Thanks for a good debate. I think maybe its better that we draw it to a close soon for fear of repitition. I want to summarize both our positions and perhaps you would care to come back if you want to pick me up on anything that you feel that I have mis-represented you on. Essentially, your position appaers to be this: You belief, that socialist society is compatible with a small enlightened bunch of people deciding amongst themselves policies that they believe to be to be in the best interests of the masses. These people are necessarily distinct and separate from the working class that they purport to represent. They are in essence, a self-appointed and un-elected elite whose policy outcomes are nevertheless necessarily attuned to the social well-being of society in its totality. It is within this context that you imply that universal health care and education systems would emerge.

Now, being a socialist, I naturally concur with the outcomes of a such a process. The system you have in mind is currently operational in Cuba where it is certainly the case that socialist values trump capitalist values. Fidel and the elite that surround him are at the helm of a centrally planned quasi-form of socialist economy. This system is without doubt more preferable than the capitalist societies of Western liberal democracies like the US and Britain. In fact, Cuba is in practice far closer to my concept of democracy than is the US for example. Noam Chomsky was correct when he proclaimed the US to be "a single-ideological state with competing political factions", rather than a democracy. In this sense, it is more accurate to describe the US as an oligarchy rather than a democracy in terms of OUTCOME.

So, although the US is a FORMAL democracy in the sense that people have the opportunity to vote in elections once every 4 or 5 years, Cuba on the other hand, is clearly not a democracy in the FORMAL sense of the term, but nevertheless is far more democratic than the US in terms of OUTCOME. In other words, Fidel has ensured that Cuba has a world class health service free at the point of delivery, a free education system from cradle to grave, the highest amount of trained medical doctors per capita then anywhere else on earth etc etc. This is despite the fact that Cuba has effectively been subject to a 49 year old economic siege by successive US administrations. What all this indicates is that Cuban society is far more responsive in satisfying the fundamental needs of its citizens than the US is.

So we agree on the potential beneficial outcomes that socialism affords as compared to capitalism. We also both agree that capitalists view the wealth of a society in purely individualistic and monetary terms whereas our priorities lie elswhere.

So far, so good.

Our views begin to diverge in respect to conceptualizing how these outcomes might be realized in philosophical and practical terms. I was at pains to point out to you that unlike the Cuban model, the Russia people themselves on mass in 1917 collectively changed their society in a very real and objective way. That's why I'm mystifyed as to why you claimed that I pointed out "no successful example .... to bring to the table". Russia in 1917 represented the clearest and most successful example yet of the creation of a socialist society from below of the people, by the people, for the people. Russia, in other words, did in fact establish, to use your words, "a socialist system of universal health care by voluntary compliance"- YES, IT DID HAPPEN AND IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN.

The bottom line that separates us is this. You are pessimistic about the capacity of people to democratically change their circumstances in a collective way for the benefit of all, wheras I am not. You believe people on mass are incapable of pre-empting such change, even though historical events have taught us otherwise. Marx was alive to this reality 70 years before the Russian revolution occured because he understood that it is only people through their own efforts who are capable of bringing forth their own freedoms. They do this in the first instance, by merging theory with practice. MARXISM IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF PRACTICE as opposed to the the pie in the sky believes of the Utopian socialists, who you strangely characterise me as being a follower of.