“Actually capitalism treats those who sell their labour power as mediocrities by denying them the rightful return for the value they create.”

Wrong, capitalism pays for work supplied and then the processes of marketing and distribution, provision of funding capital etc each have to be paid for too.

The billions you suggest who live on little are infinitely better off than the millions who the “goal of socialism” (communism) starved to death under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot Mugabe and every other socialist inspired despot.

And even when not being starved, people in the socialist states were denied access to the same food supplies which the capitalism encouraged to be available through the market system.

Just ask an ex national from behind the iron curtain. Some were brought to tears just to see plenty of grocery shelves with a variety of food stuffs available for sale and no queues or fights to buy them.

“Certainly the 30,000 babies who die each day from preventable causes don't even get the chance to disagree.”

And how many of those live where democracy thrives or are they under some yoke of despotism?
Starving under a socialist despotic system is no different to starving under a fascist one but starving under a democratic free market economy is far rarer.

“This was the beginning of real democracy and opened up the possibility of democratising production, something capitalism cannot do.”

“Real Democracy” places the wishes of the individual first.

Socialism corrupts that process by imposing the levellers obsession upon all and forcing some to be less than they might otherwise become.

That is the ultimate tragic, the waste of human potential, to deny those who can aspire to more to forego that potential for the sake of socialist and communist “equalness”.

Now Passy, like to have another try?

I like to eat at better restaurants than the “everyone-equal socialist swill hall”.

It is called competing for consumer choice (giving people what they want instead of telling them what they are allowed). Try it, you might find you like it.

Col Rouge, if socialism is such a dead loss, why do you think Henry Kissinger wrote the following words to President Nixon in 1970:

"The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on -- and even precedent value for -- other parts of the world, especially in Italy; the imitative spread of similar phenomena elsewhere would in turn significantly affect the world balance and our own position in it" ?

- quoted on page 481 of "The Shock Doctrine"(2007) by Naomi Klein.

Daggett “why do you think Henry Kissinger wrote”

Not sure Daggett, you will have to ask Kissinger.

Maybe because he recognized how “attractive” the lies of communism appeal, at an emotional level, to the lazy and indolent, like those who prefer a siesta to dealing with the issues of their lives.
Regarding the Italians, well they are an example of a people indoctrinated by the powerful authority, hence the number of general elections since WWII and the dark and infernal influence of both the Mafia and the Church of Rome.
The power of an authoritarian government telling them what to do in the secular world is no different to the role played by the Church of Rome, in the spiritual world.

That is the same Kissinger who produced the policy of detent with China.

The same Kissinger who was awarded the nobel prize in 1973.

You may criticize Kissinger, in the west we are respected as individuals sufficiently to do that.

Conversely, the same rules do not apply under the leftie system.
The lefties just starve the critics to death and cover up their corpses.

That is just one of the things which makes the western system superior to that of the murderous leftie swill.

Are there any other differences you want me to compare, like quality of life, freedom of religion, ability to feed the population?

How about this – freedom of speech
You and I can freely debate different political views here in Australia on the internet, living under the western capitalist-democratic system whereas, in China, a left wing communist country (regardless of the veneer of market capitalism) we would not be allowed by decree of the state, under penalty of imprisonment.

The same evil governmental control of individual thoughts applied to people in USSR under every leftie despot since and including Lenin. Remember the gulags and the psychiatric prison wards?

firstly - Passy...

The contradictions witin the state run deeper than the parliament. Remember - the 1917 Russian Revolution would never have succeeded were it not for deep divisions within the Russian armed forces... And in the 1919 German revolution, many of the Berlin police - as far as I can recall - joined with the revolutionaries.

But re: the Paris Commune - when the class struggle escalates to this point - the consequence is often disaster... The Paris Commune, in particular, was isolated - and the civil war which followed involved atrocities - of terror, starvation, retribution by Thiers upon the Communards...

Better to have a process of change - stemming from civil disobedience and/or 'winning the battle of democracy' as Marx put it... And long counter-hegemonic cultural, economic and political struggle... After all - 'revolution' is not a strategy - it is the process of change itself...

