Col, Col, Col,

“that-those-5%-contribute-a-significantly-greater-portion-of-their-income-in-taxes-than-anyone-else.-

Further,-through-their-organizational-skill-and-risk-capital-they-provide-the-jobs-which-the-other-95%-are-employed-in-and-from-which-the-most-significant-wealth-transfer-takes-place-(called-wages-and-salaries).”

Yes, the most significant transfer of wealth does take place FROM THE 95% WHO PRODUCE THE WEALTH TO THE 5% who take possession of the things that are produced by the 95%. They then pay a smaller amount back to the 95% in wages and keep the rest. What they keep is the “profit” which they then pay tax on, although less and less these days.

You pretend that the 5% are doing something noble in risking “their” capital, however capital is nothing more than stored labour from past exploitation. If you disagree with this, explain how capital came into existence.

“You-are-deploying-“wedge-politics”-to-feed-the-envy-of-the-less-suited-for-the-reward-of-those-with-scarce-and-valued-skills”.

“That-you-could-countenance-a-dictatorship-displays-your-stupidity,-unless,-of-course,-you-view-yourself-in-the-role-of-“the-great-protector”-or-“the-great-helmsman”,-in-which-case,-see-a-shrink,-you-are-likely-suffering-a-Napoleon-complex.”

Again the unfounded accusation of “envy” which is your stock in trade.

Again, the unfounded accusation that I want to be a dictator.

Accusations of stupidity and insanity.

Where would your arguments be without personal untruthful attacks on those who disagree with you? Are you unable to argue on the facts?

”I-would-rather-have-a-democracy.-All-dictatorships-fail.-They-are-held-together-by-repression-and-corruption”

”Do-you-really-think-a-dictator-will-be-more-“benevolent”-than-a-government-which-relies-on-being-elected-by-popular-vote-every-few-years?-“

You deliberately misrepresent what I mean by a dictatorship of the 95%. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not a dictatorship of one person, it is democratic, with workers controlling their workplaces, electing delegates or leaders who are subject to instant recall.

A dictatorship of 95% of the people does not mean a dictatorship of “elites”. If you are referring to the Soviet Union, you are being intellectually dishonest if you claim that the Soviet Government started out as a dictatorship of one person.

The Bolshevik Party, the Russian Revolution and its subsequent degeneration into a dictatorial regime can only be understood within the context of the objective economic, political and social conditions, both internal and external, which influenced the Revolution. It should be noted that one of the major contributing factors was the interference by imperialist powers in supporting the counter-revolutionary White Army, and the killing of hundreds of thousands of the most class conscious workers (i.e. Communists) during the civil war.

“They-exist-to-entrench-the-lifestyle-of-the-dictatorial-elite-by-rule-of-the-gun-and-torture.”

What do we have now but a bourgeois democracy that exists to entrench the luxurious lifestyle of the few by gun and torture?

Horus,

“As-politically-INcorrect-&-insensitive-as-it-will-be-portrayed,
if-you-can-only-adequately-support-one-child,-don’t-have-1+

So you are arguing for a one child policy, only dictated by economic circumstances rather than a dictatorial regime. The rich can have as many children as they like, but the poor must limit their desire for a family to their economic position.

In Australia, the birth rate has been naturally falling, presumably because of the very fact that people can’t afford to have children. Yet our government wants us to have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country. They are even paying people baby bonuses to have children. How do you explain this paradox?

Capitalism depends on growth Horus, and it requires a lot of people desperate enough to take any job available at low wages. Your solution will not work.

Tao , My apologies for adopting a definition of communism that coincides with the reality of how states who supposedly intended to follow marxist doctrine actually conducted their affairs.
Do you think the system would end up any different if it were able to set up simultaneously around the world? If your answer is yes then I fear you delude yourself. What positions do you think all these gready capitalists, that you rail against, are going occupy in this new world order. Can I suggest they might aspire to being the "communist" leadership.
I think you lack insight into human nature and the corrupting influence of power and greed. Perhaps your solution is to purge those that don't pay at least lip service to your ideals. How do you figure out who is an honest communist (using your definition)? Who is charged with making such decisions? How do you suppress black-markets when they inevitably spring up? Do you kill or imprison the non-believers?
Wars between competing countries and ideologies are bad enough but murdering your own citizens en masse is even more disturbing.
Past attempts to establish communism as you define it have been a dismal failure. Blaming the West for past failures is convenient but you have to explin how next time you would succeed with a revolution without being even more repressive than past exponents of your philosophy.
I think we are destined to never reach agreement on the best mechanism of achieving a more equitable society. The best we might do is agree that we both genuinely aspire to a fairer distribution of resources than currently exists.

