiender är inte kapabla att hantera våra angrepp. I slutändan är det socialism eller barbari, och en medveten vänster kommer inte misslyckas.

Hypocrits.

This is a post for my international, especially American and Australian friends so that they may understand some things about the recent situation in the Middle East with our little neighbouring country.

Europe has gained in racism over the last few decades with the increase of immigration. With neoliberal economic policies for labour and housing immigrants have been forced into poor areas, they have not had the chance to use the education in their home countries (friends of mine have ridden in taxis with professors from Albania, and many others hold academic degrees but have no chance of working as doctors, or as teachers or whatever it might be even as we lack teachers). They have gotten the chance to take lousy work, however, which has created some of the resentment. A mixture of crime and poor work has caused several right-wing extremist parties to crop up. In Belgium, in France, in Sweden, in Norway, in England and yes - in Denmark. Perhaps the greatest problem is not these small parties like the Swedish 'Swedish Democrats'. Perhaps the greatest problem are popular parties like the Swedish Liberal Party (Folkpartiet), the French ruling conservative party, the British Tories, some of the Italian parties (a minister there has recently said they should just throw out all the Arabs). These parties show their true allegiance as they stand against immigration. They're absolutely not parties for everyone, they're not parties for equal chance. Rather they take the opportunity to ride on the wave. The Swedish Social Democrats are not bad in the same sense but they seem to be quite fond of the idea of getting rid of democracy and personal integrity as they try to save it - a paradox that is just impossible.

To look at the problem of Denmark that all of you should be aware of by now let me inform you of a few things.

Jyllands-Posten is absolutely not a newspaper that stands for free speech. It has previously attacked socialists that have been outspoken over their ideological allegiance. They have refused to post pictures of Jesus as they would be 'inflammatory', they have written articles attacking the immigrants in Denmark. It is not as easy as some people believe - that they're just a newspaper without proper ideology which has posted some unfortunate pictures that test the limit of freedom of speech. They're a racist, right-wing newspaper which has previously attacked the Left and forced members to withdraw unpopular statements they have made - and now they themselves hide behind this law. The Danish government is allied with a right-wing, racist party of the same kind as Le Pen's who has been instrumental in 'protecting freedom of speech'. But which are these people that are 'protecting' it? It's the Swedish Christian Democrats, it is the French and German conservative newspapers, it is the Danish Folkeparti, it is the racists in Italy.

Perhaps this matter would be somewhat different if these things were not the case. Perhaps it would be different if it was so easy that Jyllands-Posten wasn't a right-wing, racist newspaper and perhaps it would be different if it hadn't been the case that the Western powers are aligned against the Muslim and that the Muslim leadership under their own right wing is trying to rally their people against a foreign aggressor. An aggressor that has spent the better part of the 20th century in direct, systematic imperialism against the Arab world.

So no, don't be fooled to believe that this is about anything else than a hypocritical right wing making yet another assault at what has become the new working class - the immigrants. They're hiding behind freedom of speech when they should observe some tact; violent Muslim protests are the results of a) political manipulation of their own leaders and b) the all-out assault from the Western powers against both sovereign nations and immigrants in the Arab world.

The solution, however, does not lie with diplomacy through nations. It does not lie in a stabilized Iraq. It does not lie with Iran, or Israel, though all of these things are important. In the end what matters is the solidarity between the working class no matter which nation they are from. Swedish, French, American, Danish, Iranian, Israelite, South African, Australian, Chinese...

The right wing tries to portray this as a clash of civilizations, but we know that it is not so. This has little to do with religion; religion just being something that comes in handy to justify aggression over aggression from Israel to Iran to the USA. Behind it lurks other things, a dying imperialism and a wish for global domination. Old blood between historical enemies. The unhealed wounds of French and British imperialism. The battlegrounds in Scandinavia are drawn as a battle between opportunists in the right wing and the misguided Social Democrats dancing to the tune of the European Union and the USA. The situation in Denmark is a part of a racist group attempting to make the most out of it's assault, not from an independent newspaper trying to give unbiased news.

A doctrine, a system and a way to relate to the world.

Right, last night I think I unfortunately managed to offend one of my friends when I made a few comments about religion being rotten to the core. I think this comes from the misguided, but ultimately good, cultural value in the US of tolerance - especially towards racial and religious groups. It's very commendable and it is one of the best things about the United States, but it does tend to create a few problems that get in the way of critical thinking; the fear of being called intolerant. But is there really a difference between tolerance and critique? The enlightenment philosophers didn't believe that, that's for sure, and right now I feel close to their school of thought and their way of looking at the world (just like the stoics of the ancient world and the Marxists).

Now, let's consider what I mean by the phrase "rotten to the core". You should both take it literally and not so literally. Imagine that we have a doctrine or a philosophy with five core tenets, A, B, C, D and (gasp) E. These five might be things like "All men are your brothers", "Don't let the man keep you down" or something along the lines of "Take pride in your nation". For some Christian values, let's consider a sample (an incomplete one, however) to be "There is an intrinsic value in human life", "We are sinners, but there is forgiveness to be had" "God is great and God is good", etc, etc. Now, we all carry around hidden premises in our way of thinking, influenced by deep-rooted cultural feelings based on when we come from, where we come from, what we have experienced and so on and so forth. Many of these are completely irrational, and though we can combat them they are not so easy to get rid of. We carry around feelings like "I am worthless" or things that cannot be said so lucidly, like a feeling of intense alienation or a deep-rooted wish for justice. They are good and bad, but they have one thing in common. Without examining ourselves and analyzing our behaviour we will never come to realize them, they guide our knee-jerk reactions and they spawn a series of options for us.

