A difference between the two theories is whether we think that humanity can and should do better than capitalism with its wars, environmental destruction, poverty and starvation, and hence whether it is worth looking at Marxism again. As I have previously stated, lead doesn’t need to change into gold, and we don’t need it to. But we do need to change our society.

As to the conclusion we are encouraged to draw from Col’s analogy (i.e. that it is futile to apply Marxist theory again), I would suggest – don’t bother – the differences far outweigh the similarities. Further, we can see that even a cursory study of lead into gold theories, reveals that studying reality is far better than relying on Col’s fictional word – which would be a far better conclusion to draw.

Analogies can be useful (in a limited way) in debate to illustrate a point, but only if we compare the thing we are explaining to something tangible and real. Col’s fictional theory was not tangible and the conclusion he invited us to draw, as usual, had no basis in reality.

In fact he says himself – “That is what matters, what actually happens” But Col’s example didn’t actually happen. “I am working on an understanding of what actually happens (interpretation of actual events)”. Rather than giving us an understanding of what actually happens, he uses fictional analogies to prop up his own fictional “interpretation of actual events”.

I think we can safely say that it would not be wise to draw any serious conclusions about Marxism from Col’s fictional 100 year old theory, other than that we should find out the truth for ourselves. It is a non sequitur.

Col,

As for your last little diatribe, I note you still have not condemned Pinochet’s regime.

You wrote: “Children-are-unique-individuals-and-so-too-will-be-the-adults-they-will-grow-into.” Under capitalism, 10.7 million children per year die before their 5th birthday - that is 1200 per hour who will not “be the adults they will grow into”.

WOW look at that tao, four posts in one hit again, surely a sign of an obsessive compulsion.

And that from someone who wrote on, Tuesday 16 January “I am not going to continue this conversation with you”

Lets ignore the crap and focus on two phrases among the dross of your multi-part post

“But we do need to change our society.”

Here we come back to Marx and Capitalism.

What you repeatedly fail to recognize is this

“Capitalism” is constantly changing.
It does respond to changes in every individuals expectations not only for material goods but for life-qualitative expectations, desires and worth.

So why should “changing capitalism” change to meet your lunacy?

Why would anyone pretend that another run at “Marxism” is not going to end up in “the gulag archipelago” ?

If we were to consider Marxism, which was tried and failed in too many countries, regardless of the expectations of the people, maybe we should have another go at Fascism.

There is practically no difference between the two systems, Both are despotic, both murdered people by the million, both repressed the aspirations of individuals. Stalin (the practical outcome of Marxism) did his deals with Hitler to carve up Poland and Eastern Europe.

If we were to try Fascism first we would all get smarter uniforms to wear.

I am sure you would leap at the chance to wear something with a cute deaths head on the cap.

As for “Under capitalism, 10.7 million children per year die before their 5th birthday”

Maybe you could qualify that number. The infant mortality rates of Western Democracies is a lot less than that. If you are including Africa and the third world, a lot of those places have gone backward since they were de-colonized.

And I wonder how much higher the 10.7 million would be if it were not for capitalist developed medicines and capitalist nation aid programs?

Then, of course, how many were dying under Stalin and Mao when their whims held sway? A lot more than 10.7 million a year.

Tao, You have lost. You are lost

Col,

“Lets ignore the crap and focus on two phrases among the dross of your multi-part post.”

So what you mean is lets ignore the fact that your fictional analogy, which you have insisted that I respond to, is exposed on analysis to be feeble non sequitur. You told me to put up or shut up - I put up - and now you want to shut up.

“What you repeatedly fail to recognize is this

“Capitalism” is constantly changing.
It does respond to changes in every individuals expectations not only for material goods but for life-qualitative expectations, desires and worth.”

On the contrary, I recognize that capitalism is constantly changing - for the worse.

“As for “Under capitalism, 10.7 million children per year die before their 5th birthday”

Maybe you could qualify that number. The infant mortality rates of Western Democracies is a lot less than that. If you are including Africa and the third world, a lot of those places have gone backward since they were de-colonized.

And I wonder how much higher the 10.7 million would be if it were not for capitalist developed medicines and capitalist nation aid programs?”

A 2005 UN Human Development stated that every year, 10.7 million children die before their fifth birthday. Every hour more than 1,200 children die, which is equivalent to three (2004 Boxing Day) tsunamis a month, every month, hitting the world’s most vulnerable citizens—its children. The causes of death will vary, but the overwhelming majority can be traced to a single pathology: poverty.”

Whether or not Africa & the third world have “gone backward since they were de-colonized”, they are still under the umbrella of the global capitalist economic system e.g. capitalist corporations still exploit their resources, property in the means of production is privately owned.

