Tao, I do not lack the courage to debate you but their comes a point of recognising that you will never supply any detail of how your desired revolution would turn out differently to prior attemts to impose universal socialism. Your indefinitely railing against the shortcomings of capitalism and social-democrats does not constitute an answer to the above question, it only presents your rationale for change by violent means.
I return to your original quote from Trotsky:
“we have never and nowhere denied that our regime is one class of revolutionary dictatorship, and not a democracy, standing above class, relying upon itself for stability. We did not lie like the Georgian Mensheviks and their apologists. We are accustomed to call a spade a spade. When we take away political rights from the bourgeoisie and its political servants, we do not resort to democratic disguises, we act openly. We enforce the revolutionary right of the victorious proletariat. When we shoot our enemies we do not say it is the sound of the Aeolian harps of democracy. An honest revolutionary policy above all avoids throwing dust in the eyes of the masses.”
You remain unable to recognise that, until you can answer my above question, the victorious proletariat will become Stalin and his ilk. Calling it revolutionary dictatorship does not subtract from it being, at heart, a dictatorship. Even the most benign dictatorship is incompatible with universal civil liberties.
Your tirade against how civil liberties have been infringed by capitalist societies does not explain your inconsistency of supporting the above sentiments of Trotsky while professing that:
"I “honestly” take an interest in the rights of the individual against the State because I recognise that concepts such as habeus corpus and double jeopardy are progressive steps taken by smarter and more experienced people than me to protect individuals from all powerful Monarchs, and States which actually exist to protect the interests of the few. Such democratic measures are a progressive aspect of bourgeois democracy."
(continued)

Your seem unable or unwilling to recognise that "States which actually exist to protect the interests of the few" are spawned by dictatorships, Whether the State's guiding star is a belief in capitalism or in socialism becomes irrelevant once it is allowed to be a dictatorship. Dictatorships are fertile ground for those who seek power for powers sake and their personal benefit. We return as always to your inability to explain why your dictator will be any different to past dictators.
You have a few choices. 1)Continue to be a hypocrite for the reasons I have outlined or 2)Acknowledge you had not realised that dictatorships and civil liberties were inherantly incompatible or 3)Explain to us how your dictatorship will not destroy even basic civil liberties as has occured with all prior attemts to establish your goal.
Stop telling us about how your enemies have always tried to thwart you just tell us your solution to those obstructions and how that solution is compatible with civil liberties existing 50 years down the track.
Your other quote:
"As to my “interest” in civil liberties being incompatible with my support of Trotsky’s sentiments, I return you to the point on which you scarpered last time. There is a difference between violence used to oppress and violence used to break free from the oppressor."
An acknowledgement of this proposition does not absolve you from the obligation of explaining how having "brocken free" you stop turning into the new oppressor. The concept that this is achieved via an ongoing dictatorship strikes me as absurd. Precisely how does a dictatorship avoid oppression? I suppose it reaches that happy state once it has killed all those who believe the dictatorship's edicts represent oppression. Oppression actually includes civil liberties as well as material goods.

I was looking for something else when I came across this website - SOVIET POLITICAL JOKES

http://www.geocities.com/troys_tales/jokes.html

From which I extracted the following (conveniently translated from the Russian”)

“'Tell me-is this already communism or will it be worse yet?'”

OR

A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet. The socialist was late. 'Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.'
'And what is a queue?' the capitalist asked.
'And what is a sausage?' the communist asked.
OR

(Darker)

Will there be KGB in communism?
No, by then people will have learned to arrest themselves.
OR
'Is communism a science?'
'No. If it were a science, it would have been tested on dogs first.'

Try
What nationality were Adam and Eve?
Most certainly Russian! Only Russians can run about barefooted and bare assed, without a roof over their heads, where there is only one apple for two and nevertheless cry out that they are in paradise!

Maybe

Why have the newer models of TVs been equipped with screen wipers, similar to the windshield wipers on a car?
Because people are frequently spitting at the screen.

But this is my favourite

Why is the Soviet Sun so joyful in the morning ?
Because it knows that by evening it will be in the West.

On a more chilling note I grabbed this from wikipedia
Every nation is fond of the category of political jokes, but in the Soviet Union telling political jokes was in a sense an extreme sport: according to Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code), "anti-Soviet propaganda" was a potentially capital offense.
As in
A judge walks out of his chambers laughing his head off. A colleague approaches him and asks why he is laughing. "I just heard the funniest joke in the world!" "Well, go ahead, tell me!" says the other judge. "I can't - I just gave a guy ten years for it!"
This is the reality of what you want tao, a society where being overheard telling a joke can mean a death sentence. The Reality, not the pie-in-the-sky theory.

Logical,

I can see that I am going to have to go back to basics. I hope you have the patience to see it through. Human history (at least what I know of it) is a rather complex thing.

But first, I note that in your renewed attack on my “hypocrisy”, you ignored the fact that you, a self-professed “committed-civil-libertarian”, defend the right of the State to overturn a longstanding protection of the individual against it.

I would like to know whether, in the context of eroding civil-liberties across the board, you now see that the overturning of double jeopardy is a dangerous thing, with a greater significance than can be ascribed to it when viewed as an isolated event.

Can you see the significance of capitalist-democracies repudiating their own laws and protections which guarantee civil-liberties, one after the other?

