A complaint against Bengtsson for academic malfeasance has been initiated. There has been preparatory communications with the Vice Chancellor’s office at Lund University. This will be a long process, because there are several texts by Bengtsson that require scrutiny.
A first contribution on this blog will be a summary of tweets about his book Världens Jämlikaste Land, 2020:
@bengtssonz claims that wage compression has been an expression of socialism’s strength in Sweden.
According to Peter Swenson, it is equally or even more an expression of the solidaric wage policy of conservative employers.
@bengtsson’s confusion about culture shows when he comments on findings about egalitarian values among Swedish immigrants to the United States (fn 360).
When doing so, he contradicts himself and confuses different levels of analysis.
@bengtssonz attempts to do Swedish political ethnology.
Yet, he lacks the tools for doing so.
Instead, he resorts to nomothetic versions of the concept of culture, such as “repertoires of contention” (fn 359).
@bengtssonz (fn 357) claims that Nycander has written most about labour market cooperation.
This is a lie and a blatant example of how Bengtsson cancels Peter Swenson @Yale
@bengtssonz (fn 316) lists studies that support that welfare is a result of Social Democracy.
From those studies, he concludes that this is the case.
See the logical fallacy here?
Where are the opposing studies?
@bengtssonz (fn 255) misrepresents the public sphere in Sweden for workers.
There was a lack of such a sphere compared to other countries and it was often controlled by employers.
His British example is not a logical argument.
@bengtssonz (p 114) says that it was just the lower classes that wanted suffrage reform, as if it was not middle and upper-class liberals who led them, such as the leader of the Social Democratic party, Hjalmar Branting.
@bengtssonz fails to draw the full implication of the fact that Sweden had economic liberalism before it had political liberalism.
That “sequence” is a foundation for authoritarian so called “state capitalism”.
@bengtssonz (fn 252) describes Swedish Social Democracy as unique.
Yet he does not mention a single other dominant-party regime, such as Japan, Singapore, Israel, Mexico, Belgium, Canada, etc.
@bengtssonz (fn 173) shows his incompetence when discussing the Persberg strike.
There is research and the conflict was primarily about employment status, not wages.
This shows that his use of literature cannot be trusted.
@bengtssonz (p 159ff) discusses municipal socialism in Sweden.
He then again cancels research by Billing and Stigendahl about Malmö, which shows:
(1) Conservatives were too strong.
(2) Social Democrats were to a large extent liberal.
@bengtssonz (p 158) describes Sweden as consisting of two elites.
He then fails to take in account both liberals and farmers, without which Social Democrats had not been able to rule.
@bengtssonz (p 145) fails completely to inform the reader that “försvarslöshet” was removed in 1885, as a result of the 1879 conflict in Sundsvall.
@bengtssonz (p 145) claims that employers could not break unions 1909.
This excludes research by Swenson, according to which they could have but did not want to.
Again, Bengtsson cancels research that contradicts his own Marxism.
@bengtssonz (p 144) mocks religious references from one employer around 1900.
What he does not mention is replacing individual rights with religious content in the Swedish translation of Internationalen.
@bengtssonz (p 144) does not give a full account of the different views among employers in connection with the 1902 general strike over suffrage.
@bengtssonz (p 132) discusses 19th century popular movements in Sweden and claims that conservatives lacked such movements.
He seems to be completely ignorant about Skarpskytterörelsen.
@bengtssonz seems to claim that Sweden has been more socialist because of labour’s strength.
At the same time he excludes the most important study that contradicts this:
Billing and Stigendahl, Hegemonins decennier, 1994.
@bengtssonz claims that labour became stronger because Sweden was more behind politically (suffrage).
Yet his comparisons of Nordic countries on p 127 does not support that (including his attempt to explain it away).
I have called @bengtssonz a confused little puppy.
It is now increasingly clear that he acts in bad faith and is deranged by his Marxist materialism.
For example, that he excludes research by Peter Swenson at @Yale
@bengtssonz claims equality of political participation in Sweden in the 1980s.
At the same time he claims continuity of a Prussian state.
But such a state makes a distinction between the rulers and the ruled.
@bengtssonz claims broad political participation in Sweden, in the 1980s.
Yet, his reference does not support this.
Maktutredningen (1990, p 232) found a dominance of the middle class and the educated.
@bengtssonz rejects an older spirit of cooperation between high and low in Sweden.
Yet, his book does not include this important reference:
Ericsson, Crister, 1997, “Vi är alla delar av samma familj”.
@bengtssonz misrepresents Swedish pensions.
They are middle of the road, with about 80% disposable income and 50% public pension.
Exceptions being (negative) women in transitional cohorts and (positive) low poverty depth.
@bengtssonz ‘s reference about political participation in Sweden (fn 2, Maktutredningen 1990) does not pan out.
Instead, its citizen survey noted a sense of powerlessness in relation to the welfare state (pp 238-239).
@bengtssonz’s book is cast as a critique of claims about individualism and harmony ideology.
Yet, his data are about limited aspects of economic levelling and political participation.
@bengtssonz’s book contains three parts:
Slinging as much mud as possible on the old regime.
Glorifying the popular movements.
A messy scribble about later developments.
Yet the book is promoted by his department at @lunduniversity
On p 11 @bengtssonz claims Swedish success in terms of political participation (Maktutredningen 1990) in the late 1980s (känsla av inflytande).
On p 180 he claims the direct opposite (SNS, Katrineholm).
If @bengtssonz wants to make a point about economic values in Swedish rural society, he should use that literature.
For example: http://libris.kb.se/bib/9646221
Instead, he uses literature about political equality and some limited economic statistics.
@bengtssonz marginalises information about the employer perspective, for example:
Dahlqvist, Hans, 2003, Fri att konkurrera, skyldig att producera.
This is done in order to immunise his “power resource theory” against facts.
There is evidence that @bengtssonz has read my critical review of his article before finishing the book:
Most strikingly that he no longer throws around and misuses the term “Liberal democracy”.
Here is a supposedly friendly review of @bengtssonz’s book:
Read carefully, we can note that the critique is devastating, from a scientific point of view (not relevant, not convincing, not proven, etc).
@bengtssonz’ book with the same theme as the reviewed article (https://swedishpoliticalculture.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/a-confused-little-puppy/) is even crazier.
Not worth a review, but some comments, including a question:
Should Bengtsson be reported for research fraud?