Tao, the world is an imperfect place.

Capitalism is not a “perfect solution”. It is, like democracy, an imperfect solution which works better than any other solution thus far tried, including Marxist-Communism.

The overwhelming body of evidence has proved the Marxist theories which you actively promote have, compared to capitalism, produced worse outcomes and instantly decline into corrupting communism.

Your beating of breast and pulling of hair about wealth distribution is not going to change that.

As for “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,”

I hope they do study ALL the options. They can decide for themselves, as I have decided for my self.

Capitalism encourages study and inspection of ALL alternatives.

Marxist-Communism demands fealty to unwavering single ideas, without options.

The evidence is there.

Those who dissent with “Democratic Capitalism” are protected by your notions of individual freedom, including speech.

Those who dissent with Marxist-Communism used to end up in a psychiatric hospital, in prison, in a gulag or one of Stalins 50 million dead.

Trotsky was deluded. Full of theories of world revolution and no idea about feeding people or giving them a better life.

Trotsky failed worse than communism.

If you continue to waste your time idolizing Trotsky, expect to die a failure like him (with or without an ice pick).

You have lost. You are lost.

Col,

Sometimes I wonder if you actually consider the meaning of what you say.

“Marxist-Communism-demands-fealty-to-unwavering-single-ideas,-without-options.”

What is “unwavering single ideas”?

Are you suggesting that the best idea is a wavering one? Is there such a thing as a “multiple” idea?

The word “ideas” is plural. You can have a single idea, or a number of different ideas. If you have a number of ideas then, automatically they are not a single idea. If you think Marxism is just one single idea, then it should be easy for you to tell us what it is. Even a cursory glance at Marxism would show that it is not one single idea, but a complex theoretical system derived from the real world in all of its complexity. Frankly, what you are saying is nonsense.

Marxist-philosophy is variously called scientific-socialism, dialectical-materialism or historical-materialism. Essentially it combines the philosophy of materialism with dialectics and history.

To begin with Marxism is a materialist philosophy. Its fundamental premise is that the material world exists outside of human-consciousness, and that ideas (human-or-otherwise) arise from of the material-universe. This differs from idealist philosophy which posits that an “idea” existed before the material-universe, or that the material-universe arose out of some idea (i.e. of God etc).

Dialectical-thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change, rather than as fixed abstractions. Formal logic says that A is equal to A, or a kilo of sugar is equal to a kilo of sugar. However the reality is that a kilo of sugar is never exactly equal to another kilo of sugar – a more delicate-scale will reveal a difference. A kilo of sugar isn’t even equal to itself over time – a kilo of sugar in a litre of water is still the kilo of sugar, but it is also different to a dry kilo of sugar. Within certain limits we can use an axiom that A is equal to A, but dialectical logic seeks, by closer and closer approximation and corrections, a more concrete but flexible understanding of what is, and the point at which A no longer equals A..

The study of history is also a necessary component, because without it, we are unable to see that the stage of development humanity is at is just one of many stages of development through which we have passed. Each stage of economic development, and its ideas, has arisen out of the material conditions of a previous stage. Consciousness grew out of unconsciousness, psychology out of physiology, organic out of inorganic etc.

Darwin’s theory of evolution is an example of the dialectic – it explained the evolution of species through quantitative transformations passing into qualitative – a new species. This was a development from previous systems, which had as their starting point the immutability of species, and so were limited to the description and classification of things according to external characteristics. Description and classification are useful in themselves, but a better understanding of the laws of nature is arrived at through Darwin’s theory. We understand now that within a species, there are contradictions and antagonistic forces, which are also acted upon by outside forces, to produce a qualitative change, a higher stage of development – a revolution. We can see contradictions and antagonistic forces in all of nature.

