Responding to Clive Hamilton, continued

In essence Hamilton retraces the path of 60’s Western philosophers such as Marcuse who were disturbed by the contradictions between liberty in the West, aggression against others, freedom for WASP’s (white Angl-Saxon Protestants) vs oppression for minorities, huge production with massive destruction. They felt discomfort and dreamt of ways to “subvert this sort of progress” [H Marcuse, Eros and Civilisation, Abacas, pg 12]. Marcuse’s tactic was based on “intellectual refusal” supported by a younger generation because “it is their lives which are at stake”. Marcuse replaced class conflict (as the solution to the problems of affluence) with intellectual ‘refusal’ allied with new generational struggle and political fight [Eros and Civilisation, pg 19].

Hamilton replaced class conflict with recycled theory, crude slander and mere political poetry. His new political party represents many miles of backward steps. The real question should be; why has every attempt to create new political parties and movements to counter the ills of Westernisation (ie capitalism), failed?

We need concrete means of meeting the new challenges of globalised capitalism; debt, unemployment, wage cuts, current account deficit, exposure to unfair international competition, spreading nuclear waste and etc. There is no point congregating in cute little dreaming circles on the sidelines.

Humanity needs more consumerism and affluence. In the next 100 years any number of new products will be developed, produced and marketed. The real issue is equity and sustainability. The gap between the rich and poor is horrendous and getting larger. It is capitalism that manufactures and markets consumer goods irrespective of the harm caused to the environment and humanity. Many products of growth such as cities and farms have now reached the limits of water supply and the limits imposed by salination.

Isn’t it time we learnt that you cannot abolish such problems with “new politics”, and platitudes. You cannot abolish capitalism by shouting at it. If you try to regulate capitalism it will respond by regulating you.

As ever, the problem is a ten-letter word - Capitalism.

Chris Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com

>As ever, the problem is a ten-letter word - Capitalism.

Sorry, but capitalism is the natural outcome of a free society. Capitalism is the result of voluntary production and trade between humans. The will to compete, progress, and succeed is part of human nature, and you cannot change it. Forcing humans to use anything other than capitalism is like attempting to make a submarine fly.

>Monash,
>What a schocking thought, some countries actually value "life" above money, France for example.
>They choose to live, not compete so hard, what naughty people they are, when will they learn to
>get into the rat race and be all consumed with money, like you. I wonder if they enjoy their lives
>more than you and G.T. ?

There is something you're misunderstanding - money is merely a commonly accepted unit of account, used to quantify and standardise value. The alternative is a barter economy where there is no common currency. Nobody is forcing you to accept money.

If you hate money, and all you want to do is survive, feel free to visit the outback, hunt kangaroos, and create whatever you want out of sticks and stones. Nobody is stopping you. If you want more than that, though, like a share in the creations of others, then you need to earn it by trading something that is of value to them for it. You must earn this; you are not entitled to this.

Huh? “capitalism is the natural outcome of a free society.”!!

Excuse me but G T must be living in comfortable niche in a Western economy.

Sorry but capitalism is the exact opposite of a free society. Monopoly, oligopoly and cartels destroy voluntary production and free trade between humans.

Voluntary production and trade will be more voluntary and free after capitalism and will link more of the world’s people.

The will to live as human beings is part of human nature and you cannot capitalise that. Forcing humans to live under capitalism is like attempting to build a submarine out of marshmellows.

Mark Z

I suppose it all depends on whether or not you think there is, any longer, any prospect of a negation of capitalism as imagined by Marx.
I would argue that our experience of Stalinism shows conclusively that communism is at best a futile dream. That said, as socialists, do we prefer a command economy or a mixed economy with a significant role for the market? True, monopoly, oliogopoly, collusion are all facets of the system, but this can be addressed with regulation and state intervention. (eg: public enterprises, competition watchdogs, anti-monopolist laws) That's not to say however that we shouldn't encourage democratic capital formation through wage earner funds and similar methods. Encouraging co-operatives is another way that socialist and market-oriented objectives can be reconciled. Capital formation can be democratised, and when it is democratised it actually enhanced rather than detracts from liberty. The problem we have today is the power of a burgeoning finance sector to destabilise economies whenever governments diverge from the prefered neo-liberal norm. That said, we need to re-regulate the finance sector, co-operating through the socialist internation and other international bodies to introduce Tobin taxes, reintroduce deposit requirements etc. Rather than negating capitalism we need to democratise it and imagine socialism as civilising rather than negating the overall economic system.

Tristan

G T's response was very poor. Judging by his tone I assume he does not want to discuss anything and is here for other reasons.

How can capitalism be the outcome of a free society. Capitalism only exists if one class is not as free as another. This distinction is the basis of capitalist profit which is based on exploitation.

Capitalism is not just "a market economy with voluntary choices". This is more like "market socialism".

I agree with those who point out that, in practice, capitalism tends towards monopoly. If this is true, and I think it is, then this is the opposite of freedom.

Maybe G T is dreaming of capitalism without exploitation. Where does this exist?

Christopher Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com