Davidf,Col etc.

By definition if you read das Kapital the intention in fact focus of Communism is the People equality etc (Col, I don't say its better or worse I specifically said it didn't/couldn't exist outside of the mind.....)Therefore the topic is moot.

Starlin was interested in Starlin and abused the citizen rights of the people so therefore by definition he was NOT a Communist.
What you are saying is equivalent to saying that The current president is a democrat because nominally Zimbabwe is.
USSR was as much Communist as Zimbabwe is Democratic.

A country person may have aspects of communism/socialism but that doesn't make it that.

When it comes down to it all the aspects you point to are in some degree party of every government. What you're arguing about is a matter of degree.

In reality we all surrender control over our freedoms to belong to a country (society).
There is a lot of hyperbole entered into about "right" in a democracy but they aren't irrevocable nor are they universal to all democracies
The US does cease assets of rebels. So does Aus.
Government resume land.
Many Aust states still own method of transport,
Some democratic countries (Singapore, Malaysia) etc still control the media/press.

Under this mentality people are viewed in two dimensional extremes patently their not.

both parties the parties today have tended to compete for the swinging 5-10 % that forms the middle ground to the point ostensibly there are few differences between the two and those that do are most often about degrees of separation.

Sorry Col if the British Zombie Bitch retrospectives (what-her-name?) is the best your side (what ever it is) can come up with, no wonder the labels are past their used by date.

As I said, Col Rouge, I have no quarrel with the stated objectives of Thatcher. I was simply drawing the parallel with the aims and objectives of Thatcherism and Communism, compared to their practical results.

I accept that the "schoolmarm" description is merely how she came across to me. She may have been the Iron Lady to others - probably so that they felt better about themselves when she bested them - but to me she was simply a one-track didact with a patronising delivery.

But at the same time, you have a conveniently selective memory yourself.

>>she preserved such freedoms as to criticize from being killed under the opposing socialist manifesto of 1970... wholesale nationalization of the finance/Insurance sector... the appointment of political commissars etc etc etc <<

It was the country, not just Thatcher, who rejected Benn-ite socialism in 1970. The proverbial drover's dog would have been a shoo-in.

>>If “devil-take-the-hind-most” translates to less bad and pointless regulation and inefficient meddling by government… then she would be proud of it.<<

Of course she would. Only it doesn't.

It translates to the leaving-behind of the sick and the impoverished, in favour of the able-bodied and comfortable. Who, after all, were in the majority.

The country is only now beginning to recover from Thatcher-ite intervention in the NHS - which process, stupidly, Blair decided to continue. If she had been true to her principles, she would have been the leader who introduced the level of transparency and choice that is beginning to transform the entire system - complete with enforced performance targets and hospital performance tables.

Instead she simply starved it of investment, assuming that "private enterprise" would fill the gap.

As I said, the only point I am making is the difference between promise (and rhetoric, which is cheap) and real-life performance.

Just as she did nothing to retain grammar schools - even from her time as Education Minister - an act of educational vandalism from which the country has never recovered.

Again, there was a massive gulf between her stated - trumpeted, even - principles, and her deeds.

Pontificator “Communism is the People equality etc”

Is the first lie of socialism/communism.

people are not “equal”, either physically or intellectually. The only place equality needs to be applied is in the blind dispensation of law.

The notion “from each according to his means and to each according to his needs” is the underlying basis of the corruption, which is the hallmark of socialism / communism.

Stalin - far from stopping him, it was the communist system, despite what you seem to be claiming as its “perfect” theory, which allowed Stalin to prevail and shoot to fame (before he started shooting everyone else).

“Sorry Col if the British Zombie Bitch retrospectives”

Well that is the sort of observation I would expect from a narcissistic retard who lacks the vocabulary or intellect to make real debating points and simply relies on his own myopic, armchair, pseudo analysis to hurl abuse at a political leader who was returned by the electorate to govern the UK 3 times.

I suppose, the British electorate, who voted her into office, were also “wrong”?

