"Green" warfare 3/15: State turns against science, se
rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Fri May 31 23:35:23 MDT 1996
The state turns against science - Sweden, 1980 (Notes) [Sent: Feb 96]
Here I'm posting some explanatory comments on the so-called
"referendum on nuclear power" in Sweden in 1980, as part of the
information on the present campaign in this country for a REAL such
referendum. Concerning the construction and the character of the
1980 event here, readers are referred to my posting under subject:
"Ballot" texts in 1980 Swedish nuclear "referendum".
What was the 1980 event all about and what's the present campaign
about? (It should be pointed out that even today, the politicians in
this country are practically united in stressing the "great need" to
"abide by" the "result" of this now 16 years old "referendum".)
In this posting I'll give you my opinions on this, not in any capacity of
representative of the organization of which I'm also a member, the
Environmental Friends For Nuclear Power (MFK), Sweden, but in
my capacity as an individual, period. The opinions stated are those
of myself only.
United in the MFK, which at present has some 2000 members, are
people of many different political persuations. Before going into
the questions raised above I'd like to stress this fact and also show
readers where to find information about the character and aims of
this organization. You'll find it on the home page:
For me, as an adherent of the ideology of Marx, Lenin and Mao
Zedong, it's self-evident and quite important today to support the
aims of such an organization as the MFK. Unfortunately, today there
are extremely few texts in English adequately explaining the demands
which the present arch-reactionary international "green" anti-science,
anti-technology, anti-industry and anti-growth campaigns - a "fleet" whose
very "flagship" of course is the anti-nuclear-energy campaign - are putting
on the genuine Marxists.
I'll try to alter this situation as much as I can, i.a. by translating some
texts published earlier by the former Marxist-Leninist party in
Germany, the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), which unfortunately today
has degenerated and turned into a bourgeois party and therefore will
not now be contributing much analysis of any value on these or other
Something which has been going on in the world for more than three
decades now, escalating, generally speaking, more and more for
each year, is a *"green" stealth world war* waged by the main forces
of the bourgeoisie against the people of all countries. This enormous
fact of course is what lies behind, for instance two subject threads which
have now been under debate for several months on certain newsgroups:
"The Final (Environmentalist) Genocide Solution" and
"Nutty Rigthtwingers Think Environmentalism Is Marxism".
These lines, which are very much to the point, seem to show that at least
some people quite clearly have seen, whether they are analyzing
things from a Marxist standpoint or from some other standpoint, that
they are being subjcted to certain sneak attacks, and are firing back.
The phoney "referendum" in Sweden in 1980 precisely was - as is
our (much "smaller") campaign today for a genuine one - a sharp
battle in this "cold" world war. It was an event of bitterly intensive
Why have the main forces of the bourgeoisie in the world today, more and
more during the last 2-3 decades, come to hate so intensively
the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy? In this posting I can't do much
more than give a hint at the answer, by quoting (again - I've done it once
before, in part 3/3 of my posting of 1.1.96 to several newsgroups: "UNITE!
Info #3en: '94 art. on Mao, RIM, US, PCP") a
line from a speech by Karl Marx in London on 14.4.1856:
"Steam, electricity and spinning machine were revolutionaries of a
much more dangerous character than even the citizens Barbe*s,
Raspail and Blanqui."
The somewhat elderly invention Spinning Jenny today probably can scare
no-one, in a world with also space rockets and computers, but
steam and electricity still are quite up-to-date important things, produced
in - to some - "horrifying" quantities precisely in nuclear
power plants. "It's them or us", they say. And they weren't of much
use before, either, while we certainly need steam and electricity.
With the bogus "referendum" in Sweden in 1980, which was obviuosly
instgated due not least to massive international reactionary pressure,
the main bourgeois forces wanted to give the peoples of other and
bigger countries in Europe, above all, the impression that Swedes
were against nuclear energy.
In fact the great majority of Swedes, then as now, *favour(ed)* that
most modern energy source. The openly anti-nuclear-energy parliamentary
parties had suffered a landslide defeat in the elections
in September, 1979, precisely when the energy question had been
very much the main public theme in Swedish political life since the
election before that, in 1976. Precisely in those years, there had
been extremely massive anti-nuclear-energy propaganda in the
reactionary bourgeois media, who had also finally succeeded in
establishing a certain - phoney - "movement" in this direction among
certain strata of the masses of people.
It was in connection with the beginning of the overthrow of socialism
in China, towards the end of 1976, that it became possible for the
most reactionary parts of the bourgeoisie to fool a certain number
of people in some countries in Europe - most importnatly in (West)
Germany, into participating in a certain "green", anti-industrial
"movement". With the proletariat still in power in China, this had been
much more difficicult for them to do. The main mover internationally
behind this new Malthusianism had long been the main forces of
U.S. imperialism.The lackeys of Soviet revisionism in several West
European countries were by no means uneager to join in.
