Illustratively enough, Norway has a newspaper called Klassekampen, which is a full-fledged part of this political industry. The outlet operates on a state-funded budget, is connected to the ruling class of parties and party members, and reinforces an ideological direction under the guise of fighting class divisions.
In democratic terms, such media are not a “free press,” even if they have camouflaged themselves so effectively that they scarcely notice it themselves—so complete is the capture. In our time, freedom of expression likewise appears free, yet is carefully edited by a homogeneous media mass, with NRK as its principal standard-bearer.
The number of journalists and editors in commentator roles is growing, telling people how news should be understood and interpreted. They demand a strict, proprietary format for expression. In a world where smartphones, reels, and dialogue require other formats, they conservatively cling to forms that perhaps appeal most to people over fifty. I myself master the op-ed format and can get pieces published in leading media when I truly bother, but only by expressing myself in a polished, harmless, and “acceptable” manner—entirely on the debate editor’s premises, which are constrained by newsroom culture and personal preferences. Debate editors may be slightly more radical than the underlying premises of newsrooms and editors who decide whether voices outside the ruling class are allowed into debates and coverage—after all, it is supposed to be a free debate open to fresh views.
Today, freedom of expression is not secured by state-dependent media, but by Chinese and American companies developing social media platforms. Waves of expression there can become so uncomfortable that state-funded media and politicians can no longer ignore them. Most emerging and interesting expressions are forced into channels such as Oagal—which, fortunately, some but far from many people read—yet which at least ensure that these expressions exist in an accessible format, helping people recognize their own thoughts and contributing to social development and opinion formation.
Opinion holders are quickly labeled extremists rather than free, renewing contributors to public debate aimed at improving society. At Oagal, I have avoided referencing several strong voices precisely because many of them occupy such positions. The political industry, including its media, finds legitimate grounds to annul everything and everyone who refers to people who dare to speak—often individuals doing so as voluntary work, nowhere near the financial security of a state-funded journalist. If I were, for example, to say that “Pål” also makes a valid point, Oagal would fall into a credibility abyss aligned with the worst accusations against “Pål,” regardless of how much else he may say that is innovative, developmental, or insightful. Thus unfolds a mass cancellation that constitutes our era’s erosion of freedom of expression.
In a world in flux, things will not look the same—nor will class struggle.
It is not easy to see a class divide forming. Ideological changes take root over time. We are all creatures of habit. Seeing beyond familiar perceptions of reality is difficult—and becomes deeply problematic when those who should be democracy’s standard-bearers fail.
A major paradox in Norway is that oil wealth—sufficient to provide all citizens with better lives than in almost any other country—has become an impediment to democracy and development. This wealth allows the political industry to continuously buy popularity and avoid confronting challenges through unpopular cuts and reallocations. Humans have an innate resistance to the new—a healthy reflex meant to protect against danger—but politicians misinterpret this reflex and avoid change. This halts society’s natural development, where the very principle of representative democracy is that citizens elect representatives to make decisions they themselves would not make. As a result, representative democracy no longer functions; it has become a system that secures its own exclusive jobs and governs expensively to avoid the natural, human resistance to change.
As a consequence of this wealth, political rule and public administration expand. In the 2025 parliamentary election, political organizations succeeded in a final coup over control of candidate selection for the national assembly. As Oagal’s editorial board writes this, it seems almost too extreme to be true—a form of opinion extremism. Yet it is reality. We are witnessing a politician-driven political extremism, in which the great loser of the election was the people, who lost all direct influence over candidate selection already in 2023 when the Storting adopted the new Election Act.
The budgetary challenge facing Norwegian politicians is entirely different from that of their counterparts elsewhere. Domestically, the issue is not to spend too much of an unrealistically large oil fund, as this would be inflationary and eventually counterproductive. In other countries, politicians struggle to secure funding. Norway’s economic situation and the election-law coup facilitate a continued acceleration in which politicians’ voters are their own party peers—something we have informed virtually all Norwegian media about. Many of these actors are wholly dependent on state funding—even when it appears merely supplementary, it is precisely what allows equity to hold and operations to continue.
Within this landscape, we observe an ideological shift. Previously, there was a balance of power between workers through trade unions and employers primarily through business organizations. Class struggle was absolutely necessary. There was also a shared foundation: we work together on development because it creates value and secures the future for all, even if it causes pain in the moment.
