In all bourgeois-revolutions, the capitalist-class requires the assistance of the worker and peasant classes to overthrow the old regime, and appeals to them with slogans of “freedom, liberty, equality”. Once the revolution has been carried through, they then violently suppress, or delude, those same workers who assisted them and institute “democracy” to protect their own-interests.

This is basically what happened in Russia, except that the capitalist-class was extremely weak, and the workers, peasants and army gradually went over to the Bolsheviks because they were the only ones who had consistently told them the truth and fought for THEIR (the workers etc.) interests against the Tsar and the-bourgeoisie.

The Mensheviks tried to limit the revolution to a bourgeois-one and refused to give up control, despite the Bolsheviks having overwhelming majority-support of the Soviets (sort of trade-unions, but of citizens which democratically-elect delegates to represent them at the congress) at the Second-All-Russian-Congress in October-1917. But as Trotsky said “Fortunately,-we-had-behind-us-not-only-the-former-majority-of-the-Congress,-but-the-whole-garrison-of-the-capital.--This-saved-us-from-being-dispersed,-and-enabled-us-to-give-the-Mensheviks-an-object-lesson-in-Soviet-democracy.”

So, after the revolution there was a DICTATORSHIP of the PROLETARIAT-AND-PEASANT CLASS, i.e a DICTATORSHIP of the MAJORITY. The Bolshevik leadership, resting upon the support of the working class and peasants (i.e. not “standing above class, relying upon itself for stability” which is in reality impossible) were the representatives of the dominant CLASS, and advanced and protected its CLASS interests against other classes (who, don’t forget had sent millions to the “violent” slaughter of WWI).

The Trans-Causacas however, was a bit of a stronghold of the Mensheviks, and many Tsarist loyalists (military officers etc) and Russian-Mensheviks retreated there after the revolution forming a bloc. However they also did not have majority support at their Congress. To cut a long story short the Mensheviks did same thing they tried to do at the Russian-Congress, but this time, when the revolutionary masses moved, the Mensheviks were prepared, and hired counter-revolutionary robber bands to disarmed them and the army – except for the loyalist Cossack regiments. The disarming turned into pogroms and battles where thousands died.

They then declared two independent-“democratic”-republics, first of Trans-Causacas, then of Georgia, within the space of five-weeks (neither-time consulting-the-population by-referendum), invited in the German-army, then the British. A “Special-Detachment” violently suppressed peasant-uprisings, burnt-down villages, summarily-executed Bolsheviks, banned their newspapers and broke up their meetings. In-other-words, they violently liquidated all opposition to their “democracy”. Only after that had been done, NINE-MONTHS AFTER declaring Georgia independent, did they THEN convene a Constituent-Assembly in which they had the majority.

From Georgia, the “democratic”-Mensheviks and the Tsarist-loyalists, claiming “strict-neutrality”, with the assistance, and in the assistance, of the “Great-Powers”, staged counterrevolutionary-attacks against the Soviet-Union.

Mind-you, the argument of the-Mensheviks’ (“democrats” who claimed to want socialism i.e. social-democracy), and their British apologist-equivalents the Labour-Party and Fabians, was that all-of-this “democracy” was done in-the-name of saving the bourgeois-revolution so that the socialist-revolution can be carried out at a later date!

Hence-Trotsky’s-words:

“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.”

My interest in civil-liberties is not inconsistent with my support of Trotsky’s words, or a socialist-revolutionary-dictatorship. Nor am I a “hypocrite”.

I see “democratic” civil-liberties as elementary-protections of the majority-oppressed-class against the minority-ruling-capitalist-dictatorship, however they are not “universal”, the ruling-class decides WHEN-AND-IF they will apply, and what is done with the surplus-wealth created by the labour of the whole-of-society.

A socialist-revolution is the overthrow of the dictating-capitalist-ruling-class by the oppressed-class. A socialist-revolutionary-dictatorship of the formerly-oppressed-class will decide what form their “democracy” will take, and what sort of liberties they will allow their former-oppressors, and what they will-do with the surplus-wealth created by their own labour.

Finally, as-I-have-demonstrated, we currently do-not-have any civil-liberties which are protected by the “rule-of-law” in our bourgeois-“democracy”. We are now reliant for our personal-safety on the “benign” nature of those-people who have a) legislated-them-away and b) launched illegal-wars on the basis of lies, and-then, when their lies were exposed, changed their reason to “spreading” the very same “sound-of-the-Aeolian-harps-of-democracy”. Terrific! Just ask the 655,000-DEAD-Iraqis if they are pleased that they have the kind of NON-EXISTENT civil-liberties we have (not that the Hussein-regime was a socialist-dictatorship, just your garden-variety US-client-state-dictatorship). So I fail to see how a dictatorship denying-them is of any consequence.

Tao “Col’s lead-into-gold-analogy, maybe it should be applied to capitalist-democratic-theory,”

Cheap Deflection. Answer the question!

My claim is “Stalinism/Maoins” is the falsehood of the Marxist Alchemy, Now defend Marxism.

