Interesting that this essay pops up at the very time that the US government has decided to spend $25 billion seizing control of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. How awfully unprivatising!

But whatever you do, don’t ever call it a nationalisation – it’s a ‘bailing out’, you understand.

And here I was thinking the last socialist had sailed off to Cuba years ago. You can understand my confusion. Almost every middle class request for more of my taxes is descibed as "Left" these days. Government must now tackle obesity, drinking, child care and a host of other things that were once the responsibility of individuals and families. The real Left - the socialists who want to nationalise the means of production and to foster the rise of the working classes - never seem to rate with the current pseudo Left. Perhaps it's because the working classes barely exist any more.

At any rate, I recommend that the author buy a subscription to 'The Economist'. Then he'll learn how capitalism actually works to the benefit of those peoples who embrace it.

An actual true believer in democratic socialism? Awesome read. I love the continual references to "our ruling class". Kevin is ruling class all the way, from being a farmer's son to sleeping in the family car...

The soul of Socialism is deliberate ignorance shaded with blind idealism. The core concept - from everything what they can, to everyone what they need - ignores human nature - from everyone else what they can, to me what I want and from me as little as is possible.

In a single paragraph we observe why the socialist ideology will never flourish. People are more likely to be more productive if a majority of their effort sticks to their own fingers, thus more is produced, and the lesser amount taken by the goverments and distributed to the needy is still more than would be available under a socialist system.

This is evidenced by reality (something socialists dont like to consider). In Australia and most of the western capitalist world, a "poor" family struggles to afford to maintain its private motor car, house and still pay for cable television. In Soviet Russia private ownership of motor vehicles was considered capitalist propaganda. Communist eastern europe was an economic basket case. Communist China entered an economic boom by doing what? Embracing capitalism.

Like it or not, people prefer their own heated home built on their own land with a full belly and disposable income to spend on whatever entertainment they choose, even if it means a minority of people end up with hundreds of times that, over socialist solidarity - while cold and hungry in the dark - comrade.

Jai

‘People are more likely to be more productive if a majority of their effort sticks to their own fingers…’

Only problem is … under capitalism, it’s the managerial classes whose fingers get stickier and stickier, while the workers' fingers seem to be coated in Teflon.

And ‘economic basket cases’ are in the eye of the beholder. An average Australian family of four pays more for a year’s medical insurance than they would for an LCD TV screen or some secondhand cars, while Cuba exports doctors to the Third World, recycles 1950s Chryslers and feeds its population on 95% permaculture.

Having said that, I don’t believe socialism is superior to capitalism or vice versa. The best social systems utilise the advantages of both.

What an extraordinary piece..

So war didnt exist before the rise of capatalism, or even the nation state? Evidence of warfare is found wherever evidence of humanity exists

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051216092426.htm

How about socialist paradises attacking each other? Such as China's invasion of Vietnam?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

Or the Soviet Union attacking Finland, Poland, the Baltic states?

I prefer the wisdom of thinkers such as Clausewitz 'War is merely a continuation of politics'; as long as politics exists, the use of force will be a natural consequence.

gw

One way for the West to gain some moral authority is for the US to vote Barack Hussien Obama as President. Then as President of the most powerful country on earth, he should start proceedings against Bush, Blair and Howard for crimes against humanity. They should be tried in an Islamic court in IRAQ according to the rule of (shariah) law.

Since the West preaches free-trade, globalisation, open borders, etc. they should welcome the millions of Somalians, Bangladeshis, Zimbabweans, Algerians, Pakistanis, Sudanese to their countries. Another reason is that the Western model of social growth is a failure because they are not producing enough babies to replace themselves, therefore foreign labour and ethnicity is needed to make up the loss.

It would take about 5 to 6 generations for the (native) population of the West to die out. World peace would then be a reality because the self-righteous, war-like siege mentally of the West would be a thing of the past.