"Why capitalism works and socialism does not is simple"

Care to point out a few shining examples of "pure" capitalism Col? Where there is no level of central planning whatsoever and everyone is better off for it? Where absolutely everything that is needed to sustain a modern society (there's that dirty "s" word you lot like to claim doesn't exist but does) is owned by private enterprise - and this works a treat?

I can't think of any off hand but I know one that comes closer than Australia and I have been there, the good ol' U.S of A. I did NOT like much of what I saw, the poverty and inequality was appalling. And we don't even need to talk about the state of their "superior" economy now do we?

Any talk of a properly functioning society (collection of self-interested individuals?) without some level of central planning, redistributive policies and abstract-but-oh-so-important concept of social justice is every bit a masturbatory excercise as one where absolutely everything is owned and controlled by the state.

I heartily concur there Fozz - if we define socialism as government intervention, then we're not dealing with opposing systems at all, rather, a sliding scale.
Either extreme end is unpleasant - a healthy mix is essential.
Some government intervention is not the kiss of death as die-hard economic libertarians would have you believe.

What's frustrating, is that this mantra of free market absolutism is frequently taken as gospel.

It's bulldust. The only reason why the free marketeers are able to get away with it, is because too much socialism has been proved to be a failure. I'm not denying that.

But I am saying that a high level of government regulation is NOT a kiss of death for an economy, and as an example, read this article in TIME magazine on how Denmark is the world's third most competitive economy, but has high taxes, but generous health, education and welfare provisions.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1684528,00.html

I know Denmark's system won't work for all of us - but it's living proof that the free market mantra is not the only way and having a system that ensures a reasonable degree of health care, welfare and education does NOT mean an ailing economy.

Simply compare Denmark to the US and tell me which system's delivering better results for its people.

Dear Passy,

I've tried to read Habermas directly, but it makes really dense reading. In fact, I find it ironic that Habermas - for one who emphasises communication - is so difficult to think with..

So instead of tackling him directly, I've read about him instead. But from what I've read - concepts like 'legitimation crisis', the 'public sphere', 'system and life world', 'colonisation of the life world'... are relevant and important...

re: Gramsci - I agree there's no doubt he was a revolutionary... But what is revolution? And what is the difference between reform and revolution?

What of 'revolutionary reforms' as argued for by the Eurocommunists? Gramsci's idea of a 'war of position' is important here...

Though the struggle 'ebbs and flows', there are sometimes upsurges, sometimes troughs... There is a struggle for hegemony at the level of civil society that goes on... And it goes on at the level of what Habermas called 'the public sphere'..., through popular culture, art, media, music, counter-culture...

And there are compromises sometimes when neither side has the stomach for violent confrontation...

The hope is to have a perspective and strategy that lends itself to a multi-pronged strategy for social transformation... and for there to be a succession of strategic compromises in a long process of change - at both the level of state and civil society...

And importantly - although Nicos Poulantzas was a structuralist - he makes a good argument that the 'logic' (let's say 'process') of class struggle 'imprints' itself on the state. The state is not an 'instrument' of class oppression - it is contested ground - riddled with contradiction...

This is not necessarily a bad thing either... Personally I think that liberal democratic consensus is to be treasured...

But democracy does not justify oppression - for instance, workers in France have a right to stand up to the Gaulists regardless of whether or not the government has a mandate... Social AND liberal rights need be fought for together..

Fozz “Care to point out a few shining examples of "pure" capitalism””

Your question is a loaded one

Pure capitalism is a bit like the perfect market, it does not exist.

Since “markets” were first formed and itinerant workers and farmers produced goods for sale and exchange, no really pure ”market” has operated. No pure capitalism prevailed.

However, “Capitalism” does not exclude the role of government it never has.

What we see in the capitalism versus socialism is the separation of the means of production and assets into private hands, away from government versus the collective ownership of production and assets exclusively by government.

Government can then exercise, free of bias, its pivotal role as the arbiter or referee of the conduct of capitalists in the market,

Rather than government having the vested interest in the market as a capitalist proprietor. A role which represents governments conflict with its role as arbiter.