Marxism, through dialectic logic, seeks to understand and explain human societies, the development of their productive forces, and the structure of the relationships of ownership which constitute the anatomy of society. Capitalism in general, or in the abstract, is not equal to capitalism at a given stage of development with its specific internal contradictions and antagonisms. To have a better understanding of capitalism we are entitled to ask, what is the specific stage of capitalism through which we are passing? What is the significance of the dismantling of the Bretton Woods system? What is the significance of the US moving from world creditor to a massive debtor? What do these factors, and many others, mean for the conduct of US, and world capitalism

Marxism, being a materialist-philosophy, considers that our ideas about our society arise form the material-conditions. The extent of capitalist “democracy” corresponds to the given stage-of-development of capitalism itself. The apparent “universal” ideals of democratic-rights, civil-liberties etc, may have been, at some stage of capitalism, reflected in, or a reflection of, the material conditions of society, or they may have only been the ideal to which we were striving. Currently, capitalism holds up those ideals as what it is fighting to spread to the Middle-East, but the reality is that they don’t exist in the Middle-East, and they are being legislated away in those countries in which they did exist. When you say “Those-who-dissent-with-“Democratic-Capitalism”-are-protected-by-your-notions-of-individual-freedom,-including-speech”, we are entitled to ask - do they apply to everyone? Just ask David Hicks if they do. And if they are denied to one of us, or 100, or 5000, at what point do we say that they don’t exist at all?

And we are entitled to ask, at what point does “Democratic-Capitalism” become a fascist-dictatorship? Is it when an illegal aggressive war is launched? Or when people are locked up without-charge for five years? Perhaps it is when the majority of people vote in an election against a war, which the executive subsequently escalates. Or when the executive is no longer subject to democratic-oversight and control? At a recent Senate-Judiciary-Committee hearing on the use of data mining to spy on citizens, US-Attorney-General Albert Gonzales refused to answer questions from the committee members. A witness, former Republican-Congressman Bob Barr said “Data mining presents many serious threats to the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. That is nearly half the Bill of Rights! Where will this end? With the repeal of the Constitution so that the White-House won’t have to worry about those inconvenient and troublesome laws anymore?” Similarly, the anti-terror laws here contravene our Constitution. At which point does our Constitution become not worth the paper it is printed on? When do democratic “notions” no longer have any relationship to reality? When do we cease to be protected by them in reality?

Similarly, when you say “Marxist-Communism-demands-fealty-to-unwavering-single-ideas,-without-options”, we are entitled to ask what are “unwavering single ideas”? Does “Marxist-Communism” really demand fealty to such things? If the Soviet Union did demand such fealty, say under Stalin, was it always that way? If it wasn’t always that way, at what point, and why, did it become that way? If it wasn’t always that way, which is truly “Marxist-Communism”, and which isn’t?

A simple description of a Marxist is one who subscribes to the philosophy of dialectical materialism, and uses it as a guide to revolutionary action. If a person does not subscribe to dialectical materialism, then they are not “Marxist”. To know whether someone is a Marxist, you need to know what dialectical materialism is, how to use it, and work out whether or not that person is using it. If you haven’t studied dialectical materialism, then you can’t “know” whether someone is, or is not a Marxist, therefore you can’t say that they are with any authority.

My argument here, is that Stalin did not use dialectical materialism as a guide to action, therefore he wasn’t a Marxist, therefore what happened to the Soviet Union was not purely the result of “Marxism”. In addition there were many internal and external factors, not caused by “Marxism”, which contributed to the degeneration of the Bolshevik Party, and the Soviet Union (just as there are many factors which are contributing to the degeneration of “Democratic Capitalism”). The Bolshevik Party, and the Soviet Union, did not exist in a vacuum (just as a species does not exist in a vacuum) and all factors must be taken into account when attempting to understand the “evolution” of the Soviet Union, and indeed, of capitalism. Study will further our understanding.

On the other hand, saying something banal like “the-world-is-an-imperfect-place” doesn’t further our understanding of anything, and essentially, doesn’t mean anything.