Tristan is obviously closer to Clive Hamilton than one would have thought:

By asserting …

“Rather than negating capitalism we need to democratise it and imagine socialism as civilising rather than negating the overall economic system” he devalues his own critique of Hamilton.

If this is the keystone of his social democracy, then as such, this is political suicide. You cannot democratise capitalism. Maybe Tristan doesn’t even know what capitalism is. His use of words like “Stalinism” etc indicate nothing but a Western journalist with an itch to write, but no understanding.

Tristan’s degeneration of social democracy into ‘better managed capitalism’ is the same project as Clive Hamilton. This is a well known phenonema in the West and is occasioned (substantially) by Western exploitation of the Third World.

In the West we have not had to experience the true reality of capitalism. Much capitalist oppression has been exported into the Third World. The computer I sit at and the car that you drive and which make up your feeling of wealth were made by workers earning around one tenth of your income and who work in generally beastly conditions. As the Third World develops, Western workers will start to loose their wages, jobs, conditions, public services, and faith in Tristan’s ‘democratising capitalism’. Competition from the other pole of world capitalism will soon knock some sense into those who want to restrict themselves to ‘democratising capitalism’. You can see some of this unfolding in Holland, eg:

http://international.sp.nl/publications/enough/chapter2.stm

Christopher Warren
Chris.canberra@gmail.com

old¨zygote
>Sorry¨but¨capitalism¨is¨the¨exact¨opposite¨of¨a¨free¨society.

It's¨clear¨you¨have¨no¨idea¨what¨capitalism¨or¨freedom¨actually¨is.

Capitalism¨is¨private,¨voluntary¨production¨and¨trade¨in¨a¨free¨market¨(ie.¨one¨which¨is¨not¨being¨controlled¨by¨any¨central¨authority).

A¨free¨society¨is¨one¨in¨which¨nobody¨forces¨anyone¨else¨to¨do¨anything.¨Freedom¨does¨NOT
mean¨everyone¨giving¨you¨everything.¨How¨can¨a¨person¨be¨free¨if¨they're¨being¨forced¨to
provide¨for¨you?

>Monopoly,¨oligopoly¨and¨cartels¨destroy¨voluntary¨production¨and¨free¨trade¨between¨humans.

Perhaps¨you'd¨like¨to¨explain¨how?

When¨was¨the¨last¨time¨a¨monopoly,¨oligopoly,¨or¨a¨cartel¨forcefully¨intervened¨to¨stop¨the
production¨or¨trade¨between¨two¨unrelated¨individuals?

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

How¨can¨something¨be¨MORE¨voluntary?¨Either¨something¨is¨voluntary¨or¨it¨isn't.

It¨doesn't¨matter¨what¨system¨you're¨living¨under,¨people¨will¨be¨forced¨to¨do¨something¨to¨feed
themselves¨unless¨someone¨else¨provides¨that¨voluntarily.¨To¨force¨them¨to¨provide¨that¨is
unethical.

>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.

Once¨again,¨there¨is¨no¨such¨thing¨as¨"forcing¨humans¨to¨live¨under¨capitalism".¨Capitalism,¨by
definition,¨involves¨no¨force¨from¨others.

Christopher¨Warren
>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.

Perhaps¨you¨should¨check¨the¨definition¨of¨freedom,¨as¨well¨as¨the¨definition¨of¨capitalism.¨It's
clear¨that¨you¨don't¨know¨what¨either¨of¨these¨concepts¨are.

Freedom¨does¨not¨entail¨entitlement¨to¨anything¨that¨someone¨ELSE¨must¨provide;¨it¨simply
means¨being¨free¨from¨the¨will¨or¨coercion¨of¨others.¨Capitalism¨is¨exactly¨this;¨as¨opposed¨to
socialism,¨where¨the¨government¨sets¨the¨conditions¨in¨which¨individuals¨may¨trade,¨how¨they
may¨produce,¨and¨how¨much¨of¨what¨they¨produce¨they're¨allowed¨to¨keep.¨Socialism¨therefore
requires¨the¨use¨of¨coercion¨via¨a¨central¨government,¨and¨coercion¨undermines¨freedom.

Since¨no¨coercion¨is¨used¨by¨anyone¨under¨capitalism,¨and¨people¨are¨free¨to¨create¨their¨own
wealth¨or¨live¨off¨the¨land¨without¨"owing"¨anything¨to¨anyone,¨capitalism¨can¨be¨considered¨a
"free"¨system.