As for Western Democracies, the report explains that “health outcomes in the United States, the world’s richest country, reflect deep inequalities based on wealth and race.”

The UN-Development-Program report includes what it calls a “human-poverty-index” for the 20 wealthiest countries, to “better reflect the extent of human deprivation that still exists” among the populations of these major economic powers. By this measure, the US ranks next to last among the top 20, only ahead of Italy. On such indices as life-expectancy, and especially infant-mortality, the world’s “sole-superpower” lags significantly behind many other countries.

UNICEF also presented a report in 2005 on the growth of child poverty in OECD countries. According to the UNICEF definition, the countries with the largest proportion of children in poverty are Mexico (27.7%) and the US (21.9%). In the EU, Italy has the highest proportion of child poverty, with 16.6 percent, followed by Ireland (15.7%), Portugal (15.6%) and Britain (15.4%). These countries are followed by Canada, Australia and Japan, each with more than 14% of children growing up in poverty.

Yes, 21.9% of children live in poverty in the richest country on earth, that exemplar of capitalism – USA. And inequality is increasing.

As for “capitalist” medicine and “aid”. Capitalist countries don’t even meet their own targets of 0.7% of GDP. A 2004 UNAID Report concluded that worldwide an estimated $12 billion would be needed to combat AIDS by 2005, increasing to $20 billion by 2007. This would provide antiretroviral therapy for over six million people, support for 22 million orphans, HIV voluntary counseling and testing for 100 million adults and include education for 900 million students.

Total funding in 2003 was less than $5 billion, not even half of the amount required. This includes all AIDS spending—the UN Global Fund to Fight AIDS, western governments, nongovernmental organisations and private individuals. In 2003 only 400,000 patients—seven percent of those needing antiretroviral medicines in low and middle-income countries—actually received them. The report explains that even those that did get drug treatment may not get the necessary advice and treatment to make it effective.

So, $20 billion will be required this year, and Forbes recently reported that the richest 400 people in the US are worth more than $1.25 trillion. A measly 1.6% of their combined assets should do the trick! The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the world’s $125 trillion worth of assets – or $50 trillion – an even more measly 0.16% of their assets would do the trick.

And apparently it would cost $80 billion to get clean drinking water to every person in the world. A mere 0.64% of the assets of the world’s richest 37,000,000 adults, or 6.4% of the assets of the US’s 400 richest people.

By the way, if you work it out, 400 rich Americans is 0.000006% of the world’s population, and they own 1% of the world’s wealth. And 21.9% of US children live in poverty.

In order to protect this obscene accumulation of wealth and stave of its impending economic catastrophe, the US ruling classes (and allies) have launched a series of illegal wars/invasions for the sole purpose of controlling the world’s oil supplies. Against the express wishes of the US population, and that of the majority ordinary people of the entire world, they are preparing to escalate the bloodbath in Iraq, and launch incursions into Iran and Syria, and will probably use nuclear weapons. To suppress and intimidate any opposition and resistance from their own populations to their criminal actions, the US and other countries all over the world have systematically dismantled democratic rights and civil liberties. At the same time they are stripping ordinary people of working and social benefits won by previous generations in order to pay for it. Inevitably, they will attempt to conscript ordinary people to go and fight a war they already oppose - a Democrat Senator has already introduced legislation. If the US bombs Iran, you can bet China, Russia, Europe and Japan are going to have to do something to protect their own interests and oil supplies. It could be the opening salvo of World War 3.

”Then, of course, how many were dying under Stalin and Mao when their whims held sway? A lot more than 10.7 million a year.”

As I previously said, attempting to make capitalism’s atrocities look better by comparing them to other atrocities, which were themselves a product of the global economic system of capitalism is a desperate tactic, and doesn’t change the fact that atrocities are being committed by capitalism as we speak.

You again repeat the blatant lie that I want a Stalinist system, when it is you who has still not denounced Pinochet, and you who approves Stalin’s oppressive tactics, namely the elimination of opposition, particularly Trotsky.

You also repeat the lie that Stalinism was Marxism. The reason Stalin hated Trotsky, and capitalists hate Trotsky is exactly the same – Trotsky and Trotskyism was the revolutionary alternative to Stalinism, and the continuation of Marxism. That is what you, with your bluff and bluster, personal attacks, and fictional analogies, are trying so hard to stop anyone from finding out. However I think anyone with an ounce of curiosity, and intellectual honesty, should be able to see by now that taking your advice is not wise. Hopefully, they will do their own study, particularly of Trotsky and the Left Opposition.