On 2011-07-12, at 5:01 PM, c b wrote:
> I think the opposite argument could be made.
>
> The potential threat of revolution existed in Sweden before the
> Bolshevik revolution; it didn't suddenly materialize in October 1917.
> The year 1917 was not the year of one revolution in Russia, it was a
> year of many attempted revolutions in Europe, one of which succeeded.
> Capitalists didn't need to see a successful revolution in Russia to
> understand that successful revolutions were a threatening possibility
> in many places, including in Sweden.
>
> On the other hand, the Soviet Union did offer a concrete lesson of
> what could happen *if* there was a revolution -- i.e. the elimination
> of democracy, establishment of a dictatorship. This negative example
> had a real effect on many people on the left, especially in countries
> like Sweden where the left was deeply attached to democratic freedoms,
> making them *more* hesitant to support revolutionary action.
>
> SA
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: If all the revolutions had failed, would the capitalists in Sweden
> have been so likely to make such big concessions to the working class
> in Sweden ? In other words _didn't_ capitalists in Sweden need to see
> an actually successful revolution somewhere to believe that successful
> revolution was an actual threat in Sweden ?
You're both right. Capitalism was alarmed from the mid-19th century on about destabilizing and existential threats to the system from below. The Russian Revolution actualized the threat and for a time served as a powerful inspiration to the working classes, including in Sweden. Its appeal faded with rising living standards under capitalism, particularly after WWII, and incontrovertible evidence of Stalinist repression in the USSR, both of which decisively tipped the balance in the unions and union-based political parties to the social democrats.