My definition of socialism would be something like the democratic rule of the working class through its own institutions so that production is planned and occurs to satisfy human need, not make a profit.

This makes my definition incompatible with Tristan's and others on this site, since I can't see socialism co-existing with capitalism. The two are antagonistic, with socialism being the rule of the majority - workers - and capitalism being the rule of the minority - the bosses.

Thatcher- who defended Pinochet to his bitter end, referring to him as a friend, and consistently denying his crimes against his own people.

Thatcher- who gave the order to sink the General Belgrano when it was retreating and was already in Argentinian waters. A military and maritime crime.

Thatcher- whose son was found guilty of money laundering.

Thatcher- who rather than being proud of her working-class upbringing, was ashamed of it; and spent her time in office punishing those who committed no crime other than to be that same working class.

That Thatcher.

*the democratic rule of the working class through its own institutions so that production is planned and occurs to satisfy human need, not make a profit.*

You of course forget, that profit is basically irrelevant in
this exercise, as waste in planned economies is usually so
large, due to lack of efficiency, that the reduction in costs
is far larger then any profit, which you think is evil.

The most powerfull people today are the working class, ie consumers.
They vote with their wallets every single day, democracy in
action, every single day. Deny them choice, by your obsession
about profit and you deny them being able to vote with their
money.

Bill Gates didn't become rich by giving consumers a bad deal,
he became rich by giving people a better deal then was being
offered before. I could not give a rats arse if he became
rich, if I was better off due to his innovation and competitive
prices, compared to what others were offering.

Passy

Chile is a good example. Documents reveal that the trucking strike which helped to bring Chile to its knees economically was financed by the CIA to protect US business interests in that country after failing to influence the result of the election in 1970. The nationalisation of industry and the increase in democratic rights in Chile caught the attention of those owners of capital, US power brokers who are not really interested in democracy.

More information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

Fozz

Great post - Socialism - a word that people are scared of without really understanding how some of the principles are necessary to provide such a safety net as you talk about.

Free market economics is flawed - creating a situation where monopolies control prices. There is no such thing as a perfect or pure capitalism or level playing fields for one, but more importantly it concentrates the power too much with the owners of capital and very little with the owners of labour (vital to production). There has to be a balance.

Capitalism works for a good reason, its based on results, not bogged
down about good intentions. Anyone can compete and consumers get
to choose and vote with their Dollars. Thats the reality.

Now in Cuba, we might well think that Comrade Sassy is a wonderful
person and appoint him/her as Minister for computer software.
In reality we could well be wrong and comrade Sassy could well
be well intentioned, but in terms of software development, actually
be a dill.

Comrade Sassy might well spend a fortune of State funds, developing
software, but comrade Sassy, despite the best intentions, could
well be wrong. Yet we would be stuck with the results, good or
bad. No wonder the system is a failure.

Ideology just does not matter, results matter. As a consumer
I want the right to choose, not be dictated by well intentioned
dreamers. If people make a profit or not, I really don't care,
what matters is results.

So let me vote every day with my wallet and let those who want
to sell me something, focus their attention on my needs.

If they make a profit or not, I really don't care.

No wonder socialism has been such a failure. The focus is
all wrong, as Sassy has shown.

Passy - I grew up believing in revolutionary socialism. My father was a delegate for the BLF and a member of the communist party. As I have grown older, my veiw has shifted somewhat although I still consider myself to be basically socialist and will never be anything other than a lefty. I agree with you that capitalism and socialism are fundamentally antagonistic toward one another but I don't think this prevents them from co-existing. Like Yin and Yang, they are opposing forces that can balance one another. Of course, there is no perfect steady balance and both camps will endlessly argue for expanding rights/freedoms for their lot.

I can see a greater role for direct intervention by government. Letting the market run completely free can have the effect of limiting or preventing choice because of it's natural tendancies to monopolize and ologopolize. In areas that are vital to the functioning of the nation, there should be strong and strict regulation or actual investment by government or both. The oil industry might be an example (yes - we should be looking strongly at alternative technologies). Australia produces between 75 and 90%, depending whose figures you use, of our own oil needs right here on our own soil with the probable capacity to suppy 100% for decades. Yet we are forced to pay the global price for an increasingly scarce resource that is still in abundance here as far as our own small needs go. Given that without cheap energy, civilization as we know it simply stops, we could have a national oil industry owned by governement that does not need to turn a gigantic profit - it's existence would be justified by ensuring a fair price for energy that a market run by a handfull of enormous cartels does not. The benefits to the country - including the righties cherished market economy - would be great. To insist that government can "never interfere in the market for the good of the market" is simply untrue.