West, you'll have to stay tuned, to the next thrilling installment,
about the future of planet earth!

I'd have thought that somebody would address population at some
point. We've gone from 1.6 billion to 6.6 billion in a hundred years.
Yet the Catholics etc still encourage us to add even more people.
So we add another 80 million a year. Once we hit 9-10 billion,
imagine the pressure on the environment.

Some believe that only humans matter and that we'll keep inventing
new ways to cope with whatever is thrown at us.

Personally I believe that nature will eventually sort it all out.
If its not sustainable, eventually it crashes in one almighty
fast bang. Without biodiversity, we won't have a humanity.

Perhaps the planet will land up spinning with little more then
ants and cockroaches, they are the ultimate survivors. At least
they won't be so foolish as to invent religions :)

tao: There's no point in debating intellectually. You claim that you have looked really deeply into capitalism, yet that I (or anyone else) couldn't possibly know about real Marxism, that any objection raised isn't the real deal. As I originally pointed out, it's like arguing with a religious zealot. I know, I know, all your thoughts, analyses and experiences are infinitely more authentic than any non-Marxist's could ever be. I could have (and have had) this very same conversation with other religious nuts (including hardcore capitalists), only they just replace your terminology with their own.

If you did some sort of meta-analysis, you might step outside yourself and your ideology for a moment, and you'd see the formula for what it is: distort human nature, set up a false dichotomy between good and evil, argue that the world is corrupt/sinful/bad, argue that if only people see the truth they can reach utopia. Simple formula, now insert your own terms.

I don't accept any of your original premises, and you don't accept any of mine. However, those (for one reason or another) are at our psychological cores, so we build them up as unassailable fortresses. I'm cynical about the whole enterprise, but at least I can see them for what they are. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean I have any desire to come down from my fortress, but at least I recognise I'm in one (which is part of the fortress itself -- part of the protection is in claiming a cynical detachment).

You're driven by dog psychology -- bite first so you won't get bitten first. It's basically like people carrying on a blood feud generations after the original event -- all you know is that you have to rabidly defend your position, and you perceive anyone else who might step outside the situation to see how absurd it is (even for just a moment) as showing weakness.

If it's that important for you to win, fine. I suspected I was a fool for ever engaging you on this topic. Now I've confirmed it! I'm unsubscribing.

tao - if shorbe's wrong, then you'd be able to tell me a practical method of implementing socialism in modern Australia.

I've asked repeatedly, but you've ignored the request. Therefore, I can only conclude, he is right as you are totally unable to give me practical examples. Instead, all I hear is theory.

Earlier, I argued that socialism exists on more of a sliding scale, rather than the two extremities espoused by free marketeers and socialists. I also believe that the answer lies somewhere in this middle ground, and I suggested ways of operating within a capitalist framework to deliver better outcomes than a total free market ideology.

They were simply 'tweaks' if you will - though you argue that the entire system needs an overhaul.

Fine. If that's what you believe. But how tao? how? Tell me how you would do this in the modern world? How is this to be done? To be honest, I'm getting sick of all these abstract concepts. It's all well and good to be right (and I'm not saying you are, but on many scores you're right in assessing the flaws of capitalism) but if you can't do anything about it, it's utterly and completely useless.

“I argued that socialism exists on more of a sliding scale, rather than the two extremes espoused by free marketeers and socialists”

Absolutely TRTL.

The key to proper governance in Australia is to get this more socialistic brand of capitalism, or democracy, implemented.

Indeed, this would be improving democracy, or implementing real democracy in place of our currently highly dodgy pseudodemocracy.

Is it not the FUNDAMENTAL purpose of a democratic government to control the market ideology and make it work for the good of the whole community, now and forever more?

A more socialistic democracy would simply be more democratic democracy!

So now that we have presumably got past the exhaustive discussion of Marxist theory, CAN WE CONCENTRATE ON WHAT REALLY MATTERS: how we get the right brand of social democracy implemented before it is too late, rather than the current slow conversion to it as a result of our damaged resource base and ever-increasing demand base.

Well Ludwig, if it's looking at effective democracy, we are struck by the problem that has been with democracies since they were first created - the sliding scale of accountability and red tape.

Every government is open to abuse - in theory we have checks and balances at a certain point, to prevent a government acting in its own interests rather than that of the people. But of course, it isn't this simple.

The question becomes, how much action do we want our government to be able to take?
I've always wanted to see preferential voting removed, and far more independents operating as an ameliorating influence - the thing is, if you hamper governments in making decisions, theoretically, it would be much tougher for them to push through significant change.

Hampering the movements of government can be through greater influence wielded by the opposition or third parties, or more laws restricting what the powers that be can or can't do.

Here's the rub - say we get a government that is honestly dedicated to sustainability - something you're evidently in favour of, and something I wouldn't mind seeing either. Heck, to placate me as well, lets say they're willing to consider protectionist trade policies where appropriate.

In theory, we have a government we both like the look of - but do we then give them more leeway to do what we both feel needs to be done? If a government is going to be serious about significant environmental change, they will come up against strong business interests which will be represented amongst all tiers of politics. Is the answer to hand government more power?

It's a tough one - I certainly can't answer it, though I dare say increasing transparency would be a positive step that wouldn't necessarily hamper due process, if due process is indeed followed - the problem here, is what we require of this process.

TurnRightTurnLeft,

“if-you-can't-do-anything-about-it,-it's-utterly-and-completely-useless”

Are you suggesting that I, or anyone, must single-handedly do something? Are you suggesting that capitalism can do something which is not “utterly and completely useless” when it is the cause of most of our problems?

Socialism is not about demagogic leaders, it is about ordinary people becoming involved in political life, coming to understand the capitalist system, recognising what needs to be done, and doing it.

Over many decades there have been many impediments to ordinary people recognising the truth about capitalism and capitalist “democracy”, however the irrationalities and contradictions are now becoming so obvious that they cannot be ignored. More and more people are waking up to the fact that there is something terribly wrong with our “democracies”.

As an example, last November millions of people turned out to the US midterm elections to vote against the war in Iraq. Many voted for the Democrats in the belief that doing so might bring an end to the war. Yet the Democrats won’t end the war. Sure they posture as if they disagree, but in reality they work for the same capitalist establishment as the Republicans. The decay of US capitalism means that it actually can’t get out of Iraq, because the reasons it went in there still exist – that is control of oil, and importantly, keeping its competitors out. The objective logic of capitalism means that the US must offset its declining economic position by resorting to militarism, taking over other countries and using their resources – like Hitler did.

Regardless of their non binding resolutions, the Democrats, because they are a capitalist-party working in the interests of US-capitalism, keep voting to fund the war, and at some point in the not-too-distant future, Americans who want out of the war are going to come into conflict with the Democratic-Party. In order to maintain US-capitalism’s interest in the Middle-East, the Democrats are going to have to ignore the wishes of the American people.