Dear Antiseptic,

Who are the three who see socialism as a necessity? I see socialism and capitalism as economic systems which are neither good nor bad in themselves. Capitalism is good in Scandinavia and other places and oppressive in other places. Unfortunately the bigot's type of socialism predominates, but that does not mean socialism in itself must be bad.

Actually, I favour private ownership of the means of production where there is a market and competition. Where there is no competition or the consumer is locked in I favour either public ownership or benchmarks. Franklin Roosevelt set up a benchmark in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA provided power to an area in the US which had not been electrified. However, it was also a benchmark in that it set standards for service and prices for other similar utilities whether publicly or privately owned.

Antiseptic:
<you 3 seem to have a view of socialism as a necessity and capitalism as something that is dispensable>

I, shall get back to you later, but just briefly, I see nothing of the kind and have no dogmatic view of how things "should" be at all! I'm only critical of how things "are", and that they needn't be.

David,
you say "Capitalism is good in Scandinavia".
Capitalism in Scandinavia is not limited to or the product only of Scandinavia. Scandinavian capitalism has its greedy roots intermingled with others around the globe, where they also have detrimental effects. Part of the problem is seeing capitalism as national phenomena. It's not.
Nor is capitalism uniformly good in Scandinavia. You can surely see how facile such up-beat nationalistic capitalism is?
Marx saw the big picture!

Antiseptic,

Thanks for joining the fray.

I suppose my interest is more of a social-anthropological one. We've only been following the industrial paradigm for a few hundred years. I'm curious about the ways it has changed human behaviour, expectations and interaction. After all, the peasant who possessed a spinning wheel owned the means of production....and most people produced their own things. Industrialisation has robbed the common man of skills and a belief in his own resourcefulness.

Peter and David are only interested in one aspect of Marx - and remain ready with a deluge of name-calling if you put your head up and say that you take any motivation from Marx's philosophies regarding human nature and motivation.

(David - 5 references to "bigots" in one paragraph - congratulations!)

Dear Squeers,

Of course you are right. Capitalism is not uniformly good in Scandinavia and has its effects outside of Scandinavia. To expect any system to be uniformly good and have no deleterious effects outside of the nation is unreasonable utopianism. The Marxist tyrannies were good for the nomenklatura and those who were close to them but were not good for most others. I am not looking for a utopia. I think we can hope for societies which allow most people to fulfill their potential, where there is not great disparity between rich and poor, where almost all people have the necessities of life, where there is free expression, an independent judiciary and freedom to leave and come back to your country. The last three were absent in the societies inspired by the bigot.

As I have pointed out before few people fled the capitalist countries to go to the Marxist countries. It is still true. People are not queueing up to get into Cuba, China or Vietnam. Russia has still not recovered from 70 years of Marxism. The Soviet could have remained Marxist if the people had wanted it. The masses in this case are wiser than the intellectuals who are looking for a second coming which will somehow be better than the first. Next time the followers of the great bigot take over there will be no concentration camps, a good life for all, no secret police and a democratic society. Wanna bet?

I attended courses at the University of Queensland while the USSR was still operating. In our library were the works of Marx, Lenin and other Marxist theorists. A visiting student from the University of Moscow remarked on how well worn those works were. They were in mint condition in the U of Moscow library. One of my uncle was a Bolshevik who was arrested by the czarist police. IN 1921 he got out no longer a Bolshevik and lived a much better life in the US.

As Keating said the soufflee doesn't rise twice. Under the USSR it didn't rise once.

*if you put your head up and say that you take any motivation from Marx's philosophies regarding human nature and motivation*

Well to me that is really the crux of this debate and exactly what
Marx got so wrong.
Squeers and Poirot, being altruistic types, think that Marx was
correct and that human nature will change without that evil capitalism
and if people are reeducated in the correct manner.

Instead, people in general continue to be driven by enlightened
self interest. When the State owns the means of production, there
is really no good reason or reward for effort, so people become
complacent and lazy. In the end the means of production collapses.

We see that in our own public service. Without competition, they
really don't have to be too careful about spending our money, unlike
if it was their own. We see that in businesses where corporations
have a monopoly, they feather their own nests, much like public
servants.

Rather then Marx, Poirot and Squeers should be reading a bit about
evolutionary psychology, for Marx's understanding of human nature
is clearly outdated.

david..your uncles story
would be an interersting study

did he 'manage'
to take anything of his 'wealth'
with him

i seem to recall that jews
were allowed to leave the nastie natzies
only by leaving all their 'stuff'.. behind

but that some cleverly sold their cooking pots[so to speak]
for diamonds/stamps..or other valued securities..held in swiss banks and such

ie capitaism..is easier if your able to capitalise

i note that in the collapse of the commies..the 'people'
were allocated shares...[that ignorants sold off immediatly

that the new oligarchy...swapped for a tv comes to mind]..
so much so that one huge oligarc
owned the then..depleted
petrolium industry
nearly overnight

by being a 'clever capitalist oppertuinist'
with holdings hiden in a corperate mask

limited lie-ability of course

anyhow it would help if you have assets

anti said...""unless you can come up with some entirely new formulation of the relationships between people.""

how about this one mate
govt cant own anything..but what it holds by trust

on behalf of
all the people..

[ie cant sell off the nbn..nor telstra..
nor water/roads/power..or even water

yes people..can adminerster them
but only we..the people hold ownership

and we..*all share..in the dividends..
and price is based simply on cost recovery

big users pay the most
small users get the best price
use more pay more

'"I can't see how it is possible
to sustain a large welfare state
in the absence of a capitalist economic base.""

thats too easy
govt generates..'money'..by servicing..the peoples needs

it pays out to repair..restore...
and ensure the survival of the least
[equally as it supports the most]

we as far as govt is concerned..are all equal
we all deal exclusivly in coin..or credit..with local currency

issued specificly to local
councils to expend locally

that local banks can collect and lend locally
but that can be nationalised..then traded by capitalists..[as credit]

that is taxed by transaction and according to
the mass of it..'on the move'..

if it leaves..the state..
or council or cuntry
it has a different...

'transaction tax/rate'

kiss

keep it
simpleton'esque..ly..simpl