Your¨basis¨for¨the¨argument¨that¨profit¨occurs¨due¨to¨exploitation¨is¨also¨incorrect.¨In¨reality,
profit¨is¨indistinguishable¨from¨wages¨because¨both¨are¨payments¨for¨a¨valued¨product.¨In¨the
case¨of¨a¨business¨profiting¨from¨employees,¨the¨valued¨product¨is¨the¨coordination¨and¨putting
together¨of¨all¨the¨employees'¨labour,¨along¨with¨all¨the¨other¨factors¨of¨production,¨which¨would
be¨useless¨otherwise.¨A¨consumer¨would¨not¨bother¨employing¨a¨different¨person¨for¨each¨part
and¨buying¨all¨the¨machinery¨just¨to¨make¨a¨car,¨for¨example,¨even¨if¨these¨were¨only¨marginal
costs,¨because¨they'd¨still¨have¨to¨organise¨it¨all¨and¨put¨it¨all¨together.¨They¨would¨rather¨pay
for¨the¨finished¨product.¨In¨other¨words,¨the¨business¨is¨being¨paid¨a¨"profit"¨for¨making¨it¨happen.

On¨top¨of¨that,¨the¨beauty¨of¨capitalism¨is¨that¨you¨don't¨even¨HAVE¨to¨work¨for¨anyone¨else.
You¨can¨work¨for¨yourself¨by¨selling¨your¨products¨or¨services¨directly¨to¨the¨consumer,¨that
way¨the¨only¨person¨who¨profits¨from¨your¨work¨is¨yourself.

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

Creating¨wealth,¨then¨being¨told¨by¨the¨government¨how¨much¨of¨that¨wealth¨you¨can¨keep¨is
not¨voluntary.

Being¨told¨by¨the¨government¨who¨you¨can¨employ¨and¨how¨much¨you¨must¨pay¨them¨is¨not
voluntary.

Being¨told¨by¨the¨government¨what¨price¨you¨are¨allowed¨to¨sell¨your¨own¨product¨for,
regardless¨of¨whether¨people¨will,¨out¨of¨their¨own¨free¨will,¨buy¨it,¨is¨not¨voluntary.

I¨could¨go¨on¨all¨day.

>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.

Think¨why¨"monopolies"¨exist:¨because¨consumers¨fuel¨them.¨That¨means¨they¨are¨satisfying¨a
certain¨demand.¨If¨they¨stop¨performing¨or¨start¨charging¨too¨much,¨they¨open¨the¨door¨to
competition.¨Either¨way,¨there¨is¨no¨problem.

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

That¨depends¨what¨your¨definition¨of¨"exploitation"¨is.¨For¨all¨objective¨purposes,¨we¨cannot
say¨someone¨is¨being¨exploited¨when¨they¨voluntarily¨agree¨to¨something.

Christopher,

I'm afraid I don't agree with your characterisation of capitalism as a purely destructive force. You claim that global capitalism has forced workers in the developing world to work for low wages and in ghastly conditions; however, poverty in those countries has fallen dramatically as a result of trading with the developed world and the next generation will enjoy even greater prosperity and opportunity as a result.

The doom and gloom criticism of capitalism is as old as capitalism itself; yet, in countries that embrace capitalism is some shape or form, living standards continue to improve - even for the poorest in society. (In Australia, the Henderson poverty line has increased in real value by over 30% in last 25 years - the only way the left can continue to make the arguement that poverty is rife is by changing the definition of poverty.)

P.S. As I took the time to read your socialist web site, please take the time to read some Thomas Friedman or Johan Norberg.

Christopher,
At last someone {you} bring common sense to the discussion, obviously you know what you are talking about. G.T, Monash, please reread Christopher's posts and learn something while you are at it. G.T. so in your world McDonald's is a great place, in mine it is the exploitation of child labour, to feather the nest of the wealthy owner, who pay's them chocken feed to serve rubbish up to a U.S. mad society, which of course the public purse has to take care of later down the line, when obesity and heart attacks occur. That's Freedom!

Christopher:

Do you honestly believe that capital movements can be abolished on a national level without foregoing quality of life and economic growth as a consequence of lost investment?

