Why the workers turned their backs on the left

The Social Democrats' rightward turn and the betrayal of their base

More and more workers have stopped voting red-green. One reason is the Social Democrats' rightward turn since the 1980s. The party began to target the middle class and the emerging yuppies – young careerists with share portfolios – instead of its traditional working-class base. During the 1980s, the Social Democrats gradually let go of their radical legacy. For example, the allowance for attending party meetings was abolished, a reform that signaled a decrease in respect for the workers' movement's foot soldiers. At the same time, a new, powerful working-class middle class emerged, attracted by the stock market boom and new consumption habits. The big companies (SAF/Industriförbundet) took advantage of the situation and launched an opinion offensive for deregulation and tax cuts. Many civil servants who had previously supported S now turned to the Moderates. The Social Democrats responded by adopting market-friendly ideas themselves in order to retain power. The party's ideology was watered down; The focus was on attracting centrist voters instead of mobilizing the working class. This laid the foundation for the bourgeois parties' major austerity policies to come – S had legitimized the neoliberal turn.

The 1990s crisis paves the way for cuts

When the 1990s crisis hit, the social democracy was ill-equipped to defend the welfare state. Sure, Bildt’s bourgeois government (1991–94) introduced drastic cuts, but even then the belt continued to tighten. The Social Democratic-led government under Ingvar Carlsson and then Göran Persson chose to “clean up state finances” through historic cuts in welfare. Successive crisis packages – both bourgeois and social democratic – cut social insurance and public services. Mass unemployment was suddenly accepted as a fact in what had recently been a full-employment country . This paved the way for privatizations and market solutions. For example, generous housing subsidies were abolished, which severely slowed down the construction of rental apartments. The previous social housing policy was abandoned and housing was now seen as a commodity. The consequence was increased disparities: homelessness and overcrowding rose, while luxury housing was favored. One professor described it as a housing policy disaster where similar social gaps had not been seen since the 1930s. But the S leaders often defended the austerity measures as necessary. Under Persson, the party became almost technocratic – “it was about clearing out the dead meat” in the economy, as it was called. In practice, this meant reduced benefits for the sick and unemployed and tougher conditions in welfare. The working class had to pay the price for the financial crisis, while the middle class – at least the upper class – fared better.

The media climate favored the right

Several researchers believe that the media landscape at that time made it easy for the right to push through its view of reality. In the 1970s and 1980s, economist Sven Grassman had already exposed errors in Sweden's financial accounts and warned against letting "economists" alone dictate the terms of politics. He believed that this kind of technocracy led to dedemocratization . Yet Grassman's warnings were not taken seriously in the mainstream media - instead, neoliberal economists were given ample space to preach crisis and the need for cuts. The well-known historian of ideas Sven-Eric Liedman has subsequently criticized how progressive voices were silenced in the public debate, while the right was allowed to spread simplified or downright false claims unchallenged. The result was a climate of opinion in which "there was no alternative" to market adaptation. When the media focused on government debt and "responsibility" to calm the financial market, questions of equality and solidarity disappeared from the agenda. The right was given the privilege of formulating problems; The left was seen as sloppy if it argued for classic redistribution policies. This made it difficult for the ideas of the labor movement – which built Sweden – to reach out. Labor voters were instead met with the message that their social security system was an unreasonable luxury. The party's leadership preferred to adapt rather than fight, which widened the gap between the party and its core voters.

