slasher, "you state that liberal democracy failed in 1929, it failed in 2008. The failure in 1929 led to 12 000 000 deaths, social democracy does not have any failure with such drastic consequences".

Actually, my support of liberal democracy is part of suport for liberalism, so you are stating that liberalism failed and caused the death of 12 million people. Big call.

Now again, I ask you to define a political concept that can appease competing nations as liberalism has sought to do, despite the many imperfections of Western leadership.

I would have thought that sensible commentators of the Left would fit within general support for liberalism although we all differ over the extent of govt intervention needed.

Chris... I wonder if I've left it too late to contribute to this debate- but here goes...

You do not grapple with my concrete proposals...

To begin with - yes we can raise progressive taxation...And even when this is taken into tens of billions - it this 'extreme' in the context of an economy of over $1 trillion? Is it extreme to wind back some superannuation concessions for the wealthy - while transferring these for the needs of the most vulnerable?

Is it 'extreme' to suggest this money could go into public housing, transport and communications infrastructure, education, health? Is it 'extreme' to want a fairer minimum wage - and to gradually democratise the economy - through wage earner funds and the like?...

Perhaps it's because I actually NAME capitalism as a distinct system - which depsite its benefits - also embody many contradictions and flaws? That said - I accept a role for markets - leading innovation, resposiveness etc... I argue for a DEMOCRATIC MIXED ECONOMY...

Finally - re: protectionism... I think it is positive to be boosting world trade... But when competition takes the form of gross exploitation of vulnerbale workers - I believe these workers should organise internationally for a fair go...

Further - I think some industries are of strategic value - and should be domestic regardless... eg: Defence, Communications...

Further - intervention can be jsutified to achieve an overall balance of trade... And some enterprises would be viable - and profitable - in democratic ownership - even if not the MOST efficient way of boosting share value... The failure of neo-liberalism to look beyond this logic is one of its greatest flaws...

Hope there's enough people here to keep up this debate... Readers might like to check ou my more recent article - from yesterday... 26/3...

sincerely,

Tristan

tristan,

for social democracy to flourish we must make the leap of democraticising investment decisions. Too often social democrats focus on the social democratic mechanism of wealth distribution.

We need to embark on widespread corporate reforms. These are not sexy to social democrats but we can't redistribute wealth if we have no say in wealth creation.

We need to ensure that superannuation members have a direct say in the affairs of corporations. We also need to ensure that the board rooms are truly democratised. We need a complete overhaul of corporate regulations, we must end the ability of CEOs to manipulate shareholder votes. That means bringing true secret ballots to corporate australia, ending the practice where proxy votes can be rounded up if a vote is going bad.

We need to change the taxation system to remove the bias towards debt financing which encourages high leveraging exposing the wealth creating vehicles in our society to significant risk.

If we do not get these changes right we cannot move social democracy to the next level.

Tristan,

Again, I agree with much of what you say. My problem with so-called social democracy articles is they suggest they have the answers to complex issues which competing nations have not solved after centuries.

It is extremely hard to get the right balance. West govts must take account of its own national interest as well as international considerations.

Why else are we in the state we are now.

I don't deny the need to do somethign about widening income disparity or aid public housing. Read my Quadrant articles; i often cite such needs and bag free trade as a perfect system.

All I sought to do with OLO article is to provoke debate and get social dmemocrats to see that solutions are extremely difficult in such a competitive world. No matter what ideas are suggested, there will be further consequnces. You need to think through your ideas from both a national and internaitonal perspective.

My argument will always be that world is better off under liberalism (including capitalism), as long as sovereign states are the basis for internaitonal relations.

As I suggested, the tide is turning, and some of your ideas wil take hold even in the US, the nation that has done most to promote fairer trade, regardless of its imperfections.

There is no use in offering ideas that have no way of taking off in a world where there are balance of power considerations. This is why we either accept free trade and face more policy consequences and realise that fairer rules will allow poorer naitons to rise at our expense, or we reject freer trade

Just want to add that it not all gloom and doom if we continue with freer trade. We will have to modify our welfare ystem to reduce the overall burden but ensure it helps most needy.

Prime concern, however, is that struggling society may turn in on itself with political parties even more so targeting policies to win most seats.

So Tristan, dont worry about criticism from liberal democrats. Just keeping highlighting important issues.

The more that such issues about the vulnerable are exposed, the more likely that all democrats will listen. Remember how the coalition took up the pensioners cause to get political mileage.

All i will say again, if you are interested in battlers all over the world, is that there is two sides to every story. What you criticise about liberalism, may be rejected by many more millions in China and India.

If you are a true socialist, you will have to devise ideas and policies that can meet all of the world's needs.

Real solutions will not be achieved by restrictions on capital flows. Real solutions will not be achieved by tariffs

Dear Chris,
You might now be familiar with all my work - but to clarify, I consider myself a liberal as was as a social democrat. But there are different strains in liberalism. Liberalism cannot be reduced to 'free trade' of course... Free speech, association, assembly - are core. And for ordinary people - I have argued a number of times that these ought to be free to invest their earnings as they wish - within ethical constraints...

On the other hand, I believe in economic democracy - and I envisage much of the economy being transformed into mutualist and co-operativist forms, - and including Government Business Enterprises, and social infrastructure and services... (achieved partly through tax breaks and support for such democratic forms) Also important would be wage earner or pension funds and the like...

The 'mixed economy' was mainstream really - until Labor abandoned it in the 80s and 90s for political expediency. I don't consider my politics 'extreme' - and I'd like to see you justify such language... Yes I believe in a larger public and democratic sector... And I believe with a multiplicity of social and democratic ownership - with a strong welfare state - less people will want to take risks with private investment... But I would not take away from them that right... (although I would impose progressive taxes and restructure the overall tax system)

Anyway - the point of all this is: is it really fair to call these politics 'extreme'?... Again - it is a way of avoiding engagement with different ideas... Ultimately all this is relative anyway...I seek to shift the boundaries and 'capturing and redefining the centre'... Just remember - a few decades ago neo-liberalism was considered 'extreme' - and with the current economic disaster it may be considered as such again...