Thanks cobber; slipped your leash again.

Chris Lewis, let me clarify ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the context of the dialectic which this author is describing; that is Marxism and Capitalism.

Capitalism will always be imperfect because it is a product of a system which is focused on allowing as much freedom for individuals as possible. I am on the Libertarian side of the ledger when it comes to individuality, although I accept that there must be a sense of communality as well as some restrictions on individuality in all aspects, economic and legal.

The dynamic of the balance will vary but is still firmly anchored in the precedence of the individual.

I call such societies ‘right’.

The left seek Utopia, either for all, as with Marxism, or for a select such as Nazism. That is the fundamental quality of the left whereby an ideology is sought to be implemented in the name of all or some but invariably at the expense of many. Individuality is secondary to the ideology in these ‘Utopian” societies.

I call such societies ‘left’.

The difference for me is stark and amply supported by history. It annoys me when the Nazis are not recognised as being of the left for this reason.

This author advocates Marxism as something compatible with the ‘right’ as defined above. It is an oxymoron. Public ownership of the means of production, of in effect business, is a nonsense if you are claiming individual rights because such a society has removed a large portion of what it means to be an individual.

The loss of other individual rights inevitably follow, including the right to even criticise the ideology which has demonstrated time and time again its capacity to silence its critics. It is this absence of an infrastructure primarily designed to enfranchise individual rights which enables tyrants to use the Marxist/communist/left model to seize power and sauce the inherent oppressiveness of the left with their individual form of sadism. In the left Utopian model there is only ever room for one individual.

Mr Warren, none of your examples are ‘right’.

hasbeen/proving..he is living in the past

<<..At no time in history, & no where on earth, has the average peasant been so well off, healthy, or had so many options>>

RUBBISH/WHERE THESE REFUGEES COMMING FROM?

MATE THE PEAK..WAS UN THE 70.S/till the bannana republic aND HIGH INTEREST RATES FORCED MUM INTO THE WORKFORCE..[SUNCE THEN IT TAKE TWO WAGES TO EVEN BREAKS EVEN

PLUS NOW..KIDS ARE SO INDEBTED/BY PAYING THEIR WAY
EVERY NEW DAY..BRINGS A LOWER POINT..TILL THAT DAY..WE ARE LANDLESS SERFS..begging to work..for our master

mate free university
free medicine..NO GST....MATE YOUR wrong
i need proof of concept..our good days are Decades past.

THE RICH GOT RID OF DEATH Duties
and now ever more taxes..service fees/levies/charges..pay as you go TAXES..

EVER LESS...ONLY..
is cumming our way..
it could be graphed..but no one to pay to do it..[GOVT Subsidy perhaPS?

Because it is normal to distort "history" for advantage in deluding most people, there is no mention in "western" history books about the real rise of the "communists" in Russia. They sought local power for the community, not the aristocracy. The real communists initiated their protests well before the Leninists took power. In fact Lenin was totally opposed to the communists, and after the successful revolution the communists fought against the Leninists. The name "communist" was taken over to delude many Russians to believe that the grab for power was to improve their life.

The communists were totally against centralised government, they wanted the"community" to decide what should be done in their area. The so-called "democracies" these days are increasingly centralising power, but it is increasingly under the control of the new aristocracy. "Presidents" and prime ministers are increasingly thinking they are "Kings". One reputedly low IQ president even claimed that he had received instructions from god, so I guess he felt like the middle ages kings of England. I was appointed by God, therefore anything I do cannot be disputed.

Sadly the "community" is being destroyed by rapid urbanisation. We are not designed to live in the cities that are increasingly like bee hives or ants nests that are being created.

It would be great if more people would actually go through the article again and respond to the specific content!

* about early Marxist social democracy

* about Austro-Marxism - its specific example - what they fought for and what they achieved

* about the fact there were atrocities on both sides of the Cold War

* about the difference between 'totality' and 'totalitarianism'

* about the fact that a pluralist democracy is a healthier democracy; and socialist and Left traditions should be enquired into - as well as liberal and conservative traditions. Because democracy is based on CHOICE - and in order to choose one needs to understand!

* About the fact that liberal rights are under attack in Victoria - and freedom is not merely 'free markets'

Tristan,

You keep on holding up this fantasy of "democratic Marxism", where the state owns everything and everyone has the opportunity of self realisation. Unfortunately there has never been anything close to this, as those happy to live in this command structure is very small, and the force required to ensure that the rest comply gives us the Marxist totalitarian states we all know and despise.

YEBIGA writes:

“Postmodernism has eviscerated the left. The once strident revolutionary Marxist replaced by a sensitive, don't wish to offend anyone, victim obsessed bunch of babies.”

Foxy the softie leftie who is obviously in YEBIGA's macho leftie sights says:

“To Marx, the task of the social scientist was mpt merely to
describe the world; it was to change it. Marx saw social
conflict and the inevitability of revolution. The key to
history, he believed is class conflict - the bitter struggle
between those who own the means of producing wealth and
those who do not. This contest, Marx claimed, would end
only with the overthrow of the ruling exploiters and the
establihsment of a free, humane, classless society.”

A “classless society”; lefties always confuse egalitarianism of opportunity which is the hallmark of capitalism as I describe above, with everybody being the same, which is ‘egalitarianism’ under the left model. It is a persistent but incredibly dumb mistake; or not if we assume the left is deliberately wrecking the West. One is reminded of John Stuart Mill and the intrinsic connection between utility and individuality. For Mill the best society with the best utility, happiness and satisfaction, is one where individuality is stressed.

Marx of course ridiculed Mill.

Marx also ridiculed Adam Smith. For Smith capitalism could not exist without the primacy of the individual and that erosion of capitalism reduced individuality. Marx of course distorted this by claiming that capitalism meant workers sold themselves or at least their labour while the bosses aggregated the means of production.

This complaint is nonsense. Marxism, where the means of production are state owned is by Marx’s own criteria hyper capitalism. In actuality however any bar to ownership of the means of production is a contradiction to capitalism. Which is why the ‘right’ model prevents such aggregation or monopolies and reduces inequality between the bosses and labour through judicial oversight of employment and trade unions. Neither mechanism exists with the Marxist Utopian model which has crony capitalism instead.

Special mention to Daffy who thinks the leftie Hitler won because he called his enemies maggots.