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.

Oh lord, I'm back in the 1980s, or somewhere like that, certainly not 2008. Is this a rehash or republishing of some old tired article? You need to update a few things, this one for instance "Without the arms giant McDonnell Douglas, there can be no McDonald's worldwide.", McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997, so it no longer exists.

Philip Tang, I note your comment "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." Previous to this you sanction opening up immigration to a range of African and sub-continent peoples.

Are you suggesting that the people of Africa are a peaceful, loving people, did you hear about the Hutu and the Tootsi in Burundi, the 800,000 people massacre - yes, without any help from the west at all, let's hand over the planet to them. Or Charles Taylor or the likes of Idi Amin or any amount of other despots, the Sudan, Darfur?

Thankfully this sort of thinking is rare these days. If you hate the West so much, leave.

People shouldn't get obsessive about blaming socialism for everything. It's a distraction. Government expansion and control are the greatest threats to us citizens of Australia.

“The US, Europe and now Asia teeter on the brink of recession. War stalks the planet.”

And yet, whilst the US and Europe “teeter”, it was USSR which fell, into the abyss and has been devouring its own young in Chechnia and more recently Georgia since.

So what does that say about the so called ”imperialsist”, who in recent history relinquished the guiding hands of colonial mastery across the globe versus the defunct “internationalists” who are entrenched with unyielding, out of date ideas of some mythical “socialist utopia” of their own?

“Australia's infant imperialism means it has invaded and currently occupies countries in the neighbourhood ...”

East Timor has its own constitution and independently elected parliament and holds no fealty to Australia.

Invaded? - No.

The Solomon’s asked for assistance and negotiated its own terms for secondments.

Invaded? - No.

The Australian government has a duty its taxpayers to ensure financial resources, gifted to PNG, are used in an honest and proper manner, bearing in mind the history of graft and corruption which exists there.

Invaded? - No.

“The task for Australian socialists is to build opposition here to Australian imperialism in any of its forms.”

They are hard to find, except for the guilt ridden masochists who are ashamed of the advantages their parents bought them. They lack the ardor of real revolutionaries, more like they will have a mild rant over a glass of chardonnay, then go home, put on their slippers and watch Dancing with the Stars.

“The crises of capitalism create their own alternative solutions. From little things, big things grow.”

And that “growth” is known as “the cancer of communism”, a debilitating and crippling killer of all hope, innovation and aspiration.

Passant has been drinking too much of what he must be distilling himself and is now completely delusional.

As for the collapse of the libertarian/capitalist empire, don’t hold your breath, your idea of a socialist utopia on earth “melted down”, like its nuclear competency (Chernobyl), along time ago.

Steel “Socialism” is “Government Expansion and control

Oh My GOD,

I haven't laughed so much in ages.

steel says >> "People shouldn't get obsessive about blaming socialism for everything. It's a distraction. Government expansion and control are the greatest threats to us citizens of Australia."

Steel, you have clearly and emphatically shown you have no understanding of what socialism is. Socialism is DEFINED by the intervention, expansion and control of gov't. Frankly I am more than a little surprised you don't understand that. Fear of gov't expansion and control places you squarely in the liberal tradition, where we believe that gov't should stick to its core responsibilities and leave citizens to get on with their lives.

I suggest you look up socialism in Wikapedia or somewhere and find out what it is you are actually supoporting. No wonder you thought i was a socialist, you don't even know what it means to be one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You are so right, John, and certainly it began with us allowing future Pax Americana to try to take over Iran with the fake Peacock Shah.

And so it has got worse, with finally our Jonny Howard and Tony Blair backing Bush to the hilt with the attack on Iraq, now six years ago.

Now we want Costello back who also made nary a complaint when our Howard backed Bush.

Might be a good thing that Putin is now backing Iran, and more than true that China is not only on a colonial quest for African oil, but also now in Iraq, would you believe.

So who do we blame for it all after the forgiving of Germany and Japan with the wonderful Marshall Plan?

Disappoints me so much that I'm sort of glad I'm nearing my end with me reaching 88 next June.

Have Fun, BB, Buntine, WA.

PHILLIP TANG: Would you also agree that China or Japan, should also open their borders to Somalianss, Bangladeshis, algerians,Pakistanisand Sudanese.

The West is not responsible for the problems in these countries. .

