Author: Ingvar Carlsson & Anne-Marie Lindgren
Year: 2019
Publisher: Tankesmedjan Tiden
Language: Swedish
Social Democracy
is by far the most successful political project in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia
in the 20th century, and it is at the core of what made this region
the envy of the world*. But few people, even those who vote for the Social
Democratic party or identify as social democrats, truly know what it is.
As debates
over the meaning of social democracy grew increasingly muddled, Ingvar Carlsson,
who would later become leader of the Social Democratic Party and Sweden’s prime
minister, teamed up with Anne-Marie Lindgren, a respected publisher and
political analyst, to bring clarity. In 1974 they co-authored “Vad är
socialdemokrati” (“What is Social Democracy”); a concise attempt to define the
party’s principles and purpose. The book has since been translated to a number
of languages, and revised and updated four times. The latest edition, published
in 2019, reflects both the endurance of the project and the evolution of its
ideas.
The book is
divided into six sections: 1. History of Social Democracy, 2. Ideological legacy
of Social Democracy 3. Social Democratic ideological development: The world of
production, 4. Social Democratic ideological development: Distribution of the results
of production 5. Social Democracy – am outdated ideology? 6. The future?
If there is
a single lesson to be drawn from this book, it is that it should not be
mistaken for either a bible or a manifesto. Social democracy, by its very
nature, resists dogma. It rejects any fundamentalist interpretation of its
founders or ideological forerunners. As Carlsson and Lindgren themselves put it:
“Within
some left-wing parties, Marx and ‘Marxism’ (or notions of ’Marxism) have at
periods of time been seen almost as a religious document, in which some of the
more obscure words provide a guideline that is not to be questioned. Such
trends, albeit not as evident as in the past, can also be found in modern-day
debate. This type of single-minded literal approach is extremely dangerous –
and this applies to all theories – political or religious – seen as
representing the Truth with a capital T. The history of Communism shows us how
dangerous such single-mindedness can be, and how it directly opposes the ideal
of freedom and equality.”**
It is thus neither
a roadmap nor a yardstick, nor does it claim to be a philosophical treatise on
the nature of happiness or a blueprint for utopia. Instead, it offers a
framework for understanding society, an intellectual toolkit that enables
readers to identify the structures and processes that produce social injustice,
and to devise practical, contextually relevant solutions suited to their own
time and circumstances.
Although
its intellectual roots lie in the writings of Karl Marx, the social-democratic
movement began reinventing itself almost from the outset. A decisive break with
classical Marxism, as articulated in the “Communist Manifesto” (see review from
August 2021), came when social democrats abandoned the goal of redistributing
ownership of the means of production and instead sought to democratise control
over them. This shift owed much to the trade unions, which formed the backbone
of Sweden’s labour movement. Traditionally, economists distinguish between two
main factors of production: capital and labour. The unions’ initial priority
was to gain greater control over the latter; the time, energy and skills of
their members. But their thinking soon influenced the political wing of the
movement. The call to transfer ownership of capital gave way to a more
pragmatic demand: to share control over capital and the rewards of production
more equitably.
This
insight proved decisive in sparing Scandinavia the violent upheavals that shook
parts of Europe under Communist and Fascist movements. Instead, it laid the
foundation for a path of gradual, democratic reform. Once owners of capital
recognised that their property rights were not under direct threat, they became
more inclined to negotiate and compromise. The result was the emergence of the
so-called Swedish model, i.e. an enduring framework that balances the interests
of capital, labour and the broader public. It fostered a society in which
innovation and cooperation could flourish, not through conflict, but through
consensus, ensuring that no group’s prosperity came at the systematic expense
of another.
The at the
time of writing this ongoing dispute between Tesla and the Swedish trade union
IF Metall must be seen in this historical context. Tesla’s management appears
to operate as though it is free from norms and responsibilities, yet their
actions risk undermining the very foundation of Sweden’s prosperous welfare
model. Elon Musk’s apparent inability to recognise or respect this legacy is
regrettable. Equally, if not more concerning, however, is the fact that many
Swedish workers, by opting not to join the union, seem unaware of the broader
consequences of their choices for both themselves and the collective framework
that has long safeguarded their rights.
It is a
pity that works such as this by Carlsson and Lindgren are unlikely to alter
this dynamic. The reason is simple: their arguments demand a degree of
analytical sophistication that, in 2025, remains beyond the grasp of much of
the population leaving it up to others to fight their fights for them.
* Yes
haters, it is hardly a secret that the acrid venom you spew upon Sweden on
social media springs from none other but your own envy and crushing sense of
inadequacy. You are not fooling anybody.
** The whole book is available in English at the Palme Center webpage, wherefrom this quote was sourced.
