The paradox of tolerance

18 Aug, 2023 at 14:20 | Posted in Politics & Society | 7 Comments

Culture, identity, ethnicity, gender, and religiosity should never be accepted as a basis for intolerance in political and civic aspects. In a modern democratic society, people belonging to these different groups must be able to rely on society to protect them against the abuses of intolerance. All citizens must have the freedom and right to question and leave their own group. Against those who do not accept this tolerance, we must be intolerant.

In Sweden, we have embraced multiculturalism for a long time. If we mean by multiculturalism that there are several different cultures in our society, this does not pose a problem. Then we are all multiculturalists.

Intolerant, if we don't tolerate intolerance? – Dheeraj Sharma | BHARATA  BHARATI

But if we mean that cultural identity and affiliation also entail specific moral, ethical, and political rights and obligations, then we are talking about something completely different. Then we are talking about normative multiculturalism. And accepting normative multiculturalism also means tolerating unacceptable intolerance, as normative multiculturalism implies that the specific cultural groups’ rights may be given higher priority than the citizen’s universal human rights — and thus indirectly become a defence for these groups’ (potential) intolerance. In a normative multiculturalist society, institutions and regulations can be used to restrict people’s freedom based on unacceptable and intolerant cultural values.

Normative multiculturalism, like xenophobia and racism, means that individuals are reduced in an unacceptable way to being passive members of a culture or identity-bearing group. But tolerance does not mean that we must have a relativistic attitude towards identity and culture. Those who, in our society, show in their actions that they do not respect other people’s rights cannot expect us to be tolerant of them. Those who use violence to force other people to submit to a specific group’s religion, ideology, or ‘culture’ are themselves responsible for the intolerance they must be met with.

In Sweden, all women and men have equal value. And everyone living in Sweden must respect this.

Sweden is an open country, part of the global community. But it is also a country that firmly asserts that the gains we have achieved in terms of equality, openness, and tolerance over centuries are non-negotiable.

People who come to our country enjoy these rights and freedoms. But with these rights and freedoms also comes an obligation. Everyone — without exception — must also accept that in our country, there is one law — the same for everyone.

Rule of law.

If we are to safeguard the achievements of a modern democratic society, society must be intolerant towards people and organizations that promote intolerance. In a modern democratic society, the rule of law must prevail — and apply to everyone!

Against those in our society who seek to force others to live according to their own religious, cultural, or ideological beliefs and taboos, society must be intolerant. Against those who want to compel society to adapt laws and regulations to the interpretations of their own religion, culture, or group, society must be intolerant.

In almost no other country in the world is the protection for people with different religious affiliations as strong as in Sweden. It is a crucial part of our modern secular democracy.

7 Comments

  1. While not directly related to this thread, many of the posts and comments on this blog have related to the ability of countries to go into deficit.

    Market monetarists and New-Keynesians argue that a country that has its own currency faces no constraint: they can print money to pay for it.

    I have tried to explain that while this may be true for a hegemonic power (and therefore a country with a reserve currency), this is not true for almost all other countries, and especially not for emerging markets or countries with structural external deficits.

    The QEs we saw in Europe were also only possible because ultimately they were underwritten by the Fed, and that by US military power.

    This is an excellent video that could never have been done by any form of neo-classical economist or for that matter a Market Monetarist.

    It is good to see some people are interested in seeing how capitalism really works.

    • Can that guy express his story in terms of actual trades (shorting the dollar? longing the yuan?) that we can all observe the profitability of?

  2. I agree a lot of these comments we have having that culture wars are really distractions encouraged by capital and those with power (and the two of course go together).

    One must not take the bait.

    The mainstream-media, like neo-classical economists are docile, trained not to question, and support these narratives that ultimately support heirachies of power.

    A classic case is the Ukraine War. This is an excllent account of what really has been happening:

    Note the video at 12.08. The three great predators of capitalism. Do you have any idea how much damage these three firms alone have done?

    You could not make it up.

    At the heart of the Ukraine conflict, as the video points out. is neo-liberalism and basically class battles. When it looked like Ukraine was going to turn to Russia (who gave them a better prospective deal than the EU, including of course cheap heating fuel – important for a very cold and poor country) and reject neo-liberalism that is when the US got involved in coup that overthrow an elected government (this is well documented history by the way; it is not a question of whether it is true or not, only whether you think it was right or wrong to do so).

  3. When Sander Greenland in a video linked just the other day by Lars featured this same Popper quotation on a lecture slide, at around the 32 minute mark, did I correctly take away that his point was we have already crossed the line in tolerating the election of intolerant leaders who imposed drug laws (FDR), draft registration (Carter), vaccine mandates, etc.? Should the physician heal himself?

  4. The modern secular democracy of Sweden has been cobelligerent in the neo-colonial wars against Libya and Afghanistan. And as it is said, Action speeks louder than words. To add insult to injury, the anti-islamic/muslim propaganda is defended but antisemitism has been punished. According to law.

    • But the post was not about the Swedish state’s foreign policy, but about democracy and freedom of expression within a state. The famous sociologist and Marxist, Zygmunt Bauman writes in his book “Community Seeking Safety in an Insecure World” that multiculturalism in practice is mainly about the right to exercise indifference.

      If you claim that others should have the freedom to behave as they wish, it is mainly because you ignore them and do not care about them – and because you do not want others to interfere with your actions.

      According to Bauman, multiculturalism is first of all an ideological superstructure of indifference, it is basically just a variant of racism, and it leads to the world being made up of different ghettos that exercise opinion coercion internally, against their own members, but at the same time it gives a power in all others void – unless conflicts of interest arise, leading to an open confrontation.

      It is thus a good way for all kinds of “ideology producers” to speak in Marxist terms, for those who want to spread “false consciousness” and to divide people in order to hide the main conflict in society, i.e. the one between labour and capital.

      • Marx: “What a misfortune it is for a nation to have subjugated another.” And further “The English working class will never accomplish anything until it has got rid of Ireland…. The English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.”
        The future of the swedish working class will depend on Swedens membership in NATO.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and Comments feeds.