The West has only become imbroiled in these countries trying to stop the ethnic cleansing.
If they got rid of some of the extreme religions that split countries into two groups and foster horrendous populations and the killing of one group by the other for control of resources that would be a start.

Pakistan was formed after the tribal warfare between the sikhs and hindus in India, incidently that was after the British pulled out and gave them back their country.
The same as in Iraq, it is the Arabs doing much of the killing as they fight for tribal control of Iraq. It seems Saddam Hussein was simply keeping the Sunni tribe in control but now the Shia tribe want control.

The Chinese and Japanese also have bloody history of ethnic cleansing and war perpetrated by them. The Muslims dont exactly have an unblood stained history either.

JOHN PASSANT says in this article-: "our ruling class wants to help the US contain china."

If the Chinese or any other country invades Australia then John will find out that the invading army won't know the difference between a ruling class Australian and himself and he will die also.

In seeking to protect Australia they also protect JOHN PASSANT.

sharkin: "Would you also agree that China or Japan, should also open their borders to Somalianss, Bangladeshis, algerians,Pakistanisand Sudanese."

The West are a noble and self-righteous lot chanting the mantra of 'democracy', 'human rights', 'gay rights', etc. and so attract many from the third world. The other reason being that the West is morally obligated to take in these people because they grew rich on the back of these colonies.

China is a third world country having problems taking care of its very own. She is having difficulty trying to prevent the Chinese from leaving for the West

As for Japan, it does not have a colonial past and is among the world's top donor country in term of foreign aid.

Thanks for the comments on my article.

The McDonald's McDonnell Douglass comment was a reference to a remark by a retired US army general. Presumably he said that before 1997. So what? The idea encapsulates American imperialism.

And to all those who keep telling me the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela (is China still in your lists?) socialist - OK. Equating state ownership with socialism is I suppose arguable, although the real question is which class is doing the nationalisation.

This idea of nationalisation equaling socialism presumably for some means that the US is on the road to socialism. I disagree.

Nationalisation by capitalist Governments under capitalism is in the interest of capitalism and capitalists. Nationalisation under capitalism does nothing to address the fundamental exploitation of workers, and certainly doesn't address wage slavery or the profit grundnorm.

My idea of socialism, drawn from Marx, is that it is the democratic rule of the working class to organise production to satisfy human need. None of those countries mentioned - the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, China) fit the bill and never did. Russia in 1917 had the possibility until foreign intervention, civil war and the destruction of the Russian working class coupled with the failure of the revolution to spread to Europe (although in Germany it was a close run thing) destroyed the revolution and allowed Stalin to rise to power.

The thing that worries me now is that politically we are approaching 1914.

Economically we may be, and I stress this is only a possibility, approaching 1929.

1 billion starving. US imperialism under challenge from other imperialisms. Financial crisis throughout the world. Isn't capitalism such great system?

Passy “it is the democratic rule of the working class to organise production to satisfy human need.”

Couple of problems with that assertion

1 ‘working class’: is an ambiguous description, when ‘working’ can include those who earn $1 a year, those who earn $1,000,000+ a year and presumably excludes those who receive only public welfare.

2 ‘organise’: invariably requires specialist skills which are, economically, more valuable and cost a premium compared to those ordinary working class folk who, lacking said skills, provide merely the ‘sweat and toil’ in the production process.

3 ‘human need’: little of what we dream of or spend what resources we have available have to do with “human need”. They have a lot more to do with “human wants”

And in that lays the nub.

Wherein,

"Socialism" has an almighty problem defining just how “entitled” anyone should be to satisfy their personal “human need”

yet

"Capitalism is capable of responding to fluctuating variations in demand to satisfy both ‘human need’ and ‘human wants’.

We could go on to other considerations in the real equation, like risk, design, innovation etc all of which carry a cost in the delivery of the final product but I feel you will shy away from going there.

“1 billion starving. US imperialism under challenge from other imperialisms. Financial crisis throughout the world. Isn't capitalism such great system?”

If

US imperialism was so bad, why are there thousands queuing up to get in

Compared to

the socialist utopias of the old USSR, where people were not allowed to leave and shot if they tried?

Somehow your rhetoric is misaligned with the evidence of the real world.

