The point is, they want to round up lawful citizens and turf them out of the country because they have the audacity to be slightly foreign, or worse born to someone foreign.
that is the issue, not how much tax/spend big/little government.
Exactly, the problem is not left/right it's the authoritarianism, which is again a huge threat to the world after being held mostly in check in Western democracies for many years.
People tend to forget about the "Last Man" part of Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man", but we are definitely in the phase of the Last Man seeking conflict and fighting against our hard-won freedoms.
> In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."
> create unnecessary controversy, based on nothing but lies.
given how much Sweden likes to preen it's past about being right and just, the WWII neutrality and taking all of denmarks jews over night, to then have shit like "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden" seems pretty opposed to what sweden likes to think it's self as.
Wait wait, that's the clipped video people are basing this controversy on? Repatriation grants and was considered Nazi ideology 10 years ago, look what our politicians are discussing now. What Allard said during that clipped video is not far from what normal citizens are already talking about today.
I matters because a lot of people will only read the headline and then get a skewed view of the political landscape.
I did not post my comment to defend him or the party. All I wanted was for people to understand the situation a bit better than they would by just reading the title and post content.
>The point is, they want to round up lawful citizens and turf them out of the country
The US isn't the only country in the world. Sweden does not have birthright citizenship. Many (most?) of those to be remigrated are not Swedish citizens.
> Many (most?) of those to be remigrated are not Swedish citizens.
You say tomAtoe, I say pogrom, lets call the whole thing off
In europe, when was the last time a mass ejection of normal people, who've not committed crimes, beneficial? When did it end well for either the ejectee, or the remaining domestic population?
I don't see how, given their answers to simple questions as described in the "2026 run up to the elections" section, this party could ever be considered a leftist party.
Nah, it works, it's just a higher level of political abstraction, but we still tend to use left and right because those words seem to be accurate enough to be worthwhile.
We could use something like the political compass, but on that model we still tend to ignore the authoritarianism axis and just say everything to the left is the left and everything to the right is the right. Left is progressive, right is conservative.
They are far too small to have any chance of influencing education. The simpler explanation would be that there is a strong nationalist current. Think "our people are the best, let's make them even better and throw out the others"
Why wouldn't educated people be swept up by populism? They're human like the rest of us. Maybe you should stop thinking that having an education makes you a moral person, it just means you have an education.
I just assume that once people start seeing how the dots connect in some areas, they will be able to quickly see that the populists' dots are all over the place. I believe the educated populist are only the ones that try to drive move, not participate in one.
The nazis (national socialists) were running on full on the extreme left talking points, right down to socializing several industries, providing everyone a job (via state) etc pp.
After they got to power they ultimately abolished the democracy - that cannot be called either left or right leaning, because neither side would want that... And what they did up to that was actually very close to what they ran on. They did give everyone a job. State sponsored. Etc.
From a objective perspective, they were left. At least until the Kristallnacht.
The left just successfully rebranded them to right over the next decades, because they could and it was expedient for their bottomline.
I think it's worth pointing out that - if things were reversed - the political right would've done the same.
Realistically speaking, the Nazi were neither "left leaning" nor "right leaning"
They were just populists which told the population what they wanted to hear, which was left leaning propaganda - and delivered enough of that to establish itself successfully. But the dismantling of the democracy is proof that they were outside of the political spectrum. They were dictators, neither left nor right.
I would not consider communists which want to dismantle the democracy and replace it with an effective dictatorship as far left. That's right. A "far left" can only exist in the context of a democratic parlament - that's literally the definition after all: A "far left" party is one that's sitting "on the far left" (physically) in the parlament.
However, as long as they still work within the bounds of the democratic system that the government has they would be far left.
Eg North Korea is indeed not a "far left" government.
China is, because it is still working within the bounds of their own rules. It's technically not a dictatorship, even if it may look like one if you squint even just slightly - and there are votes happening.
To add to the context. The founder of the was the chairman for the youth organization of Vänsterpartiet (English name: The left party), the furthest left party in the Swedish parliament, and he recruited members primarily from the same organization when he was kicked out. The reason he got kicked out was that he was seen praising the Revolutionary Front, a far-left extremist political and militant network in Sweden.
