Oh, OK. So, you support socialist economic theory and socialist economic progress, and sneer at the "psuedo left" who do not want to build dams and nuclear power stations?

Well, there is just one thing wrong with socialist economic theory. It doesn't work. It has never worked. Even the Russians and the Chinese have given up on it. How many times does something need to fail before you figure out it is a bad idea?

Detroit is an example of socialist economic theory combined with socialist social theory. Detroit was a powerhouse of manufacturing, especially the car industry. The powerful car unions demanded and got wages and conditions far exceeding the industries capacity to pay. (seven weeks annual leave, highest manufacturing wages in the USA, pensions for retired workers, "workers" who were paid not to work because the car companies were forbidden to lay off redundant workers, and generous medical and dental plans) which sent the companies broke. No amount of reasoned argument pointing out that the unions position was clearly making the companies uneconomic did anything.

The cities race demographics highlight the problem of socialist social theory. The city was once almost entirely white with a low crime rate, But prosperous communities will always attract minorities who are welfare dependent and crime prone. As minority infestation continued, corrupt politicians saw the advantage of appealing to the ever growing welfare dependent minorities as their new electorate. The bureaucracy became bloated as Democrat administrations were repeatedly elected giving high wages to public servants. The educational system collapsed as socialist "progressive" educational theory administered by the USA's highest paid teachers resulted in more students graduating to prison than graduating high school. The cost of supplying ever growing welfare for the unproductive minorities, as well as increases in costs for public servants, police, law courts, and prisons, fell upon the productive who were eventually taxed right out of existence.

The Republican Party in the USA is now competing with the Democrats for the welfare dependent vote, which means violating their own cherished free market economic practices to buy the votes of the unproductive

LEGO, do you really believe that dams and industry did not undergo tremendous rapid development under socialism in Russia and China? That is a unique and inaccurate view, I think.

As for Detroit, it could not be socialist if the means of production were in concentrated private hands. Are you seriously suggesting that Ford, Chrysler and General Motors were democratically owned by the workers? That production was not geared to the interests of the 'one-percent' who own the plants and machinery, etc?

No, ownership was in private hands, a tiny group whose sole interest was in maximising profit. We see this all the time - human lives wasted, souls alienated, the future blighted - all because the capitalists can make decisions affecting the lives of millions of people whose labor makes the profits for them.

Of course, workers will fight against speed-ups, wage-cuts and lay-offs - as they did in Detroit - but it makes little difference in the end because they do not have power. Yes, democracy allows everyone a vote but under this system 'compared to the power of capital, parliament is a mere talking shop'.

Have you wondered why there is always unemployment under capitalism (except in war time)? If it is not overt unemployment, it takes the form of 'welfare' - people who might otherwise be productive given the opportunity, people who want to work, yet they are kept at a certain level through welfare dependency? A 'reserve army of labor'.

And now capitalism - despite the billions that are injected into it by governments around the world - still cannot provide basics like free public health and free education UNLESS on the basis of debt.

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a solution to the problem of zombie capitalism. Bush jr's "socialist" quasi-nationalization of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG merely created the Tea Party while Obama's tax-payer funded bail-outs of capitalists created the Occupy movement

byork, so what is the solution?
I socialism the answer?
How can free health and education be provided?
How would doctors and nurses and teachers earn money to pay for their daily living expenses?

Anything that is the result of human effort cannot be "free" and it is mere childishness to think and talk in those terms. The question raised by any attempt to use government to provide goods is never whether they can be free, but only whether they are to be obtained on the basis of voluntary transactions respecting people's individual liberty and property, or violence-based transactions treating people as the instruments of others' will.

JF Aus

With stuff like healthcare and education, I think the important thing is that everyone can afford the best. In the case of healthcare everyone needs to be covered for expensive catastrophes or particularly high annual health costs. You don't need a formal insurance scheme as such for this. We can all be "insured" from birth and it is paid for through taxation. In a society where no one is poor I am not too fussed by the idea of people having to pay for doctor's visits or routine blood tests. Also being able to choose your own GP, cardiologist, physiotherapist etc is a must.

Since each generation needs a new fully functional generation to follow it, people with no children have an obligation to assist with child rearing and this includes education. So there is a definite role for taxation here. Taxation also smooths out the burden over a life time. When you were having children you benefit through the tax system while in other periods of your life you are contributing. Furthermore, I am a little bit uneasy about a child's education being purely a parents' concern as if children were there private property. It is important that schools and teachers are highly accountable for education quality and spending and parents need to be actively involved in their children's education. I don't think this requires fees just so that parents can feel like entitled customers instead of grateful recipients of government largess. Although you should have choice over schools wherever possible and funding allocated according to students enrollments.

LEGGO

Detroit was not an example for socialism. It was the effect of class struggle kept very much within the confines of capitalism.

Under socialism workers will have guaranteed employment but definitely not a guaranteed job. With economic change jobs will come and go. When your current job disappears you move to another one after a period of retraining if necessary. Workers in a particular enterprise will not be entitled to take industrial action to obtain better wages and conditions than other workers. They will however be well organized to ensure they get what they are entitled to and to struggle to ensure that work relations are continuing to develop along socialist lines.

See my earlier comment on 'socialism has failed'
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16816#295857

The main point is that socialism is a post-capitalist society. It cannot emerge from conditions that are still basically pre-capitalist.