The welfare state is a good thing isn't it? Sure, we live in capitalism, with its war and racism, and homophobia, and all that kind of s**t. But in the advanced countries we get some money even if we're unemployed, we get medical care and don't need to pay, we have free or subsidies legal advice, and in our old age we get a government pension or state-mandated superannuation.

But really, even in the countries where all that stuff is championed by liberals and reformists, like Sweden, is it actually all that good? Well, a welfare state accepts capitalism. Of course it does, that's what the welfare state is! It is capitalist, but there's a 'safety net' to stop people 'falling through the cracks' or to 'help people get back on their feet' after a personal or natural disaster.

But that view, the liberal view, is like saying 'we don't need to make a levee, what we need is to put some of our tax revenue into a fund so that when a flood comes we can help those affected "get back on their feet".' Let's not get rid of the problem, let's just provide help to those affected.

What's rather interesting is the moralism brought up to support that view of the welfare state (don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to live in a welfare state compared to England in the 1830's or some Asian countries today, but this doesn't mean I want the welfare state at all. It's like the choice between eating s**t, or having a pill that numbs taste and smell and THEN eating s**t. I want a ******** hamburger).

The whole idea of 'well yes, socialism IS desirable, but the problem is the revolution. And in a revolution, people die. You can't avoid that. and it's not only the bad people, and the people directly involved in the fighting, but the period of terror will undoubtedly hurt innocents! That is unconscionable, and therefore we have to make do with the system we have, and fix it as much as we can without provoking a counter-revolutionary reaction!'

Well, yes, that's a cute argument to be sure, but it fails by its own yardstick: Capitalism itself kills people through wars, poverty, medical deficiencies, etc., and it will continue to do so until the end of time, unless it is gotten rid of. This already means there is a moral obligation to get rid of it. If you compare, in a purely utilitarian way, the harm cased to people by capitalism and the harm caused to people by the revolution, you will see that not only are there those direct consequences that I pointed out, but there are the generational impacts, where poverty, bad medical care, exposure to toxic substances, and stress harm a pregnant mother, thus the baby (not to speak of the impact on non-pregnant women's ovaries and men's sperm!), so before a child is born or even conceived it is harmed, and in a way that will make its life harder and more sure to pass these defects on to the next generation!

So we have all these untold billions of people killed and harmed already. What about all those that have yet to live? What about those that have yet to suffer what those alive have already suffered? What about those yet to be killed by capitalism?

Now let us compare that to the most extreme revolution, with civil war, terror, and economic dislocation and collapse covering the globe. Of our 7 billion people, 4 perish either on the battlefield, in the terror, or through famine and want during the wars and in the immediate aftermath. Let's say a further billion and a half, or even two die after the period of global revolution, but due to the privation, want, and stresses of the period of conflict.

Let us not even say that those deaths are the fault of those who refused to give up power, of those who defended wealth, of those who sought to crush the revolution and fought to the most bitter end.

Let us place those deaths squarely at the hands of the revolutionaries from before the revolution. Let us place the blame for those deaths on people like myself who currently advocate revolution. Let us blame me or Lenin, or Marx, or even Robespierre and ******** Marat for 6 billion human deaths over a period of some 20 years.

How is that rather brief period of suffering, and that amount of death comparable to all those liberal-reformism would condemn by refusing to get their own hands bloody?

By its own standards, liberal-reformist moralism is condemned!