Got to ask Col Rouge why he doesn't go to The United States - the land of the free or back to Margaret Thatcher's britain. Oops dear margaret, a chemist buggered the economy.

Tristan

Part of an article from Socialist Alternative June 2005.

[Bernstein] made two main arguments...

The first was that capitalism had developed the means by which it could overcome or mitigate the inherent conflict between workers and bosses, in the form of legal trade union activity and campaigns for parliamentary reforms. Hence, society could "evolve" towards socialism without the need for revolution.

His second argument was that capitalism, through the use of credit and the creation of cartels and trusts, was able to offset the tendency towards crisis that Marx had identified.

Luxemburg ridiculed the idea that capitalism could be reformed out of existence, likening the prospect to "chang[ing] the sea of capitalist bitterness into a sea of socialist sweetness by progressively pouring into it bottles of social-reformist lemonade".

As Luxemburg put it, "whoever opts for the path of legal reform, in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power, actually chooses not a calmer and slower road to the same aim, but a different aim altogether".

The main aim of trade unions, Luxemburg argued, was to "regulate capitalist exploitation within the market relations", by improving workers' wages and conditions, but not to overthrow the system of wage labour altogether. So a struggle limited by the unions would only result in a society characterised by more equitable distribution of wealth between workers and bosses. Revolution opens the prospect of a society without class divisions of any sort.

The state. As Engels outlined in 1898, the state is a product of irreconcilable class divisions, the means by which "the most powerful, economically dominant class" goes about "holding down and exploiting the oppressed class". As such, its main function is to maintain capitalist order, not challenge it.

And if reformers go too far against the interests of capital, Luxemburg was also clear about the consequences. She described how "as soon as democracy shows the tendency to negate its class character and become transformed into an instrument of the people, the democratic forms are sacrificed by the bourgeoisie and its state representatives."

Chile September 11 1973 comes to mind.

In September 1973 Pinochet overthrew the elected government of Allende and immediately rounded up all public servants, executing one third, exiling one third. Pinochet installed Milton Friedman's Chicago school acolytes who ran a text book free market economy that bought Chile to its knees and universally spread hardship through all sections of society except the military junta. It was a grim and grey state in 1978 with curfews from sunset to 8am.

Now I know some people claim that the military junta only killed 3000 odd people. That's laughable, ask the current President of Chile whether those figures are creditable.

What was your point about Chile exactly?

Billie

I was trying to say Allende was a socialist who saw parliament as the road to socialism. The paragraph before, with Luxemburg predicting the ferocious response of the ruling class to such a process, indicated the futility of a peaceful parliamentary road to socialism. The ruling class will junk democracy if their profit system is threatened. Chile proves the point, and to be frank the inadequacy of social democrats like Allende to even understand that, let alone prepare, organize and mobilise for the counter revolution indicated that illusions in a peaceful parliamentary road are personally and politically deadly.

I think the same may well play out in Venezuela too.

Billie “go to The United States …. back to Margaret Thatcher's Britain. …. a chemist buggered the economy.”

Did live in USA for a couple of years, married a Texan but it did not work out. USA is OK.

They do have a different take on politics, not that I understand the difference between a democrat and a republican, they are both like the UK conservatives, which gives the USA a significant advantage in terms of stability of political policy and direction.

If I was so enamored with the idea of living in UK I would have stayed there, I was making great headway in my life there but had this hankering to be out of the rain.

I moved to Australia to improve the things which affected my life which were not part of me or within my range of exercisable choices, like the weather. I also considered it a better place for my children and grandchildren to develop and grow.

I have, as many do, regrets for not being able to run down to London or over to Europe for a weekend but as we all know, every decision we make comes at a price.

As for Margaret Thatcher’s political leadership. I recall at the time she was elected to her prime ministership, the socialist’s manifesto was considered more left wing than the Italian communist party, with the nationalization of the insurance and finance sector and political commissars in all newspaper and broadcasting offices.

“ buggering the economy”. She pulled the UK back from the brink of take over by the world bank, due to the bungling incompetence of previous socialist puppets who kow-towed to their union masters.

She sorted out the South American despot in the Falkland islands.

Margaret Thatcher negotiated with the EU and produced a legacy which Tony Blair failed to acknowledge as he received the financial benefits, during his term, of work done by a real stateswoman (rather than the limp wristed populist panderer, which Blair was and Brown is an even weaker representation of)

You asked, billie, you have now been told.

I basically agree with Tristan's definition of socialism. Furthermore, I too see no reason why it should be incompatible with capitalism. Socialist or social-democratic (call it what you like) policies are necessary to curb some of capitalism's natural tendancies. Capitalism is a very successfull system. However, it is also an unfair and exploitative system unless offset by such policies and by counterbalancing influences such as trade unions.

"USA is ok". Not for many, many millions at the bottom end Col. The USA is a first-rate example of a country that has largely abandoned social safety nets, leading to a level of poverty and hardship that are not apparent to anywhere near the same degree here (or over the border in Canada). Once again, it must be pointed out that dismantling social safety nets has not prevented the U.S from sliding towards recession.