Logical,

Tao,-do-I-understand-you-correctly?
“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.

Obviously you don’t, or won’t, understand. I did not “simply” claim anything. I repeatedly and comprehensively explained that our civil-liberties have been taken away by the state, there is nothing to preserve. My socialism and interest in the preservation of civil-liberties stem from the same root - protecting ordinary people from the malevolence of the capitalist-state. Just because you cannot understand this, doesn’t mean I am inconsistent, just that you need to do some intellectual work.

The level of your debating style is expressed in following exchange, the pièce-de-résistance of backsliding,

Tao:-“2)-Acknowledge-that-you-had-not-realised-that-bourgeois-democracies-no-more-“inherently”-guarantee-civil-liberties-than-dictatorships.”

Logical:-“Answer-to-2)-and-3)
My-position-has-been-that-democracy-has-a-higher-probability-of-retaining-basic-civil-liberties.”

Tao:-"Now-that-you-acknowledge-that-bourgeois-democracy-no-more-inherently-guarantees-“universal-civil-liberties”-than-a-dictatorship”

Logical:-“No-I-did-not-"acknowledge"-any-such-thing.

So, what are you saying? - That bourgeois-democracy DOES inherently guarantee universal-civil-liberties?

Or is a “higher probability” of “retaining” “basic” civil-liberties essentially different to saying “no more inherently guarantees universal-civil-liberties’?

To hide your complete intellectual bankruptcy, you cling to Col’s stupid analogy:

“I-could-have-a-theory-about-turning-lead-into-gold.-I-could-document-that-theory-and-receive-acclaim-for-it.-Then-I-die-and-are-buried-in-Highgate-Cemetery.

Then-100-years-later-people-at-OLO-argue-my-theory,-regarding-turning-lead-into-gold-and-one-of-them-identifies-some-of-the-failed-attempts-to-produce-gold-from-lead-and-notes-that-not-one-practical-test-has-ever-worked.”

There are many reasons why Col’s analogy is completely inadequate, but the main one is a quite relevant difference between lead and humanity.

Lead is an inanimate substance, an element which has, relative to organic-life on earth, and human-life in particular, remained essentially unchanged from when it was formed during the formation of the universe. Lead is not conscious, it does not starve, it does not feel pain, and it does not strive to survive or improve itself. Lead has no need to turn into gold. Nor do we need to transform it.

Humans are complex-organisms, and humanity itself is a complex-organism. In humanity, nature has, through its own internal-laws, raised itself from a murky-soup of elements, through progressive-stages to the highest-complex-form at which point it became conscious of itself and could consciously manipulate its environment to improve its chances of survival. Humanity has further progressed and has come to the point where, to a certain extent, it can consciously understand, and even control, the-forces-of-nature, by putting them to use, or at least protecting itself from their effects. Humanity now has the understanding and the technology to produce more than enough for its needs, which could be used to further improve itself.

But we don’t. Our-“leaders”, the 1% of people who own 40% of the worlds’ wealth, use it to design-and-build means of destroying-ourselves, in order to maintain-and-increase their share. They are consciously opposed to change. However, through their efforts they will drive humanity to a point where change must happen. The polarisation-of-wealth in the world is extreme, and getting worse, and is impossible to maintain indefinitely. It is like a tsunami which quickly sucks all-water out-to-sea - it must at some point reach the limits of natures-laws and come crashing back to land with all of its pent-up force. The difference of course is that we can’t-control the conditions which create a tsunami, but we can control the polarisation-of-wealth.

What the result of the economic-tsunami will be will depend upon whether humanity can consciously overcome the man-made economic-contradictions that created it. The 1% who own 40% of all wealth don’t have a need to, and they will consciously employ their resources to protect their own-interests through war-and-destruction. And they have the means to protect themselves from the effects. But the 50% of people who collectively-own 1%, and the 90% who-collectively own 15%, and even much of the 99% who collectively-own 60%, will be the hardest-hit. They have a reason to consciously-understand and overcome the contradictions.

Marx was not the first-man to ponder the contradictions, but he was the first to devise a comprehensive-method by which to understand and analyse-them in their historical-context, and recognise them, which enables us consciously act to overcome them. He raised the consciousness of humanity from that of looking at itself atomistically and anarchistically, as Cols says: “Capitalism-is-an-intuitive-social-system.-Everyone-responds-individually-to-their-perceived-circumstances.-They-decide,-as-individuals,-which-choices-to-make-and-which-paths-to-take”, to one of looking at itself as a whole and examining its own contradictions and antagonistic-forces, and giving it the tools to consciously and progressively, not reactively as-with-capitalism, decide how best to resolve them.

This does not mean that humanity is guaranteed to “succeed” by the use of Marxist theory. But if dialectical materialism hadn’t been devised by Marx, someone else would, at-some-stage, have to do it if humanity has any chance of breaking through its current impasse.

There is little that can be added to dialectical-materialism except the wisdom and knowledge gained from the experience of those who have applied it and thus far been defeated, and the beauty of it is, that it also holds its own key to understanding its first defeat. No one can predict or control the precise combination of the forces that will oppose humanity’s progress to a higher-stage of development, but in Marxist-theory, humanity has given itself a better chance to succeed.

