Another Swedish voice on the current state of affairs in the world...

Johan Ehrenberg.

Another Swedish writer, Johan Ehrenberg in a leader this week:

There is a problem with the whole discussion about the financial collapse and the political decisions which has been taken to save the banks from the collapse. A view on the state as an independent neutral actor, whose achievements shall be seen as something “on top of” the economy. The state interlocks “because it’s best for all.”

This is a special view existing to the left, one discuss the state as something politically radical and this is maybe not so strange because the bourgeoisie puts all its energy on slandering and painting the state black, the state it at the same time is governing and dependent on.

The state is namely used of those who are in power in a society.

It’s an instrument among others to defend a bourgeois society’s continued existence; it’s actively or passively depending on what’s most profitable to the powers that govern a society.

This we can all see today. The state governed by the bourgeoisie engages in saving banks and financial systems. It does this through nationalizing it all, i.e., the state guarantees the loans and affairs of the banks, yes, in fact it guarantees affairs that haven’t yet been done.

But when it does it doesn’t “usurp” the power over the banks.

The truth is that the only stable in all this is that the state – which means all of us – are guarantors for the banks businesses nowadays.

The only which makes the system survive is that we all promise to pay if it doesn’t function.

There is nothing in political proposals that changes the banks or finance businesses. Not really.

What we see is a bourgeois state saving its own members.

Europe’s and the American states have now acted to save the finance-system, a system that didn’t manage its job (and when we ordinary people don't manage our jobs, how are we treated?). A system that instead of creating stability, created insecurity through hiding loans so nobody in the end knew who was responsible for what. The holy business-secret made so the finance businesses were capable of cheating everybody, including themselves.

Of course it’s necessary that a state has money and credits, otherwise a depression is created. But support from the state is about politics, it isn’t neutral. Let’s discuss WHAT sort of politics! Ehrenberg suggests.

The state could just as much guarantee the borrowers, one could guarantee the rate-gap, one could prohibit giving loans for speculations (which means refuse to approve of shares and other similar sorts of papers as security), take the business secrets away around the companies and one could take over the ownerships for the banks.

This would also save the financial system, without making wage earners and citizens paying the bill.

No, the state isn’t automatically on your side. It supports the bourgeois power that governs our economy and our companies.

Which – when the bank system slowly starts to get moving again – is important to remember the next time they say that “there is no money” for public investments or leveling out.

Now there is unlimited money.

To save the own power.

And at last, see the article "Bloomington Art Is Overrated"! :-) And "Indiana University - Bloomington", and at last about the Swedish politician Olof Palme.