Welfare reforms that increased inequalities

During the 1990s and 2000s, a series of reforms were implemented that actually increased class gaps – often with social democratic consent. The pension system was restructured in 1994–98 in cross-block agreement, which reduced future pensions for low-income earners. Tax cuts in the 2000s mainly benefited high-income earners, while VAT increases and fees affected ordinary wage earners. In education and care, market models prevailed: profits in welfare were allowed and New Public Management thinking streamlined staff. We see the result today in the form of waiting lists for care, a crisis in psychiatry, a shortage of teachers and worn-out infrastructure. The social democratic government made some attempts to counteract the worst (e.g. the “stop bill” against private care in the early 2000s), but the right-wing paradigm was largely accepted. The social safety nets were gradually dismantled. Income differences increased dramatically between those with permanent jobs and those who had fallen outside. Studies have shown that the Alliance's earned income tax deductions and austerity measures in unemployment insurance and health insurance increased the gap in disposable income between secure permanent employees and fixed-term employees/unemployed by a full 20 percentage points. In short: policies that were sold as "necessary" have created a tougher, more unequal Sweden. At the same time, research shows that the values of the Swedish people have not changed as much - most still support the welfare state. It is the political elite that has become more market liberal than the population. This makes it paradoxical that S justified cuts as if voters demanded them. In reality, it was a less vocal middle-class opinion and pressure from the business community that drove the changes.

Individualism, ill health and political apathy

Under the surface, a cultural change was also taking place. As politics was reduced to budgetary discipline and “freedom of choice” was exalted, an apolitical culture of consumption emerged. The citizen was increasingly transformed into a customer. The focus shifted from collective solutions to individual adaptation and self-improvement. In The Culture of the New Capitalism, sociologist Richard Sennett describes how the dismantling of old stable institutions (such as secure employment and strong unions) led to a decrease in community . People become rootless, constantly chasing the next short-term assignment, and are forced to “shape their personalities” in order to adapt. Personal development sounds positive, but in practice it is often about self-discipline in order to cope with insecure jobs and constant demands for efficiency. Sennett believes that this creates social instability where only a few can thrive . In such a climate, feelings of meaninglessness and stress easily grow. Government statistics also show that mental ill health has increased during the 21st century, especially among young adults . More and more people suffer from anxiety and depression in our high-performance society. When individuals are expected to solve their problems themselves – via therapy, mindfulness or coaching – the incentives to demand social change weaken. Many withdraw from politics altogether. Associations and popular movements have become less active, strikes have become less common. This again benefits the status quo and those who already have power. In the US, we saw how the abandoned white working class in the rust belt instead sought solutions from a right-wing populist like Donald Trump, who offered scapegoats instead of real improvements. Similarly, in Sweden, many disappointed workers have been attracted by the Sweden Democrats' simple answers. The social culture of each for himself has undermined collective solidarity – and thus the red-green parties that have traditionally been built on common struggle.

Capital's agenda and the democratic deficit

It is no coincidence that politics has taken this direction. Large corporations have consciously driven the development. In his book Capital's Automatism, Mikael Nyberg points out how the directors' network European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) planned extensive austerity measures on the labor market as early as the 1980s. This powerful industrial club – led by the Swedish ABB, Volvo, and others – proposed, among other things, a low-wage market alongside regular jobs. Decades later, much of their agenda was realized, especially under Fredrik Reinfeldt's government, which implemented major deteriorations in job security and unemployment insurance in line with the ERT's vision. One might ask: Where was the democracy in this? The decisions were formally made in the Riksdag, but the ideas came from closed directors' rooms at the EU level. The result has been a shift of power from labor to capital. Just look at how the right to strike was restricted in 2019 – a decision made by an S-led government in consensus with the bourgeois parties. Now there is an extended duty to keep people at work in workplaces with collective agreements, which stopped independent unions such as the Port Workers' Union from striking. Employment protection was also recently eroded. The new LAS, negotiated in 2020–21, gives employers more leeway to dismiss people and circumvent the last-in-first-out principle. Union critics have called it the biggest deterioration of labor law in modern times. Here, the Social Democrats voted for the changes – they prioritized cooperation with the Center Party over the objections of the LO collective. Even popular education, once the proud educational project of the labor movement, is being dismantled in today's political landscape. In the Tidö government's budget, 500 million is being cut from student unions over three years. It affects course activities in everything from languages to social studies and makes it difficult for ordinary people to meet and form an opinion. At the same time, the Riksdag, led by the Social Democrats, has adopted a controversial law against “foreign espionage” (effective from 1 January 2023) that risks punishing whistleblowers and journalists who reveal inconvenient truths. Disclosing information that could “damage Sweden’s relations” is now a violation of freedom of the press. Several influential consultation bodies warned that the law threatens investigative journalism and whistleblower protection. Nevertheless, a unanimous Riksdag voted yes, including the Social Democrats. The democratic space is thus shrinking from several directions – both through reduced public education and increased secrecy. The working class is losing both material security and the opportunity to make its voice heard.