To return to the analogy, lead is not humanity. Lead does not have a history of improving its situation, humanity-does. Lead doesn’t need, or have the capability, to improve itself, humanity-does. Humans don’t need to turn lead into gold, but they do need to find a solution to their own problems.

I can’t look into the eyes of a lump of lead. But I can look into the eyes of a human, and I can see in them humanity’s hopes and fears, and pain and suffering, and a striving for improvement, and in those eyes I can see my own hopes and fears. And I hope for a better future for all of humanity, and I think I have found the only path by which we can consciously work to make it happen.

And so, I consciously (although sometimes not-so-well) work for socialism. I work for a time when all of humanity consciously works towards its own good. When accumulation of money and wealth is not the measure of success, or happiness, or creative worth, or their reward, and its preservation is not the reason for wars. In socialism, everyone will contribute as their skills enable them, according to their ability, and according to their own internal motivation, not the compulsion of a profit driven overlord. There will be a certain societal compulsion to do necessary work, but as the wastage of war, and of capitalist production anarchy is eliminated, and our efforts are concentrated on improving our technology and production, and everyone does their share, it will be minimal

We will rationally plan the use of our resources to ensure that there is no starvation, lack of clean water, lack of medicine. As a worldwide community, we will solve the AIDS crisis, not to make profit for drug-companies, but because aids-sufferers are human. We will not have to worry about the roof over our heads and our family, because as humans, we are entitled to shelter and there is enough for everyone – no one will take it away from us. Society will provide the means by which everyone can develop to their fullest-potential, without having to fight others for their existence.

When it comes down to it, I have no problem dying at the hands of a counterrevolutionary-Stalin while consciously fighting the good-fight for socialism and humanity, even with its inevitable setbacks.

The other option is to live parroting the platitudes of those who find their ultimate representation in a man, a capitalist no less, who thinks that the French do not even have a word for “entrepreneur”, and who says he is directed by God. The imbecile that is George-W.-Bush is the concentrated-expression of the advanced state-of-decay of US-capitalism and its masters - a ruling elite that can spend billions on an illegal war killing hundreds of thousands and destroying the cultural repository of the cradle of civilisation, but-cannot, despite more than four-days notice of Hurricane Katrina, harness its resources to evacuate 100,000 of its most vulnerable-citizens from New-Orleans prior to its landing. And despite decades of warnings that the levies would breach, allowed one of America’s own cultural-jewels, and contributions-to-humanity, to be destroyed.

So you can “get on board” if you want, I don’t care. Given the current level of your argumentative honour, I don’t even want you on board. Working-class people have more inherent honour in their little finger than you do in your word-twisting sophistry - you would be dead-weight that needs to be cast-off, a boil that needs lancing.

As I have already recommended, study some history.

See you on the next thread.

Tao. Your response was predictable. As usual it fails to address the legitimate question asked of you. Why will your revolution succeed where others have failed?

Your claim that I have been backsliding is nonsense. My last post indicated that I remained convinced that civil liberties would be better protected under our current system than in the universal socialist state you envisage.

As a point of logic I left open the possibility of having to change my stance if new evidence indicated the need to do so. Thus far you have remained unwilling to introduce any new evidence.

Railing against the iniquities of capitalism is only a rationale for change not evidence that a further flirtation with Marxist theory will work as he intended.

Tao you said:
"Obviously you don’t, or won’t, understand. I did not “simply” claim anything. I repeatedly and comprehensively explained that our civil-liberties have been taken away by the state, there is nothing to preserve". Unfortunately I can only categorise "nothing to preserve" as delusional hyperbole.

Col's analogy is not extinguished by drawing attention to the fact that lead does not posess any human characteristics. I suspect Col actually knows that. Col's analogy equates the futility of trying to turn lead into gold, by using a longstanding theory, with the futility of relying on Marxist theory to achieve universal socialism via a revolution.

You dispute that further experiments with forcefully implementing a socialist state are futile even though all prior attempts have ended in misery for those who were supposed to benefit.
(continued)

Tao, you have been asked what new elements you would introduce to avoid a repetition of these past failures. You have not offered one concrete suggestion. You have not explained why your initial proletariat will be benign, let alone remain benign, in its attitudes toward the workers.

Your responses thus far have been limited to claiming a monopoly on compassion for your fellow man and a respect for civil liberties. I quote your parting comment to me "So you can “get on board” if you want, I don’t care. Given the current level of your argumentative honour, I don’t even want you on board. Working-class people have more inherent honour in their little finger than you do in your word-twisting sophistry - you would be dead-weight that needs to be cast-off, a boil that needs lancing."

The latter words are those of the typical bully who resorts to invective and violence when loosing an intellectual argument. I have not engaged in word-twisting sophistry. You have not rebutted the arguments advanced or indicated where my propositions are not honourable. Clearly if one does not agree with you they are defined as lacking honour and compassion and should be disposed of. You are an excellent Stalin in the making.

Fortunately you will not attract enough followers to lance this particular boil. I am pleased that it is irritating you. Your desire for surgery is a sure sign that rational debate has failed to achieve your goal of convincing us of the worth of your cause.