> The one point I infer from your position that I'm sceptical of, is
> that a dialectical shift to communism can be relied upon.
> I can imagine both capitalist dystopias (oxymoron) and
> comprehensive collapse; communism seems to me a remote possibility,
> as indeed does revolution?

I don't want to give the impression that a communist future for humanity is 'inevitable': it's only 'inevitable' if the capitalists don't destroy the planet and all Humanity first... and it's hard to get everything across in 350-words-or-less, eh? -- considering the intellectual hypocrisy we have to deal with here, on top of that. I mean, most of these people don't even have an accurate understanding of true 'ad hominem', vs. simply calling them on the larger issues they studiously avoid.

But Marx has certainly proved that any capitalist dystopia will be short-lived. What police states are long-term stable? In the feudal & slave era, everything just happened slower. Class conflict is inherent in the system -- and so only absolute destruction would end that. And everything else.

But seeing as we have already well-advanced into a worldwide pre-revolutionary situation for the first time in history, I think your pessimism about the working class' victory over this tiny financial elite and their goons is already misplaced. Happily enough. And knock on wood.
;>

grok: right on, brutha!

lol

Are you still wearing loon pants and kaftans, too?

> I find it hard to understand how we can spend so much time debating
> instead of doing more productive things with our time...

This is a rather one-sided 'debate', lady. As for the utility of it: tell me the utility of actively walking around in circles, when you are in fact lost in a forest... rather than sitting down instead and first attempting to figure out where you are; or at least which direction you should be headed in.

And if you can understand the link between this above example and an answer to your question -- then you very probably might have figured out why "debate" is not at all a waste of time. Assuming it is a real debate (dialectic).

> As I said I am not going to argue economics. The Scandinavian
> countries are great places to live, and I will leave it at that.

Is Sweden still the suicide capital of Europa, if not the world..?

In any case: the person who wrote this doesn't have a clue -- nor seems to (typically) care to understand -- how the world-wide division of labor works. And how the Western imperialist countries, whether (former) social-democrat or neoliberal, are at the top of the capitalist food chain -- while the neo-colonies and less powerful states are forced to operate on economic and political terms which suit the financial elite of these core predatory powers. Including even Sweden (which financiers have been recently preying on the Baltic and east european countries... but now are getting burnt. Like all the other financial parasites. But *we* are going to pay, nonetheless).

> That is why the interventionists, like the Marxists, can never explain:
> *how* government is going to bring about these hoped-for net benefits

Well, that's an untruth. Marxists have explained plenty. But what do you want here, with all the usual intellectual dishonesty, ignorance -- and 350 word limits to 4 max posts a day? Be reasonable (I won't hold my breath).

Hi there all,

I empathise with the lady and yes I think she has a good point (to be held dialectically), women so often inject practical realism into male preening.

While debate and discussion is useful to create new understandings out of dialectical tensions, we all need to be mindful of our vulnerability to obsessive behavior.

To continue with the intellectual preening, a little; I feel the debate has become a little obsessed with absolute truths, as did Hegel, in my view.

My conjecture is that with the continued evolution of democracy (and I think Australia is evolving, if you look at current developments, including severe constraints on electoral funding.)

Such reform will facilitate a more sophisticated , creative and reliable community dialectic that will allow the development of a synthesis of the best of the capitalism/communism dialectic; providing that it also integrates, as I am sure it will, a secular human spiritual awareness.

The distress of the planet as we see it, has arguably more to do with humanities spiritual poverty as a consequence of humanities infatuation with the Logos to the cost of Dialectical reason; or if you prefer, an infatuation with instrumental reason. An infatuation well explained by Religions inability to withstand the examination of instrumental reason and Religions systemic vulnerability to corruption of the soul of its participants.

Consequently I believe it is only with a spiritual awareness integrated into a democratic community practices that humanity can summon the self discipline and love for the planet necessary to live a peaceful existence with dignity.

In summary, one can see the importance of understanding the dialectic as the primary tool of human progress. This is what enthuses me about the exploration the concept, however deficient the scope has been in this forum.

cheers D

Couldn't agree with you more Duncan,

"...one can see the importance of understanding the dialectic as the primary tool of human progress. This is what enthuses me about the exploration the concept, however deficient the scope has been in this forum."

While we are on the subject of society however,....

In my opinion we can witness in recent times a melting away of the negative polarity between the ideological positions of 'capitalism' 'communism'. The entire human population has had a pretty good think about it all and is looking for a new way. A way that is democratic, ecologically sustainable and egalitarian.

So far the 'third way' (of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Kevin Rudd etc) has failed to really deliver, being caught up with economic growth, free trade, and competition as the sole engine of a healthy economy. The third way has also so far failed to recognize the importance of stimulating small community interdependence and local self-reliance.

Despite these false starts, I can't help thinking that attempting to reclaim the third way is our best way forward.

I am an advocate of a social organization tiered from the small neighbourhood to the global scale (with perhaps seven levels: neighbourhood, village, small city or bio-region, state, nation, geo-region and globe.) This system should be decentralized, so that while remaining as part of a larger grouping, communities of every scale would be largley locally autonomous and aim toward local self-reliance.

A directly democratic system of governance could be employed within this structure, so that the self-managing communities directly appoint and directly control their representatives within broader government bodies.

The system should in my opinion try to create a balanced cooperative/competitive economy. This would mean that close to people's homes, a mosaic of cooperative enterprises and locally focussed private businesses would operate. On the broader scale, there would be significant government ownership and control of major productive assets.

Democratic reform is I suggest the best way to bring about these changes.

Cheers.