But this "movement" soon started to wane, anyway, not least because
it came under counterattack from the extremely small but extremely
good Marxist-Leninist party in Germany, the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT),
who publicly disclosed the real, reactionary class interests behind
the smokescreens of "environmental and safety concerns". By early
1979, important decisions in a comparatively pro-"nuke" direction
were under way in, for instance, Sweden and, even more so, France.
Then the "Harrisburg" incident was staged in the USA on 28.3.1979.
(There is quite sufficient cirumstantial evidence, I hold, to demonstrate
rather conclusively that this event was not a natural accident. At the
time I participated in a small investigation of it, using those "open
sources" we could find, and in May '79 published a Swedish transla-
tion of a KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) article on the matter.)
The TMI 2 incident caused, among other things, the setting up of the
"referendum" in question in Sweden, a comparatively important country,
despite its small population, precisely as far as nuclear energy was
concerned, for Sweden had the greatest amount of nuclear-produced
electricity (that "nasty" stuff that Marx had mentioned in London a few
years earlier) per inhabitant of all countries, and the public conflict over
the matter had been at least as intensive here as in West Germany.
But if people in their great majority are *for* something, and you - being
the leader of the inquisition, say - need them to vote *against* it, what's
to be done? The nazi propaganda minister Goebbels had said "If you
repeat a lie 1000 times, it becomes a truth". But we all know how
*that* fellow ended up. Well then, let's try 1 000 000 times. And this
the media here did, too, in the late winter of 1979-80. But in more
modern times, with a comparatively well-educated people, as were
the Swedish, sufficient effect could by no means be counted on, not
even with and after the "Harrisburg" (TMI 2) event.
Still true then, as they are today, were the words of that U.S. president
who led the war (in which some of Marx' associates participated)
against the slave states, Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people
for some time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool
all the people all the time."
For "safety", the "referendum" had to be constructed with sufficiently
effective devices against any "yes" result "accident". And so it was.
You don't think that a "completely safe" referendum can ever be
constructed? Then you haven't seen the one held here in Sweden in
1980. The only "choice" available to those who wished to express an
opinion on whether to use nuclear energy or not was that between
"NO", "NO" and even more "NO"!
I again refer the readers to the relevant texts, posted under subject:
"Ballot" texts in 1980 Swedish "nuclear referendum".
How then was it possible to make people in this country "accept"
such a "referendum", or at least not to protest so violently against
it as to "disturb" the entire "chain process", with which the Swedes
and others were intended by the reactionaries to be fettered
This "referendum" did "succeed" in so far as that there were no outbreaks of
violent revolt against it - which would have been quite justified if such
had occurred. It left, however, behind it a much
greater distrust of the bourgeois politicians than ever before in the minds
of the great majority of people here. And it is, still today, a
certain millstone around the neck of the entire reactionary
bourgeoisie: A very concrete proof of how *fanatically* this class
now wants *to move backwards in time*, as far as technology is
concerened, and an even more solid proof of the fact that even
the comparatively "advanced" "democracy" in a country like
Sweden is only a cloak over what is actually *the dictarorship of the
bourgeiosie*, the rule of international monopoly capital.
There were several illusionists' tricks employed in this "referendum"
in order to make this choice between saying "no", "no" or even more
"no" or else keeping mum "acceptable", or to make people believe
that they did have some other choice. I'll not go into all of them here,
but only point out a couple of the most important ones, in a
SUMMARY OF THE MAIN TRICKS EMPLOYED BY THE RULING
REACTIONARIES IN THE 1980 "REFERENDUM" IN SWEDEN
1. As already mentioned and as shown by the "ballot" texts, you only
could vote "for" either one of three completely *anti*-nuclear-energy
programs ("proposals") or else (either by "Blank ballot" or by staying
2. There was an important trick in the "logical structure" of the
"referendum". This may need some explanation.
In a referendum, there "normally" are (2 or perhaps more)
*alternatives* between which to choose. Not so in this one. There
instead were 3 so-called "proposals". What, if anything, is the
difference and what significance does such a possible difference have?
Consider the following 3 (at least to most people in Sweden) not very
appealing programs (which in their general drift would somewhat
resemble the 3 actual ones in "our" 1980 "referendum"):
A: Stockholm and Goeteborg are annihilated; B: Stockholm and
Goeteborg are annihilated, and blaha; C: Stockholm, Goeteborg
and Malmoe are annihilated.
Now suppose, firstly, that those three are put up as *alternatives* to
each other, that is, people are asked to tell which of them is
(comparatively) best. Confronted with such a "voting order", most
people of course would point to A and B as better, at least, than C.