It should be added that the area where they are active is in the local government of Örebro Municipality, a place with a total population of 160,143 people. Looking at the political leanings of parties for a small local government with the lens of national parties might not give a very clear picture. Their strategy is also directed toward local voters, not national voters, through a strategy called the 12% line.
That's typical for extremist parties, AKA Horseshoe theory. IRL Erdogan's party went so far to the right that they started actually adopting very socialist/communist policies. The party names is AKP which stands for "justice and development party" but many people are calling it "Allahs Communist Party" since in Turkish communist is written with K and they are islamists doing communist stuff.
It doesn't seem that complicated to be honest with you.
That is how they self identify but none of their policies seem particularly left wing.
At least not from that Wikipedia page.
Extremely left wing dental care is the best I will give them.
> Extremely left wing dental care is the best I will give them.
Free dental care is considered "extemely left wing" now? That's just bizarre tbh.
If a country would decide to use tax money to provide health care services for free to everybody that's not much different than using tax money to maintain an infrastructure network that's free to use (like roads), or free police and firefighting services - and I think none of those examples are considered particularly 'left-wing'.
You could, just as long as you keep it at that. The term actually does describe a valid political ideology: socialism combined with nationalism instead of the more common socialism combined with globalism, i.e. internationalist socialism ('workers of the world, unite' etc.). The association with Nazism makes it close to impossible to use the term in a 'neutral' way but in itself it just describes a nationalist movement which espouses socialist ideas.
Yeah, and their leader just happens to be a man disgruntled with the inefficiency and bureaucracy of democracy, mostly famous for his intense emotional political speeches, who blames most if not all of society's problems on his political opponents and/or ethnic minorities.
You're talking about the leader of the NSDAP while I was talking about a political ideology which aims to implement socialism at a national scale. These are not the same things and the concept I describe does not have 'a leader' just like e.g. market capitalism does not have 'a leader'.
You're talking about him like he is comparable to the leader of the NSDAP, something known as Reductio at Hitlerum. I understand you don't like Allard for some reason but that doesn't make him a Hitlerian figure.
No, I'm saying he walks and quacks like a right-wing populist. In fact, you were the one who brought up Hitler. There are several others you could compare him to; It's always the same playbook.
I'm the one who pointed out you were comparing him to Hitler without using the name so you could claim it was me who brought up Hitler. Indeed, it is always the same playbook.
Your nick (for those who don't speak Swedish: 'dödslaser' is Swedish for 'death laser') seems to point at you being Swedish or at least having some tie to the country. If so, in what way does Allard seem to be such a threat to you that you portray him in this light?
Find yourself on that side of the argument often, do you?
On a more serious note: No, I don’t see Markus Allard or the Örebro party as a threat in isolation. The broader right-wing populist movement they are part of, on the other hand, is very concerning. The normalization of racism, vilification of independent journalism, widespread acceptance of "alternative facts," and nonchalant attitude towards the democratic processes within this movement are particularly worrying.
It's impossible to use in a neutral way because all such parties are inevitably authoritarian brand of socialist, and any time you have authoritarian nationalism, crimes against humanity follow.
The point you're trying to make here is the difference between Hitler and the Strasser brothers, which is valid, but irrelevant in this context - if the latter had won, the pile of bodies they'd produce would still be immense.
Socialism and authoritarianism go hand in glove so that is not the difficulty here. It is also not the combination of authoritarianism and nationalism which leads to crimes against humanity, for that any form of authoritarianism - nationalist, internationalist, religious, secular - is sufficient. Nor am I in any way relating to Hitler or Strasser, what I am referring to is an ideology which aims at implementing socialism at a national level, within the context of a nation state, without the aim of implementing socialism outside of the national borders. For that you do not need to refer to Hitler or Strasser or anyone related to the German party which ended up under the control of Hitler.
This is what I meant when I said it is close to impossible to use the term in a 'neutral' way, the nearly inevitable association with what happened in and around Germany when the NSDAP came into power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party