David Flint writes: "Although a strong republican, I was gratified that he immediately saw the flaws in the 1999 mode."

I didn't know that Professor Flint had at last come over to the dark side. Or is it just a precariously dangling participle?

Frankgol,

I think the omission was a typo. Still, it was interesting to discover that David was a member of a marxist cell when he was at school. Just goes to confirm the old saying that if you are not a socialist at 20 you haven't got a heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40 you haven't got a head. I don't have that problem, as I have been told that I have a perfect vacuum in the place designated for my social conscience.

I still just can't work out what the attraction of marxism is.

At a conference I once sat at a lunch table with Paddy and among others, a couple of very hardline ex-trade unionists, by then ALP MLCs, who took him to task. Paddy put to them that there were only two ways to rule - by fear or greed - and he preferred greed on balance . An amusing discussion, with the MLCs discomforted about being put in the 'fear' group.
Too much has been made of his inconsistency. The Brits better tolerate eccentrics who advance well presented opinions out of kilter with conventional wisdom and smetimes seemingly at odds with their previous utterances. Usually there is a bit to think about, even if one is in basic disagreement. And a bit fortright comment on the opinions does no harm, but unfortunately it often becomes personal.
We need more such Paddys in Australia.

plerdsus: "I still just can't work out what the attraction of marxism is."

Yesterday's battles, as you say, fought in your "perfect vacuum".

Outrider: "We need more such Paddys in Australia." What! He's dead. What are you saying? What sort of recommendation are you making to us?

FrankGol,

Hopefully you can try to explain to me the attraction of marxism. in doing so, please take the trouble to address some of my concerns. These are:

1. It is obvious, to all who care to observe, that despite any action by governments, some people will still live at subsistence level. Therefore, if we are all to be equal, we must all live at subsistence level.

2. There are some men, and far more women, who work for fame, status, etc., rather than for money. Most people, particularly men, are naturally indolent, and only work because it gives them the money they need to live. If equality were to be enforced in Australia, an observant male would realise that because we have a population of 21 million souls, any effort that he may make would yield 1/21000000 to himself, and 20999999/21000000 to others. He would conclude that any effort by him would have a negligible effect on his well-being, and therefore do no work. Any work extracted from him would be by coercion, since it would not pay him to work. As a result, as before, we would all live in poverty.

3. Whenever this has been tried, all over the world, it has produced the same result, and yet, there are still people who favour it.

I await your explanation of marxism with great interest.

plerdsus' quandary: "I still just can't work out what the attraction of marxism is."

FrankGol's immediate reply: Yesterday's battles...".

plerdsus: Hopefully you can try to explain to me the attraction of marxism. in doing so, please take the trouble to address some of my concerns.

FrankGol's second reply: Yesterday's battles. Are you expecting me to defend and explain what is no longer a widely-believed practice? And why me, when I'm clearly saying that it's not relevant?

I'll say this however: there's an important difference between Marxism as a system of social analysis and communism as a system of government. Marxism as a system of analysis will always be useful when it is applied with rigour and with regard to the evidence. Communism as a system of government is always subject to people's interpretation and interests and, therefore, fraught with imperfections (like capitalism).

For what it's worth, your first claim is true of both communism and of capitalism and your second claim is a mixture of empirically testable fact ("There are some men, and far more women, who work for fame, status, etc., rather than for money") and metaphysical belief not testable empirically ("Most people, particularly men, are naturally indolent). The conclusion you draw is quixotic nonsense.

Now if you are really interested in Marxism as opposed to the comic book mass media distortions of it, you might enrol in a philosophy or politics course in a reputable university or the CAE.

When you've finished - and done the required reading and discussion - come back and tell me again where Marxism has been tried as a system of government.