We have said before that the concepts of "nation" and "national government" are bogus ones; world government is long overdue. The European idea should be allowed to continue to grow until it encompasses the entire globe; it is the only possible way is not it?

Let us in addition point out to-day that the concepts of "family," "parent," and "blood relative" are similarly bogus and out-dated. "Marriage" is generally deleterious; we think all children should instead be raised in superior socialist single-sex institutions, rather like grand boarding-schools, wherein they might be educated in true ethics as well as metaphysics, æsthetics, the arts, history and natural philosophy.

John actually make a very serious (and very good) point.  Ultimately, it is only natural for a person to place the good of him/herself and his/her family above some notional idea of the 'general good' - which, in any case, means different things to different people.

It is for this very reason that Socialism has failed - because it conflicts fundamentally with HUMAN NATURE.

Many socialists do not accept this fundamentally pessimistic view of humanity (without idealising human beings either), and would say that many of the least desirable aspects of what is (ideologically) referred to as 'human nature' (in fact, that term is one of the biggest ideologies there is) - such as greed, aggression, competitiveness, selfishness, materialism, etc. - are the product of particular types of society that demand and thus nurture them. And certain progressive feminists (those who do not subscribe to essentialism/biological determinism/etc) do not accept that traditional characteristics associated with the two genders are innate, fixed and immutable, as well, but arise in a similar manner. I have a lot of sympathy with both such positions. Above all, one of the most crucial reasons for being a socialist is a belief that human beings have much greater potential than they are currently able/allowed to realise.

Exactly.

I'd certainly agree that "human nature" is an ideological construct.  One of the fundamental objections I have to free market economics is that it is based on a set of psychological assumptions about how human beings behave, which are routinely falsified in day to day life (I choose to give blood, not to sell it).  Free market economics, IMO, is basically bad psychology.  

And the problem with the economic system that underpins the comfort that some of us enjoy is not just that is based on these unsupported psychological generalisations, or that it involves the economic and political subjugation of other societies (for example by substituting cash farming for subsistence farming, let alone the wars currently being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil), but that it is unsustainable - it involves the exploitation of finite resources in a way which allows use of those resources to be concentrated in a very few hands, and which allows the destruction of those resources (most of all the Earth's benevolent climate) to go unaccounted.  A society that generates wealth by polluting, and then develops industries to clean up the mess is, in market terms, doing well, but some might consider that it would have been better not to have made the mess in the first place.

And it is now generally regarded that shortages of many of those resources (especially water) is the greatest potential source of conflict in the next decades.  

There is a real dilemma for those of us who live comfortable Western lifestyles, faced with the waste and inefficiency and oppression that are bound up with them.  Awareness has to be the first step, but there has to be political engagement too, and an understanding that we will have to let go of some of the things we hold dear - and that life might be better without them.

I don't know how comfortable our lifestyles are. I am far from advocating a back to nature route and am appalled when some varieties of  Greens appear to be saying "It was ok when only the rich could afford to fly, drive  etc." but the current situation seems to need many people having two jobs while still being £1000s in debt, my grandparents used to worry if they owed £20! If they had paid the rent and looked forward to a reasonable pension they were happy.

I've only read Brave New World Bryn, as far as I remember, anyone recommend anything else?

Thanks - that was quick!