Tao “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:”

Another of comrade tao’s examples of tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, learnt at the shrine of the pustule, Lenin.

And another deflection from answering

As for the rest of your inane girlish giggles, (you must have practiced that with all your Barbie dolls).

Dearest Margaret said “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. “

I guess your thought that the incessant use of “LOL” would be wounding, otherwise why use it?

It says a lot about you tao.

I have never asked you how you earn your living, some tenured soft-spot in cloistered academia I expect or maybe a librarian, a lot of pent up emotion in librarians, raging anger about people who put the fiction in with the reference section. You come across as a librarian, even if your not, I am sure your temperament would make you a good one.

I am sure I could find some appropriate Lenin comment to describe you, beyond “useful idiot”, of course but I think if I type any more Lenin my fingers will drop off in protest.

The reality is we live in a capitalist democracy where we each choose what we do.

“Capitalist Democracy” is a tolerant system, the best system, the system which I support.

Your system requires several things starting with a revolution (lets face it no one has every voted a communist system into government)

Be it the nature of revolution of the corrupt nature of the proponents, communist revolutions have always been imposed by a bunch of economic retards exercising a absolute ruthlessness and a “depraved indifference” to the needs of the ordinary, individual people they hold court (central committee) over

I have often thought people who seek control of other people are suffering some form of extreme mental dysfunctionalism.

Be it theologians who believe in an authoritarian religious state, Catholic or Muslim or be it atheists, who substitute Communism for religion, they are all the same, dysfunctional extremists.

They are chronically insecure.

They seek to control their “dysfunctional inner world” by dictating to the real world around them and everyone else who inhabits that real world, regardless of the wishes of those other inhabitants.

It is a bit like the obsessive-compulsives who organize their sock drawers or arrange the kitchen cupboards with the tins of beans all lined up, labels facing front.

These extreme obsessive-compulsives demand the population of the nation be arranged equally, to a master plan of regularity, efficiency and economy (exactly like the communist 5 year plans).

The problem they see with Capitalism is the chaos, the inefficiency and the inequality of capitalism.

What they do not see is that from what seems like chaos comes forth individuality, creativity, inventiveness and solutions to the blights of man.

Repress individuality and you repress inventiveness and creativity which solves the problems which challenge access to the better life for all mankind.

Stalin used to dictate what Russian composers were allowed to compose, Shostakovich hated living under Stalin and lived in fear of being exiled.

Would Mozart’s unique brilliance been seen as “bourgeoisie” and he denied access to play or compose music?

“Capitalist Chaos” simply reflects the individuality of people and their personal priorities. which mean nothing to you but is paramount to them.

“Capitalist Inefficiency” is people creating and inventing solutions which might not be exactly what a committee would choose but at least an imperfect solution is better than the alternative of no solution.

“Capitalist Inequality” is a function of individual profligacy of thrift. If you were to equally distribute all “wealth” and leave people to trade and barter, within as little time as 7 years, certainly within a generation, 10% of the population would be control 90% of the productive resources.

Take your Marxist theories and burn them. That way they will, at least, keep you warm for a moment instead of gathering dust.

Try to impose your rubbish Marxist theories and they will, as they have done all times before, fail.

Since we all have unique DNA and DNA defines the arrangement and nature of our natural appearance and ability, expect everyone to be unique, be individual and thus, be unequal.

What seems like inequality is the physical manifestation of individuality.

Margaret Thatcher wrote “Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

Some naturally tall some short, some gifted some not so gifted.

Children are not socks or tins of beans, to be directed and arranged into orderly, economic and efficient plans for the future.

Children are the future. A playground is the first example of children “organizing themselves”. A playground is “chaos”, kids naturally form groups, boys v girls, runners v sitters, natural empathy and natural antagonisms define the groups and who children befriend.

Children are unique individuals and so too will be the adults they will grow into.

Marx’s obsessive-compulsive theories are doomed to fail before they are implemented and all that is left after the revolution is what fills the void of failure; the ruthless, depraved indifference of Communism. What a waste of individuals and the unique contribution they might have made had they been free to explore their individuality and inventive creativity.

Margaret Thatcher also said “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 said “Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.”

With “No one governing” we have a state which no “one is responsible for”. More communist deflections tao. More lies and deception from the Lie Master, Lenin, as exposed by Margaret Thatcher.

As you are so insistent on your little analogy, my comments follow:

Col’s lead into gold analogy:

"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.”

