Col,

To my comment:

“It doesn’t matter what you accuse me of Col, or what excuses you make, nothing can hide the fact that Maggie unabashedly supports fascist-military-dictatorships in defence of capitalism.”

You said:

I am sure the history of South America is terrible, compared to life in a Siberian Gulag.

I wonder if every Cambodian who died in Pol Pot’s reeducation camps would not have swapped places.”

“We can tell how Margaret Thatcher “unabashedly supports fascist-military-dictatorships”,

Tell me who launched the British expedition to remove the fascist-military-dictatorship occupancy from the Falklands, In the face of socialist opposition?”

Comparing Pinochet’s fascist military dictatorship, which overthrew an elected government and murdered its leader, “disappeared” and tortured thousands, to other atrocities in an attempt to make it SOUND BETTER than it was, is a truly desperate tactic.

Thatcher’s war against Argentina was fought to protect British Imperialism’s interests (and divert the British peoples’ attention from the social chaos at home). Had Argentina not threatened territory which Britain considered its own, Thatcher would have been happy to leave the CIA backed Argentinean fascist military dictatorship alone.

All this proves is that Thatcher chooses to support the fascist military dictatorships which further British capitalism’s interests.

I repeat Col, it doesn’t matter what you accuse me of, or what excuses you make, nothing can hide the objective FACT that THATCHER SUPPORTS FASCIST MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS in defence of capitalism when it suits her.

Obviously, given your defence of her, so do you.

You - Col Rouge - support fascist military dictatorships.

Tao “You - Col Rouge - support fascist military dictatorships.”

So you claim. Not that anything you say can be relied upon.

Stalin’s apologist.

Strange as this may seen, my views of the Pinochet dictator makes stuff all difference to anything.

Whine all you want, we know your strategy.

If you make enough supposedly critical claims, it will deflect you from having to answer the outstanding questions which Logical and I have asked of you

Why Marxism is like an alchemists trick of turning lead into gold and how Logical would fair under the dictates of the peoples collective.

I guess you are playing the Lenin card, you know
“A lie will become the truth if you say it often enough”

Fact, I suspect Margaret Thatcher knew more about what was really happening in South America and the reason she chose to support Pinochet was because the socialists were about to sell the people out to Castro and the Russians, as was happening in Africa and some other continents at the time.

Fact Margaret Thatcher Launched the Falklands War and Prevailed over a South American Dictatorship.

Fact, Lenin was a liar.

Stalin Was a liar

Marx was deluded and politically impotent, he lived (and died) in London because he thought UK would be the centre of his revolution. It was convenient though, I was happy to piss on his grave when I lived in London.

As for “overthrew an elected government and murdered its leader”

I guess you are going to suggest Marxist-communism ever did such a thing?

The Czar would disagree with you and a load more too.

Quotes

Lenin “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

Margaret “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Lenin would kill to force his view, Margaret wanted people decide for themselves.

That is WHY Margaret Thatcher prevailed over Lenin’s successors.

Col,

You wrote: “Tao “You - Col Rouge - support fascist-military-dictatorships.” So you claim. Not that anything you say can be relied upon.”

If my claim is unreliable, why don’t you just demonstrate it is not true by denouncing Pinochet’s fascist military dictatorship? If you don’t denounce it then it is reasonable to conclude that you do support fascist military dictatorships. Perhaps my claim is not so unreliable after all. Go ahead – condemn Pinochet, his regime, and its supporters.

You wrote “Stalin’s apologist” which I presume is an accusation that I approve of Stalin and his regime.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? I have never expressed support for Stalinism, Stalin, or his actions, nor have I apologised for them. I have in fact stated that Stalin and his policies were counter-revolutionary, criminal and not Marxist – they were a betrayal of Marxism, the Russian Revolution, and the international working class. I defend Marxism and the Russian Revolution, but I condemn Stalin and Stalinism.

On the other hand you have expressed support for Stalin’s actions in liquidating opposition within the Soviet Union itself: “the first people who Stalin bumped off were the central committee and anyone who could even remotely challenge him”. “Trotsky did fight against Stalin and the one good thing which Stalin did do was to disempower Trotsky.”

So apparently you not only support Pinochet’s oppressive tactics, but also Stalin’s.

You wrote: “Strange as this may seen, my views of the Pinochet dictator makes stuff all difference to anything.”

Actually, they are quite important. Your support and defence of Pinochet’s fascist military dictatorship, overthrow of an elected government, thousands “disappeared” and tortured at his command, is quite revealing of your character and the unprincipled nature of your beliefs and political orientation.

