On your own absolute-criteria, Capitalist-Democracy, your preferred-option, fails. In the face of these truths, your absolute criteria shifts to relativity and probability.

But for socialism to be a credible-alternative it must be absolutely non-violent, and adhere strictly to the preservation of universal civil-liberties!

You have one standard for Capitalism, and one for Socialism, and you insist:

-“what-plausible-solution-do-you-have-for-correcting-past-problems”

“Thus-far-you-have-remained-silent-on-offering-a-solution”

“I-again-challenge-you-to-put-forward-a-plausible-non-violent-mechanism”

“After-all-your-study-you-remain-unwilling-or-unable-to-offer-one-concrete-suggestion-that-would-result-in-a-future-revolution-not-decending-into-depravity.”

“you-will-never-supply-any-detail-of-how-your-desired-revolution-would-turn-out-differently-to-prior-attemts-to-impose-universal-socialism”

“explain-to-us-how-your-dictatorship-will-not-destroy-even-basic-civil-liberties-as-has-occured-with-all-prior-attemts-to-establish-your-goal”

“precisely-how-does-a-dictatorship-avoid-oppression?”

Then you have the hide to say you don’t want guarantees!

But-still, I must give you guarantees, or the “new-element” which will guarantee.

Further, you artificially restrict the criteria by which I am entitled to explain my position.

I am not-allowed to discuss the conditions in Europe prior, during, and after the revolution, the devastated Russia which preceded socialism, the violence used by 14 capitalist countries against it, the economic blockades used by those countries to destroy the-economy, the millions of the youngest-and-fittest men that were killed in WWI, the hundreds-of-thousands of the most advanced socialist-workers killed in the counter-revolutionary-civil-war with the capitalists, the duplicity and treachery of some of those claiming to be socialists, in short, the social-and-economic conditions which allowed Stalinism to develop.

In effect you are asking me to explain how to stop a balloon popping loudly, without being able to examine and discuss its composition, the-atmosphere, gases, air-pressure-differentials, a pin, a flame, sound-waves, eardrums etc. What credible explanation could I give you without being able to discuss those things?

What you fail, and-refuse, to understand is that socialism is not an isolated idea that came down from the sky with inherent evil. It is a product-of-capitalism, which is the product of feudalism etc, which is the product of humanity, which is the product of nature. Capitalism was then, and is now, a global economic-system, anything that struggles against it does so because it is there. Capitalism came into existence by violence and spread-globally by the violent-subjugation of colonial-populations, and continues to subjugate of the majority of people to the demands-of-profit. The contradictions of Capitalism create resistance, the conditions and necessity for revolution, and revolutionaries that attempt to consciously resolve the contradictions.

You pluck socialism out of context, and imply that everything bad that happened was inherent in socialism and a product ONLY of socialism. You are denying reality.

And now, it is evident that you have not even bothered to study Marxism, or the Russian-Revolution. You don’t even know that the proletariat IS the working-class.

You insist on me providing you with a “new-element” and you don’t even know what the old ones are! Even if I did tell you something, how would you even know if it was a “new-element” or not! INCREDIBLE!

You claim to be a civil-libertarian. Not just an ordinary civil-libertarian, but a “committed” one. Yet you have now rationalised the anti-terror laws! Specific laws denying civil-liberties of terrorists are OK with you because the government says they are terrorists, so they must be terrorists! Don’t you understand the presumption-of-innocence? Civil-liberties groups, human-rights-groups, press-associations, lawyers-groups all consider the-laws an erosion of the civil-liberties of ALL-OF-US, not just the terrorists’, because once accused of something, rightfully-or-wrongfully, we are all presumed-guilty, locked-up, and denied a fair-trial. But-you, in all your “committed- civil-libertarian”-wisdom, know better than those with expert-knowledge. You can’t have even read THEIR positions in-detail to say the things you do.

You insist on “universal” civil-liberties in a socialist-revolutionary-dictatorship, yet you excuse the lack of it in your system-of-government. In response to this-assertion, you will no-doubt insist that you mean “basic” civil liberties. And you call me a hypocrite!

No doubt you will doggedly-insist, again, that I have avoided the issue. I haven’t avoided the issue – you just don’t have the intellectual-honesty to find out for yourself what the real-issues are.

I have no intention of continuing this discussion with you.

If you genuinely have a commitment to civil-liberties and their preservation and advance, and to understanding the problems of socialism, I recommend you study the following:

http://www.wsws.org/history/1996/oct1996/lect.shtml (Equality,-the-Rights-of-Man,-and-the-Birth-of-Socialism)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/corr-a04.shtml (Democracy-and-the “dictatorship-of-the-proletariat”)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/corr-j20.shtml (Questions-on-socialist-organisation-and-planning)

http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/trotsky/trlect.htm (Leon-Trotsky-and-the-fate-of-socialism-in-the-20th-Century)

A-selection-of-Submissions-to-a-parliamentary-committee-on-the-anti-terror-laws:

Law-Council-of-Australia
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/submissions/sub140.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/submissions/sub140a.pdf

NSW-Council-of-Civil Liberties
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/submissions/sub161.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/submissions/sub154a.pdf

Australian-Centre-for-Independent-Journalism
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/submissions/sub184.pdf

The-full-list
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/submissions/sublist.htm

Still no response from tao!

Tao “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.”

I am sure when he was looking deep into “those eyes”, he was looking into the eyes of an individual.

Individuals have the sovereign right to follow a different path to Tao.

Tao, I will say thanks for the exchanges. You posturing, deceit, authoritarianism and contempt for individuals has reinforced why my views -

support individual liberty,
recognize servility of the state to its electorate,
support comparative merits of Capitalism and
support freedoms, which we so often take for granted

They are not only right but ethical, fair yet whilst possibly imperfect, are changeable and capable of improvement / development.

The practical outcome of Marxism is an abomination, a blight on humanity, an unnatural disaster.

Marxism is a system which

crushes individuals underfoot,
treats the electorate with contempt,
has a central planning system which serves an anonymous state and not the people.
Survives by suppressing freedom of thought, speech and choice.
Is locked into a monolith of unchanging bureaucracy, incapable of recognizing its own flaws and thus incapable of change or development.
Is a horror, something to be challenged at every opportunity.

Quote “All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing”

Thank you Logical for being a good man and returning here to debate, instead of doing nothing.

Personally, having my views tested in debate is invaluable in clarifying and honing exactly what I believe and value. Be it abortion or capitalism, I will always support the individual and treat individual sovereignty as paramount.

Since we are into Suggested Reading
http://www.economic-justice.org/asmith.htm
http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/
http://www.isil.org/
http://www.john-daly.com/
http://www.ipe.net.au/ipeframeset.htm
http://www.ldp.org.au/
http://www.liberal.org.au/

My political system allows tao to express his dissatisfaction with it.
Tao’s political system would deny me right to disagree.

Tao. Sure the proletariate is by definition the workers. I said:
“You-have-not-explained-why-your-initial-proletariat-will-be-benign,-let-alone-remain-benign,-in-its-attitudes-toward-the-workers.”
Your response:
"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?"

Let me clarify what I was attempting to say in the above post. My concern is that the working class (proletariate) gains power with highminded ideals and then, via a bad choice of elected representatives, turns upon the workers. It would have been clearer had I inserted the words "the leadership of" between "why" and "your".

The words "YOUR INITIAL proletariate" were also intended to convey the probability that not all people in the working class would want to participate in your endeavour. You speak of the workers as being some homogeneous group that all want to change their lot in the world. We come back to an earlier question about who determines the cut off point for qualifying as a worker? Who might be masquerading as a worker?
Tao you said:
"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."

You know as well as I do that given human nature and greed this is a crazy pipe dream. Accordingly you are committed to violent struggle against the capitalist. The new-element I am wanting you to inject into your revolution is something that has a serious prospect of avoiding it morphing into what occured under Stalin and Mao. I am quite happy to lower the bar for you from "guarantee" to high probability. I think I have previously acknowledged that no one can guarantee the future one can only back the odds. Remember my falling brick analogy?

Tao you said:
"Do you think capitalists will be benign in their attitude towards the workers?" Presumably by capitalists you mean those higher up the pecking order in a capitalist system. The answer will be some yes and others no. The fact remains that the system overall has not produced the depravity exibited by prior attemps at establishing a universal socialist state.

You choose to classify the latter statement as proving that I am an apologist for all that is bad about capitalism. I contend that is not the case and I believe, on the basis of history, that the pursuit of change via the ballot box remains preferable to your desired revolution.

Tao you claim "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.

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

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

In my opinion you have not established any of these three points. It is not dishonourable for me to choose to disagree with you about the conclusions I reach from history about which is the greater evil: capitalism or attemps at establishing a universal socialist state. My arguments do not fail because you declare you have established certain facts.

Tao you state "I have no intention of continuing this discussion with you." I am perfectly happy with that proposition. I see no prospect of changing you aspirations. I think it is unlikely that you will produce some facts that will change my general support, not unqualified support as you claim, for our current system of government.

Your comments when I previously signed off on this thread (scampered etc) remain unwarranted. Australia is a great country to live in and I am not interested in seeing it dismembered in the pursuit of your dreams. Your path would really destroy our current civil liberties.

To balance Tao quotes of Marx and Trotsky, I include a few from another quarter

They are from a national leader who challenged the Marxist spawn and prevailed.

Tao’s idealist notion of “equality”

"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

Regarding attempts to reinvent Marxism without the stigma of past failures

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

How True and we see it here again in Tao’s drivel.

Regarding Capitalism

"Capitalism has known slumps and recessions, bubble and froth; no one has yet dis-invented the business cycle, and probably no one will."

The following bears thinking about as to what works and what doesn’t

“"When we hear (as we sometimes do) that (Russia's) economic output is about half the level of a decade ago or that real incomes have fallen sharply, it is worth recalling that economic statistics under the Soviet Union were hardly more reliable than any other official statements. Moreover, a country that produces what no one wants to buy, and whose workers receive wages that they cannot use to buy goods they want, is hardly in the best of economic health."

This is especially for Tao and his “revolution”

"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."

I guess Margaret Thatcher knew you personally Tao.

Finally

“"Individualism has come in for an enormous amount of criticism over the years. It still does. It is widely assumed to be synonymous with selfishness...But the main reason why so many people in power have always disliked individualism is because it is individualists who are ever keenest to prevent the abuse of authority."

Cherish individualism, it is the most anyone can aspire to become.