And the lines between reform and revolution can be blurred - with 'revolutionary reforms' arising from the struggle in all its complexity... But if this struggle can produce channels for change - which do not involve brutalisation or Terror - then surely this is the preferred road... Take, for instance, the 'Third Road' to socialism envisaged by Italian communist Togliatti - who drew upon the theoretical framework of Antonio Gramsci... There is a rich vein of Marxist thought which supposes alternative roads to change that that often referred to as 'Jacobinism'...

nb: I'll try and get around to reading Mick's paper later this week.

And Col - democracy is not the be confused with liberalism - although the two go well together... Demcracy is 'rule by the people' - but where this takes the form a majority rule - then it may also involve limits upon the liberties of some individuals... Best, I think, to have a blend of social, liberal and democratic rights - 'liberal social democracy' perhaps...Democracy is necessary for social peace - but so are liberal and social rights... The key is striking the right compromise...

Col Rouge, of course I had realised that only Kissinger himself would have been able to definitively answer my question, but I had hoped that his observations would stimulate you to reflect upon the over-the-top diatribes that you regularly post to these forums.

It seems to me that Kissinger not only feared that Chile would become socialist, but that it would succeed to such an extent that people in other countries, including Italy, would want to emulate the feared Chilean example. Also, it seems that Kissinger did not share your confidence that any country adopting socialism would automatically be transformed into a dreary regimented police state.

Col Rouge wrote: "Maybe because he recognized how 'attractive' the lies of communism appeal, at an emotional level, to the lazy and indolent, like those who prefer a siesta ..."

"Regarding the Italians, well they are an example of a people indoctrinated by the powerful authority, ..."

So, what you seem to be saying is that Chileans, Argentinians, Uruguayans, Brazilians and Italians are too stupid to be able to work out for themselves what is in their own best interests, and so need to be told at gunpoint or in torture chambers. So you would no doubt be in complete agreement with Henry Kissinger when he also wrote:

http://antinewworldorder.blogspot.com/2007/03/quotes-you-dont-hear-about.html
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

Col Rouge wrote: "The same Kissinger who was awarded the nobel prize in 1973."

This is the man who carpet-bombed Cambodia killing roughly half a million Cambodians and made the ascendancy of the Khmer Rouge out of the devastation inevitable. I can't speak for the committee who made that decision, but as far as I am concerned Kissinger belongs behind bars.

Col Rouge wrote: "You may criticize Kissinger, in the west we are respected as individuals sufficiently to do that."

Just as long as we all remain 'responsible' in the eyes of Kissinger or his co-thinkers.

Col says:

"... capitalism pays for work supplied and then the processes of marketing and distribution, provision of funding capital etc each have to be paid for too."

Lenin described Marxism as a combination of English economics, French socialism and German philosophy.

Marx didn't invent the labour theory of value. Crudely, all exchange values are determined by the amount of socially necessary labour time going into them. This holds true too for workers, whom capital treats as a commodity. The amount of socially necessary labour time that goes into the reproduction of the worker (his or her immediate needs plus raising a family etc to produce the next generation of workers) determines the exchange value of the worker.

Workers create value greater than the value needed to reproduce their conditions of life. This surplus value is then expropriated by the owner of capital as his or hers and disbursed in various unearned forms such as profit, rent, dividends and interest.

Now Col, you might disagree with me. But Marx didn't invent this. It came out of the great English bourgeois economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx refined and extended the analysis. thus was in the days when captialism was a young and vibrant society and the capitalist class needed to understand how its own system worked, in particular where profits came from. Of course, sa the bourgeoisie grasped the truth that all profit is created by the labour of workers, they then began to develop alternative economic theories to hide this truth because ti contains a revolutionary component. Capital needs labour. Labour does not need capital.

Col mentions Kissinger winning the Nobel peace prize in 1973. Apart from his bombing campaigns in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, he was also up to his eyeballs in providing support to Pinochet for his successful coup on September 11 and the consequent murder of 3000 leftists in the days after.

Tom lehrer, a famous singer satirist declared on hearing that Kissinger had won the Nobel peace Prize that he could never sing again. Why? Because, he said, satire is dead.