[dalke]

My comments are not about ethnic diversity. You said 'nordic countries are much more homogeneous than the US, ethnically and politically' and I objected to the term 'politically.' (I reserve the right to object to 'ethnically', but I don't wish to have that argument.)

In order for me to understand your views better, could you explain how the US is less politically homogeneous than Sweden, and also how ethnic homogeneity necessarily implies political homogeneity?

I look at the nationalist politics of the Sweden Democrats, the democratic socialism of the Left Party, and the liberal conservatism of the Moderate party, and see three quite different political philosophies with independent party representation in national politics. The Sweden Democrats think immigration has been a failure, the Center party wants more immigration. The Christian Democrats with their anti-homosexuality position, were the only party to decline to participate in the Stockholm Pride parade.

I look at the US and see only two real national parties, with planks which are moderate for one and conservative with the other. While there are certainly a wide range of differences in the people who make up the party, the obligation is to support others of ones own party, and the voting patterns reflect that homogeneity.

You wrote "But of course there's been political diversity in the Nordics; however e.g. the likes of Arvo Kustaa Halberg were a bit too politically diverse to live in Finland so moved to the U.S." Then you wrote that it was actually his parents who had to make the move, due to their political viewpoints. This makes me feel like you are having difficulties in explaining your point. Could you elaborate?

As far as I can tell, his parents were Wobblies. The IWW started in 1905 in the US and Gus Hall was born in 1910. That's very little time for the movement to make it to Finland, his parents to become Wobblies, feel like they have to leave Finland, and migrate to the US.

In any case, Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire until 1917. As best as I could tell, socialism was not an oppressed political viewpoint in Finland in and around 1900. Eg, the Finnish Labour Party started in 1899 and changed their name to the Social Democratic Party in 1903, which remains as a party. The Communist Party of Finland was banned in 1923, but that's well after Hall's family moved to the US, and it still had behind-the-scenes influence on Finnish politics.

Would you please elaborate on how his parents' political viewpoints lead them to leave Finland for the US? And elaborate on how politics in pre-independence Finland reveals insight into a lack of modern political diversity in the Nordic countries? (Though I would prefer that you stay with Sweden, since that was my point.)

Nixon famously tried to get John Lennon deported because of the singer's involvement in the anti–Vietnam War movement. The courts eventually decided against selective deportation for political reasons, but Lennon also had the money and connections to fight that battle. Does this show a similar lack of enthusiasm towards political diversity in 1960s US?

[ptaipale]

The political systems in U.S. and Nordics are different, much of it coming from election systems. The U.S. "first past the post" guides to a two-party system where the different views are merged to one political party and battles are fought within the parties, while Nordics have many parties - even if social democrats have been quite dominant - and voters choose between these. But the parties however overlap a lot. Your average Sweden Democrat is not much unlike your average Social Democrat, really. In fact, he's probably just a disillusioned Social Democrat. So number of parties is not a very good measure of diversity one way or the other.

The U.S. can produce, even within one political party, such diverse politicians and policies as Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Zell Miller, Eleanor Smeal, Ben Nelson. Anything from trade union militants to radical feminists, cow farmers and vegan activists, conservative businessmen and firebrand racial demagogues.

Regarding Gus Hall's parents, they didn't just become IWW members when moving to America; I'm sure they and many others like them actually created the IWW as it was. And yes, socialists were not entirely free to operate in Russian Empire. Many decided to emigrate to U.S. and Canada precisely because they sought to escape what they perceived as oppression.

As best as I could tell, socialism was not an oppressed political viewpoint in Finland

Well, it was, a bit. The Tsar's secret police, Okhrana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana ), was set up in 1880 to combat political terrorism and left-wing revolutionary activity. Not everyone who called themselves socialist was rounded up and sent to a camp, the Tsars being more reasonable than their successors, but people like Halbergs must have felt they'd have more room for their ideology in America.

So they left Finland, like many of their comrades left Sweden and Norway, in search of a better life in America. It wasn't all roses there either, and many moved on for the workers' paradise in Soviet Union in 1920's, only to find a few years later themselves rounded up as suspicious elements and meet their end at the construction site for Stalin's Canal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea_%E2%80%93_Baltic_Cana... )

[dalke]

Yes, I know that the political systems in the US and Sweden (as representative of the Nordic countries) are different. That is part of my thesis. The US system for the last 200 years discourages multiple concerted voices at the national level. The Swedish system does not guarantee diversity - the Social Democrats held majority power in Sweden for a long time - but your statement is that the US has more diverse politics than Sweden, and I want you to justify your statement.

