I don't think many would argue that a pure Socialist State is the ideal for Australia (we are not yet evolved enough for that) and other Socialist States have failed (for many reasons which I won't go into here).

While not perfect, Capitalism within a Social Democracy does function but if we left the running of the country to purely free market economics there would be no social net. Like it or not there have to be some regulatory powers to curb some of the excesses of capitalism, we cannot rely on altruism alone to create the sort of society we want within a capitalistic framework.

For example, it took no time for some businesses to take advantage of the newly implemented WorkChoices to eradicate penalty rates, meal breaks and shift allowances in some industries. This had a marked impact on those in the lower paid sectors who could least afford to lose real income. In a social democracy it is not unreasonable to provide some regulatory mechanisms such as with award and minimum wages to protect workers.

We have public hospitals and public schools. I don't think society would be better off if we made health and education victim to the corporate sector. Although we are doing that in part in the tertiary sector to our long term detriment.

If we took an eclectic approach to governing and rid ourselves of these left/right labels and accept that there is not a one size fits all approach. It is possible that we can put to best use some aspects of socialism and capitalism to make the system better in what some have called the Third Way where there is am mix of market and interventionist policies. See link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29

If workers became shareholders in their workplace, for example and received a share in the good times, just as a sales person might gain a bonus or commission, this would do more for the profitability of industry than exploiting unfair IR laws for short term advantage.

Passy - I respect Rosa Luxemburg for remaining steadfast in her support of liberty as essential to the task of building socialism... And I know that it can be dangerous to pursuit radical reform in the face of a hostile state apparatus. But take the case of Chavez: given a support base at the level of the state apparatus of violence/coercion - even the distinction between reform and revolution is harder to make - the two concepts fuse...

In Germany during the time of the revolution of 1918-19 - the very opening that allowed the communist to make a play for state power - was the fact that a support base developed amongst the police force. But in a country without any liberal consensus - where all liberal rights were foregone as a consequene of total war - the situation degenerated into political terror and violence.

And even in countries with liberal traditions - it is important to have units within the state apparatus who are willing to defend liberal tradition in the event of division within the state apparatus itself. But again - even in this scenario - the state is not a 'fortress to be stormed' or a mere 'apparatus of violence serving the every whim of the ruling class'.

The very idea of 'putting an end to the system of wage labour' altogether is also a very prickly question. What about wage earner funds, pension funds, superannuation? Such funds are owned overwhelmingly by workers and ordinary citizens... Yet they still operate within a 'capital-labour' dynamic...

My position is that no stratum of society should wield such cultural, economic and military power which is arbitrary and total...

more coming....

Passy - just a bit more...

Marx's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' should not be understood as totalitarianism...It is, rather, about the working class 'winning the battle of democracy' and using the state apparatus to pursue cultural, economic and social change.

But even here - if the liberal consensus and the 'balace of power' within the state degenerate - then you might well see the kind of violence suffered in France during the Jacobin terror. Far better for a long term, strategic struggle for state, cultural and economic power - where balance of power and liberal tradtion prevent terror from filling the vacuum....

And again - as said before - there should not be a cohesive 'ruling class' that emerges from the overwhelmling ownership of the means of production of a self-conscious minority...But at the same time ordinary citizens should be able to invest as the wish - and the product is an 'overlap' of wage labour and capital...

And this is the sense in which socialist principles and orientations must learn to live with an economic system in which workers and citizens invest as they wish - but where progressive taxes and programs for economic democracy build socialism on this 'overlap' - and which strategic social and democratic ownership...

Anyway - perhaps here could be a point of further discussion... Assuming 'overlap' - what is the best kind to 'democratic mixed economy' - including government business enterprise, public infrastructure and services, collective consumption, welfare, and private democratic ownership and control. (eg: co-operativism) What's the best mix? And how do we get there?

Sorry for dropping out of discussion a couple of days - hoping these posts will kick start debate again.