When we face a situation we will have a number of choices before us. These are categorized by our deep-sated beliefs or opinions, no matter how irrational. We have primary and secondary choices. Primary are the ones that are realistic - that is to say, they're things like "Buying the hamburger" and "not buying the hamburger", and secondary are the ones that are not at hand - for example most of us won't really consider the option "Beating up the hamburger vendor and taking a burger", but some of us will. Then the would-be criminal would have a structure of primary choices that was different from the "regular" persons category of choices.

Generally we create theories by having a pile of data before us, and then something grows out of our analytical ability, but it is generally formed by deeper-lying categories (philosophical frameworks that are more rational than emotions in themselves, but which are often based on emotions underneath) that will shape the way the theory looks. This is how subjectivity works, really. We have the power of our minds to both investigate to see if our categorization scheme is actually realistic when we meet the world head on (categories are weakened, if not disappearing alltogether when you have a longer time to reflect on them and work on pure, a priori knowledge like mathematics in most cases) and we can sometimes realize that we are biased in ourselves; so we are not exactly caught by this frame of reference, we can expand it and make it come closer to reality. Because that is honestly what it mirrors, reality - but it fills in blanks, sometimes in a wrong, but sometimes in a right way.

Now, your average theory or philosophical system, to get back to the main point, consists of a number of axioms (which usually function like the hidden philosophical frameworks that I mentioned before; generally realistic but not always completely right), definitions, a range of beliefs and concepts of A + (B, C, D, etc, etc) and supporting parts. A scientist, a philosopher or anyone who cares about something actually being true will make investigations through this scheme. They'll look at if everything follows naturally, they will make sure there is a logical connection, they will look at the world and at the consequences, at contrafactuals - and especially philosophers will look at underlying premises. It's unfortunately a sad thing that many philosophers have very little empirical basis and thus they're easily caught in this trap of categorizations and subjective theories. But they know this and can work with it, because they know they're just giving a theory. One that might -feel- true to them, and one they care about, but a theory nonetheless.

So what's the crux with religion? Religious belief and philosophy is based on the same way as philosophical theory is (philosophical theory just really being a formalized way of creating a framework just like we all do all the time, even if we never give a second thought to Plato or Aristotle). The crux with it is this - the refusal to back down from nonsensical beliefs. The philosopher, scientist or the intelligent person will realize that parts of his theory do not hold under the sway of logic, empirical reality and mounting evidence of whatever other kind can be mustered. It might not be tough, it might not be easy and we don't always do it. But we will at least respect the model and sometimes we get our bearings and swallow the bitter medicine - we were wrong. But the religious fellow cannot, for this reason. He cannot move away from holding the beliefs that his or her religious following has laid down for her, because then she is deserting the word of god that has the highest lexical order in their system of belief. And why shouldn't it? What happens when you move away from that? What happens if you would begin accepting reason in part? I am not so sure that you can any longer honestly call yourself a Christian, a Muslim or a Buddhist afterwards. When you begin to look at the dogma and pick away the parts you don't like, why not do away with it alltogether and become a deist, or believe that Gods word isn't honestly produced through the many religious writings of the world?

I think what you're looking at are three main options.

A) Belief in religious dogma (defined as holy scriptures, instructions from prophets and official interpretations) and never giving that up, even in the face of reason.
B) Retreat and cut your losses - homosexuals aren't bad, even though the Bible says you shouldn't lay with a man like you should with a woman. Reliance of personal reason, but overarching belief in selected parts.
C) Complete reliance of reason but continued belief in God as an apersonal abstract, maybe with the added points of "who loves us lots" and/or "Who is revealed through the lenses of various cultures".

There's also some other options, secondary options which the religious person will not be so soon to choose generally - atheism and perhaps deism comes to mind, but I think these three are the main points.

Now, I am not against C whatsoever. I think it's the best one there is. If you choose A you're just being unreasonable, but consistent with your main idea - the holy dogma (please don't read anything necessarily negative into my use of the term) is right, what other way could there be? Really, B is the worst version I feel. I fear I must agree with the Pope (imagine that) - in the West there's now a tradition of "pick and choose" religion. But that's just like having the cake and eating it. It's not rational whatsoever, neither from a scientific perspective nor from a religious one.
C on the other hand might be the most attractive to us. We'll do away with what seems amoral, silly, outdated and whatnot and just have our belief - based on, for example, personal religious experience (wherever that might come from is an entirely different matter). Tolerance comes from the fact that I, without ill will, can make analysis like these. I can call someone irrational, I can lay out a schema of how I think things really work in their minds and how things should look without this feeling of ill will. I think religion is deeply rooted with underlying premises and beliefs that hold up a great deal of extremely harmful thoughts - for example, our subservience to God that is both an important pillar of Abrahamic religions as well as an outspoken dogma. If you are religious you will either have to accept that as in option A, or you will begin having to go to option C (or renouncing religion or whatever). Option B only opens the way for buffet religion. Pick and choose in a disturbingly subjective manner. Either accept what (to us who don't buy the holy dogma) is irrational and even downright inhuman and harmful, or reject it alltogether. I think even religious folks will agree with me for the most part here, even though they might not want to state it in the same way as they.

Now - lastly - emphasis on various parts in a religion can both be permissable, and not permissable. You can focus on militarism or pacifism (which tends to exist in all religions in their philosophical history) - but you really do have to accept both of them as existing. Contradictions are paradoxal, and part of the irrationality of dogma but theologians can try to make their apologies - and sometimes it even works. But even they come dreadfully close to buffet religiosity.