Bill Bartlett wrote:


>But I don't support the "seizure of power" by anyone, it has to be the
>express will of the people. If we say its OK for us or ours to seize power,
>we're on shaky ground condemning others for the same. It might be some way
>off as you say, and I think Chomsky has done quite a good job in explaining
>the mechanics of how the present system maintains 'consent'. But you can't
>fool all of the people all of the time as they say, so 'manufacturing
>consent' isn't the whole story, nor a final solution. Material
>circumstances, ie the inherent ECONOMIC flaws of capitalism will play a big
>part.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas.
>
>___________________________________________________________________________

Reading phrases like "economic flaws of capitalism" in a discussion about
"socialist unions" makes me wonder. Are we still entertaining notions of
socialism being a better system than capitalism after the upheaval of the
last ten years caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union? My comments do
not stem from a familiarity with Chomsky's theories. They are more a product
of working with people who have fled socialist tyranny around the world and
who scoff at any attempt to convey respect for anything socialist. These
people are simply relieved to be in a capitalist society - with all its flaws.

I would have thought that it was abundantly clear - and again this is not
from a theoretical standpoint - that socialism has failed in practice and
that capitalist societies have shown themselves to be remarkably resilient
in providing comparatively better lives for their citizens. People can
debate the advantages of one against the other on a theoretical level, but
in practice the answer is clear. Socialism has failed.

This is not meant to denigrate the ideas put forward by Bill Bartlett, Brian
Callahan et al, or to directly contribute to the discussion on socialist
unions, but I'd be interested to hear people's responses on this.

Michael Coghlan.