: Now that just depends, I'd consider the 1970's and 1980's a period of time when internationally people took up arms against the state, or at least tried to organise freely against the states interests (that includes the interests of the states paymaster like Ford). In these circumstances "liberal democracies" demonstrated that there was very little to seperate them from despotism.What people? Did I miss something?
: Civil rights marches gunned down by commando units in Chile by Phinochet, Civil rights marches gunned down by Thatcher in Derry in Northern Ireland.
I knew about the Chile one - all I remember from the 80s in NI is murder after murder, one sect on another, something about a nervous gaurd shooting at 'joy riders' who crossed a point and someone throwing grenades during a funeral - I dont really know enough about NI. At least I'm honest about that. Go to Boston and see some 100% US americans pretending to know what it means to support one side or its opposite number - safe 1000's miles over the Atlantic from the reality.
: Organising freely in a trade union restricted and abolished in Chile by Phinocet with force of arms, the same happened in Britain under Thatcher.
I only know about the UK ones on this - and that the primary thing to be stopped were 'closed shops' and union monopolisation of workforce (ie blocking other people from from working)
: I'm afraid so Gee or at least you see what happens when your ideology translates into practice, not a pretty sight is it? The question maybe shouldnt be whether not people are going to accept socialism but when is capitalism going to leave them alone to live their lives.
As socialism tends to collapse into despotism so democracies tend to become increasingly regulated and governed.
It is sad.
: You get laissez faire militarists just the same as you get socialist militarists Gee, now people who like to preserve the civil libertarian dimension of both ideologies see the very apparent contradiction but it doesnt prevent these distortions becoming the real world examples of "Laissez faire" or "socialism".
It doesnt, perhaps we should attach 'psuedo' to those terms when describing them.
: I cant agree I'm afraid there are structural factors which contribute to determining peoples behaviour.
And those 'structural differences' are dues to.....individuals.
: Well prompted by yourself, you remember you said would the really qualify as socialists?, I must say I did wonder but then I decided that I cant judge their sincerity and what criteria would I use? If it's regualtion then they support it as much as say george soros if it's tax for the sake of tax then they wouldn't, liberal socialists but socialists all the same.
Yes I can see you dont want to enforce a 'guidelines for being a real socialist' on others - as some other people might wish to, so as to test your purity or whatever.
: Stroller no doubt did. You see Proudhon was a Socialist, the man said property was theft but then he said wait a minute Communism is impossible and not a great idea even if it wasnt, a view I'm sympathetic with.
I can see that (I cant see how property is theft though), but I like Proudhons powerful 'to be governed is...' text.
None.
