Col,

“At-the-time-it-was-made-it-was-secret.-After-its-occurance-it-became-common-knowledge

“By-aiding-his-return-to-Russia,-the-Germans-hoped-(correctly)-to-disrupt-the-Russian-war-effort.-.-.-.-.-Lenin-fulfilled-his-promise-of-peace-by-accepting-the-humiliating-treaty-of-Brest-Litovsk-(Mar.,-1918).””

Oh, so you mean the “secret” treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where they negotiated an end to hostilities with Germany. You mean the peace talks at Brest Litovsk that the allies refused to join after which, Trotsky appealed to the workers of Europe and the rest of the world over the heads of their governments. He wrote, “We conceal from nobody that we do not consider the present capitalist governments capable of a democratic peace. Only the revolutionary struggle of the working masses against their governments can bring Europe near to such a peace. Its full realization will be assured only by a victorious proletarian revolution in all capitalist countries.”

Secret indeed.

Trotsky insisted that he would publish the goings on at the peace talks, and wrote that the Soviet government had a dual task, “in the first place to secure the quickest possible cessation of the shameful and criminal slaughter which is destroying Europe, secondly, to help the working class of all countries by every means available to us to overthrow the domination of capital and to seize state power in the interests of democratic peace and of a socialist transformation of Europe and of all mankind.”

So, according to you, Lenin and the Bosheviks were shifty because they, on behalf of a weakened and exhausted Russian, and indeed European, population, negotiated an end to the slaughter of the capitalist war. Criminals!!

Or, did you mean the politically motivated and unfounded rumours that Lenin was in the service of the Germans, circulated by his opponents within Russia, which those truthful and honest capitalists attempted to bolster with some forgery:

“In 1918—that is, after the October Revolution-a press bureau of the American government triumphantly published a collection of documents connecting the Bolsheviks with the Germans. This crude forgery, which would not stand up under a breath of criticism, was believed in by many educated and perspicacious people, until it was discovered that the originals of the documents supposed to have been drawn up in different countries were all written on the same machine.” http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/ch27.htm

...cont...

A bit similar to the forgeries from Africa regarding yellowcake and the “sexed up” dossier don’t you think?

Or do you simply mean the agreement for safe passage across Germany in return for the release of some German prisoners of the Czar, which was the only way he could get there and, I might add, was assiduously documented by Lenin.

That the Germans hoped Lenin would disrupt the Russian war effort, does not in any way prove that he agreed to do so for the benefit of the Germans. Any continuation of this slander is mere speculation and innuendo, another of your stocks in trade. Lenin had his own reasons for ending the war such as putting an end to its barbarism.

“She-(Margaret-Thatcher-)-was-“deeply-saddened”-by-the-death-of-Pinochet”

Margaret-Thatcher-is-entitled-to-her-view,-maybe-she-knows-more-than-you-or-me-about-the-alternatives-to-Pinochet-at-the-time,-I-am-not-sure”

Here we have the ultimate delusion, and apology for your hero.

So, at the time, do you think she thought there was an alternative worse than a military coup which ousted an ELECTED government? At the time, do you think she thought there was an alternative worse than a military dictatorship? At the time, do you think she thought there was an alternative worse than thousands being “disappeared”.

How about in 2000, when she CAMPAIGNED FOR HIS RELEASE? In 2000, when she called him “GREAT FRIEND OF BRITAIN”. So a MILITARY DICTATOR who OVERTHREW AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT and DISAPPEARD THOUSANDS is a “GREAT FRIEND OF BRITAIN”.

With friends like that, who needs enemies? Certainly not the Chilean or British working class.

Oh, the spineless squirming contortions you put yourself through to save your hero – “I am not sure” he says. What are you not sure of? Could it be that you just wish to avoid admitting that dearest Maggie considers military dictators her great friends

Tao the “secret” was Lenins return to Russia, not the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

The rest of your rant, based on your inability to read and interpret English, is a complete waste, which I will ignore.

Anyone who has a mind to defend a raging loon like Trotsky, is suffering serious personality issues.