They demonstrate that your professed ideals of freedom, individualism etc. - “a-society-where-people-are-free-to-make-choices,-to-make-mistakes,-to-be-generous-and-compassionate.-This-is-what-we-mean-by-a-moral-society” – “Think what you want, you are, under the political system which I support free to do so”, are obviously nothing more than trite phases, based on little substance, that disappear like a puff of smoke when push comes to shove.

Unless of course Pinochet was being generous and compassionate when he had his opponents “disappeared” and tortured. Perhaps he was allowing them to think and say what they want when he had their tongues cut out. As you say, “think on this, under your system you would not be free to think, let alone express a view. How is that for hypocrisy ?”

And of course you keep saying this “Fact, I suspect Margaret Thatcher knew more about what was really happening in South America”. Whether or not Thatcher had legitimate reasons for supporting Pinochet at the time (which she didn’t, except the interests of capitalism – she obviously wasn’t doing it for “democracy”), or perhaps did not realise the extent of his crimes (which I doubt), this does not excuse her campaigning AFTER she and everyone else knew of his ‘alleged’ atrocities (i.e. 2000 onwards) for him to escape being tried for those crimes and atrocities in a Court of Law. Or in Col/Maggie world, does not the Rule of Law apply without fear or favour to everyone?

So:

“I repeat Col, it doesn’t matter what you accuse me of, or what excuses you make, nothing can hide the objective FACT that THATCHER SUPPORTS FASCIST MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS in defence of capitalism when it suits her.”

And:

It doesn’t matter what you accuse me of, or what excuses you make, nothing can hide the objective FACT that YOU – COL ROUGE – support fascist military dictatorships.

And far from making “stuff all difference”, your evident support of fascist military dictatorships should always be kept in mind when weighing up the credibility of your professed love of freedom, individualism, choices etc.

“Margaret wanted people decide for themselves.” - at the point of a gun, or an electric current to the testicles, obviously.

Tao “If you don’t denounce it then it is reasonable to conclude that you do support fascist military dictatorships.”

I will respond to your "Commands" only after you have answered the the "Lead into Gold" alchemists issue and Logical’s question regarding how he would fare under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You do not get answers until you are prepared to respond to direct questions.

The other conclusion anyone will draw is that you are merely deploying more of your inelegant deflections away from giving an honest answer.

Back to some more quotes to illustrate Western Democracy versus Marxism

I could use more Margaret, there is lots to draw on and Lenin, well that malignant troll came out with some wonders but I will go back to your icon, Marx

We could start with “All I know is I'm not a Marxist.”

That seems reasonable, who would want to be associated with the “political run off from a toxic waste dump”?

oops, that is what you are promoting tao, how indelicate of me!

“Revolutions are the locomotives of history.”

And 50 million were run over by the Marxist locomotive when Stalin was at the controls.

Here is a good one from the other side, JFK, the one who faced down Khrushchev over the Cuba missiles

“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

Why did every Marxist-Communist government deceive its own people, use terror and torture on a scale unimagined, even by Piniochet, to hide truth from them?

Oh as for “obviously nothing more than trite phases, based on little substance, that disappear like a puff of smoke when push comes to shove.”

My “smoke” has prevailed and outlived the winds of the Communists, Marxists and Trotskyites.

Tao your politics are like a man with emphysema.

Struggling around but lacking the power (of reason) to produce enough puff to “push or shove” my “smoke”.

And obviously have no future either

LOL Col

You wrote: “I will respond to your "Commands" only after you have answered the the "Lead into Gold" alchemists issue and Logical’s question regarding how he would fare under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You do not get answers until you are prepared to respond to direct questions.

The other conclusion anyone will draw is that you are merely deploying more of your inelegant deflections away from giving an honest answer.”

LOL

What an absolute cheek you have to accuse me of deflecting from giving honest answers. You introduced your lead-into-gold-analogy in order to avoid answering a direct question and have clung on to it for dear life:

LOL

You wrote:

“tao "The central question is – do you acknowledge that the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. do not accord with Marx’s conception of communism? "

Asked and Answered

I repeat

"I am working on an understanding of what actually happens (interpretation of actual events).”

That is what matters, what actually happens not what MArx theorised should happen.

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.

That is what you are doing tao, arguing in support of a "theory" which the test of "practical-experience" has proved just does not work.”

LOL

You still have not directly answered the central question posed.

LOL

As to whether I get “answers”, in the form of you denouncing Pinochet, or not, I really don’t care. Your refusal to do so speaks for itself. As I said “If you don’t denounce it then it is reasonable to conclude that you do support fascist military dictatorships.” I can draw the appropriate conclusion, as can everyone else.

LOL LOL LOL chuckle-chuckle lol-lol-lol LOL LOL LOL giggle-giggle *sigh* giggle-giggle LOL LOL LOL Ow,-my-tummy-hurts LOL LOL LOL