Even writers and thinkers such as Stuart Holland (see: The Socialist Challenge) did not imagine a total abolition of capital and its associated functions. They imagined nationalisation of the 'commanding heights' while allowing the market to continue its role elsewhere. Today nationalisation of the 'commanding heights' is further away than ever. Nevertheless, we ought be arguing now for a return to public ownership in areas necessary to:

a) provide competition in oligopolies and counter collusion

b) provide for services on the basis of need, not profit (eg: banking)

c) return to public ownership in areas of natural monopoly and basic infrastructure

This might mean, for instance, re-establishment of public banking and insurance, public ownership of roads, rail, ports, airports etc, public ownership of postal services, water supply, energy, communications infrastructure, defence industries etc. Once the battle to restore a mixed economy is won there is also no reason for the public sector to stay out of more profitable areas such as pharmeceuticals research.

None of this entails the abolition of capital, although it might necessarily entail international co-operation that would curb the power of capital.

And there are prospects for democratising capital also. Sweden, at the height of its social democratic experiment, managed to implement wage earner funds which rose to include 10% of the Swedish stock exchange. Combine something like this with a co-operative incentive scheme embodying discount rates of taxation, management advice, and cheap loans, and you have the basis of a significantly altered economic system.

The problem is: how do you get rid of capitalism without creating a worse system in the process? You end up with 'socialism in one country' and all the contradictions that entails.

That said, I still consider myself a socialist: one who wishes to democratise the economy as much as possible. But state ownership is only one of many possible strategies, and international isolationism is not the answer.

Tristan

Christopher Warren
>In the West we have not had to experience the true reality of capitalism. Much capitalist
>oppression has been exported into the Third World. The computer I sit at and the car that you drive
>and which make up your feeling of wealth were made by workers earning around one tenth of your
>income and who work in generally beastly conditions.

Firstly, these third world workers don't have to take the job. They choose to work for a multinational company because it's the best job they are able to get. Would you rather they worked for half that for a local business, or even worse, unemployed with NO income?

Second, while the wage they earn may seem small in comparison to ours, it has a much larger purchasing power over there. Naturally you wouldn't survive on such a wage in Australia, let alone have such a wage, but that's only because things are comparatively more expensive. This evens out as the global economy frees up; wages in India and China are skyrocketing thanks to western demand for labour and economic liberalisation, and conditions will continue to improve as long as the economy is being freed up.

>As the Third World develops, Western workers will start to loose their wages, jobs, conditions,
>public services

Wages will increase in the developing world to meet those in the west. Any decrease in wages will mean a decrease in production cost and therefore the price of the product.

Jobs will only be lost when someone else can do it better - this is not a legitimate reason to complain. There are things Australia can do more efficiently than China or India for example, and things that China or India can do more efficiently than Australia. When everyone does what they do best, everyone saves. Jobs that can be done more efficiently in another country should not be done in Australia.

Movements¨that¨aim¨to¨stop¨foreign¨competition,¨force¨and¨preserve¨exorbitant¨workers
conditions¨and¨wages¨are¨selfish,¨anti-consumer,¨anti-freedom¨movements.

SHONGA
>Christopher,
>At¨last¨someone¨{you}¨bring¨common¨sense¨to¨the¨discussion,¨obviously¨you¨know¨what¨you
>are¨talking¨about.

What¨qualifies¨you¨to¨say¨that?¨As¨you¨have¨demonstrated,¨you¨know¨nothing¨about¨basic
economics¨and¨refuse¨to¨learn¨anything¨about¨it.¨It¨seems¨you're¨quite¨easily¨duped¨by
socialist/union¨propaganda.

>G.T.¨so¨in¨your¨world¨McDonald's¨is¨a¨great¨place,¨in¨mine¨it¨is¨the¨exploitation¨of¨child¨labour,
>to¨feather¨the¨nest¨of¨the¨wealthy¨owner,¨who¨pay's¨them¨chocken¨feed¨to¨serve¨rubbish¨up¨to¨a
>U.S.¨mad¨society,¨which¨of¨course¨the¨public¨purse¨has¨to¨take¨care¨of¨later¨down¨the¨line,¨when
>obesity¨and¨heart¨attacks¨occur.

I¨don't¨like¨McDonald's¨so¨I¨don't¨eat¨it.¨That's¨my¨choice¨which¨I'm¨allowed¨to¨exercise¨in¨a
free,¨capitalist¨country.¨You¨can¨do¨the¨same.¨Many¨people¨do¨choose¨to¨eat¨it¨and¨that's¨their
choice.¨Nobody¨is¨forcing¨anybody¨to¨eat¨McDonalds¨and¨nobody¨is¨forcing¨anybody¨to¨work
there.

>That's¨Freedom!

That's¨right.