James, are you aware of the original socialist experiment "New Harmony"? That was an experiment in voluntary socialism that failed simply because the ideology behind it doesn't match up to human nature, which is the argument that people have made against socialism ever since.

OTOH, if you want a positive example of some socialist principles at work, then many Scandinavian economies seem to be about as good as you're ever going to get. The success of these economies has largely shown that Hayek and various other free-market economists were unjustified in believing that high taxes, universal welfare and significant government control of economic activity were a guaranteed recipe for failure. Of course there are examples like France, where arguably similar policies have led to economic downturn and social unrest, but the lesson from this is that it's not just how much tax, or how much welfare, or how much govenrment intervention that matters, but a rather more complex interaction of social attitudes, government policy and, as always, good or bad fortune.

wizofaus,

No, I was not aware of the socialist experiment at New Harmony.

However, I think the issue of whether or not socialism can work is somewhat beside the point.

Whatever label we put on the kind of society which manages to get us through the grave environmental, social and economic crises which are looming ever closer, it will need to be one in which the selfish elites which run our society today and are leading us over the cliff, do not wield the same power.

Felt I had to revive this thread...very interesting article in The Oz today: research from largely LEFT-wing think tank The Australia Institute accepts that Australia's middle class is actually doing rather well, financially: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22626262-12377,00.html

On that basis, it has to be admitted that the economic policies of the last decade or so *haven't* been as polarising and detrimental as some would suggest (unlike the situation in the U.S., where the middle class has definitely suffered). Which is not to say things couldn't be a good deal better - but there really is little evidence that I can see for claiming that returning to the economic policies of, for instance, the 1970's, would make life better for most Australians.

Wizofaus,

As I have argued earlier the unprecedented prosperity, whether illusory or real, is at the expense of our planet's ecology and future generations. The prosperity is being paid for by mining and exporting our non-renewable natural resources at an accelerated rate. As divergence pointed out on another thread "Privileged 'whites'" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97005 the CSIRO predicts that our mineral reources will run out in decades.

How will John Howard's supposed economic brilliance look then? And will those of us who covered up for the fact that his supposed economic performace was only due to using up our endownment of natural resources look any better?

In any case, as I have shown before, many things that used to be free or very cheap and which are no longer so have not been properly taken into account, nor is the extra time and expense which is now necessary for us to be able to particapate in society been properly accounted for. As I wrote in the original article, if we take all this into account and take regard of the simple fact that two incomes, rather than one income, are necessary to maintain this 'prosperity', and take account of all the earlier anecdotal evidence on this thread, then I think a more accurate measure of prosperity would show that we are, on average behind, rather than ahead, contrary to even what the Australian Institute appears to be saying.

This also neglects the point that many Australians are indisputably now suffering the intentional consequences of John Howard's policies including "WorkChoices" and cut-backs to social services and his deliberate inflating of the cost of housing.

Even if it cannot be shown that this group does not comprise an outright majority in today's artificial and unsustainable boom, does that make this OK?