Tristan, I would like to see more direct state ownership/control of critical areas - " the pillars of a modern society" if you like. Energy (both fuel and electricity generation) and water would be high on my list of priorities.

Private monopolies or near monopolies on such things are not only exploitative but they can hold a nation back,these players generally having little interest in the future of society/the nation (unless they think it might negatively affect their bottom line). The water board in my area is privately run. 80% of all the water was being consumed by huge industries. A severe and prolonged drought almost ran the dam dry. The big plants, fearfull of running out of water for their processes spent megabucks on water recycling and seawater cooling systems. Then cyclone Beni dumped a phenomonal amount of rain on the area, almost filling the catchment. Water was now abundant - but the big industries had spent so much money on alternative water technologies that they were not inclined to simply abandon them and start buying vast quantities of water again. The water board issued a public statement: people needed to understand that water was business and business must profit. Residents would be slugged with price rises between 300 and 1200%.

We were up to our necks in water yet it was to be more expensive than gold because "business must profit". So much for supply and demand. The state government intervened, fortunately. This is one example of the failure of privately held monopolies of crucial resources to allow social justice. It would have nearly killed the town if they had gotten their way.

cont' later

Tristan

Luxemburg spent her political life in the SPD until the last few years and then the SPD murdered her.

She also supported the Bolsheviks, recognising the democratic nature of the revolution. All power to the Soviets was not an empty phrase, but in a country in which the working class was 4 million compared to a peasantry of 100 million, that power could only survive if revolutions in Europe succeeded and could then provide material support to the workers' government.

Developments in Europe at the moment seem to indicate a break with the traditional parties of the left. Die Linke in Germany won 6.4% of the vote in one of the states and the SPD is now thinking about negotiating with it to form a Government. It stands for traditional "left" values, or is, rather, an amalgam of various currents to the left of the SPD.

In Cyprus the election of a communist party member as President represents another interesting development. I think his comment about managing capitalism in a humane way says it all about the dilemma (or contradiction as Marxists put it) he will face. Capitalism is an exploitative society, like feudalism. You work partly for yourself and partly for the boss. This exploitative relationship means that only through defensive measures which begin to become attacking measures (such as union activity for better wages and conditions) can you "humanise" capitalism. But anything that interferes with the drive for profit and with profit rates will ultimately be unsuccessful if it is not backed with a political understanding that what you must do is overthrow that exploitative relationship, and of course gain majority support for that among workers.

One point on your article. There is $60 bn in tax expenditures which are disguised grants. They go overwhelmingly to business and the well off. Superannuation itself accounts for $30 bn.

I think any attack on inequality in the Australian context has to attack these disguised expenditures. Treasury every year puts out a booklet detailing these expenditures.

Tristan

There have been attempts in the past to set up a party to the Left of the ALP.

The State smashed the Industrial Workers of the World with draconian measures.

The Communist Party built up a minority following in the working class, but its prospects historically became fatally flawed as it embraced Stalinism.

The New Labor Party came and went. The Socialist Alliance was an unsteady mix of radical left groups.

The Greens are home for many leftists voters. They are socially progressive but hardly economically radical.

I think a better way forward is what Lenin argued for many years ago in very very different circumstances - the steady building of a revolutionary party committed to the self emancipation of the working class.

Given the small size of the radical left in Australia, and the fact that at this stage we are talking about ideas and not actions, that means I think most work being done on campuses to recruit among people open to a wide range ideas and not yet weighed down with the responsibilities that wage earners have.

This doesn't mean abandoning the working class. It just recognises its quietude at the moment. Small groups still involve themselves in day to day struggles when and if they can, but they are on the sidelines, not an integral and leading part of the struggle yet. That will not always be the case.

When the next upsurge in struggle comes and workers break to the left economically and politically that steady work will produce some results.

I am not counterposing this to the idea that there currently exists a space to the left of the ALP for some form of "true" labor party. But I think that group will be hard to organise and coalesce around a set of ideas and practices, and in all likelihood in times of great social upheaval will itself (or parts of it) move to the radical left.