Logical,

“You-still-fail-to-offer-any-reasons-why-a-future-revolution-would-not-go-the-same-way-as-prior-attempts”

Do you want a promise that a future socialist-revolution would not turn out as it did in Russia? I can’t do that, and no-one can do that. It is impossible to predict what will happen in the future. What I can say, is that humans, individually and collectively, learn from experience.

Every progressive-step that humankind takes, it takes without really knowing for sure what the future-holds.

We have sent men into space. In order to do so, we have used knowledge accumulated through hundreds and thousands of generations of human existence. We have had failures. We have had disasters. Does that mean that we stop trying to send men into space? No. It means we go back to the drawing board, analyse where we went wrong, and try again.

To say the space-shuttle burnt up on re-entry, therefore all space-travel is doomed to disaster, so we will cancel the space-program, and don’t bother even trying to find out what went wrong, is shutting off an entire avenue of scientific knowledge and human progress.

The same goes for Marxism. To say that a theory which offered a scientific explanation for poverty and social inequality which stands as the most comprehensive-explanation to this day, and which offered a practical guide for action to those wanted to improve the world, should be disregarded after a setback in its implementation, and don’t even bother trying to find out what went wrong, is to shut off another avenue of scientific knowledge and human progress.

It is not for me to guarantee that there will be no more “failures” of socialist-revolutions. But it is for me to ask what went wrong? Why did the implementation of a theory, embodied in the Russian-Revolution, which gave hope to many millions around the world, go the way it did? What were the factors involved, and how did they interact. Is there any way that it can be done differently? What should we be aware of for the future?

Cont...

It is only by asking the questions with an open-mind that we can learn the lessons we need to learn. But it is these questions that capitalists do not want us to ask or think about seriously, and so we ought not listen to their answers.

If you don’t believe a revolution is necessary or possible, why would you choose to contribute to a thread entitled “When ---is-a-revolution-necessary?” Why have you found it necessary to post here, actively discouraging people from revolution?

You have already partly answered this question:

“Social-democrats-aspire-to-a-more-equitable-distribution-of-wealth-but-do-not-choose-revolutionas-as-the-means-of-achieving-that-goal.”

And indeed, you are playing the objective role of social-democrats throughout history (and one of the reasons for the failure of the German-Revolution), which is to block the development of an independent political movement of the working-class. Social-democratic parties like the ALP here and the Democrats in the US posture as friends of the workers and channel discontent back into bourgeois-democracy thereby subordinating them to the capitalist-system.

Once subordinated to the capitalist-system, workers are forced to accept the logic of the capitalist framework which insists that workers must compete with each other, locally and internationally, for a smaller-and-smaller share of the pie.

Humankind has produced more than it ever has done, we have better technology than we ever have had, yet we are constantly told that there isn’t enough money for proper health-care, education, retirement etc, or even for decent wages. Billions of people around the world live in abject-poverty. Yet companies are making record-profits, and their executives are making record salaries, and our politicians cut their taxes. We are spending record amounts on war. It doesn’t make any sense. It is not “logical”, yet this is the “logic” of capitalism.

But as I said, the objective role of social democracy, and people like you, is to subordinate people to the “logic” of the profit system. They do this by saying we don’t need a revolution, we’ll just fix capitalism, vote for us. But as we have seen from a century of the ALP, which has betrayed workers over-and-over again, this is completely bankrupt. It disorients and weakens the working-class.

…cont…

Hence your comments “How can someone bring you back to reality and away from anger?” The reality is that the anger is real. The reality is that ordinary working people can’t afford proper medical treatment. The reality is that people can’t afford proper legal representation. Legal aid is a band-aid, and its funding is constantly cut. And anyway, we are in the bosses’ courts, being meted out the bosses’ justice.

There is justifiable anger about many things in our society. But you want to deny this anger, deny the necessity for real change i.e. a revolution, and channel it back into social democratic tinkering.

I put it to you that you will never admit publicly that a revolution is necessary or possible. If that is the case then your answer to the question posed by this thread is “never, because everything is fine as it is”, and there is no need for you to continue posting here.

