Original source: Morning Star (Britain)

Newspapers are now filled with articles on the great economic crisis engulfing world capitalism. Few leave us any the wiser.

Most of them desperately attempt to explain how it all went wrong without questioning its very essence.

Like Gordon Brown, many leading businessmen, bankers and politicians seek refuge in the mantra that it is a 'global phenomenon.'

They argue that they are not to blame and, because it is global, no national government can do anything effective about it. 'It has to be solved globally,' they claim, letting themselves off the hook of at least attempting to solve things locally.

We on the left can gloat from the sidelines and cry: 'We told you so,' but that is no answer either.

What few 'experts,' if any, have tried to do is suggest how we can escape from this recession and avoid similar ones in the future.

It is easy for us on the left to say that it's all capitalism's fault and the only solution is socialism, but that too is an oversimplistic mantra.

Many people will recall the demise of the socialist world in the 20th century and question whether that sort of system could really offer us an answer to today's problems.

One of the chief reasons for the failure of 20th century socialism was that its economies didn't function effectively. In the end, they were unable to produce the goods that people needed.

If we on the left are advocating socialism as the solution to the present crisis, we also have to honestly address that issue and explain what we mean by 'socialism.'

It is clear to most on the left that some form of socialism is the answer, but what sort?

Economies in the socialist countries failed largely because they were too centrally controlled - they were run in a top-down fashion and central planning was extremely inflexible.

From 1917 onwards, state ownership and control was seen as a panacea, but it wasn't. Business creativity was stifled and dissident economic voices marginalized. The mechanisms of the market were ignored.

But the socialist countries generally didn't suffer from economic instability or soaring inflation.

Because their currencies were not convertible on the world financial markets, they were not open to speculation and manipulation.

It also allowed individual governments to plan better, while people knew that the money in their wage packets was not going to lose its value from one week to the next.

Money as a means of speculation or for making big gains through charging high interest rates was an alien concept in the socialist countries. Many people who are being burnt by the present volatility would no doubt be envious of the kind of economic stability that this brought.

It is certain that any new economic blueprint aiming to solve the current crisis has to take into account the acute and pressing environmental and demographic factors, as well as learning from the collapse of socialism and capitalism's inherent instability.

Large financial institutions and essential utilities should undoubtedly be taken into state control.

But they should be run at arm's length by capable professionals, even though ultimately accountable to Parliament and the people. If they were controlled directly by politicians, they would become entangled by unnecessary bureaucracy and interference.

Finance and monetary policy needs to focus on ensuring that money is used for what it was intended - as a means of facilitating the exchange of goods and not as a commodity in itself and as a means of speculation. That is the root cause of the present crisis.

Planning a country's economy is of course essential, but not via the sort of central planning that the Soviet Union used, with its rigid five and 10-year plans. Planning needs to be flexible and, as far as possible, decentralized.

If humanity is to survive and flourish in the coming decades, every country will need to base its economy and needs on a sustainable and environmentally friendly basis.

As many products as possible should be produced and manufactured locally, with surplus production used for export and exchange for products any specific nation cannot produce or manufacture itself. Such policy will ensure full employment and that we live within our means.

There must be robust anti-monopoly regulation and disincentives to super-size corporations.

Co-operatives and locally owned factories and businesses should be actively encouraged and assisted financially by government.

Small individual businesses will always be essential for a healthy economy, but there should be a cap on how large they can become to prevent excessive accumulation of capital and concentration of economic power. Such a policy was pursued by the German Democratic Republic in the early years and it was very successful.

There should also be stringent policies on waste and consuming for its own sake. This would involve the policing of advertising, transforming it into a means of publicizing products but not as a means of stimulating consumption through lies and manipulation of so-called 'needs.'

These ideas are not revolutionary or new, but may provide some stimulation to economists and politicians in the search for a way out of this depression.

If we are to avoid increasing hardship, poverty, social breakdown and a spreading sense of hopelessness, then we have to come up with concrete solutions, not just nebulous ideas.