I have been chuckling over this one since last night. I thought, dear reader, that I could proudly boast of being banned from yet another Trot-lot site, but this was very different.
It is a site run by 'John b' who obviously suffers from similar problems to 'lenin', the little 'Oirish' twit who actually delights in the nom-de-plume of a mass-murderer, because whilst the main heading of the site is "Shot-at-by-both-sides", the actuall http is www.stalinism.com. Now I ask you, what kind of person would wish to be associated in even the most fragile way with that old brute who, with the possible exception of Mao, butchered more people than anyone in human history?
Anyway, perusing a particularly daft post on South America proposing that socialism was the only democratic answer to the ills of that troubled continent, I wrote a comment stating that "Socialism can never be democratic because it entails the theft of property by the state". It was turned down on the grounds that I was a 'spammer', hence my instant belief that I had been banned - yet again! Just to test, I then sent a comment stating that 'socialism was the answer to all of South America's problems', and guess, what? It went through, no trouble at all.
So here we have the first sycphantic site - oh, how dear, old 'Uncle Joe' would have loved it. Nothing is allowed on that does not comply with the Great Leader's thoughts and prescriptions. So, I bade farewell to Mat, Cato, John S, John B and, of course, who else, but the ineffable 'Dave' Heasman, all nodding away together like so many toy dogs in the back of a Cortina.
Err, not quite. The site blocks certain keywords and combinations of keywords (I'm not sure which one you triggered - the text reproduced above wouldn't have done it) that are commonly used in spam: teen, chatroom, poker, ultram, paxil, etc. I don't block comments on content grounds, and I only delete comments if they're spam that gets through or if they're libellous.
(you're misrepresenting the South American post, as well: the point is that it's absurd for the US to claim that democracy is under threat because the people have chosen to vote for people that it doesn't like. As it happens, I doubt that socialism is the best solution to LatAm's problems - it'll be a hell of a lot better than brutal murderous tyranny, however.)
Posted by: john b | Thursday, 28 April 2005 at 10:34
My thanks to 'john b' for his response but this is what I typed, sent and had refused: "Socialism can never be democratic because it entails the theft of property by the State". I tried one or two other combinations but with the same effect. Still, I am happy to acknowledge that 'john b' is an open-minded chap, happy to take on all comers. Even so, I still worry about a man who lurks under the title of "Stalinism"!
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 28 April 2005 at 14:15
You're right. It's because "socialism" contains "cialis", which is the name of a willy-stiffening drug that spamming bastards are keen to advertise on my blog. I'll make some changes...
Posted by: john b | Thursday, 28 April 2005 at 15:40
There, I knew there had to be something good in socialism for all you chaps to pursue it with such enthusiasm. (Er, should I try my local Labour party office, do you think?)
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 28 April 2005 at 16:37
I don't think you'll find any socialism at any Labour party office.
Posted by: Jez | Thursday, 28 April 2005 at 16:44
Hi Duff, and thanks for the post on our site.
What makes you believe that private property has anything to do with democracy? In any case, you are I'm sure aware that eminent domain is law in almost every country, regardless of the economic system currently employed. This is what gives the state the "right" to collect taxes.
Public property gives the people, all the people, the democratic right to decide what to do with that property. I for one cannot think of anything MORE democratic than that.
Posted by: reasoninrevolt | Friday, 06 May 2005 at 22:52
Greetings to 'resoninrevolt' who asks: "What makes you believe that private property has anything to do with democracy?"
Because the notion that there is at least one thing which even the state and its rulers cannot touch, in other words, a very necessary limit to their powers, provides us all with a private domain in which we can live our own private lives undisturbed. Just look at times past when such a proposition was in its infancy, or look at all those failed states today in which the kleptocracy has fallen into rampant tyranny. Private property is not a sufficient cause for liberty, but it is an necessary part of it.
Your second proposition: "Public property gives the people, all the people, the democratic right to decide what to do with that property" is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking. Just look around you. Some people lead, some people follow, some people just want a quiet life. The result is that those who lead, squabble as to the direction to follow, and eventually, by hook or by crook, one of them gains power and *he and his cohorts* then tell the rest of us what to do. Should you doubt me, look at any 'democratic' trade union! To assert loudly, as these people always do, that it is all in the name of the 'people' does not make it so.
I shall certainly keep an eye on your site, and look forward to seeing you over here.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 07 May 2005 at 13:47