Comment by fetbaffe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fetbaffe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Version that was introduced in 1982 was a water downed version of the original plan, the Social democrats lost an election because of the original plan in 1976 against the popular opposition leader and farmer Thorbjörn Fälldin. Fälldin broke a 40 year long social democratic rule. Fälldin described the plan as DDR style economics with the subsequent removing of personal freedoms.

Original plan was to create funds to would buy up more than the majority of the stock of all major companies in Sweden, all controlled by the labour unions. That would have been de facto socialism. Why? Because the labour unions was married with the political power, the Social democrats. Biggest labour union of them all, LO, controlled Social democrats with funding and forced memberships.

All political power and economic power in one entity would have been very dangerous.

After controlling the major companies in Sweden, they would have of course continued with the non-public companies, because the main goal of Löntagarfonder was to create equal salaries between high profit companies and low profit companies.

Taxing profits in moderation is not breach against democratic principles, but using the companies own money to take ownership over it is.

Right to run your own company was established already in 1864 in Sweden. Löntagarfonder was a direct opposition to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_...

There is nothing wrong with worker ownership if the workers create it by themselves, taking other peoples work is not okay.

"Taxing profits in moderation is not breach against democratic principles, but using the companies own money to take ownership over it is."

It's not the companies own money after it's been taxed. From then on it's actually the government's money.

Reason why I wrote in moderation, e.g. 100% tax is not moderation and therefore theft.

Intent here was to take control over the ownership of the companies, that would have been same as 100% tax, they where just using a more complicated scheme but the end result would been the same.

It appears the intent was to purchase control over the ownership of the companies at prevailing market rates. As far as I can tell, the existing stock owners were entirely free to refuse the state's purchase offer and maintain control indefinitely, if they so chose. That doesn't sound like a tax at all.

I'm sorry, I see now that I mismwrote on the original version of löntagarfonder, I wrote buy, the correct word should be take.

Original idea was to take the dividend as new stock. Nothing voluntary, no buying at market rates.

> After controlling the major companies in Sweden, they would have of course continued with the non-public companies, because the main goal of Löntagarfonder was to create equal salaries between high profit companies and low profit companies.

No, that was the "solidarity in wages" policy which was already implemented. It was this policy that made successful companies make excess profits. Those profits were supposed to go to "Löntagarfonderna".

Your are absolutely right, goal of löntagarfonder was increased worker control and workers do work at non-public companies as well.

Is buying stock always taking other people's work, or just when the state does it?

When the state concentrates political and economic power in itself, it's theft.

When, say, the Koch brothers concentrate political and economic power in themselves, it's just markets and capitalism.

But you buy stock with your own money, the state doesn't.

The state does not have any money, it takes money in taxes we all agreed on to use it in fair way, and that is not to use the power of the state to buy up your livelihood and give that to a party member, that would be unfair.

For a value of "we all agreed" that expands to "was decided via a free and fair democratic process", then it appears that the Swedes did all agree, at least for a time, that this was a fair way for their government to use their tax money.

For any other value of "we all agreed" then it sounds like you're arguing that the vast majority of government expenditures are unjustified. That seems like a much more expansive claim than what you're trying to make.

Why should it be okay for the state to use tax money to purchase a tank or a mile of road but not to purchase a share of stock?

Swedes did not agree, hence losing the following election.

State can of course buy stock. State owned companies can work just fine.

But there is a difference in intent. Intent here was union controlled ownership of all major companies. Creator of idea explicitly quoted Marx.

It think also we got bit sidetracked in this discussion with the word buy that I misused, it was not buying at the stock market, it was "buying" with legislation, exchanging profits for stock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com