The flight of the working class – and the way back?

The consequences of all this are clearly visible in voter opinion. In the 2022 election, every second worker voted for a right-wing party. Among LO members, support for the Social Democrats has fallen from two-thirds in the 20th century to around 41% in 2018 (it was the first time since the start of the polls that S fell below 50% among LO members). A large part of the lost S voters have gone to the Sweden Democrats – a party that, ironically, supports the very right-wing political proposals that further weaken workers. The Social Democrats’ leadership has tried to win back these votes by approaching the SD, especially on migration policy. The rhetoric has become stricter and the party has often voted with the bourgeois Tidö parties in the Riksdag on issues of asylum and law and order. But this triangulation risks failing, say political scientists. When S focuses its energy on outdoing the right in hard-hitting battles, it forgets to address the core: the economic and social injustices that drive discontent. The real betrayal of the working class is about welfare, job security and living conditions – areas where both S and the bourgeois have long failed.

Security for everyone – even the middle class

Right-wing politicians like to present welfare cuts as a defense of the “hard-working middle class” against taxes and welfare recipients. But it is a false middle-class defense. An eroded welfare state also affects the middle class in the long run. In a society with large gaps and insecure jobs, no one is really safe. The middle class themselves risk slipping down if they get sick, lose their jobs or when they get old – precisely when they need the security systems. In addition, research shows that more equal societies benefit everyone, even the more affluent, through higher social capital and better public health. It is therefore not “out of altruism” that the middle class should support a strong working class, but out of well-understood self-interest. When the nurse, the warehouse worker and the bus driver have tolerable wages, secure jobs and a functioning welfare system, then the middle manager and the engineer can also feel confident. Secure workers consume and contribute to the economy; they create minor social problems such as crime or ill health which would otherwise spill over into the whole of society. To dismantle workers' security in order to benefit the rich in the short term is therefore to saw off the branch on which the whole of society is sitting.

The Left's Introspection

When workers turn their backs on the red-green party, it is a stark reminder that something has gone wrong. Social democracy and the broad left need to reconnect with their roots – to the idea that ordinary people, together, can create a better society. This requires daring to break with the market liberal consensus that has dominated for so long. You have to show in practical politics that you defend labor rights, invest in welfare, build housing for people and tax those who can afford to pay. And perhaps most importantly: you have to regain trust. It was trust that eroded when the S leadership embraced the values of yuppie culture and called it renewal. Trust eroded when left-wing politicians started talking about budget ceilings before people's needs. Getting the working class to vote red-green again is not about changing the logo or some tactical moves on the immigration issue – it is about showing that you are taking up the fight for ordinary people's everyday lives again, against both injustices and untruths. Progressive writers often quote the English proverb “Trust is earned in drops , and lost in buckets .” The labor movement has a big bucket to refill. But it is necessary, not just for the sake of the left but for the whole of society. Because if the majority of workers lose faith in common solutions, then democracy will crack. Who will defend welfare the next time the right tightens its belt?

The red-green side still has the chance to show another way – one where security, equality and community are put before short-term profit-seeking. That would also benefit the middle class, yes the entire nation. History has taught us that a society is at its best when the gaps are small and hope is great. Without a strong working class as a backbone, no public housing can stand firm. It is high time to realize that in the long run we are all in the same boat – and rowing it in the right direction requires leaving no one in the water.