But suppose, secondly, that people were asked,*not* to compare
these "proposals" to each other but to *approve of* either one of
them, that is, in its entirety, *as opposed to NO "proposal"*. Then
neither would get any "votes" at all, except from some quite nasty
people. In this case, the "proposals" are *not* put up as
alternatives to each other. And of course they are parallell to each
other, too, just as were the actual ones in Sweden in 1980.
All the propaganda in 1980 stated that those who were *for* nuclear
energy would have to "choose" No. 1 or No. 2, in order to prevent
the even nastier No. 3 from "getting a majority". But those who in
fact did so actually "signed" either one of those other annihilation
"proposals", since the text on the "ballots" read "I vote FOR
proposal No. so-and so".
A nasty "used-car-dealer" trick, and it was also *illegal*, for according
to the law in force concerning referendums, a *question* had to be put to
the voters, explicitly, before the voting, and this would have
prevented such "answers" as "I vote for such-and-such proposal".
But there was not asked any question.
I put this matter, even before this "referendum" took place, before the
so-called Election Supervision Committee (Valproevningsnaemnden), which, in
Sweden, is supposed to regulate such things - there being no
constitutional court in this country. Since this "referendum" was
illegal, I demanded of the Commission that it tell Parliament to do the
whole thing over again, only correctly. But it (of course) failed to do its
supposed duty, giving as a "reply" the ridiculous sophism that it had
been sufficiently clearly stated what question was the "object of
referendum" - and how did this "question" read? They didn't say.
(Of course we - unfortunately quite few - who saw through the
character of this planned jumbo fraud and understood the enormous
danger that it entailed to the workers in several countries, didn't
limit ourselves to appealing to this ot that bourgeois commission
against it. We exposed the whole thing publicly, in Sweden and in
Germany, as far as our slender forces could reach, and this in fact
had some by no means unimportant positive results.)
3. Another trick was that the enire propaganda tried to make people
believe they were voting, not on certain "proposals", but on certain
bodies of people misleadingly called "lines". These were state-
appointed committees, one for each "proposal", which had as their
missions to argue in favour of "their" respective "proposal". They
of course had no say in Parliament and their "jobs" were all finished
once the "referendum" had taken place.
But they acted as, and were reported on, precisely as if they were
political partues, "promising" this and that, etc, and an important
part of the 1980 fraud was that "lines" No:s 1 and 2 *said* that *they*
were at least somewhat *in favour of* nuclear energy, This in spite
of the fact that their *only* missions were to convince people why
they should "vote" *for* the 100% *anti*-nuclear-energy "proposals"
No:s 1 and 2.
4. The last one of the more important tricks was the quite misleading,
completely illogical character of one sentence common to "Proposals"
No:s 1 and 2:
"In order among other things to reduce dependence on oil, and
pending the availability of renewable energy sources, use will be
made of *not*(!!) more than the twelve nuclear reactors which
today are in operation, ready for commissioning or under
construction" [Stress by me]
Here the unsuspecting citizens (or the not sufficiently suspicious
ones) of course were given the impression by the state, since
obviously the sentence starts out by giving some reasons *for*
the use of at least some nuclear energy, that with "ballots" 1 or 2
they could at least cast a vote somehow in favour of those 12
If some of those more suspicious of "our nice" state had asked
themselves: "Now why is it not only asking us for our opinion here
but even telling us to tell it our reason for holding it - is there
perhaps some extra funny business going on?", they would have
been quite right, for the very next thing this sentence does after
stating those "reasons" is to *turn around 180 degrees in mid-air*
and say, *not* "yes" to any 12 reactors nor to any reactors at all,
but ONLY *no" to all additional ones, that is, *no" to reactors 13,
This sentence really was a very nice piece of workmanship, worthy
of the most sophisticated of conmen and -ladies. But then, so was
this entire "referendum on the question of nuclear power" in
Sweden in this year "of our Lord" 1980.
In both modern and ancient history there have of course been
many phoney "elections" and "referendums", but I doubt that you
can find another whose phonyness even approaches this one's.
All the more important is it that we here in Sweden should bring
the greatest pressure possible to bear on "our" government for it
to "replace" the bogus "result" of that swindle by the one of a
REAL referendum on nuclear energy. And all international support in that
direction of course is highly welcome.
CAN the bourgeois regime in Sweden be forced by the people to
reverse its present hysterically anti-nuclear-energy stance and
revert to the policy of its (the bourgeoisie's) "good old days" (before,
say, 1970) with respect to nuclear energy? This will be at least very
difficult to accopmlish. U.S. imperialism, above all, obviously is
bringing massive pressure on those rather servile persons *not'
to become "infatuated by the idea of progress" any more. What is
really needed for a satisfactory solution of this problem, and for
the solution of several other problems, too, is for the peoples of
the world to unite in order to bring down the entire present
international system, that of imperialism, so-called "highest" stage
of capitalism, which is becoming more and more like a rotting
corpse every day. This will not be easy to do but is necessary.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism