Logical

I was not going to continue this discussion but will answer your despicable word-twisting slander:

"Accordingly-you-are-committed-to-violent-struggle-against-the-capitalist."

You paint yourself as a peace-loving, civil libertarian social democrat, but your deliberate-distortion of my position proves you have no interest in the truth.

I am committed to the working-class taking back ownership of the means of production and the product of their own labour which is rightfully theirs and has been taken from them through violence, or the threat of violence. This is done through raising their conciousness through discussion and education. If capitalists resist violently, I uphold the right of the workers to defend themselves. In defending-themselves against violence, I defend their right to use force.

Anyone who makes a comment like yours has not read socialist literature and has swallowed hook, line, and sinker capitalist propaganda. I note you haven’t denied that you haven’t read Marxist-theory, or history – again – how would you know what the truth is?

As to the possibility of capitalists being benign, you yourself said:

"You-know-as-well-as-I-do-that-given-human-nature-and-greed-this-is-a-crazy-pipe-dream."--"The-answer-will-be-some-yes-and-others-no.-"

If it is a crazy pipe dream that capitalists will be benign due to greed, why do you think we should trust them?

So its OK for capitalists to be violent is it? Should we let them run things.

"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"

Was Hitler and the Nazi-party a bad choice of elected-representatives? How about Mussolini? Both Hitler and Mussolini turned upon the workers.

How about the stolen 2000 US election?

How about the recent US mid-term election where the majority of people just voted against war, and 2 months later their government is going to escalate it? A Democrat has just introduced a conscription bill.

How about the ALP bringing in the military against the pilot-strikes?

How about the new industrial-relations-laws?

Your feigned concern is sickening. Capitalist-democracy doesn’t protect workers.

"The-fact-remains-that-the-system-overall-has-not-produced-the-depravity-exibited-by-prior-attemps-at-establishing-a-universal-socialist-state"

How about the depravity of Abu Ghraib? Extraordinary rendition? Cluster-bombs? Napalm? Agent-Orange? Phosphorus bombs? Hiroshima? The Mai Lai Massacre? And of course the capitalist-gulag, Guantanamo-Bay?

WWI, WW2? Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, US-backed Saddam Hussein? How about the depravity of colonial-oppression of indigenous0populations? What about pornography – people filming vulnerable women having sex and selling the result for profit - a gazillion-dollar-industry whose major players are Disney – you know, the Wonderful World of Disney, and Fox – the media-empire which owns cable channels variously promoting Christian-“values”, George-Bush, and selling porn – all in the name of money?

What about the depravity of 1% of people owning 40% of all of the worlds’ wealth while every year 10.7-million-children die before their fifth birthday? 1,200 die every hour from poverty-related-causes. What about the depravity of the top 400 people in the US owning 1.25 trillion-dollars of assets while 21% of US children live in poverty? What about children in the “developing-world” working in sweatshops for a pittance to make shoes with a swoosh on them which are sold for $250?

If you don’t see all of these things as depraved then that just proves how depraved our society has become that they are considered OK. But they are the inevitable-product of dehumanizing capitalist-social-relations.

You conveniently ignore all of these things when choosing the conclusions you reach from history. How can your debate be honorable when you dismiss aspects of reality which do-not-fit with your argument? In debate this is dishonorable, and in life it is dangerous. The people it is most dangerous for is the working-class because they will be the first ones on the scrap heap and the first-ones sent to die. You talk about looking out for unexpected falling-bricks, the most stupid thing to do would be to watch them falling around you and believe you won’t get hit.

"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.-"

Here’s a tip for your flutter on humanity’s future – it is odds on that capitalism will outdo itself in depravity in the coming period. I’ll guarantee it.

Col,

Margaret Thatcher considered military dictator Pinochet, a man who ran roughshod over due process and peoples lives, a great friend of Britain, and helped him avoid the due-process of the law. Quoting her is laughable.

Thanks Tao. The littany of horrors produced by various forms of government ,including theocracies, is indeed appaling. You are wrong when you say that I refuse to see it and/or adequately disapprove of it.

The following is lifted from your last post:

"As to the possibility of capitalists being benign, you yourself said:

"You-know-as-well-as-I-do-that-given-human-nature-and-greed-this-is-a-crazy-pipe-dream."--"The-answer-will-be-some-yes-and-others-no.-"

If it is a crazy pipe dream that capitalists will be benign due to greed, why do you think we should trust them?

So its OK for capitalists to be violent is it? Should we let them run things."

My answer to your question about trust is that I do not trust capitalists. Nor do I trust those who claim to represent the workers after a revolution to establish a universal socialist state.

It is no more acceptable for capitalists to be violent than for socialist states to be violent. In both instances the violence may be internal (citizens rights) or external (war).

I despair of the greed that seems to be part of the biology of human beings. Pecking orders seem to be the norm throughout nature. One can only hope that education and the ability to communicate with larger groups will allow us to move from family groupings, beyond tribalism and nationalism to a unified humanity. Unlikely in my time? Yes.

Meanwhile we are stuck on this planet and have to make the best of the options on offer while working toward overall reform. I am sorry that we cannot agree on how that reform may be achieved.

There may be situations where violence can be justified. unfortunately you often do not know whether the "facts" encouraging you to participate in violence are correct until years later. Capitalist and socialist leaderships both have a history of trying to dupe their own constituency.

Unfortunately our children are constantly receiving the message that "if you are right" you should assert your rights with physical force. Hopefully we can move toward teaching people how to negotiate and how to respect the rights of others. That tolerance however does not extend to the acceptance of intolerance.

Logical,

I will respond to your comments on greed etc later, I will be out for the large part of this weekend.

However I noticed that on Tuesday night at 8.30pm on SBS's Cutting Edge they will be showing a documentary called "How to buy an election". Its about George W Bush and Tom DeLay. (in Melbourne...I don't know about anywhere else).

It certainly won't be a marxist analysis, but it will no doubt be interesting in light of our discussions. Hopefully I will get to watch it, and recommend you do too.

Tao “Margaret Thatcher considered military dictator Pinochet, a man who ran roughshod over due process and peoples lives, a great friend of Britain, and helped him avoid the due-process of the law. Quoting her is laughable.”

Far from it. I have great respect for Margaret Thatcher who lead the public opposition to the despicable activities of totalitarianism.

That she supported Pinochet might be because she was more aware than you or I of the consequences of not supporting Pinochet, as I seem to be saying regularly, “a common enemy makes for strange bedfellows.”

I note you cling to her support of Pinochet as if it were a cathartic event in Margaret Thatcher’s contribution to the shaping of the world and her public service; It is not.
Therefore it is not a reason to discount the tremendous work she did in preserving your and my freedom at a time when democracy was under tremendous pressure from the evil of communism.

Margaret Thatcher supported your right to dissent with her view when she had the power to direct national military forces into action.

Ironically, the politics you support would treat any hint of your dissent as treason and lock you up in a gulag, or worse.

What you point out about Margaret Thatcher and her support of Pinochet is merely another of your deflections from her contribution to humanity.

She wrote

“My job is to stop Britain going red. “

The reason you seek to discredit her is simple, you are still scared of her today.

She wrote “Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.“

The danger to you of Margaret Thatcher is that

She saw through to the deceit and deflections you used when challenged for explanation.

Your cowardly attacks confirm her greatness. She knew you. She forsees the evil of your politics.

Difference Margaret Thatcher-Tao, Margaret Thatcher is worth quoting. Tao is not.

The Iron Lady is a communist's nightmare. Long live the Iron Lady.

Col,

Do you actually read what you write before you post? As usual the contradictions in your argument abound.

According to you Thatcher “lead the public opposition to the despicable activities of totalitarianism” by supporting a fascist military dictator.

She “supported your right to dissent with her view when she had the power to direct national military forces into action” by supporting a fascist military dictator who overthrew an elected government by military coup and had an estimated 50,000 “dissenters” executed or “disappeared” in the first year of taking power. Other “dissenters” had electrodes attached to their testicles, their fingernails torn out, and their tongues cut out.

“The reason you seek to discredit her is simple, you are still scared of her today”

I don’t need to discredit her, she discredits herself, or more correctly, reveals her true nature, and that of the ruling class she served. Is it not true that she championed Pinochet’s cause and helped him evade “due process”? Am I making it up?

You can’t have it both ways Col. You can’t say – she was doing the right thing … and that by me revealing the truth about that “right thing” I am discrediting her.

If she was doing the right thing I can’t possibly be discrediting her … can I? Her loyalty to Pinochet is a testament to her character surely?

“you are still scared of her today”

I most certainly am scared of her and her type today. What her affinity to the fascist Pinochet shows is that the ruling classes are prepared to use any means to protect their interests, including fascism. You may recall that the British ruling classes also flirted with Hitler at one stage.

The ruling classes have already begun preparing the ground with anti-terror laws denying civil liberties etc. As the crisis of capitalism comes to a head, they will resort to fascism, just as they did with Pinochet.