Dear friends;

re: the issue of exploitation, expropriation of surplus value...

One of the most glaring difficulties in tackling exploitation is - as I say in the paper - that ordinary people ought be afforded the right to invest their savings as they wish...

This, though - by a Marxist definition - places even popular pension funds in a position of exploiting workers... (*despite the fact that the stakeholders in such bodies - are workers themselves)

The falling rate of profit, here: by a Marxist definition - is unavoidable - as the organic composition of capital increases... Part of the strategy that I suggest, though - is to give a much fairer deal to workers - by giving workers - and citizens - collective capital share - to compensate for reduction in labour's share of the 'economic pie'...(eg: citizens investment funds - or the like)

This is more than 'tinkering around the edges'.

In the end, though - as I argue - exploitation is a 'Gordian knot' - so long as there exists a market, and the right - even of workers - to invest their savings as they will...

But this is not to say that class stratification - and the arbitrary power of the wealthy - cannot be overcome...

A mixed democratic economy offers citizens significant and democratic control of sections of the economy: this from a variety of measures which I have explored in the paper (eg: GBEs, Co-operative enterprise, social infrastructure, collective capital mobilisation etc.)

And with a regime of progressive taxation - inheritance tax, wealth tax, progressive income tax etc - the whole edifice of class rule can be seen to crumble away... And in its place - a democratic society and state - over which citizens are sovereign...

And yes - there will be resistance...But the state is not merely an 'instrument'. In itself - it is riven by contradiction...And herein rests the hope the such contradictions can be capitalised upon - in the pursuit of justice and social change...

Tristan

I find a lot to disagree with in the article; but put that to one side. A "good" society depends on "good" people. The critical issue is how people with volition and actions based on ignorance, delusion, greed and ego can develop wisdom, insight, compassion and egolessness. Anything else is window-dressing, shuffling the deck-chairs.

Tristan

You mention the falling rate of profit, and I agree that tendency is hot wired into capitalism. How does what you are suggesting address that tendency? It reinforces it because for example the return superannuation funds get is dependent on the extraction (or redistribution once extracted) of surplus value from workers.

I wrote something recently, daydreaming about a radical/revolutionary Government in power through parliament, made up of ALP leftists, independents, Greens, socialists and left wing trade unionists.

But I could imagine this occurring only as a consequence of massive class struggle and a swing to the left in the population as a result. Without that mobilisation by the masses no left wing Government would survive.

That's why I had the first action (among many) of the radical Government being the abolition of the standing army and its replacement with workers' militias. And the next step would be to cut the working week to 30 hours without loss of pay. This would address the increased share of GDP going to capital that the policies of the last twenty to thirty years have produced.

Anyway, it was a flight of fantasy but I don't rule out the possibility of a genuinely radical/revolutionary Government coming to power. But one its tasks I believe would be to transfer power to the class that put it there - radicalising workers. This would be done like th Paris Commune and Russia in 1917 with the establishment by workers of workers councils where workers had the right to automatically recall there elected representatives. Then the task of restructuring the economy from production for profit to production for need could begin.

Your articles are always thought provoking. Keep them going.

By the way, I wrote to some ALP people I know saying when you leave the ALP after Iemma's betrayal and perhaps after the union leaderships' betrayal too don't quit politics. Look to the revolutionary left like Socialist Alternative. ( See www.sa.org.au). What is your take on electricity privatisation and Iemma's contempt for the membership of the party?

Margaret Thatcher said "We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state. "

As far as a "Good Society" goes, it don't get better.

Especially her caution to presume a State with more authority than necessary is going to solve all the pains or act in the best interests of the electorate.

Government act in the best interests of the politicians seeking re-election and the bureaucrats whose softer careers are paid for by more exorbitant taxes.

What we get from government is an expensive panacea.

It is cheaper to pay directly for our own mistakes, than leaving some lying politician to make bigger ones in our name.

Alternatively, we make, for ourselves fewer mistakes and achieve more personal success and reward through taking calculated risks on the opportunities which free enterprise presents us.

Socialist levelling is achieved by forcing everyone to aspire only to mediocrity; a poor substitute when compared to a life under a free enterprise system, which is full of opportunity and possibility.

Col Rouge says:

"Socialist levelling is achieved by forcing everyone to aspire only to mediocrity; a poor substitute when compared to a life under a free enterprise system, which is full of opportunity and possibility."

Actually capitalism treats those who sell their labour power as mediocrities by denying them the rightful return for the value they create.

And I doubt the 2.5 bn who live on less than $2 a day, and the billion or so on $1 a day, many of whom are starving or malnourished, would agree if they could with Col.

Certainly the 30,000 babies who die each day from preventable causes don't even get the chance to disagree.

Back to the article. Tristan makes the point that parliament contains contradictions. True, but in the end analysis all the parliamentarians are committed to the profit system.

The parliamentary institution is a creature of capitalism. Its members are committed to that system. In any event even if the place was full of lefties, this argument about socialism through Parliament was rebutted, in my humble opinion, by Rosa Luxemburg in her pamphlet Reform or Revolution.

The Paris Commune and the October revolution show a glimpse of an alternative institution - workers councils where representatives have the right to automatically their representatives if they do anything the workers disagree with, and who are paid the average wage. This was the beginning of real democracy and opened up the possibility of democratising production, something capitalism cannot do.

Tristan

Mick Armstrong has written an article in Socialist Alternative called "What kind of a party should the left build?" Ignore one or two slips into hyperbole. Other than that I think it puts the alternative to what you are arguing quite well.

The link is:

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1668&Itemid=125