I would observe the role of the successful capitalist in history has often accompanied the compassion of philanthropy which even today is demonstrable in the Bill Gates foundation and the foundation which owns the lions share of Warren Buffets Hathaway Holdings.

This trait of philanthropy and concern for others is the product of capitalism. Governments cannot be philanthropic.

Governments cannot exercise compassion. Governments can only treat all as equal and not in accordance with their individual needs, as a philanthropist can.

As for the abstract comparison of capitalism to socialism,

The average Citizen of USA can be compared to the average citizen of North Korea.

In the centrally planned socialist model, on a per capita basis there are

Fewer wealthy people
Fewer middle class people
Fewer personal liberties
Fewer people allowed to make their own travel arrangements
Zero people entitled to challenge the authority of the state.
Fewer people living beyond the age of 50
Fewer people living in adequate housing
More people starving to death

The democratic role of government is to reflect the will of the people, not to outlaw peoples ability to acquire control of or deploy private wealth or productive resources.

"Pure capitalism is a bit like the perfect market, it does not exist"

We might well say the same thing of "pure" socialism. As turnrightthenleft pointed out, it is about getting the balance right between individual freedom and social justice.

To this end, there are some things that are better of left in public hands. Publicly owned monopolies can function to the benefit of all, private monopolies are much less likely to. You and I already had this argument a year or so ago when I pointed out that circumstances in my area combined to prompt the part-privatised water board to attempt to hike water prices by up to 1200% - at a time when water was abundant. Only government intervention prevented this.

Your list of the sad results of the excesses of socialism are not apparent in some countries with a fairly high degree of socialist type policies, such as the Nordic countries. They are however, starkly apparent in that great home of capitalism, the U.S. Social safety nets are all but non-existent in some states and everyone is left to fend for themselves whether they are capable or not. Too much capitalism and not enough socialism in the mix creates a degree of poverty and exploitation that I found quite shocking. If you watched the stars filing into the Kodak theatre last night, you will not see the crowd of beggars that are normally around the building - I think they shoo them all away in case they make the oscars look bad.

But yes, socialism can become distorted. Just look at the benefits of the medicare levy, much of which goes to the well off or the half-billion plus transferred to wealthier private schools who have absolutely no need of such largesse.

Many of the well off rail against socialism yet are happy to accept this welfare (please, please do not try to call it a tax break or something else that it is not). Would they willingly give it up? Fat chance methinks.

First-there are different interpretations of socialism and capitalism.

Some see socialism as a 'command economy as state monopoly', and capitalism as 'a system in which there is a clear capitalist class-as 'ruling class'...

Firstly(for capitalism-I believe a market economy in which individuals have the right to invest as the choose - is, in a sense, capitalist...But as such it is NOT incompatible with my understanding of socialism...

My interpretation,(for socialism)is: a social and political system which uses a mixture of social ownership and control, and other forms of collective ownership in pursuit of economic/political/social justice...Also, it involves intervention by the state in markets (inc labour markets) in the public interest - and again also support (through progressive taxation) for a progressive social wage and welfare state...

Socialism can entail a 'mixed democratic economy' with strategic use of 'natural monopoly', socialised infrastrucure, pension funds and the like...And also the use of Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) - to provide for competition in markets which would otherwise involve collusion, corruption, oligopolistic practices...And finally, it can involve strategies such as promotion of co-operative enterprise - which need not involve state ownership...

Ideally (to me), socialism also involves a breaking down of a clear class system - even if the market economy is supported.

Some would call the social democracy instead of socialism...And it could be useful to press the point of semantics...As far as I can tell, Catholic objections of socialism are, after all, based on the Marxist definition...

For me, as it seems with others, socialism and capitalism can co-exist...A socialised sector as part of a democratic mixed economy can involve a 'social market' - in which people are free to invest as they choose - and, indeed, where they are encouraged to invest democratically in collective enterprise...

And now - two important points: Sometimes 'natural monopolies' improve the cost structures of industries - and the provision of infrastructure...At other times the dynamic of competition should be supported because it leads to innovation...But under such circumstances-as long as Australian enterprises respond in a competitive market - strategic socialisation can be justified.