- but it was their choice!

Pontificator, you are just overblown bag of wind.
All rhetorical air and no substance..
a bit like the fairy floss I commented on in a different thread.

Pericles “It was the country, not just Thatcher, who rejected Benn-ite socialism in 1970. The proverbial drover's dog would have been a shoo-in.”

It was Thatcher (distinct from the ultra wet Edward Heath - her predecessor) who presented the alternative for UK electorate to follow.

And it was Thatcher who remained prime Minister for another 15 years, before being ousted in a party coupe – but by that time I was in Australia and well past following the detail of UK politics.

“Thatcher-ite intervention in the NHS - which process, stupidly, Blair decided to continue.”

It sounds like you’re are being a little “myopic” and “precious” about the NHS… if neither of the principle UK political parties can present, for you here on the other side of the world, a viable process for the UK state health system.

Col,
Please take a deep breath, focus, calm down, you'll have a heart attack and newly married too.

What part of "it could never exist" don't you understand. The mistake Marx made are the same as Smith and reminiscences from the crypt they don't factor for people. Most are an amalgam of non linear views.That is except, perhaps you.

Get over it Col, It was 30 years ago it was Britain this is Australia, what the old boiler said or did is irrelevant, She was an imperfect politician and times have changed. And has no bearing on the labels of today in Australia.

BTW your posts to this topic, while colourful, don't qualify as a discussion, more the drone of a dogma chant with the incongruous occasional insult thrown to break the rhythm.

You reach too quickly for the put-down gun, Col Rouge. It is the reason you so often miss the target completely.

>>It sounds like you’re are being a little “myopic” and “precious” about the NHS… if neither of the principle UK political parties can present, for you here on the other side of the world, a viable process for the UK state health system.<<

The changes in the system that I described - "the level of transparency and choice that is beginning to transform the entire system - complete with enforced performance targets and hospital performance tables" - are happening right now. And beginning to have a positive impact. Under a post-Blair Labour government, no less.

I pointed them out because they are the type of changes that Thatcher should have implemented, if she had followed through on her "get tough" words. But she was convinced the health service was a lost cause, and simply starved it of investment.

It has not escaped notice that you made no comment at all on the disappearance of grammar schools. But perhaps you think that comprehensives are really neat - after all, they were introduced by the Conservatives, and helped along by a talented Education Minister in the early seventies.

Rather than use the terms right and left I think it better to specify the policies one favours and opposes.

I reject Marxism. It is a recipe for tyranny, as I have pointed out in a previous post. Stalin, Lenin and Mao were logical consequences of that philosophy. I oppose the all-powerful state with a dictator at its head. Lenin, Castro, Hitler and Pinochet were all tyrants. I also oppose laissez-faire capitalism that promotes the tyranny of wealth.

Top down economies work but not very well. Market economies are productive but result in great misery if uncontrolled. The Scandinavian states seem to have provided the best life styles on the planet.

I favour a system where government sees that everybody has adequate health care and education. I am against governments funding of non-public schools and for adequate funding of public schools. If parents want to send their children to non-public schools they should have the right, but they and their church or whatever entity supports the school should pay the entire cost.

I would restrict free speech to real people not corporate entities that use free speech to mislead in advertising. With their enormous monetary power corporations can lobby, control media, buy politicians and buy political parties. Public utilities, banks and insurance companies should be non-profit or publicly owned. The arms industry should not be privately owned as that is an invitation to create tensions so that military hardware has a market. As advisor to Senator Woodley I wrote legislation that requires impact statements including economic, military, social and environmental consequences and debate with public input before allowing export of military equipment or training of foreign military. Unless Australia is attacked or there is a domestic insurrection the prime minister should not have the power to order Australian forces into action without a parliamentary debate followed by a public referendum.

I favour collective bargaining as the individual worker by himself or herself does not have the power of the corporation. Unions must be democratic with elections by secret ballot determining decisions and office-holders.

continued