Arguments from analogy basically draw a conclusion about one thing by comparing it with another thing. Arguments from analogy “work” if the things which they are comparing are sufficiently similar, or don’t have negatively relevant differences which count against the conclusion we are drawing.

In this analogy, Col is comparing Marxist theory to his own “theory about turning lead into gold”.

The similarities we are provided with are that:

1. They are both theories

2. Col and Marx documented their theories and received acclaim.

3. They both die and are buried at Highgate Cemetary.

4. 100 years later people on OLO identify attempts to put both theories into practice which “did not work”.

The conclusion which we are led to (which is not explicitly stated) is that it is futile to attempt to apply the lead into gold theory again, therefore it is futile to attempt to apply Marxist theory again.

So, if we are to accept the conclusion, the primary subject (Marxist theory) and the analogue (Col’s lead into gold theory) the positively relevant similarities must outweigh the negatively relevant differences.

To do this we must examine the similarities and differences. So we begin:

As to similarity (1) in the analogy they are both “theories” and in that they are “similar”. However there are relevant differences:

Firstly, Marxist theory was devised over a period of 50 odd years by a real person, on the basis of all human knowledge to that point (150 years ago), from examination of the real world, for the purpose of understanding the real world, and ultimately to change it.

The lead into gold theory was devised NOW by Col on the basis of all human knowledge to this point, but attributed to a fictional ‘Col of 100 years ago’ who didn’t really exist then, for the purpose of making a point in a debate that is taking place NOW.

Cont…

Secondly, as theories (real or not), there are many relevant differences in the actual subject of the theories - inanimate matter versus complex organic organism, unconscious versus conscious, inactive participant versus active participation and the motives that entails, chemical alteration versus socio-economic alternation, core physical structure atoms versus socio-political organisation, scale, time etc. They are hardly comparable.

*As to similarity (2) in the analogy both theories were documented and received acclaim and in that they are “similar”. However there are some relevant differences:

Firstly, Marxist theory is a real theory which really was documented 100- 150 years ago. He received acclaim from some people but fierce opposition from those he exposed.

The lead into gold theory wasn’t a real theory and wasn’t documented 100 years ago. We only have Col’s word for it that there ever was a theory, and that it received acclaim.

Secondly, because it is documented, we know what Marxist theory is, and it can be objectively studied now.

The lead into gold theory is not described anywhere, either by Col in the analogy, or by Col 100 years ago – it could be medieval alchemy, or it could be nuclear physics. There is no way we can tell, and we can’t objectively study it now.

*As to similarity (3) – this is completely irrelevant to the validity of the theory.

*As to similarity (4) in the analogy 100 years later people on OLO have cited examples of the “practical experience” which showed that the theory “does not work”, and in that they are “similar”. However again, there are relevant differences, and the term “does not work” needs to be defined.

Firstly, unless you can point out where people are discussing the lead into gold theory on OLO, and are providing the examples that “do not work”, again, we are just taking Col’s word for it. On the other hand, someone did start this thread called “When is a revolution necessary”? And we are discussing it.

Cont…

Secondly, because we don’t know what the lead into gold theory is, and it hasn’t been documented, we don’t know if it really didn’t work. There is no way of objectively measuring the success of a non existent theory using non existent “practical experience” to test it. How do we judge if a non existent theory “does not work”? We just have to take Col’s word for it.

We do however know what Marx’s theory was (if we bother to read it), and can objectively measure whether it “does not work”. However the theory is far more complex and variable to put into practice and measure its success than a fictional theory about turning lead into gold. Satisfactory analysis of it and “its” results requires a lot more work than simply taking Col’s word for it that it “does not work”.

Out of interest, if Col’s theory was indeed based on nuclear physics, 100 years ago Rutherford was working on nuclear theory and later converted nitrogen into oxygen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford. Building on nuclear theory, in 1980 Seaborg was actually successful in changing lead into gold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg. So a REAL lead into gold theory does actually work in “practical experience”.

In fact the “practical experience” of Seaborg’s theory of turning lead into gold is a little analogous to Marxism. He was able to turn several thousand lead atoms into gold, however the gold atoms lasted less than 5 seconds before breaking apart. Nuclear theory has the explanation for this, which is that the gold atoms were unstable isotopes. The energy expended and the microscopic quantities produced meant that it was not financially viable to further develop and apply the theory to make stable gold. Nonetheless, his lead into gold theory worked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

Marxism and the Soviet Union are similar. Marx’s theory “worked” – the working class took power. Marx’s theory also explains the instability, degeneration, and tragic defeat of the first attempt, and that it won’t be the last.

Cont…