Pip pip - I'd like to see that too! Marx is generally poorly understood these days - particularly by his neoliberal detractors.

*and I'll write one in defence of Marx.*

Perhaps Squeers, you might like to elaborate on what Marx would
say, when he realised that Australian workers own 1.3 trillion$
worth of super, which is about the same as the value of the
ASX. In other words, workers largely own the means of production
in Australia.

Right ho - in for a penny, in for a pound...

Yabby - interesting sleight of hand.

Perhaps Marx would be equally interested in the fact that on the eve of the GFC the unregulated derivatives market had contracts valued at US$650 trillion... 40 times the size of annual GDP in the U.S... A piffling amount really, but there you go.

"Squeers, you might like to elaborate on what Marx would
say, when he realised that Australian workers own 1.3 trillion$
worth of super, which is about the same as the value of the
ASX. In other words, workers largely own the means of production
in Australia."

I suspect Marx would cry big tears as he explained to 'the wurkers' that they were being ripped-off yet again as their hard earned monies were taken off them, invested in things they had no say in, and controlled by the very people who despise them, and would do them down, while being paid far more than they are worth for 'looking after' the cash-stash.

Super was merely the means to privatise pensions, and relieve the wealthy of taxes for their profits squeezed from the workers via basement style wages.

Except for the politicians, the 'returns' are not there when the money is squandered, as it frequently is.

And there are whole swathes of Australians who have no super, or too little to be worth a cracker, and who will probably never have any.

It is yet another pyramid scheme, going well sometimes, badly other times but all as secure only until the next GFC style hash, just around the corner.

Rudd's great 'gift' of another 3% would be paid for out of wage offsets, again, or directly from wages by forced saving.

Considering all the funds invest in all the same firms, it would have been a lot cheaper to simply have a branch of the ATO do it all.

Like 'health' funds that make you sick trying to work out if they are worth anything... the illusion of 'competition', bringing nothing but untold costs, and fat wages to the drivers of the scams...all could be avoided with a properly organised health system for all, and those, like Stern and Hume who fear the masses, could pay out of their own unsubsidised pockets.

TBC, what cannot be denied, is that Australian workers own 1.3
trillion$ worth of assets, or basically Australia's means of
production.

If the democractically elected politicians, voted for by the
workers, don't comply with what most of those workers are
happy with, I suggest that they would not be in office.

In other words, workers/electors get the politicians that
they deserve.

Clearly the rest of Australia's workers are quite content
to know that they own a huge chunk of Australia's banks,
Australia's miners, Woolies, Coles and the rest.

Clearly the majority of Australia's workers don't agree with
you, or it would be an election issue. Its not.

Poirot, to understand derivatives, most of them are
little but insurance contracts. Your house might be
insured for half a million, add up the total value of
houses that your insurer insures for, it is huge.
But they know that not all houses will be destroyed
to have no value. Derivatives are much the same. If
I hedge my wheat crop, which many farmers or traders
do, it might be a currency hedge or a price hedge.
A million tonnes worth of wheat would so be worth
300 million $, but the movement would only be worth
a few % of that. So the 650 trillion is kind of
meaningless, but sounds impressive.

When are you right wing libertarians going to pull your heads out of your fundamental orifices and look around? It isn't Capitalism that's the problem; capitalism has worked well in many areas.
It's post capitalism that you should be worried about.
You have placed all your faith in a system which relies wholly, solely and completely on competition. And it works. Competition is and has been a wonderful motivator.
But what happens when the competition has been settled? What about when the race has been won?
What is the difference between the dreaded world government, and the world corporation?
For several decades, it hasn't been governments (at least, not directly) that have continually forced small farmers off the land; it has been 'free market pressure'. Just follow the trend. Within 50 to 100 years at the current rate, all farm land in Australia will be owned not by the government, but by at most 2 corporations. The concept of the family farm, of handing on to your children land in a better state than when you found it, will be history.
One of the very rare things the Col Rouge of old and I agreed on, was the irresponsibility of the Hawke/Keating government allowing the mergers of Woolworths/Safeway, and Coles/Myers . Will the libertarians now contend that a merger between Woollies and Coles could/would never happen, in the absence of government regulation? Or that such a conglomerate wouldn't go on to buy or force out the IGA franchises?
And if this did occur, and Woolworths did attain a total monopoly, would you still call it capitalism?
The totalitarian world you are so afraid of is happening right under your noses, and you can't or won't see it; because it isn't being done by socialist governments.