Your attacks on Capitalism are unjust when capitalism has produced and distributed of greater wealth from which all have benefited, unequally than the “equal distribution of nothing” under Marxism/communism.

I ask you how many people have been forcibly “Re-Educated”, Executed, Exiled or Imprisoned by the pursuit of Capitalism?

Whilst I suspect you will claim a few have been imprisoned or even murdered.

You will find no where near the 30 million victims of Marxism as implemented by Stalin.
Nor the 60 million victims of Marxism as implemented by Mao (http://www.clearharmony.net/articles/200611/36584.html) or
the 3 million victims of Marxism as implemented by Pol Pot.

All up, around about 100 million people (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev080206a.cfm)

Need I go on or do you agree with Stalin – one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic?

Finally, communist elections: what is the point in voting when there is only one name on the ballot paper?

Tao you have lost the debate when you cannot answer challenges and merely attempt to deflect them

Either answer the questions or put up.

Writing 4 posts a day of drivel simply wastes your time and bores the rest of us.

Tao. As Col says you keep raising diversions. You have had ample opportunity to study history. We do not want it recited to us along with further examples of the shortcomings of our present capitalist society. We want to know what NEW ELEMENT you are going to inject into your revolution to stop it going the same way as past attemts to create a universal socialist state. Just answer Col's lead into gold analogy.

Tao you said:
"Nor is it possible to guarantee anything in the future – because YOU can’t either."
I am not looking for guarantees. Life involves backing the odds. When you go to cross the road do you look up for falling bricks or left and right for passing cars? I am simply asking for your "new element" that will make your revolution worth consideration as an option for myself and society in general.

Tao you said"
"Now that you acknowledge that bourgeois-democracy no more inherently guarantees “universal civil-liberties” than a dictatorship, I will begin to illustrate how my interest in, and defence of the rights-of-the-individual-against-the-State are not inconsistent with my support of Trotsky’s comments and defence of socialist-revolutionary-dictatorships."
No I did not "acknowledge" any such thing. I stated that civil liberties were under threat in all systems of government and that the greatest threat resided in revolutions that tried to establish universal socialism. If you satisfactorily answered Col's lead into gold analogy I would consider coming to a different conclusion.

Tao you said:
"At the outset of the Revolution the initial-demands of the women-workers were bread, an end to autocracy (i.e. democracy), and an end to war. At this point the Mensheviks (social-democracy) had majority-support amongst workers, and the Bolsheviks had been driven underground, e.g. Lenin, Trotsky and others had been exiled or jailed."
(continued)

Continued from this am.
Tao, do I understand you correctly? There was majority support among the workers but they must have been duped and therefore they should be ignored.
It seems the only time the peasants and working class get it right is when they slavishly follow the dictates of the initial "victorious proletariat".
You ignore the possibility (I would say probability) that the initial proletariat contains innumerable individuals whose ideals are centered on self-interest (even call them capitalists if you like). There will certainly be many in the initial proletariat who argue that "the cause" requires the suspension of civil liberties. "We enforce the revolutionary right of the victorious proletariat." Great stuff Tao. Sits comfortably with an interest in civil liberties?

If you cannot answer Col's analogy you are either deluded or a hypocrite It is insufficient to simply claim " My interest in civil-liberties is not inconsistent with my support of Trotsky’s words, or a socialist-revolutionary-dictatorship. Nor am I a “hypocrite." I take the word interest to mean interest in preservation of rather than destruction of.

Tao you state:
"Finally, as-I-have-demonstrated, we currently do-not-have any civil-liberties which are protected by the “rule-of-law” in our bourgeois-“democracy"."
You have not demonstrated any such thing. Your proof is based upon a belief (better categorised as the delusions of a conspiracy theorist) that all of our courts are the handmaidens of government.

"Any civil liberties" is an all encompassing term. Specific anti-terrorist legislation does not emasculate all our other rights of legal redress or even all the rights of an accused terrorist. The power of a free press has not been abolished by the reduced civil liberties afforded to those accused of terrorist acts. But of course you do not accept that we have a free press. Your stance appears to be that the media exposure for our causes is only enough to lull us into a false sense of security while we are raped. In my opinion we have not slipped down to the level of Stalin's show trials though I acknowledge the need for vigilance.

Well posted logical.

Tao needs to answer questions about his agenda / option / manifesto and not just try and deflect into criticism of capitalism. It is the old commie game, a lie becomes the truth if you say it often enough.

I have seen it before but now I have come to understand, Marxism / communism is a political philosophy built on lies and abuse of the individual. Promise the peasants the sky and bury them face down in the earth. Grab power and terrorize or execute anyone who might challenge you.

Deny freedom of speech whilst claiming to protect the peasants from the bourgeoisie. In fact set the peasants against the middle class on a platform based on fear and envy.

In short Marxist/communism means simply “Butcher and murder at will in the name of the revolution and grab whatever you can wrest out of the hands of your victims.
The only difference to Hitlers treatment of the Jews is the Marxist / communists, treat everyone as if they were Jewish