Passy,

Seems very keen to distance socialism from the socialist regimes of USSR, China etc. And technically speaking perhaps he's right.

The problem is Passy, that every time socialism has been tried it has very quickly led to these totalitarian post-socialist regimes. They are intimately linked to the inherent failures of the socialist model.

Socialism WILL always fail because at its heart is a fatally flawed concept. Human beings simply WILL NOT prosper in a system where there is NO INCENTIVE.

That is the basic problem with socialism/communism. "From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" is a simplistic nirvana which HAS NEVER, and WILL NEVER work. It requires people to sit by and watch while the idle and stupid are rewarded for their indolence. This type of system stifles innovation (what point is there in finding a different/more efficent way of doing things if you aren't going to be rewarded for your effort). Furthermore, it very quickly leads to each worker doing the absolute minimum required of him/her and thus production slows significantly, quality control goes out the window.

You point to the fact that capitalism has failed to feed everyone. Yet look at the socialist countries where the incentive motive was removed. They couldn't actually produce goods and food needed by their own people, let alone worrying about Africa.

It is entirely irrelevant to an argument about the merits of socialism vs capitalism whether people are starving in Africa. Its not capitalism which causes that to happen. Its dictators and totalitarianism which almost inevitably creates those shortages. Those people need to replace their gov'ts in general, not their economic system.

Finally, by looking at how socialist states evolved in the past it is clear that the socialist revolution ALMOST INEVITABLY brings those with a passion for totalitarianism to the fore. The anti-democratic nature of socialism actively promotes this. The system itself relies upon the benelovence of the party and it's leaders. But as they say about power " it corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Socialism breeds stalinism/maoism as sure as night follows day

Thanks for the further comments.

My main point was that Rudd (and Howard before him) have sent Australian troops into Afghanistan (as invaders) to get an insurance contract with the major imperialist power, the US. This enables Australian imperialism to dominate the immediate region and perhaps get support from the US in a time of real conflict in the future (eg with China).

Unlike Howard and Rudd I believe our young men and women are more valuable than as cannon fodder for that.

On feeding the world, the food crisis is actually two crises. The first is the failure long term of global capitalism to provide one of the most basic necessities to hundred of millions and condemning billions to malnutrition becuase they are too poor to buy food even though enough is produced to feed everyone..

Second the recent food price increases have driven hundreds of millions more into starvation. Dictators didn't cause that.

even if I accept captialism is the ultimate in human development (something I think Fukiyama now recognises may not be true) it's a pretty crap existence for half of humanity.

I suppose for US merchant bankers (and all that incentive stuff Col Rouge talks about) a 2 trillion take over of their losses is pretty good.

I wonder how much it would take to feed those 1 billion who were starving. Good to see we got our priorities right.

I mention in the article that the defeat of Russian imperialism in Afghanistan was a step forward for humanity. (I hope that was left in.) Who agrees?

Think about it before answering.

You people who are obsessed with socialism in the traditional sense are foolish. All capitalist societies have socialist aspects, even the USA and yet we can see fascism on the increase also. How can this be? Well the answer is quite simple. Whether you are on the right or left of politics, you'll find current government goals are to acquire more power at the citizen's expense.

Thanks Steel. I'm not quite sure I know what you mean. I doubt that the intertwining of state and capital (a phenomenon going on for over one hundred years and increasing in fact over the last twenty despite the rhetoric) is creeping fascism.

Fascism starts as a middle class movement torn between the big battalions of labour and capital during times of crisis. It becomes a movement of the ruling class whose aim is to destroy working class organisations and in that way take actions (eg drive down wages) to overcome the crisis of capitalism. George Bush, Berlusconi, Sarkozy etc are not fascists.

On the other hand One Nation may have had neo-fascists seeds within it, reflecting its middle class base.

I think the crisis of Wall Street and Bush's bailout shows this is not about growing control over people's lives but trying to rescue a drowning man.

I was referring more to 'improvements' to the 'police state', which have been quite dramatic if you have been following them (at least in the USA and UK). On the other hand all types of police states use them so it may not be exclusively fascist. The point is extreme government control/censorship is where we are headed.

Steel

I agree. These developments, mainly under the guise of anti-terrorism laws, are an attempt at control. They are not only in the Uk and US. We have them here too.

Innocent men are now in jail in Melbourne. Who will be next?