As usual Col, idyllic little fairy stories.

“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.”

You answers are so-predictable. Marx tore your little theory to shreds long ago:

“This primitive-accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original-sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human-race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal-elite; the other, lazy-rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous-living. The legend of theological original-sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated-wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original-sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property. M. Thiers, e.g., had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a statesman to the French people, once so spirituel. But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and "labour" were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.” Marx, Capital

...cont...

The truth behind the fairy tale is one of conquest, enslavement, robbery and force. Marx goes on to explain “The-capitalist-system-pre-supposes-the-complete-separation-of-the-labourers-from-all-property-in-the-means-by-which-they-can-realize-their-labour”.

How would this precondition be met in a feudal society in which people where guaranteed the right to work the land, and to the product of their own labour?

“The-process,-therefore,-that-clears-the-way-for-the-capitalist-system,-can-be-none-other-than-the-process-which-takes-away-from-the-labourer-the-possession-of-his-means-of-production;-a-process-that-transforms,-on-the-one-hand,-the-social-means-of-subsistence-and-of-production-into-capital,-on-the-other,-the-immediate-producers-into-wage-labourers.-The-so-called-primitive-accumulation,-therefore,-is-nothing-else-than-the-historical-process-of-divorcing-the-producer-from-the-means-of-production.”

And how to make it palatable for the fairy tale?

“Hence,-the-historical-movement-which-changes-the-producers-into-wage-workers,-appears,-on-the-one-hand,-as-their-emancipation-from-serfdom-and-from-the-fetters-of-the-guilds,-and-this-side-alone-exists-for-our-bourgeois-historians.-But,-on-the-other-hand,-these-new-freedmen-became-sellers-of-themselves-only-after-they-had-been-robbed-of-all-their-own-means-of-production,-and-of-all-the-guarantees-of-existence-afforded-by-the-old-feudal-arrangements.-And-the-history-of-this,-their-expropriation,-is-written-in-the-annals-of-mankind-in-letters-of-blood-and-fire.”

So the capital that is risked by our fearless 5% has its origins in the forcible removal of masses of people from the land which they WORKED to maintain their existence. And any capital growth has come as a result of the accumulation of the labour of people forced to WORK for others because they are still denied ownership of the means of production, a denial enforced by the bourgeois state.

Any attempt to deny this is simply delusion, or lies.

“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.”

(you-know,-Stalinism,-the-natural-consequence-of-communism).

You simplistically attempt to draw a straight line from Marxism to Stalin in a manner that is intellectually dishonest.

My comments on the White Army merely illustrate that there were many factors which contributed to the degeneration of the Bolshevik party and the usurpation of power by Stalin. The Civil War was one of them. Hundreds of thousands of the most class conscious workers were killed in the Civil-War, while there was an influx of petty bourgeois opportunists into the party uneducated in Marxist theory. The economy, rudimentary and technologically backward prior to WW1 (under the Czar and the weak bourgeoisie), was devastated by war (both WW1 and Civil), blockaded by the West, and the workers were exhausted. After his stroke and before his death, Lenin had tried to warn the party about the growing bureacratisation, and was preparing to move against Stalin. However, after Lenin’s death, Stalin was able to consolidate his power.

The question you might try to answer is - Why were the imperialist powers so interested in destroying the socialist revolution? They had just spent millions, of dollars and lives, on WW1, Europe was destroyed and destitute. Why didn’t they just leave Russia alone to succeed or fail on its own?

...cont...

“As-Lenin-said-“The-goal-of-socialism-is-communism.”-And-we-have-seen-the-rise-and-collapse-of-communism.”

You persist in perpetuating this lie, originated by Stalin mind you (and other dictators), that there is such a thing as a “Communist State” or “Socialism in one Country”. As I have already explained and, if you bothered to do some research you would see, we have never seen communism as envisaged by Marx and Marxists, it has never existed. Socialism has not reached its goal.

But go right ahead and blindly repeat Stalin’s lie.

”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? “

Actually, I see the use of guns and torture in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and tanks. In London and Paris earlier this year, I saw lots of army and police with machine guns enforcing “social order”. People actually get shot by police on the underground in London, don’t you know? In Australia our Attorney General denies that sleep deprivation is torture. The government has increased its powers to call out troops domestically against “domestic violence” or threats to “critical infrastructure”.

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

Actually, I see a US base in Cuba where its inmates are denied habeus corpus, access to lawyers, and are tortured. And I see that children trying to flee strife torn areas to Australia are locked up on islands and in the desert.