Tao,
Actually the universal rule seems to be that the poor have more children than the rich.
( i.e. those who can least afford -have more).

And strangely those countries with the best social conditions/welfare etc (eg Germany, France,Sweden) have fewer children than those of the third world with much poorer/adverse conditions.So it's not issue of “economics” -though perhaps it should be!

Capitalism has faults but it is a work-in-progress we can evaluate & adapt.
Where is there an example of a functioning communist society for us to take a look at?

Tao “FROM THE 95% WHO PRODUCE THE WEALTH TO THE 5%”

The distribution of total sales revenue between a businesses wages bill and its retained earnings after tax, would, see far more being expended on “employee benefits” than on “employer benefits”. The 5% who pay the 95% are clearly entitled to reward for risk and reward for creating the ventures which employ people.

“You pretend that the 5% are doing something noble in risking “their” capital, however capital is nothing more than stored labour from past exploitation. If you disagree with this, explain how capital came into existence.”

Those who risk their “capital” in ventures of commercial trade which employ others, provide the jobs from which employees benefit. If these employers were not to risk their capital, there would be significantly less “employment”.

Part B Explaining where did capital “come from”.

Thrift was one source.

The practice and choice of many generations of individuals was and is to save some of what they earned.

The thifty chose to put away part of their available consumption for a future eventuality, instead of spending it all immediately.

Rather than storing it in a tin or a mattress, some chose investment into income producing assets. Some joined and risked their funds with other like minded venturers, thus the first joint-stock companies with formed.

The Quaker / Puritans placed a particularly high value on “thrift”. They also placed a particularly high value of treating their fellow man with courtesy and respect.

Instead of building grand churches and cathedrals and offering fealty to the Pope or King, they worshipped simply and built businesses like Cadbury and employed people to work in them.

These “Quaker capitalists” were seen as the very best of employers for their worker care programmes and ethical employment values. Oh, they also built the early colonies which eventually joined with other colonies to become USA.

You could learn a lot from Quakers, tao.

tao “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Too many vested interests and lack of objectivity to ever make the “hard decisions”.

“The Bolshevik Party”

The Bolsheviks defeated the “White Russian Army”. Attempting to blame the Whites and their imperialist supporters 10 years later for the butchery of Stalin does not work.

As Lenin said “The goal of socialism is communism.” And we have seen the rise and collapse of communism. Communism was eaten away from the inside by its own corruption and incompetence and deserved to die sooner than it did. It sustained itself by denying its people basic human rights and freedoms.

Your airy-fairy theories of collectivism would be the first victims of communism. Just as the Kulaks were among the first victims of Stalinism (you know, Stalinism, the natural consequence of communism).

As for “What do we have now but a bourgeois democracy that exists to entrench the luxurious lifestyle of the few by gun and torture?”

Tell me, where will you find more guns and torture used to enforce “social order” of the streets of Melbourne or the Street on Pyongyang?

Are people forbidden to emigrate from Australia or from Cuba (except when Castro is emptying the gaols) ?

Was the Berlin Wall built to stop Westerners going into East Germany or to Stop East Germans escaping?

Tao, your “theories” are the tried and failed theories which denied generations of Eastern Europeans a decent life.

You, yourself, are the indulged product of Capitalism.

One day you will learn that no system is perfect.

That “Capitalism in Practice” is a lot “less imperfect” than every other system, regardless of every theoretical aspiration.

As for
“Again_the_unfounded_accusation_of_“envy”_which_is_your_stock_in_trade.
Again,_the_unfounded_accusation_that_I_want_to_be_a_dictator.
Accusations_of_stupidity_and_insanity.”

The envy is your claim the 5% are not worthy of what the 95% have not planned or saved toward.

You have to see yourself as “leading”, tell me, who else would you follow?

As for the stupidity and insanity, it was Lenin who named people like you “the useful idiots”.

Your views lead to Stalin, who said “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” And he knew!