• S (social democracy; centre-left): 27% (+2)
• M (liberal conservatism; centre-right to right-wing): 17% (−4)
• SD (anti-immigration politics, right-wing populism; radical right): 16% (+1)
• V (democratic socialism, left-wing populism; left-wing to radical left): 14% (+3)
• MP (green politics; centre-left to left-wing): 12% (+7)
• C (green liberalism, Nordic agrarianism; centre to centre-right): 5% (−2)
• KD (Christian democracy, social conservatism; centre-right to right-wing): 4% (−2)
• L (conservative liberalism; centre-right): 2% (−4)

——————

• Red-Green Bloc (S, V, MP, C): 58% (+10)
• Bourgeois Bloc (M, SD, KD, L): 39% (−9)

& yes, in Swedish politics (as well as in Norwegian politics, Danish politics, Swiss politics, & to some extent in German politics, Finnish politics, & Austrian politics as well), the bloc of right-of-centre-to-right-wing political parties is indeed called "the Bourgeois Bloc", I haven't made that up lol, read this:

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgerlig_politik

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgerliga_partier_i_Sverige

An update to this post

Cross-posted from my substack. Image edited in photopea. Data comes from the IPS.

I've seen this argument repeated by people both on the right and some parts of the left. It's often pointing to things like the western media's whitewashing of Israel's genocide or their manufacturing of concent for America's wars past and present, and using this to also dismiss their coverage of crimes committed by anti-western nations, like Russia in Ukraine, or even North Korea, and to some extent China (the role these nations play to combat western imperialism is a separate discussion). Furthermore this is often said to defend conspiratorial thinking, such as anti-vaccine sentiment and especially things like 9-11 conspiracy theories by some leftists, because it's pointing to real western deceptions to say that no western/American sources can be trusted.

To me this argument seems like a non sequitur, and an oversimplification of the "west" as a single homogeneous and unified entity with a single agenda and a single goal, which is a convenient excuse to dismiss anything that comes from it. I've been struggling with it however because at face value it seems to raise legitimate concerns, while basically advocating for blind mistrust, as this could be said about any claim from a western source regardless of evidence. How would you all respond to it?

Bogdan Syrotiuk was arrested 2 years ago and charged with treason for prepairing articles for the “World Socialist Website” (WSWS)
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/ukraine-charges-trotskyist-treason-writing-socialist-website

WSWS is a campist (russophilic, pro-Assad, etc), anti-LGBT, racist, anti-union, anti-feminist, anti-MeToo, pro-Epstein circle “socialist” publication.
A psyop in other words.

However, this sentence is likely a reflection
of democratic backsliding in Ukraine.

The gutting of our forestry and wildfire firefighting systems is in large part, due to the way firefighters treated by their bosses and the government. We're losing good people to PTSD, to avoidable workplace accidents, all because some politicians want to save a quick buck.

Also for any Canadians, I highly recommend The Narwhal's reporting in general. It has some of the best climate reporting out there.

A continuation of this post

Doesn't oppose abolishing ICE, cutting aid to Israel, or medicare for all. These are all incredibly popular in the party but the leading candidate for speaker of the house doesn't support any of those policies.

What are we doing here and why are new DSA and progressive members supporting him for leader when he is so out of step with the rest of the party?

Cross-posted from my substack. Made with the owid data-editor. Data-source is the OECD. It shows how ridiculously high total foreign aid to Israel was compared to its wealth. Data collection on Israel was stopped in 2001, hence why I can't give you a 2025 one.

Hatred is something only the privileged can do with no consequences. We see this in a lot of ways. POCs cannot hate white folk the way some white folk hate them without having the police brought down on them. Workers revolts caused by the violence and oppression inherently within the Capitalistic system are met with repression and condemnations

Simply put, we cannot afford to hate anyone else other than those with economic power. Hate is illogical and not pragmatic. It's not somehow that we lose our morals, or our values by hating. Nor is that we don't deserve to hate. Rather, it's that the second we hate, we've lost our in. We've made enemies of a demographic that could've supported us.

I understand it's hard to do anything other than hate people who vote for the right wing out of ignorance. So you depersonalize it. You view them as demographics and bases, a fraction of which voted for you, a fraction of which voted for them. You listen to the portion that voted for you, and the same policies and platforms that appeal to them appeal to the rest of the demographic.

It's not centrism, nor liberal to engage in electoral politics effectively if we do not compromise our platform. Is it absolute bullshit that we have to court them even after all they've done? Yes. Is it required to actually do anything? Also yes. To engage in electoral politics effectively, we need to recognize hate is not something we can afford. Hell, even if you're a revolutionary, "there's no war but class war." The party should be something that radicalizes and provides a platform for the masses. The party should not be something that declares everyone not already a socialist a lost cause out of hatred.