Good well-written article.

Yes the left/right dichotomy generates more heat than light, for several reasons.

The basic problem is that the political gamut is not in a one-dimensional line. A better concept is in two dimensions like this.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Where do you see yourself, people?

In 1789 "the original leftists wanted to abolish government controls over industry, trade, and the professions. They wanted wages, prices, and profits to be determined by competition in a free market, and not by government decree. They were pledged to free their economy from government planning, and to remove the government-guaranteed special privileges of guilds, unions, and associations whose members were banded together to use the law to set the price of their labor or capital or product above what it would be in a free market."
http://mises.org/daily/3425
"The First Leftist" by Dean Russell

However since then the left is identified with the party in favour of common ownership or control of the means of production: socialism. In practice this means *State* ownership and control of anything and everything: the opposite of liberty.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

How appropriate. In order to implement the idea that the State should control and direct the means of production, you need a creed of unlimited government power. Your rights will be whatever the government says they are, your freedoms will be whatever is left over after the government has taken and done whatever it wants, which is exactly what the major parties and the Greens think, isn’t it?

The ambiguous term “right wing” is only ever used confusedly or dishonestly, because it refers to two completely inconsistent philosophies: fascists on the one hand who believe in unlimited government power and are really national socialists, and libertarians who believe in small government or even none.

while I agree with problems of left-right divide, I do not share any view of Chinese innovation is compared to complications within democracies.

If you really want to take it up, you could argue that fascism was the ultimate expression of corporatism in the early 20th century when obstacles to progress were not tolerated and quashed with force.

Key always balance, and don't think building 30 story buildings in a matter of weeks means much when plenty of chinese bravely point to the perils of earthquakes killing many through shoddily and rushed construction, now hushed up by authorities.

So I reject following: 'China is of course not bound by the messiness of democratic conventions and has avoided the ideological polarization witnessed in established democracies, which, as we see currently in the USA, is causing extraordinary disruption to the both the adaptive and generative shifts to accommodate globalization and technological advancement'.

It only avoids this through coercion and force.

I will concede that political freedom has improved in China to some degree, but remains far inferior to what is expected in any half decent society.

Sure economic innovation is important to prosperity, but so is the right to express an opinion and organise into key interest groups, both altruistic and/or adversarial.

Problem for west, and I don't read much about the problems in the 'lucky' country of Australia who now wants to kiss China's ass, is how do we innovate without reverting to the style of society in many booming developing countries, at least in economic terms.

“You could argue that fascism was the ultimate expression of corporatism“

You could argue that, but only if you don’t understand:
1. Corporations, and
2. National socialism.

The Crown is a corporation. Dean and chapter are a corporation. A municipal council is a corporation. And of course so is the modern commercial corporation.

Although corporations are a creation of government, and of statute, the corporation’s revenue does not intrinsically require the use of aggressive violence. Taxation being a compulsory impost, the State’s revenue is intrinsically based on aggressive violence. The same doesn’t apply to other corporations, for example monasteries who are supported by alms, or commercial corporations whose revenue is from market – i.e. voluntary – transactions.

Therefore your argument that national socialism is the ultimate expression of corporatism is flatly incorrect. There is nothing about the nature of the corporation that intrinsically requires or indicates the use of aggressive violence for any purpose (except its constituting legislation).

Secondly, the corporatism that we witness in all forms of national socialism – including Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, and modern America’s – is a logical outcome of trying to implement socialism.

The national socialists recognised that trying to achieve socialism by government directly owning the means of production – communism - doesn’t work, and causes total economic and social collapse. So, since free markets are anathema to socialists by definition, they fall back to the compromise position that constitutes all socialism. Private property will be permitted to exist in nominally private hands; only the State will dictate any and every aspect of prices, wages, interest rates, production, producers, consumers, and so on.

It is this ugly fascist amalgam of nasty totalitarianism and government-favoured corporations which the socialists are too stupid to understand is the logical outcome of their own belief system.

Chris Lewis is a perfect example of the modern Australian fascist. He has been asked repeatedly to define the “balance” which is the key desideratum of his political refrain, and every time resiles, only reposing open-ended faith in unlimited arbitrary government power to do good for society.

jardine, don't talk bs.

My view is in line with what we live in (the US, Aust and soon).

I support a balance between individual and economic freedom, with govt intervention decided through interaction with public opinion and interest groups. It is called Western society.

We elect people to represent us, and we help shape and temper the agenda. All sorts of entities contribute.

You in contrast, ramble on about a dreamland society free of govt intervention.

As if that is ever going to happen, not now, not in the past, not in the future.

Dhead.

again, apologise for poor grammar, I hope jardine is smart enough tto understand what I meant, but probably wrong gives his lunatic far right economic thought process.