It doesn't pay to suggest getting rid of capitalism or free markets, does it? Some people go hysterical.

Of course, these people are not the victims of capitalism and free markets. No, they are not caught up in the endless wars or the poverty that capitalism spawns. No, they are living a comfortable lifestyle and don't care about anyone else!

In the iconic home of capitalism, America, one in seven people now live below the poverty line. Even in Australia, the numbers of the homeless are increasing by the day.

But then, who cares? It's not worth talking about, is it?

David G

Wars and poverty have been features of all forms of human political and economic organisation. Socialism promised to end both, but spectacularly failed to deliver. We should judge political systems by their fruits, not the claims of their adherents.

Capitalism has its faults, but I think the evidence suggests it has raised the living standards of ordinary people to levels never seen under any other economic or political system.

The extremes of anarcho-capitalism and Marxism are populated by a tiny and dwindling band of people. Most Australians support some form of mixed economy, with the market doing what it does best (allocating resources efficiently, spurring innovation, facilitating growth) and the government correcting the market’s failures and attending to our collective needs and wants. The arguments in social democracies like ours are mostly about where to set the balance between collective and individual, private and state activity. Few of us want complete state control or complete laissez faire in all areas of our lives.

Rhian, do you really think that the bulk of society working until 70 in largely mindless jobs, achieving little more than being slavish producers and consumers so that a few people can become incredibly rich is how humans were meant to live?

The Ancient Greeks despised money-grubbers and business people. They valued other human pursuits like science, art, drama, philosophy, physical achievement, etc.

It's all been downhill since then!

Of course those that argue for a classless society have NO class, as in classy.

This is equally true of so called libertarians especially as manifested in the former One Nation party/movement here in Oz, the Tea Party in the USA, and indeed all right-wing populist movements.

Note for instance that the Tea Party are against the "elites" (though they are quite fond of elite generals)

Never mind that all of the outstanding and enduring features of any and every culture were created by the elites. Or via the patronage of the elites, as per the patronage of artists and musicians in Europe.

David G

Capitalist societies of the past few decades are the only ones in history where most people have had the opportunity to work (or not) to the age of 70. Life expectancy in most places and times has been well below that. In fact, rising like expectancy is one of the reasons some countries are edging their retirement ages upwards.

Is your job mindless? If so, I feel sorry for you, but I also think you’re the unusual. Repetitive, unskilled, physically demanding labour is now the exception not the rule in countries like Australia.

My job isn't mindless. I don't work to make any other individual "incredibly rich" (or myself), but nor do I mind if someone else is enriched by my efforts.

I also value science, the arts and philosophy, and am pleased to live in a time and place where such pursuits are accessible to ordinary folk like me. The fruitful marriage of capitalism and modern science means I can access tens of thousands of the greatest books in the English language for free. I need to work less than an hour to earn the money to buy a CD of the world’s finest music played by its best musicians. I can debate political philosophy with strangers over the internet.

The ancient Greeks who despised business people were not socialist egalitarians but deeply elitist, with contempt for ordinary people. I think I’m closer to John Passant than to you on this issue. Marx did not sneer at materialism.

"Only the state can provide for universal needs like broadband and handouts to corporations, as opposed to mere wants the private sector supplies like food, clothing and shelter?"

You only read what you want Peter - the private sector does supply some of the 'needs' but within a regulated framework which in some respects is lacking. I just don't share your blind faith in the private sector, nor do I hold a blind faith in governments - which is the point of the article to some extent - seeking more involvement from the grass roots.

As for broadband - some may see it as an essential service if we are to assist regional areas to compete in business and to encourage growth away from already congested cities.

Handouts to the private sector is not the business of governments nor is bailing out banks. The governmetn would have been better bailing out the bank customers rather than fostering the current rotting system.

Clearly governments and corporations are flawed in many ways which is why more input is needed from the grass roots to ensure governments (of the people) are accountable and are acting on behalf of its citizens not in opposition.

We need an economic system that works for us not against us - economic systems are man-made they do not occur naturally and as such can be tweaked to support communities as people see fit.