Yet you persist, and you even side with one of the most vicious reactionary right wing posters on this forum – Col Rouge – e.g. “Good work Col!”. Col Rouge doesn’t want a fairer distribution of wealth, he argues for the right of some people to accumulate obscene wealth while the majority live in poverty. Col is so irrational, that when he is shown to be incorrect on important points, he can’t admit it or revise his ideas, but his posts take on the tone of a hysterical rant in order to distract people from the content of what has been said (just read the last few posts between us).

So as a social democrat, despite protestations of wanting a “fairer” distribution of wealth, you end up in the camp of those who actively work against it, and unfortunately, by deluding others that there can be a “fairer” capitalism, you take others with you.

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

That is a truism. It is also true to say in “small groups” everyone is either related or close to everyone else. In large groups it is the absence of relationship which induces people to act corruptly (who we do not know we do not care about or at least care less about).

“Better technology would have developed.”

Prove it or at least specify how.

" national Governments is that they create across the board uniform laws which inhibit creativity.”

And what will your revolution create?

Or after the revolution, of those who are left, how are you going to stop the growth of opposing power groups recalling, you have no national arbiter to regulate their growth?

I set up a company a year ago, after 4 years of product development. We now sell that developed product and a number of others. I embraced “creativity” without inhibitions imposed by government.

If you mean having national standards, a lot of those are to protect consumers from unscrupulous merchants, where things like TV and radio waves are concerned, the federal government licences their use, as arbiter on behalf of the community. Your complaint about Microsoft – go buy an Apple. I would further note Linux, Java and Open Source is here. The US Trade Commissioners (a function within US Federal Government) are still fighting Microsoft to break it up and their success, whilst long coming, will eventually win through.

“I did. The Liberals. A Dictator would be better.”

Exactly what would a dictator do better than a democratically elected government, remembering that only power matters to dictators, welfare issues do not?

“I listen to people”
I do not think you do, I think you classify and codify people according to your own values set, as most of us do but listen to them, selectively maybe but objectively, no.

And don’t get seduced by anything tao says, you are complaining about practical problems with democracy, tao’s “solution” is a bunch of impossible theories requiring more central power and resulting in more corruption.

Logical, WayneSmith,

Col Rouge said: “And don’t get seduced by anything tao says, you are complaining about practical problems with democracy, tao’s “solution” is a bunch of impossible theories requiring more central power and resulting in more corruption.”

As I said Logical, capitalists don’t want us to ask the questions or think seriously about them. If what Col is saying about my “solution” is true, then wouldn’t you find out for yourselves through your study anyway? What is the harm in finding out? Why is he so determined to stop you? Why does he assume that if you pay attention to what I am saying you are being “seduced”?

In my opinion, you have the ability to weigh up the evidence and make up your own minds.

And WayneSmith, you should trust your own eyes and ears about what people are thinking – I agree with you that there is a shift occurring. The media likes to portray everything as rosy, as do politicians, however the reality is that it is not.

Tao “Col Rouge said: “And don’t get seduced by anything tao says, …. “
response”As I said Logical, capitalists don’t want us to ask the questions or think seriously about them.”

Nothing I have ever written has ever suggested anyone should not ask questions nor think seriously about things.

I would note what I espouse is the free exchange of ideas. What happens when the practice of tao’s theories occurs is central control of all resources, censorship, repression, torture and murder of individuals.

I would implore everyone to think seriously about the values which encourage people to be their best and make choices for themselves and to think equally about the consequences of an alternative, the control from the central committee, which tao supports.

What is closer to the “smaller government” which you want to see WayneSmith? The centralization of resource and collective ownership by the state or through everyone making their own decisions?

Tao seduces with offers of a false expectation when he suggests “In my opinion, you have the ability to weigh up the evidence and make up your own minds.”

My question for you to consider and to see what tao really is

Part A in Australia under this Liberal (capitalist) government, how long will it be before you will be allowed to vote for a non-liberal government?

Part B After the revolution which you were espousing which we will assume results in a communist government of the style tao has prescribed, with the Bolsheviks in power, controlling everything, including what you are allowed to ask questions of and what you are allowed to think, how long will it before people were allowed to vote for a non-Bolshevik politician?

Answer Part A at a maximum of 4 years
Answer Part B based on USSR, 70 years.

And between part A and Part B which system has the biggest dissident prison camp system?

I will finish with a profound quotation

“Beware for what you wish because sometimes wishes come true”

Honesty is what tao cannot tolerate, he knows the truth yet his arrogance demands he defend the indefensible