Oh tao, you are deflecting again, deliberately moving from the analogy and trying to construct an answering as a literal. Either that ir you are, to use a single word, thick.

Somehow I think you are not thick but deliberately avoiding giving an honest answer because you know what the truth is and cannot bear to admit that your theories are based on the same lies and deflections which you are practicing here.

As for the wailing about the eyes of humanity, crocodile tears. A prequel to “look at how humane I am, now gimme power and I will tell you what you are allowed to do”. In which we see the classic and inevitable morphing of Marxism into Communism.

As for “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.”

Think again.

You said “and I can see in them humanity’s hopes and fears, and pain and suffering, and a striving for improvement,” followed by “I think I have found the only path”

All improvements came from the ideas, innovation and invention of individuals. Your collective “would be solution” is based, in the practice of actually suppressing the individuals who invent and denying them the right to benefit from their ideas and innovations.

Other paths allow individuals to benefit from their innovation and from the implementation of innovation all of society benefits. Example, Edison invented the light bulb, all of humanity benefits from no longer being limited by the tyranny of darkness.

Edison tried a thousand times to produce an incandescent light globe.
Its invention was not the result of some government committee of stout party faithful. They would have given up on attempt 10, unless their families were being held in a gulag somewhere as an “incentive” to do better. A common practice in the reality of your “only path”!

Now “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,”

Tried and failed. Stalins 5 year plans failed, your rousing words are hollow.

You are talking the talk.

The way to walk the walk would be to tell us “HOW” you would ensure there was

“No starvation” recalling the 1920 famines in USSR.

How you would ensure plentiful supplies of clean water, noting the environmental disaster of the Aral sea thanks to collectivism.

How you would ensure no lack of medicines. Which system of innovation and invention develops medicines? Removed that model of development and you remove the ability to develop them.

AID’s a political solution to a pandemic. Interesting. The best change is we all end up looking as ugly as a 60 year old babushka so no one wants to f**k anyone else.

I would note USA and nuclear energy, the pinnacle of capitalism brought us “3 mile island”. You might say “See the failure of capitalism” and I would simply say “Chenobyl”.

The failure of capitalism pale into insignificance beside the failure of Marxist/Communism.

Back to Edison, a capitalist inventor. He invented many things. His success was that he was not deterred by a failure but learned and moved on.

If he were alive to day I am sure he would say something like “Marxist / Communism, tried and failed. Learn from it and move on.”

Your “Only Path” is a road to nowhere. It is, as political and human organization models go “a failure”.

I believe there is great merit in people studying human organization. Study the mistakes of the past and learn to build better in the future. Marxism and Fascism should be studied by those impassioned individuals who seek to understand human interaction and human development. They should be studied as “case studies” in how things fail. That is how we do not forget and how we err to the cautious in future.

Tao “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”

It progressed as and through individual understanding. It will continue to progress through individuals.

You see, in your own words “an Only Path”.

Interesting, I see multiple paths and each person walking the one of his or her choosing.

I see the growth of man as the opportunity for us each to grow as a person with greater individual fulfillment which we can achieve by exploring and expressing our own love and compassion for each other. Not simply in the materialism which your “Only Path” is fixated on.

Individuals cannot grow in love and compassion if they are forced to surrender their natural freedom of expression and compassion to an organ of the state.

I am compelled to comment on a telling statement “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”

“I don’t even want you on board”

You reject a person because they do not follow YOUR party line?

So, if all power were vested in the Marxist / Communist state and you were representative party member, you would say to a member of the citizenry “I don’t even want you on board” ?

Where does that citizen go?

How does citizen Logical, in this case, experience justice or address wrongs under this “benevolent” system of yours?

“Benevolent” my arse!

Tao, before you get bogged down responding to the specific examples given by Col please address yourself to the fundamental question of what new-element your revolution will introduce to avoid it going the same way as past attempts.

Please tell me where I would be obliged to live in your new state if I persisted with my current belief in civil liberties and exercised it verbally to try and obstruct any of your plans that I did not agree with.

Your last desciption of me was " dead-weight that needs to be cast-off, a boil that needs lancing". Unfortunately I am a human being, with children and grandchilren, who has the temerity to see things differently to you. For these sins I am to be disposed of either literally or effictively via a gulag equivalent.

You talk of an interest in civil liberties. You are a hypocrite. I was too generous to think that you might have a new-element to inject that would at least exhonerate you of the charge of hypocrisy.

I think Col is right when he says you are not a fool. You are just a malignant force that masquerades as someone interested in civil liberties and the fate of the working class. You want power for yourself and those that think like you.