As for
“Oh, the spineless squirming contortions you put yourself through to save your hero – “I am not sure” he says. What are you not sure of? Could it be that you just wish to avoid admitting that dearest Maggie considers military dictators her great friends”

Nothing spineless about it. I note we have a thread here which attempts to cast a different light on Chilean history. Davfid Flints article “Pinochet's coup d'état” is a thread which, to date, I have not bothered with, simply because I find the South American continent a compost heap of degenerate politics, the legacy of Spanish and Portuguese colonial history.

Briefly reading David Flints article he recalls Allende was about to expropriate and nationalize wholesale areas of the Chilean economy, with support and weapons from. Recalling the East-West politics of 1970’s, anyone who formed a bulwark against communist hegemony was a friend. A common enemy makes for strange bedfellows.

That South America could have been colonized by the British, it would have had a better chance of developing responsible government and public institutions than what has occurred, far fewer revolutions for sure, just compare the past 200 years of South American history to Australia to understand what I mean.

Before going too deeply into the excesses of Pinochet, let us not forget the excesses of every government of the style which you espouse here and check how many dissenters have died or disappeared in the prisons of the Gulags, KGB and Stasi etc.

So wail and squawk all you wish. Margaret Thatcher had a better functioning set of gonads than you and she was not afraid to use them.

You might consider your own politics as the stuff of revolutions but I simply consider them and you “revolting”.

Dear Celeste,

I have read your article with great interest and find that you make some vary valid points.

I work in the Car component Industry and we are deeply committed to Lean Manufacturing and to having a go, yet over the last 2 years we have had to lay of 150 of our 500 employees due to the facts that.

1. Seven out of ten cars on our roads are imported.

2. Our cars manufacturers are making big cars and due to the petrol prices small cars are more desirable.

3. The majority of our own management drive a company car without Australian car parts in them, point being that we should lead by example.

As our Economy is doing so well by selling our natural recourses to China and the likes, let’s rake some of these profits back into our own manufacturing industry, let’s face it we can't all close shop and go and live in Western Australia.

Thanks ones again for your observations.

Excuses to Mister Rouge for any mistakes, as I also am one of the unwashed and smelly.

Abel Tasman, being "deeply committed to Lean Manufacturing and to having a go" is not the same as delivering products at a competitive price. If you are uncompetitive in the market, there are few choices.

The government might decide to prop you up in some way, using taxpayers' money to keep your colleagues in employment, but extracting the cost of doing so from my pocket. Ultimately, this makes you even less competitive, as i) the subsidy will not last for ever and ii) you have no chance to improve productivity, since you are stuck with too many, too expensive people.

The car manufacturers might decide to prop you up by buying at uncompetitive prices, and to pass on the cost to their buying public via higher prices. This suffers the same problems; they can't do this forever, or they will go out of business too, and again there is no incentive for you to improve productivity.

Otherwise, the only possibility is to lower the cost of production by increasing investment in capital equipment and reducing the number of employees.

To suggest that we divert profits from successful Australian companies to unprofitable ones - “let’s rake some of these profits [from natural resources] back into our own manufacturing industry” is a recipe for disaster. Both will ultimately go broke, and we will be no better off.

Furthermore

"Seven out of ten cars on our roads are imported"

Perhaps because they meet the needs of car buyers for quality and cost.

"Our cars manufacturers are making big cars..."

Perhaps we are even less competitive making smaller (cheaper) vehicles.

"The majority of our own management drive a company car without Australian car parts in them"

I suspect the accountants might insist on this, for their lower total cost of operation.

When faced with economic realities, you can hide your head in the sand, whinge that it is unfair, give up in despair, or you can do something different. I have worked in ten different businesses during my working life, have been sacked once and made redundant three times. Change is good, not bad.

“The rest of your rant, based on your inability to read and interpret English, is a complete waste, which I will ignore.”

Again, as could be expected from you, you bury your head in the sand. That way you don’t have to contemplate anything that might challenge those childish beliefs you cling to.

“simply because I find the South American continent a compost heap of degenerate politics”

So, not only does Maggs have military dictators as friends, she trawls the compost heap of degenerate politics for them.

Mmmmm…… I’m trying to recall some saying. Something about judging the calibre of a person by the company they keep.... Dearest Margaret, the degenerate politician of the compost heap.