Well you know Yabby that doesn't answer my question but I have noticed that not many people on the forum do answer questions. It seems to me that you don't answer for the same reason as most politicians won't anwer a direct question with a direct answer. You are scared of being 'caught out' and 'proved' to be wrong.

Of course you have a point. I think your point was that our politicians are not up to the job. But I don't think that it is intelligence in politicans that is lacking. It is not just the politicians 'fault'.

Aren't 'we' to blame also, for the choices we make? The choice to have a second plasma when we could support something that would benefit our local community? The choice to eat that second lot of chips and burger and get fat and be a burden on the health system?

We don't really want the Government to control everything do we? And what about the bankers? Don't you think they have something to answer for? The problems are much more complex and more fundamental than that we have useless politicans.

After all, politicans are only human and it seems to me that overall our politicans - both labor and coalition, independents and the minor parties - have, over the past decades and despite many 'wrong' decisions, contributed to the pretty good situation that we are in now.

Dear Poirot,

You ask the question: "Karl Marx Was Right?"

The key to history, Karl Marx believed was
class conflict - the bitter struggle between those
who own the means of producing wealth and those who do
not. This contest, Marx claimed, would end only with
the overthrow of the ruling exploiters and the
establishment of a free, humane, classless society.
As we've seen from history -
this so called Utopian point of view
of a classless society failed miserably as
proven with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Even though Marx wrote about the conditions of his time,
he was right in one sense and that was his claim that
all except the most primitive societies are divided into
two classes - one which dominates and exploits others.

The domiant class always uses
social institutions to maintain its privileged
position. For this reason, institutions like the
state always serve to maintain the status quo, not to
change it.

The state itself is simply the "executive committee of
the ruling class," protecting their class interests
and of course allowing it to enjoy the surplus
wealth produced by the workers.

You have only to look at the US to see this in action.
The current tax system in the US is a problematic
system. Where the rich pay less
tax than anyone else - and are refusing to have this
changed as President Obama is trying to do. He's not wanting
to get the rich to pay "extra taxes," merely their fair
share in these tough economic times. There is great
resistance to his plan.

*Of course you have a point*

Well Mollydukes, that was my point.

*But I don't think that it is intelligence in politicans that is lacking. It is not just the politicians 'fault'. *

Well it was the people who elected them, so absolutaly, it is
the people who are at fault, for electing politicians who show
poor judgement. As they say, people get the politicians which
they deserve. Which brings me back to my point, don't blame
capitalism for flawed political judgements, as per my examples.

For all its faults, capitalism is the one way which has unlocked
humanity's potential for innovation and it is that innovation
which has changed our lives so dramatically.

People who show great judgement are actually quite difficult
to find and in my experience they are not the people who commonly
rush into politics

I agree partly with almost everyone who has contributed to this thread, even Runner. I was born into a Marxist-oriented family and did my stint as a Maoist, although I never went in for Trotsky, so I'm not all bad.

Lexi, you're right about class conflict, but that was hardly a novel observation of Marx's - Buddha, Wat Tyler, even Plato, made observations about conflict in society (like Plato, Marx's solution was also to institute a totalitarian Utopia, if that's not an oxymoron). And yes, capitalism is not the final answer. But the trouble is, neither was socialism: your point about the state being "the executive committee of the ruling class" is doubly true for states like the Soviet Union and China - and Pol Pot's Cambodia was probably the most horrific example of the perversion of this slogan. Executive indeed.

Yes, there has to be something better than either capitalism or socialism as they have been practised up until now. One huge mistake that even Marx made, IMHO, was to spurn the broad lessons of the Enlightenment and, rather than go beyond them, retreat from them.

The trick may be how to build on Enlightenment values, how to extend the lessons of the last few hundred years that equality, liberty, universality and diversity - always in tension - must be combined constructively, without lurching into dictatorship, on one pretext or another.

Cheers, Lexi, how's the weather over there ?

Joe Lane

Pelican:>>Capitalism is no different to Socialism, Communism or any other system in this respect. It nearly always comes down to excesses of greed.<<

Never factored into the equation yet as history has shown the ruler of the outcome every time.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Brilliantly put as always.

How's the weather here?
Warming up apparently - although I can't feel it at present.
I'm getting over a rotten virus, so I've been restricted
to indoors for the past few weeks. I've got a persisent
cough that won't go away. So I'm a bit of an insomniac.
Can't wait for the lazy, hazy, crazy, days of Summer.

Most of the countries of Western Europe have had periods of
both socialist and non socialist rule since World War II,
as their electorates have periodically switched allegiance
from one political party to another. I guess the reason for that
was probably due to the fact that while socialist societies
may distribute wealth more evenly than capitalist ones
(I'm talking about democratic socialism here), they are less
efficient at creating wealth in the first place.

The twentieth century has provided overwhelming evidence that socialist economies are more bureaucratized and less
productive than capitalist ones.

Ideally a blend of both capitalist and socialist elements
and their evolution toward a common ultimate form - could
possibly be the way to go.