i-baster wrote:
No, what you described is basically Switzerland.
Direct democracy etc.

Guevarista wrote:
Put it down to what you like gue, if you read what I've said in this thread you'll see that I've clearly distinguished between the theory of socialism and the practice. Theory being an egalitarian society, practice being a pyramid standing on it's base, the proletariat. This would appear to be a major flaw would it not? That when practiced, socialism always tends to lead to just another form of oppression of the many by the few.

andyh wrote:
I thought you were intelligent andyh.

You know that Switzerland is created on bedrock of corruption with the banks hiding vast amounts of murderers/criminals/fascists etc money.

You must know that the elite keep Switzerland stable so their is no revolution or overthrow of the establishment in Switzerland,the Swiss are just good little gamekeepers given weapons to guard the loot that is kept in that so innocent and blameless country IMHO.

humanspirit wrote:
Whats that got to do with the price of beans?

Switzerland DOES have direct democracy and much of what you mentioned as being ideal.
If Switzerland is still not perfect then perhaps its not ideal and direct democracy is a complete and utter waste of time and your first post mentioning it is also therefore bunk.

Not doing yourself any favours there humanspirit

andyh wrote:
I totally agree with the democracy part of Switzerland and i would love a nice shiny machine gun in my cupboard but this is obviously a trade off,a ying and yang scenario.

Would you sleep well knowing your democratic country with shiny new machine guns for its gamekeepers was hiding drug money,art and gold stolen from people etc.

If they got rid of the banking side then i would big them up.

humanspirit wrote:
They do all that in loads of countries
Only one of those countries has the direct democracy you refer to, although you're inferring a hell of a lot from my post simply stating that Switzerland has direct democracy to then being about something else altogether!
Even my missus would have a job reading that much in to a couple of words, lmfao!!

As for banking what do you think I've been dissing the whole monetary system for all this time?
Jesus H Keerist lol...

oioioi wrote:

dubmeup wrote: You never offered one example of socialist theory or socialism in practice, you didn't answer my question, just made an inane point I've already told you is incorrect, I am forced to conclude you know nothing about what you speak?

Was it symbolic of a pyramid standing on it's base when the Bolshevik's murdered the Royal heirs to the Throne of Russia?

Let me guess Pol Pot and Stalin?

Guevarista wrote: Fuck me. Jumped up? You? No never.

If you're referring to the question about whether I know anything about the Russian Revolution, well look how it ended up....
It ended up with the proletariat being dominated by a few......
If you have some examples of Socialist theory being translated into enduring practice that sticks to the theory then please post them.....

dubmeup wrote:

If we look at every Nationalist,communist,socialist revolution they all ended with a few controlling the many. They all centralise power.
Both left wing and right wing has run its course its time for something different just not too sure what that difference is.

nirvana wrote:
I know what I'd like to see happen

nirvana wrote:
I don't think left wing got off the starting grid myself,the last time it was seen it was being scooped up and thrown out of airplanes into the sea

I would be happy to see a fairer system based around truth not the one we have now where crooks run everything.

humanspirit wrote:
Oh it got off the grid but approaching the first corner Romain Grosjean cut across it and caused a massive pile up

nirvana wrote:
It's not like every Left Wing revolution has just had an easy ride and total freedom for development though is it?

The interests of Capitalism were gnawing away at the Bolshevik's from at least as early as 1920, the long and drawn out Civil War had a massive impact on the "development of Socialism", jeez, do you think Marx wrote it is essential to be coming directly out of Feudalism, into a World War and then internal war with the forces of International Capitalism for Socialism to prosper? I mean the White Army has a Red White and Blue flag, how obvious does it have to be?

That was obvious the complete opposite of conditions required for the Socialist revolution, and since the Left was purged and persecuted throughout Europe in the exact same time frame, we can safely conclude the forces of international Capitalism, entrenched wealth, divine succession, nobility etc, impeded the development of the Revolution from the outset, it could have occurred in Germany or Britain at the time, huge Working class uprisings, General Strikes and eventually persecutions of Communist occurred while the US and British were launching White armies to regain a semblance of Feudalism in teh newly liberated land.

Now, most liberal historians who form criticisms of Leninism, the Bolshevik's, Trotsky, either knowingly or unknowingly do so from around the period of Civil War, without actually alluding to any influence the interests of their government's might have had.
Some conspiracy theorists like Anthony Sutton do allude to the influence of Capitalism on Bolshevism, but it appears to serve as a prop outlet for right wing/anti-semitic, or global jewish conspiracy theories, not a mere obective analysis of certain historical people and periods in history.

I take what you're saying about external influence gue but it could reasonably be summarized as:

The reason Socialist revolutions have invariably led to yet more domination of the many by the few is that the bad men from outside wouldn't just let them get on with it. Honest guv.

Which is a cop out.

Maybe we have only ever had a "socialist revolution" controlled by people who were not really socialists.

dubmeup wrote:
Really it's a cop out to suggest environmental factors determine evolution?
One follows from the other Dub, you can't have external and internal threats and not become militarized, or adapt to that threat, even Native American tribes had War chiefs when the leadership of the Party would become a Technocratic dictatorship to fight a war.

We've never not yet had a "socialist revolution" where it would be possible imo i-baster, namely the USA or any of the major industrial European countries.

Guevarista wrote:
Revolution and evolution are 2 very different things

andyh wrote:
But one could lead to the other.