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

I see there is now a wall being built on the US Mexican Border. Whatever happened to “Bring me your tired, your poor, and your hungry”. The US’s client state Israel is also building a wall.

But of course, “Capitalism in Practice” is a lot “less imperfect”. Indeed, bourgeois democracy is becoming a lot more imperfect as time goes on. Yes, lets not worry about it at all.

Tao. You still fail to offer any reasons why a future revolution would not go the same way as prior attempts. By your own admission there was "failure of the Soviet Union and all other attempted socialist-revolutions". You score top marks for optimism but very few for learning from history.
The writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trysky may well set out some interesting and in part appealing theories but implementation is what matters in the final analysis.
Let us all know when you have figured out a benign way of controlling the behaviour of millions of individuals. That includes how you are going to control all those latent capitalists.
My discussion of murdering ones own citizens en masse was not an apology for capitalist murder and I fail to see how you have drawn such a conclusion. Perhaps you think all wars are between competing capitalist societies and I seek to sanitise such monstrous events by comparing them to the greater crime of turning on your own people. No such sanitising was implied or intended.
Your comment about what constitutes the pinacle of my ideal of fairness is a cheap-shot and belittles your ability to engage in rational debate. Logical thought does not support the proposition that discussing a point raised by another individual (in this case the high cost of gaining legal redress)carries an implication that one's horizons do not extend beyond that issue.

Tao “Marx tore your little theory to shreds long ago”

I see my “theories” in PRACTICE every day.

I see you wailing about “capitalist practices”, everyday.

I see Marx and the beast of his imagination as having being consigned to the cesspool of failed theories years ago.

Marx has been dead a hundred years or so, I hate to tell you, he is tearing up nothing, he is just pushing up daisies in a London Cemetery.

Your final question (I ignored the excessive verbage and rant in the middle) “Why didn’t they just leave Russia alone to succeed or fail on its own?”

Because Russia was not disposed to leave the West along to “fail on its own”.

Russia, China and their minions were actively exporting their versions of “Animal Farm” across the globe.
As Stalin wrote “Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.”

Re “You persist in perpetuating this lie,”

You use Lenin’s professed strategy. Keep it up tao, as he said “a lie told often enough becomes the truth”

Whilst you are at it try this one from Stalin (the consequence of Lenin)

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

A contemptible attitude from the mind of one of your “bedfellows”.

“Indeed, bourgeois democracy is becoming a lot more imperfect as time goes on. Yes, lets not worry about it at all.”

All systems can exist with a high degree of imperfection, we have the communist system (the natural consequence of socialism) which had more imperfections than any other system and it survived for 70 years, before it was torn down by the people it oppressed.

“bourgeois democracy” has been evolving for 400 years and continues to evolve.

As far as “usable life” is concerned, I am happy to suffer the imperfections of bourgeois democracy. It has served more people for longer than even your system of oppression managed to butcher.
It has developed more than your system has copied.
It is a paragon of liberal virtue, compared to your cesspit of state control.

"It is a delusion to think that leaders of even small groups are immune from acting dishonestly or out of self interest."

Small groups don't wield as much power and power corrupts.

"The technology that allows you to communicate via this medium would never have evolved in the sort of world you seem to crave."

Better technology would have developed. One of the great failings of "all powerful" national Governments is that they create across the board uniform laws which inhibit creativity. Look at bug infested Microsoft. With freedom to pursue local experimentation comes creativity. The backbone of progress. Instead we have monopolistic super conglomerates.

"Might I suggest you contribute in a meaningfull manner to promoting honest and responsible government."

There is no such thing. Whenever you add the human factor you have to multiply it by the corruptibility and conspiracy variables.

"Try joining a political party of any persuasion and pressing for what you think is right. Do not always expect to get your own way, only dictators can achieve that."

I did. The Liberals. A Dictator would be better. Atleast then it would be official.

"Democracy is imperfect because human beings have some rather base instincts but do not expect these to disappear from smaller aggregations of individuals."

It wouldn't eliminate corruption. Just reduce it.

"Evolution is far superior to revolution."

If the Dinosaurs hadn't been largely killed off then we wouldn't be here now. I myself wouldn't shed a tear if our Dinosaurs in Canberra were to suffer a similar tragic demise.

"Wayne. How can someone bring you back to reality and away from anger?"

I'm not angry. I can see the writing on the wall. Even if you can't. The Redfern, Cronulla, Palm island riots and Pauline Hanson are just little tremors preceding the big earthquake. People have been talking about revolution in Australia for decades but theres a more widespread and serious tone to it nowadays. Personally it won't bother me much. I'll disapear out bush until its all over. I'm not an activist. Just realistic. I listen to people.