In today’s wealthy Norwegian political regime, this foundation has been undermined. We now have trade unions that are organizationally part of political parties and their governments. Norway’s LO has taken sides with the left in Norwegian politics, a position out of step with its membership and thus with the class struggle it was meant to wage. At the same time, LO uses its instruments far more aggressively against any right-leaning government, to such an extent that all governments other than its own face severe challenges unless they take decisions that do not provoke the ire of union elites.
Sweden’s LO has ended this damaging collaboration, while elites in Norway’s LO find it personally advantageous to maintain it. This makes it harder for the average Norwegian class fighter to see reality. As a result, many wage an outdated class struggle—believing they are doing good—in favor of self-governing and self-selecting politicians who are supported by a propaganda apparatus of subsidized, politician-dependent pseudo-activist media so financially reliant that they practice blinkered journalism without needing direct control from the ruling class.
In reality, they continue their class struggle in a way that strengthens the political ruling class and weakens the people they claim—blinded by rhetoric—to fight for. No good is done by fighting for a cause that once was, but no longer is, just.
Norway’s LO’s behavior, lacking broad membership support, has become a struggle for power by an elite class within LO. A growing public administration increasingly makes administrative decisions instead of political ones. A stream of legislation from the EU, beyond Norway’s control, has shifted power from the people to the administrative and political ruling class. All these processes are broadly supported by well-funded corporate media whose finances and employees’ generous salaries depend on continued support. The foreign Economist even publishes an annual democracy index that fails by its own criteria. The Economist overlooks that Norway is a country governed from outside, which is a significant deficit for a democracy.
In sum, politicians retain power—including control over candidate selection—together with a large administration that also makes its own principled decisions without transparent political mandate. Administration, media, and NGOs have become workplaces for politicians and extend political power to entities that should not wield it. People who seek a future experience that power constellations have shifted to this new ruling class—and may conclude they are better served by joining it rather than fighting it.
This is not only the new class struggle in Norway—a struggle not carried by Aftenposten, Klassekampen, Dagsavisen, Amedia, VG, NRK, or other media—but also a pattern seen in many other failing democracies. Canadians and New Zealanders emigrate to other countries to secure a livable return on their struggle for existence through education and professional experience. In the United Kingdom, we see alarming protests against taxes, fees, and political power. The United States is rated a flawed democracy by the Economist, and France risks joining that category—and perhaps Norway, despite its top ranking, belongs to the same class, though we cannot rely on media coverage to tell us so.
Powerholders have always known how to secure their power. Perhaps only the most conscious, aging elites fully grasp how well the system works in their favor and that of their heirs. The new power class secures authority under the guise of social democracy (and both the right and left in Norwegian politics largely fit this description in a broader sense)—having established a perception that they fight for the weak and embody virtue itself. Revolution against this seems unlikely—revolution against revolutionary standard-bearers of goodness and equality? For now, we mainly observe how the “disgustingly rich” leave the country, but there is reason to believe that flight from high costs, poor conditions for youth, and inadequate returns on education and experience—as seen in Canada and New Zealand—will repeat itself in Norway. In our era’s class struggle, people flee instead of fighting, because the ruling class has appropriated the very concept of class struggle.
Today’s power class thus achieves old-fashioned oppression, as the aristocracy once did; but eventually it breaks. When enough nations follow this path, unrest in the streets, eroded trust in society’s basic structures, and perhaps war between nations may follow. Far better is to open our eyes, restore popular sovereignty, and choose the right path here in Norway.
PS. This debate piece will never be published anywhere. It is intended to view issues from another perspective (Oagal’s) and is experimental and exploratory, meant to provoke thought and contribute to development. The media have already shown—through their lack of coverage—that they accept political rule in Norway, and it would be too risky to allow debate of the kind Oagal hosts here. Perhaps no one would read it, or perhaps political friends would sulk and cut funding.
Christian Sømme er Oagals redaktør og demokratiaktivist. Overalt i Norge og internasjonalt møter han mennesker som ikke kan assosiere seg med og føler maktesløshet overfor beslutningene til politikere, offentlig administrasjon og domstoler. Han har etablert Oagal som en uavhengig mediekanal for å dekke disse problemstillingene, oppsummert som «reelt demokrati». Sømme har vært tillitsmann, by- og stedsutviklingsaktivist i en mannsalder, og demokratiaktivist som Medvirkningsombudet (selvutnevnt) fra 2018 og med Oagal fra 2024. (Foto: Thomas Eckhoff)
0 Comments