I have with great interest read the EuroMemoranda for many years. Each EuroMemorandum also contains many interesting and commendable proposals. But who will implement them? The fact that the EuroMemoranda contribute important knowledge does not necessarily lead to the implementation of its proposals. Of course, all the co-authors know this. But why then don’t the EuroMemoranda contain more about the actors? In order for the proposals to be realistic, they need to say more about both who is preventing their implementation and who could be the agents and implementers of them, directly or indirectly.

In my paper, I want to contribute knowledge about how the actors could be put in place in the EuroMemoranda analyses and I will use the two most recent reports as a basis. A central concept will be relation of force and with this concept, I intend to bring in a Gramscian influence. He was a source of inspiration for the first generation of regulation theorists, whose concepts regime of accumulation and mode of regulation are important in understanding the basis of the interests expressed in the relations between different social forces. This will cast some new light on the proposals in the EuroMemoranda and enable me to suggest improvements. With regard to the invitation text, my paper will contribute to an understanding of how the effects of the polycrisis depend on the making of it and how such knowledge should influence the making of future scenarios.

Segregationen, dess orsaker och dess effetker, är ett vanligt förekommande tema i dagens politiska debatt. Fokus ligger i princip uteslutande på de människor som befinner sig på segregationens förlorarsida. Martin Grander, biträdande lektor i urbana studier och Mikael Stigendal, professor i sociologi – båda vid Malmö universitet – vänder istället blicken mot grupper med högre inkomst.

Under klassanalysens storhetstid 1970–1985 var alla klassbegrepp förankrade i Marx’ värdeteori. Det gjordes dock efter hand olika tolkningar av värdeteorin och därmed uppstod två huvudspår i utvecklingen av klassbegreppet. De som företrädde den tolkning som kallades arbetsvärdeteorin övergav efterhand värdeteorin och utvecklade ett klassbegrepp med fokus på det människor har, inte på vad de gör. Det har kommit att bli den dominerande definitionen av klassbegreppet. I sin artikel vill Mikael Stigendal istället visa på bruksvärdet av det andra huvudspårets klassbegrepp, det som håller fast vid Marx’ värdeteori men utifrån en annan tolkning. Bara ett sådant klassbegrepp kan tillgodose det stora behov som finns av en klassanalys som inte bara kategoriserar människor utan därigenom också säger något om samhällets ekonomiska drivkrafter, vad människor kan förväntas göra och vad detta kan förväntas göra med dem, och då utifrån en fokusering på vad människor gör, särskilt i förhållande till produktionen och tillägnandet av mervärdet.

During the heydays of class analysis in 1970-85, all class concepts were rooted in Marx's value theory. Gradually, however, different interpretations of the value theory were made and on that basis, two main tracks emerged in the development of the class concept. Those who represented the interpretation called the labour theory of value gradually abandoned value theory and developed a class concept focusing on what people have, not on what they do. That has become the dominant definition of class. In contrast, this article wants to highlight the use-value of a class concept drawing on the second main track, that which adheres to Marx's value theory but from a different interpretation. Only such a class concept can meet the great need for a class analysis that not only categorizes people but thereby also says something about society's economic driving forces, what people can be expected to do and what this can be expected to do to them, based on a focus on what they do, particularly in relation to the production and appropriation of surplus value.