You pointed out, correctly, that there are internal politics as well. How often do you hear from members who self-identify as members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Can you name two other caucuses, off the top of your head? Unless you are a politics wonk, I doubt that you'll be able to do so.

There's one self-described socialist in national politics. Where are the others? Where are the leftists on the American stage? Why aren't anti-war vegans like Dennis Kucinich in more of the news shows?

In any case, there are internal politics in the Swedish parties too, so I don't know what your point is supposed to show.

You say that Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Zell Miller, Eleanor Smeal, and Ben Nelson are examples of diversity. Neither Sharpton nor Smeal are politicians and Smeal has never run for public office, so you've opened up the field to include a very broad range of politics. Sweden of course also has a broad range of politics, once you get to individual people. There are omnivores and vegans, trans-sexuals and cis-sexuals, believers in 0, 1, or multiple gods, pro-kronor and pro-euro, and every category you mentioned.

At some point the US wins just because it has more people, so is your measure of diversity roughly the same as saying that there are more people in the US? I thought you were making something more substantial observation.

As for Gus Hall's parents, I again ask how you are sure about what you know. I found no mention that opposition to their political beliefs was a factor. I couldn't even find out when they moved to the US. My strong suspicion is that they, like other Finns during the Great Migration, did so for economic and ethnic reasons. This was the period of Russification, when the Russian government was forcing its language and customs on the Finnish people.

This includes the February Manifesto of 1899, which declared that Russian is the official language of administration, only Russian currency was allowed, the Orthodox Russian Church is the church of state, and the Finnish army is conscripted into the Russian imperial army.

It's easier for me to assume that his parents, like many others at the time, did so because of improved economic conditions and reduced social oppression in the US, and not specifically because of their political beliefs - beliefs which were also held by many Finns who remained in Finland - were under specific persecution. Can you point me to any evidence that the main reason they left Finland was because their ideas were "too politically diverse" for the country?

And it's all very odd, because you're using Russian imperialism and oppression from 100 years ago to color your views on Nordic politics now. How does that logic work?

I can't help but think that any logic you can come up with would apply even more to the US. The suppression of Communism in the US was done by its own government, at all levels of government, and 50 years more recent than Hall's parents.

[ptaipale]

This is getting long and probably not interesting for anyone else. Sure, much of the more extremes in the U.S. is simply that with a larger number of people, the extremes are also further away. But the extremes are there. Why there are not so many socialists in U.S. national politics is surely because of the first-past-the-post system, not because of lack of diversity in the electorate.

As to evidence about Gus Hall's parents, that again winds up a bit too far away from the point of this thread, so suffice it to say that I just read some memoir where this was covered, can't find a reference. But his parents came from politically active Tampere, and were founding members of CPUSA. (Incidentally, Tampere was also the place where Lenin and Stalin met for the first time, in 1905, but Okhrana was on their trail and Lenin fled soon after the Halbergs. This is just an anecdote that I find funny, not something that's really evidence about politics today).

I'll concede that I can't measure political diversity well enough to convince you without spending too much time and boring anyone. The ethnic diversity was already commented by someone else with some demographic data which is more readily available.

[dalke]

No one else is reading this thread. I'm enjoying it though. It's encouraged me to do more research about topics that interest me.

> Why there are not so many socialists in U.S. national politics is surely because of the first-past-the-post system, not because of lack of diversity in the electorate.

That can't be the sole reason. I suspect it isn't even the main reason. Who is the modern equivalent to Eugene V. Debs in the national debates? Where is the modern Victor Berger or Meyer London, the only two members of the Socialist Party to be elected to Congress, even with the first-past-the-post system? Is it just Bernie Sanders, an independent, unaffiliated with any party?

(Debs, btw, was arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917; a violation of the First Amendment if I ever heard one, Schenck v. United States to the contrary.)

My understanding is that have been decades of concerted effort to suppress the power of labor, for example, by denigrating anything related to socialism, communism, marxism, or even liberal. I agree with the view that FDR could push through the New Deal by pointing out that the socialists and communists wanted much more. To that extent, I think Coughlin's denouncement of FDR as being allied with Wall Street was exaggerated, but generally correct.

(And who is the modern Coughlin, and modern equivalent of the Social Justice movement? The US revoked the second class mailing permit for the Social Justice weekly, under the Espionage Act. Not as harsh as the Russian secret police, but still effective at suppressing political diversity, no?)

I therefore see McCarthyism in part as a deliberate effort to undermine labor - child labor laws and women's suffrage being held up as examples of communist influence in US politics, don't you know.

I agree that Gus Hall's parents have nothing to do with the thread. I thought so when you brought it up. :)

As I said, I don't want to get into the ethnic debate. Sweden's history there is much different than the US history. Sweden's present is also much different than Sweden's history.