Good points, well argued. I guess we come from totally different traditions which explains our differences. I am openly a Marxist and I believe that Marx offers us some fantastic insights which I believe are more relevant today than when he was writing in the 1840s and 1850s. I am reminded of a comment made by a guy called Quintin Hogg (yes, that was his name) before he became Lord Hailsham. He said, "If we don't give the people reform, then the people will give us revolution". You see, to my mind, that comment alone encapsulates the limits of your notion of socialism. Lord Hailsham was clearly not a socialist but a member of the ruling upper classs here in Britain.

What he meant by 'reform' was the very limited version of socialism that you allude to. In Britain 'reform' came in the guise of the formation of our national health service after WW2, immortalised in glowing terms by Michael Moore in his documentary "Sicko". It also meant a system of free universal and comprehensive education and a massive heavily subsidized house building programme. Now, as welcome as these concessions to capitalism are, they nevertheless represent the crumbs from the ruling class table, and in my opinion ultimately have the effect of undermining a socialist revolution, as Marx understood it.

Most people it seems to me, are unaware of just how close we came to a genuinelly global socialist revolution following the greatest of all revolutions in Russia 1917. But unlike 1917, when capitalism was in its relative infancy, it is now is spread throughout virtually every corner of the world. The working class is bigger than it has ever been and the potential to overthrow capitalism in its entirity has never been greater. Perhaps, you are right and I am wrong. Maybe, the crumbs from the table are the necessary pre-requisite for socialism in its totality, but I think not.

Both ruling class individuals like Hailsham and the reformist socialists, remain tied to the existing system because they are the main beneficiaries from the current status-quo being maintained. I think we human beings can, and indeed should, aim far higher. How this is achieved is not through 'socialist' peacemeal reform, but through the smashing of the entire capitalist aparatus of which parliamentary democracy is its apex. But we cannot smash the system blindly as the anarchists assert, nor can we smash it with an un-elected elite who claim to act on our behalf, rather we need to smash it with a compliant and fully conscious working class majority. Thanks for participating. I've enjoyed it.