Talk politics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/flourishing-enterprises-wellbeing-profits

Ok, so the Guardian is a left wing UK newspaper, but the make the claim that sustainability, and not economic growth is what we need. In many ways, I would expect them to say this sort of thing - but can their claims be dismissed just be saying 'Oh, them? Don't listen.'?

Surely if their arguments are flawed, then their critics can maybe show us how, why and where they are flawed.

It may annoy me that many on the left are just ideologists who insist on pointing to the text book and not the real world, but I have to say that there are just too many people on the right who just won't face up to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, or challenges their world view.

We are not discussing the causes of Climate change here, we are saying that the planet won't sustain the same levels of economic growth indefinitely - how many times can you double production before you max out on the available resources, which in many cases are finite?

The right wingers in here need to come up with a better answer that 'It's gotta be wrong because its coming from Wikipedia/the Liberal Press/ a source not vetted by Fox News.
And yes, this emphasis on well being , and not profit, is what 'Utopian Socialism', as criticised by Marx, is all about. 'Utopian', or 'non Marxist Socialism', pre-dates Marxism and is likely to outlive it - ok, that last bit was opinion , but nobody has been able to cite anything to show that the first bit is unsupported by history.

In fact, Marxists themselves acknowledge their debt to earlier forms of Socialism.

So, Socialism has come full circle, it seems as the Marxist concept of Total State Ownership has been largely been abandoned, whereas the pre Marxist workers Co operative is still with us and thriving in Britain and continental Europe.

The workers Co - operative, where workers actually own the premises that produce, distribute and exchange goods and services, does qualify as being 'Socialist', but does the State have to own it for them? I would argue not. The State can take up ownership of Social services, it may become a stake holder in banking and and other industries, but if it runs a mixed economy that advocates far and supports co ops, provides Universal health cover, either by legislation or directly, and runs the economy for well being and not for for private profit, then we can arguable call it a Democratic Socialist government, rather than a social democracy.

After all, if 'Socialism' = workers owning the means of production, distribution and exchange, then John Lewis is a Socialist enterprise in the UK, and the Mondragon Corporation is a Socialist enterprise in Europe. and both these places returned healthy profits and are riding out the current recession well.

Socialism, in the form of Direct Workers ownership, supported by a government that legislates and manages on behalf of it's workforce, can therefore also work. Work far better than State Owned Socialism or State Run laissez faire Capitalism, in fact.

If the sources are misquoted, if the figures don't add up, if certain other facts and factors are being left out of the equation - they I say , they have to show us, and not dismiss this with the usual display of right wing, populist hand waving.



Here is the case - what is your answer?