tao: To address your point about workers owning the means of production, I would say the following.

In capitalist theory, individuals trade, which is a convenience. Without specialisation, this is unnecessary, as people are self-sufficient. However, people soon realised that specialisation was more efficient. You grow grain and I raise a pig, and then we haggle and trade. Some people chose (and choose) to work for others. Owning the means of production (ie. a business) means taking on extra responsibility and risk. Many people (including myself) aren't willing to do that, so we work for others. The market balances risk and return. To give an example, if I were a farmer say, eight thousand years ago, I might have thought, "I wonder if it would make more sense to catch that animal and pen it, than go off and hunt it every time?" Of course, that would require me to set aside a percentage of my grain crop (and thus, temporarily reduce my own standard of living) in what might turn out to be a risky venture. However, there's the incentive of (greater) future returns. If everyone ate all of their grain, yet still got to come and have some of my animal later, then I'd be losing out, and hence, there'd be absolutely no incentive for technological innovation or forward planning (eg. the domestication of animals).

Now I know you want to characterise capitalism as a particular thing, but if you really read most capitalist theorists, you'll see that whilst many don't inherently oppose companies getting too big, what they do oppose is them having political influence via the enforced state (which they see as a violent and oppressive body). Most are actually in favour of small communities of individuals, which is how they try to run their lives. That's why they sometimes call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" and why they subscribe to principles such as the "non-aggression principle".

Of course, the reality is that we don't have free market capitalism (and probably never will), we have something quite different, but that's also your defence of socialism. Theory or practice?

“What is a ‘better brand of democracy’?”

Tao it is one in which governments actually do their job: look after the bests interests of the community. In Australia this would mean decisions being made in an impartial manner, instead of being biased by what big business wants, what can be done by government in the short term at the expense of the longer term and what can be thrown at problems before elections. It would mean the abandonment of political donations which by their very nature incur favours, the abandonment of the disgusting compulsory preferential voting system, and various other changes to fair-up the whole deal.

“How can ‘capitalism be kept under control’?”

With proper and fair governance. But this would require the above reforms, and most importantly it would need the mindset of the community to be behind a regime of better democracy, better social policy and sustainability.

“Why do governments feel ‘profit at all-costs pressures’ from big business and economic growthists?”

Because big business makes big profits and can give big donations and big taxes. Because the sort of people who succeed in business are the sort of people who aggressively lobby decision-makers for what they want. Because most politicians come from the same sort of money- and success-chasing background. Because big business holds great sway in the over media and power over voter opinion. Etc.

continued

“How will ‘profit-motive take on a longer term vision’?”

When it becomes apparent to businesses that their future is in jeopardy due to looming massive changes in society, they will be likely to take on a longer term perspective to ensure their survival. Many will at least, while others will just maximise what they can get in the short term and then cut and run. As community perception of the urgency to reach sustainability increases, the view of short-term profit-taking at the expense of our future will darken, and pressure will be brought to bear on companies to take a longer term view.

“If the political significance of social-imperatives… retain their “profit at all-costs” mechanisms?”

They wouldn’t allow the profit-at-all-costs mentality to remain. It would become a profit-in-balance-with-social-imperatives mentality.

“And why should we limit our own thinking to that level?”

We wouldn’t be. By thinking with the necessary collective significance about the imperatives of sustainability as opposed to continuous expansionism or of quality of life instead of economic growth, we would be thinking on a very different level to what we currently are

Tao, we all benefit from each others labour, as part of normal
relations with others. When your mom cleaned your room, or
cooked for you, you benefitted. If your partner fixes your car,
you benefit. If you sleep with him, even if you don't really
feel like it, he benefits from your labour :)

The big issue is this: We all need to make a living in this
world, one way or another. To me labour is simply another
commodity, that some indivduals decide to sell. In our dealings
with one another, we have to decide what things are worth.
If I for instance invent something, or build a house in my
spare time, it has a value. Who decides that value?

The only solution is a marketplace. Tao has this set little
mindframe about what capitalism is meant to be. To me its
a marketplace where values are decided, rather then have
them imposed by Govts.

At the end of the day, the best person to decide what they
would like to purchase, is the consumer. The best person to
decide how they should earn an income, is the worker. Some
workers don't want a boss, cool, they become self employed.

Yes workers can run things for themselves, that is what they
should do. They are free to form companies, free to produce
products or services. Any group of workers can form a cooperative
and do their own thing, under our system. Main thing is they
focus on consumers and produce what they want.

What has shown to be a disaster, is rather then market economies,
we have state planned economies. Its been a dismal failure time
and time again, wherever it was tried, for a myriad of reasons.

Rob, Cuba is a typical example of a failed state economy.
The US boycott simply provided an excuse for Fidel, for his
huge failure. I remind you that many countries have thrived,
even with UN boycotts. The US is but one country. If they
boycotted Australia, we sould simply trade with Japan or
China!

Ludwig, you want to stop and think about what "big business"
actually is. Yup, you have the odd billionaire around the place,
but if you look at the big picture, they are few and far between.
If you look at say the ASX 300, most so called "big business"
is in fact run by employed CEOs, or chief workers. Most
of these guys worked their way up the chain, they are paid
for their labour.

Who drives them for ever more profits? Mostly its managers
of superannuation funds, who call the shots these days.
Look at the share registry of most big companies, super funds
dominate. That one trillion $ of super fund money is not just
a figment of imagination, its real and its invested in big
business, on behalf of Australian workers.

Why do CEOs keep driving for more profits? Quite simple,
if they don't perform, its soon made clear to them by
super fund managers that they should resign or be fired.

Why do super fund managers keep pushing for higher profits?
Quite simple, they want to show how good they are at investing
workers money, so want to show as high a return as possible.
If they do well, compared to their peers, then can then
claim pay rises for being so clever. Self interest drives
the system, all the way down the line. That just seems to
be part of human nature, to ignore it would be foolish.

Regarding the future, there is an interesting test in
psychology, called the marshmallow test, performed on
5 year olds. It seems people stay the same through most
of their lives, as they acted when 5 years old. Some will
live for today, some think ahead. Changing human behviour
is a huge ask. IMHO people will only learn through pain alot
of the time.
Sad but true, in so many cases.

I've just had a heap of work dumped in my lap so I am unable to continue with this thread so will unsubscibe, and I feel the subject has strayed a bit far from the original anyway. Cheers.