You may think this is irrelevant, but it is not.

I understand that you only want to argue on the basis of the difference between the ideals of “democracy” and its methods of advancement of civil-liberties (the “Rule of Law”), and a revolutionary “dictatorship’s” method of repudiating civil-liberties. But it is not as simple as that.

It is received-wisdom in our culture that “democracy” in the bourgeois-parliamentary-sense with all of its free-and-fair-elections, multiple-parties, separations-of-powers, and checks-and-balances, in-and-of-itself, advances and guarantees civil-liberties. The majority of people, having been told all of their lives that it is true (because how else would they know), believe that it is true. And the evidence is there – capitalist-democracies advanced civil-liberties and the rule of law which protects them. .

It is also the received-wisdom in our culture that Socialist-Revolutionary-Dictatorships, in-and-of-themselves, result in the wholesale denial of civil-liberties. This may or may not be true, depending on which way it is analysed, but suffice to say, the majority of people, having been told all their lives that it is true (because how else would they know), believe that it is true.

…continued...

The most obvious explanation for this is that by repudiating “democracy” in the bourgeois-parliamentary sense with all of its checks-and-balances, tyrannical-dictators are unleashed who, without those checks-and-balances, hungry for power, have free reign to lock up, torture and kill anyone who disagrees with them in order to maintain their unchecked-power. And of course, the evidence is there – Stalin, Mao, Castro etc. all repudiated civil-liberties.

And most people, particularly in rich-Western-democracies after the post-war-boom, once the above is explained to them by their parents and teachers and relatives and friends and politicians and the TV who all believe it too, who have food in their bellies and a roof over their head and decent prospects of employment, have no real reason to question the received-wisdom. The majority of people accepting this received-wisdom, go about their lives, free in their knowledge that their democratically-elected-representatives do-the-right-thing, and that if they don’t, the democratic-system, although-not-perfect, is there to check their excesses and guarantee civil-liberties and, if-all-else-fails, next-time they can elect someone-else.

I’d say that was a fair-snapshot of what you believe Logical. It was what I believed for a long-time too.

It all boils down to pretty simple conceptions. Capitalist Democracy protects and advances civil-liberties, and Socialist-Revolutionary-Dictatorship denies civil-liberties. Capitalist-Democracy good, Socialist-Revolutionary-Dictatorship bad. Received-wisdom. Other forms of government have been tried and failed – no need to look any further.

So, for argument’s sake, I am going to agree with you that the only “reasonable” conclusion I can come to on the basis of all the “evidence” is that Socialist-Revolutionary-Dictatorships can only lead to the denial of civil-liberties, and that Capitalist-Democracy protects and advances civil-liberties.

However – what if Capitalist-Democracy starts stripping away the protections of the individual against the State that it has previously put in place? That is, the people who we have democratically-elected to run our State by the ‘rule of law’, start using the power vested in them to change the laws or overturn them in practice.

This we have been seeing a lot lately. Just look at the “anti-terrorism” laws:

…cont…

Federal and State police have unilateral-powers to lock us up for 48 hours. A hand-picked “judge” operating in a “personal capacity” (i.e. not as a court, but as part of the executive) can then rubberstamp the detention for up to 14 days in an “ex-parte” hearing (i.e. the suspect doesn’t have to be present). Goodbye habeas-corpus.

The suspect doesn’t have the right to know why he or she is being detained. Any conversations with their lawyers can be monitored. Anyone - including family-members, lawyers or the media – who reveals their detention can be jailed for five-years. Parents can’t tell each other if their child is being held. Goodbye lawyer-client privilege. Goodbye freedom of speech. Goodbye public scrutiny. Goodbye journalistic freedom.

Specially designated “issuing courts” can grant control-orders – which can include, house-arrest, personal tracking devices, bans on employment and all formal communication – without any initial notice or hearing. Detainees can be barred from telling anyone and can only challenge the orders, possibly weeks-or-months later, in the same special-courts. The laws mean that governments and their security-agencies can lock someone away based on what they allege the suspect MIGHT do in the future. Goodbye presumption of innocence. Goodbye right to earn a living. Goodbye freedom. Goodbye social relationships.

I could go on.

You may say that these laws are only to be used with terrorists, however the definition of terrorism has also been expanded so that it is broad and vague and covers pretty-much-anything. The reality is that they can be used on anyone the government doesn’t like. How will we know anyway, its all secret?

You may say that the laws have not yet been used on a mass-scale, and they aren’t “evil” enough to do anything with them, however that doesn’t change the fact that our “legal” protections are GONE and our government has taken them away.

Lawyers, judges and civil-liberty-groups, and anyone concerned, consider the laws a framework for a police-state, and a violation of international-law.

Prior to the laws being passed, the Government’s own Human-Rights-and-Equal-Opportunity-Commission president Jon Von Doussa, said on ABC Radio “If-you-think-about-the-nature-of-a-police-state,-it-is-police-officers-exercising-the-executive-power-of-the-state-without-their-actions-being-subjected-to-review-through-the-legal-system.-That-is-exactly-what-is-proposed-here.-It-is-proposed-that-the-executive-can-exercise-restraining-powers-that-put-people-in-detention-for-up-to-14-days-with-no-realistic-opportunity-of-questioning-that-through-the-court-system.”

…cont…