Your attitude toward me encapsulates your core belief of buggar what happens to innocent people along the way. You are the classical advocate of the philosophy of the ends justifying the means.

Logical,

UNBELIEVABLE!

“You-have-not-explained-why-your-initial-proletariat-will-be-benign,-let-alone-remain-benign,-in-its-attitudes-toward-the-workers.”

The proletariat IS THE WORKERS. Your comment just proves you have not read a word of Marxist-theory, or any credible history of the Russian-Revolution. How can you possibly know what happened?

The right of the revolutionary proletariat which Trotsky was talking about enforcing is the right of the WORKERS to take ownership of the means-of-production, and the product of their-own labour.

But here is the answer you are looking-for and I guarantee that if it happens this way, it will absolutely-work:

The way to ensure that a socialist revolution will be non-violent and not degenerate into oppression is for capitalists all over the world to BENIGNLY stand down their police force and their armies and allow workers and peasants to peacefully take over the factories and mines and offices and farms and public-utilities and banks and schools and hospitals at which they work, and run them on the basis of human need, not profit.

Do you think capitalists will be benign in their attitude towards the workers?

“You-have-not-rebutted-the-arguments-advanced-or-indicated-where-my-propositions-are-not-honourable.”

As far as I-can see, throughout this-argument, while agreeing that a more-equitable sharing of wealth is an “undisputed-objective”, you have advanced three main absolute-conceptions as to why that objective should not be brought about by socialist-revolutionary-change and why-incremental-“democratic”-change is preferable, which can be broken-down as follows:

1. We should stick with Capitalist-Democracy instead of Socialist-Revolution because:

(a) More-equitable distribution-of- wealth should come through non-violent means i.e.-any violence is unacceptable.

(b) Socialist-revolutions are inevitably-violent.

(c) Capitalist-Democracy, and in particular Social- Democracy, is a non-violent way to achieve-change.

2. We should stick with Capitalist-Democracy instead of Socialist-Revolution because:

(a) In reaching our objective of more equitable sharing-of-wealth, universal civil-liberties must be are protected, i.e.-any loss of civil-liberties is unacceptable.

(b) Socialist-revolutions result in “dictatorships” which inevitably lead to a loss of civil-liberties, i.e. dictatorships are inherently incompatible with universal civil-liberties.

(c) Capitalist-Democracy protects universal civil-liberties.

3. We should stick with Social-Democracy within Capitalism instead of Socialist-Revolution because:

(a) We ought to effect a more equitable sharing-of-wealth by a method that works.

(b) Socialist-revolutions do-not-work.

(c) Social-Democracy does work.

Throughout the discussion I have showed you that:

1. Capitalist-Democracy, including Social-Democracy, is not any less violent than Socialist Revolution, or a revolutionary dictatorship.

Your premise 1(c), and hence your conclusion, fails

2. Capitalist-Democracy, including Social Democracy, is not inherently better at protecting civil-liberties than Socialist Revolution, or a revolutionary dictatorship.

Your premise 2(c), and hence your conclusion fails.

3. Social Democracy certainly does not guarantee improvement in the equitable distribution of wealth, and in fact, actively works to reverse gains previously made.

Your premise 3(c), and hence your conclusion, fails.

Each of your major reasons for sticking with Capitalist-Democracy, and not-look at Socialist-Revolution as an option, is based on at least one incorrect-assumption and is thus false.

Your entire-argument fails….. without even having to examine Socialism’s-failings.

You have repeatedly told me how, if I can only explain to you how I can ensure that a socialist-revolution will be non-violent and not involve a loss of civil-liberties, then you might get on board.

I have maintained throughout that I cannot do what you are asking. And I have demonstrated that you cannot even ensure in your system what you are asking of me in mine:

I have shown you that violence is sometimes necessary, which you acknowledged.

I have shown you that you cannot ensure that Capitalist-Democracy is not violent. You have not demonstrated that you can, you just ignore the violence of Capitalist-Democracy. Worse, you rationalize it as somehow better for us than Socialist Violence. If you disagree, name me one Capitalist-Democracy which did not either come into existence through violence, or use violence during its history.

I have shown you that you cannot-ensure that Capitalist-Democracy protects civil-liberties. You have not demonstrated that it can, but suggest without proof that it has a higher-probability. We must somehow just accept your word for it despite the evidence of history, or the present, before our eyes. If you disagree, name me one Capitalist-Democracy that has not at some point, denied basic civil-liberties, including the basic right to life itself, to someone in the world, at some point in time.