• lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    hi, i’m a progressive swedish leftist.

    what happened was, the centre-right coalition that made the decision to take in immigrants had no integration plan. these people basically got sent off to places where there was already a higher percentage of immigrants, forming a sort of parallel society.

    However, this was about ten years ago, after most of these current gang criminals were born.

    the main issue is that due to a decision by a left-wing govt in the 90s, school and youth activity budgets are handled at a local level, meaning poorer areas get much lower quality education, and less recreation. it’s a textbook high-criminality recipe.

    • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      So, if i got this right, you seem to be implying that immigrants, or at least non-native Swedes as some may have citizenship, don’t know, are implicated in this violence, right? But that the situation today is a result of several policy failures by different governments and it’s not necessarily something to be tied to more recent waves of immigration. It wasn’t clear from the article. I just wanted to understand whether this plays right into the far right playbook once more. Of course poverty is a common factor in crime, but (unfortunately) the topic currently dominating European politics is immigration, and a surge in crime is an almost certain win for the extreme right in this climate.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I just wanted to understand whether this plays right into the far right playbook once more.

        The far right thing comes into play because Swedes are notoriously bad at complaining about things in public (one of the few things you can tell Germans and Swedes apart by aside from the quality of the beer), so as things began to get ugly it was taboo to talk about so it was allowed to fester, and fester badly. In come rightoids who have no qualms about breaking unspoken social norms about welcome culture and such things, actually naming the topic head-on.

        Had the broadly SocDem majority be able to address the issue, even just silently, “let’s increase funding for youth programmes and social mobility and not say why specifically we’re doing it” things wouldn’t have gotten out of hand, and the right wouldn’t have had its opportunity.

        • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think you have expressed my fear quite well. Maybe it is as I feared. I don’t know much about Sweden, but I do have the feeling that the far right everywhere gets brownie points for just naming things the left will leave untouched (with a huge amount of hyperbole, racial hatred and scapegoating to be sure). I’m not in any way trying to force an “immigrants bad” argument, just fearing that a surge in crime involving migrant populations benefits the far right disproportionately, especially if the rest of the political spectrum seem unable to effectively address the issue in a more socially productive and progressive manner.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s not just immigration policies, those are just a common ignition point. Say, in Germany after reunification the east lost lots of people, looking for opportunity in the west as the west sold off and destroyed the eastern economy for scrap, people grumbled, now there’s immigration into those areas from outside of Germany, and not just from the neighbourhood (Poland, Czechia, etc) either, at ultimately quite low levels but at a higher speed, as a percentage of population, than has ever been the case in the west. And people do more than grumble.

            Which is to say: Yes, a part of the population has been replaced with immigrants. That much is demographic fact. It is not large, there are no signs of it ever getting actually out of hand but it’s there, it’s noticeable, and it’s still growing. Failing to acknowledge it just plays into the hands of the right who then can spin all sorts of conspiracy theories about it. People want it addressed because it makes them uneasy, fearing to become a minority in their own ancestral home, and, sure, why not: Invest in those places so that the youth doesn’t flee it any more, and that people who went away to work return. Integrating the newcomers isn’t actually anywhere close to the main issue, while anti-immigration sentiment is quite high, anti-immigrant sentiment is not – people like Abdul from the corner store earning a honest living. They’re not worried about new things they are worried about the decay of the old and familiar, those are very different things.

            And oh boy has there been decay under neoliberalism.

            • lime!@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              it’s not replacement, it’s expansion. our population has grown by about 2%. also, since we pivoted to a “service economy”, we are down on entry level jobs, which are being taken by immigrants because 1) the higher-education jobs all have stricter requirements and 2) they have more work experience and are willing to work for less than swedish teenagers.

              none of this matters to the people who fear them taking over. it’s pure populism.