As someone predominantly exposed to Anglo-American political discourse, the
most refreshing thing about Swedish society is their rejection our narrow definition of freedom. We have fallen into the trap of thinking that a society can induce the greatest amount of freedom through liberalising economic institutions with no preliminary step to ensure this outcome is realised. The Swedish story tells us otherwise. Yes, Swedish governments have often gone further than the British Conservative party would dare in terms of health and welfare privatisation but the Swedish privatisers understood the need for the countervailing powers of the state and of strong unions. The Swedish state is seen as the purveyor, not the enemy, of creating freedom for its citizens. Unions (who have representatives on every publicly listed company) prevent the accumulation of power at the top of businesses which is exercised to the detriment of workers freedom. This explains not just their higher levels of equality, a more civilised approach to industrial relations and less disparity in wages and conditions for workers in the public and private sector but also the Swedish theory of love. This is, to quote its creator Lars Tragardh, the Swedish belief that authentic relations of love and friendship are only possible between individuals who do not depend on each other or stand in unequal power relations. I believe that this generates higher levels of trust, an element on which any market system relies in order to work effectively. The effect of the neoliberal blunders of the 80s has been to commodify human interaction, reducing relationships to transactions of mutual utility, not mutual love and respect. In Sweden they take the opposite view in believing that genuine reciprocity is the only thing that can create stable, genuine relationships and that moneyed interests should play no part in personal sphere of life. However, it would be a lie to proclaim that Sweden had reached the pinnacle of solidarity. The often-dubbed homogeneous society tends only to bring solidarity if youre in work and an indigenous Swede. Those who cannot find work often feel excluded from the fruits of one of the most egalitarian societies in the world. Many refugees (who comprise the majority of Swedens immigrant population) feel as though native Swedes resent them for not having paid in to their generous welfare state. Genuine solidarity would see those already pursuing shared endeavours launch initiatives to tackle these problems and be more inclusive. It would be fascinating to hear from the Fabian reps who take part in the campaign whether there are any features of our political economy that the Swedes envy and what advice Swedish progressives would give to Ed Miliband at a critical stage before the election. It looks as though the 2015 manifesto will contain ideas from many different sources, from the German social market (e.g. regional banking) to the ideas of Jacob Hacker (predistribution). Whilst Swedens successes have been widely fawned over, on the left and the right, we are yet to see any meaningful policy pledges that learn the Swedish lessons of what it means to live a good, meaningful life.