
How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’ - rkda
http://www.indypendent.org/2012/01/26/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-power-%E2%80%981-percent%E2%80%99
======
itmag
_They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society
and created the basis for something different._

Yeah, but we replaced them with a new 1%. Until recently, Sweden basically had
an aristocratic caste consisting of the inner party of the Social Democrats,
the labor leaders, the head editors of the major newspapers, etc. Basically a
clique of people doing deals behind closed doors and having their own shared
mythology/worldview as well as exclusive channels to the populace.

In the last 6 years, Sweden has been going through a transition phase where
the assumptions of the last 70 years are being challenged. For instance, many
social democrats considered the elections of 2006 and 2010 to be something of
a coup d'etat (because they broke 70 years of near total domination by their
party). Another big change is the increasing fragmentation of the media - the
"gammelmedia" (old media) no longer holds a monopoly on information.

I am not dissing the social democrats - they were a clear improvement on the
previous feudal system - but they've become stale and out of touch IMHO. As an
example there is still no insight into how they pick their party leaders. A
new one was just announced today, and no one really knows how that decision
was reached. It's not like in the US, where people can actually have some
choice of candidates for Presidency.

~~~
pasbesoin
_Until recently, Sweden basically had an aristocratic caste consisting of the
inner party of the Social Democrats, the labor leaders, the head editors of
the major newspapers, etc. Basically a clique of people doing deals behind
closed doors and having their own shared mythology/worldview as well as
exclusive channels to the populace._

This appears to be what Stieg Larsson touched on in his "Dragon" (U.S. title)
/ "The Girl..." books. For example, his partner (in various senses), Erika, is
described as 'upper class' and coming from a privileged background.

Is Larsson's descriptive language the same sort of thing you're describing?

One reason I enjoyed those books: Some feeling for the contemporary setting
and society.

------
dalke
The Wallenberg family is definitely in the 1% and quite powerful. Wikipedia
says their sphere of influence "is estimated to indirectly control about a
third of the national GDP."

The author writes: "I remember, for example, bicycling for hours through a
small industrial city, looking in vain for substandard housing." I'm curious
as to which city that was, and what route was taken. The concrete suburbs
created by the Miljonprogrammet (eg, Angered in Gothenburg) are, perhaps not
substandard, but definitely low status, with many immigrants, high
unemployment and crime, and the buildings look ugly.

As the article doesn't mention these, the author comes across as using rose-
colored glasses to interpret Swedish history. I point as well to the lasting
effects of the strong labor and pro-99%'er movement in the US in the early
1900s, leading to everything from the 40-hour work weeks to woman's voting
rights to the FDA to the FDIC. This is similar to what was going in Sweden at
the same time. Using the same pair of glasses I would say it lead to the rise
of the middle class in the US later in that century.

------
RyanMcGreal
Every society has a "1 percent" that owns or controls resources far out of
proportion to their numbers. The question is: how much power will they have to
shape society as a whole? It is possible to create a more egalitarian society
in which the 99 percent are still able to maintain a good and rising standard
of living and an acceptable quality of life.

------
treenyc
What about Denmark? You can't mention Swedes and Norwegians without mentioning
the missing triplet. Denmark.

