The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Imagining ‘The Good Society’ > Comments

Imagining ‘The Good Society’ : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 6/5/2008

Visions for Australian society and economy: what makes a 'Good Society' and should such a thing be measured in purely material terms?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Dear readers,

To an extent Gecko is right - to suggest that I make some - ableit reserved - compromises in the face of economic liberalism...

There is a role for responsive markets - and, as I argue, competition is a force that can spur innovation.

But to argue for a 'democratic mixed economy' is more than just a token alternative to the neo-liberal orthodoxy...

To an extent, I argue for a return to the Keynesian social democratic consensus - and the model of the mixed economy that characterised so many economies in the wake of WWII.

But the 'democratic mixed economy' goes further...

I suppose the potential for a far bolder involvment of democratic and social enterprise - for instance: public ownership of mining interests - ableit as part of a competitive and international market...

Furthermore, readers should note a preference for initiatives such as 'citizens investment' or 'community development' funds - that break with the logic of share value maximisation above all else.

Such initiatives could also become powerful weapons in the cause of economic democracy.

And also - I recognise the need for strategic public monopoly, and for the intervention in markets - to prevent oligopoly and collusion...

Yes - there is no 'clean break' from the market economy...

But readers should understand that what I propose is much more than a variety of 'weak half measures' or 'acquiesence in the face of neo-liberalism'. If anyone doubts this - I urge them to read the paper again...

As always - comment and debate from readers is welcome. :-)
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 3:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear fellow participants.

The major flaw in all 'market' related solutions to social organization, is the degree to which it is connected to,and orchestrated by, a powerful oligarchy of vested interests.

No, I haven't suddenly 'found Marx'.. its the same old thing I've been 'rhetorically and arrogantly'(Lev.. u reading ?:) espousing all along.

Human nature, and greed. But more.. self preservation.

The clearest evidence of how the 'market' when tied to insufficiently restrained/controlled capitalism is harmful and self defeating, is found in the huge speculation being done by Hedge funds now, in the commodity of 'oil'.

There was a time when Hedge Fund activity is reported to have been as little as 5% of the oil market activity, but now, according to a news report this morning, it's something like 50% and thus, has not only the interest in manipulating it for base profit..but also the POWER.

The "Good" society, in material or economic indicators, is a fallacy.
If you dig deep enough, probe far enough, you will eventually uncover the sad mess and mass of seething poor humanity that it relies on.

Thus, the only means of achieving a "Good" society is for it to become a 'GODLY' society. Israel was established with legal guidelines for caring for the poor..so, we need to become more 'God....ly'

All the prophets raged against the shameless capitalism which emerged periodically in Israel, and was usually associated with fertility gods and idolatry and cult prositution.
"Repent...for the kingdom of God is at hand" said Jesus.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 8:41:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Tristan

I think through a mixed economy you are trying to manage two essentially antagonistic forces - labour and capital. I would see an alternative being a society in which labour and capital no longer exist. You mention Marx's idea of exploitation - the extraction of surplus value (including profit) from workers. A mixed economy does not address that.

The market is built on wage slavery. So too under capitalism is state intervention. The capitalist state owning major elements of the economy reinforces the fundamentals of captialism; it doesn't challenge them.

Let's assume however your discussion about transitional arrangements is in effect a plea for a radical Government implementing polices (eg nationalisations) which you see as setting in train a process that actually challenges the capital and labour divide.

I am unsure if there exist any countries where that is currently occurring (except perhaps Bolivia and Venezuela, although I doubt either have the economic base to establish such a reality and in any event they are top down changes rather than bottom up ones.)

I think Allende might have adopted a similar strategy to the one you are suggesting. The ruling class won't allow actions that challenge their role in society without a fight. Allende paid with his life and the Chileans with the loss of their democracy through misguided views about the parliamentary road to socialism.

Maybe you are not going that far. If not, then what is the difference between what you are suggesting and what we have now? A few more nationalised companies? Do they abolish wage slavery?

I look at the food crisis (both the long term one where 1 bn people are starving or severely malnourished) and the present one (where another half a billion could be tipped into that category) and think that the market is the problem, not he solution. There is enough food to feed everyone on earth adequately. People are starving because they can't afford to buy on the market. That is to my mind a real indictment of captialism and I don't see a mixed economy addressing that.
Posted by Passy, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 10:41:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Define 'good.' And necessarily by extension 'bad.'

What the concept means and how it is measured.

Then what informs the basis of measurement.

Then whether it is possible to universally and absolutely define the concept in a way that universal (objectively true) to everyone. That is accepted in a way that is essentially incontravertably true, like 'the sun makes light.'

Sans the logically flawed and inherently self refuting post-modern relativist narratives.

If you can do this, you might be eligable for a Nobel prize.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 10:49:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies to all for my unintended repetition and spelling mistakes in my first post.

---

Passy wrote: "There is enough food to feed everyone on earth adequately."

This is the "by bread alone" argument of left-wing cornucopians who have, in the past, irresponsibly disputed the need for population control. We need more than just food to have a dignified existence.

Also, it has to be acknowledged that growing 'enough' food through industrialised methods for 6.5 billion humans as opposed to the 1 billion that lived on the planet around 1850, has been at an unacceptable cost to the world's environment. It has required solar captured captured over tens of millions of years in the form of fossil fuels and converted into fertiliser. When humankind's endowment of fossil fuels are exhausted, there is no way that we can hope to maintain the world's current level of agricultural productivity.

Also, our industrialised agricultural system has required the destruction of rainforests and bio-diversity and the unsustainable mining of nutrients from the soil, which had, in past eras, been recycled back into the soil.

I think it's well past time that socialists acknowledged that even with the equitable redistribution of resources and all the efficiencies possible in a theoretically achievable democratic and non-bureaucratic form of socialism, that the task faced in preventing the collapse of our global life-support system, let alone our civilisation, is extremely formidable, given the vast demands of 6.5 billion humans on a critically damaged world environment.

I suggest that any socialist who seriously cares about the future of our planet read Sandy Irvine's excellent and comprehensive "Trotsky's Biggest Blindspot" (20 pages) at http://www.sandyirvine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ (as pdf), http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/Misarmed.html and http://candobetter.org/node/392

(This is not necessarily intended to restart the debate here on population, immigration etc. I'm happy to continue that argument elsewhere.)
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 11:59:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh, trade215,

I can provide a universal definition of 'good', but it's not objective. Nor is it subjective either. Rather it's an intersubjective definition.

"The relative goodness of an action is a function that the action reached an informed consensus among those involved."

Which does, in part, match with Tristan's desire for an increased degree of democratic input into economic decisions.
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 1:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy