Shadow Minister ;

Look a little more closely at social democratic history.

Social Democracy developed over the mid 19th to late 19th centuries as a largely Marxist movement. In Germany it was also influenced by Ferdinand Lassalle.

The German Social Democratic Party was formed around then by the combination of 'Eisenachers' (Marxists) and Lassalleans.

Perhaps their most important core demand was free, universal and equal suffrage. They were perhaps the strongest voices for democracy in their time.

Some of the strongest opponents of Leninism - and later Stalinism - were other Marxist social democrats. Think Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, Julius Martov, Raphael Abramovitch. Following the Russian Revolution left wing Marxist social democrats also remained influential - for example the Austro-Marxists.

more coming.

Shadow Minister ;

Ok continuing - Yes its arguable that Russia's domination of the Eastern Bloc was similar in many ways to Western Imperialism. ie: maintaining economic, political and military spheres of interest. This led to policies and strategies every bit as cynical as their enemies' policies and strategies. Those strategies were increasingly opposed by the Communist Party of Australia from the 50s to the early 90s when it dissolved itself. The Stalinist split-offs were different entirely of course. And still make apologies for Stalin and Stalinism.

re: Strategic planning ; the argument is that a strong mixed economy, and some strategic intervention - as has occurred in some Scandinavian, European, Asian economies - can deliver results ; maintaining high wage, high skill jobs ; prioritising health and education outcomes ; adding structural efficiencies that contribute to quality of life. An economy that produces high value added goods, and which has full employment and structural efficiencies - can also use the proceeds to improve social services, welfare and infrastructure - and deliver other 'dividends' like a reduced working week, and holding down the age of retirement. It can improve peoples' social well-being.

re: PC - I agree PC can go too far. People need to be engaged and go through the arguments to arrive at a position - rather than just being terrified to argue for fear of being labelled, or worse. But economic orthodoxies are their own kind of 'PC'. Anti-PC often starts with free speech - but then transforms into right-wing reaction. Suppressing speech is not the answer, though. It can create a 'cultural pressure cooker' that blows up in the Left's face... With the explosion of a Trump-like movement ; or the 'National Front' in France for instance.

Free speech is also a right which should be interfered with only in exceptional instances. Notably for the Right's opposition to 18C they are often highly equivocal on other liberal and civil rights.

Tristan,

While I acknowledge that Marxism has had some influence on Western socialist movements, it is clear that these movements have evolved a great distance from rudimentary marxism. However, I don't feel the need to bone up on a failed ideology as it would be as useful and interesting as studying ancient Greek.

However, it is notable that the more socialist countries have had to pare back considerably to avoid bankruptcy when faced with global competition, as Thatcher rescued the UK.

Secondly:

Russia physically occupied many of the countries under its sway and not only imposed ruthless dictatorships, but dragged them into co poverty. Its imperialism was arguably far worse than that of the West.

Stalin was not the only Soviet Monster, but notably the worst killing more Russians than Hitler, but from Lenin, to Brezhnev, they all happily interred and executed millions of their so call comrades.

Strategic planning does not need socialism, and was achieved very well in the USA. Notably the Nordic states have had to pull back a long way from socialism to avoid bankruptcy.

I'm glad that we both agree that 18c has to go.

There are protections in 18D that almost no-one ever talks about. You have to view 18C in that context.

But 18C has to be clarified so we don't get a repeat of the Callum Thwaites case. His remark that "segregation was being used to stop segregation" was a *political* argument whether we like it or not. It may have been offensive to some on account of their politics- but I don't think it was racist in intent - or objectively.

But again: the LNP needs to be clearer where it stands on liberal rights FOR EVERYONE. That includes not striving to smash the trade union movement - on account of our having a Labor Party in this country. Regardless of whether or not you're a Labor person, unions defend legitimate rights - and are potentially a crucial line of defence for liberal democracy.

It also includes threatening people working amongst refugees to be silent lest they be fined or sent to jail. How does that sit with liberal rights?

And if either side of politics is interested in indigenous people its time for a Treaty ; including a very substantial settlement reaching into the billions. A 'settlement so just that it is a settlement once and for all'. (hopefully)

Nordic States still have very substantial welfare states and public sectors. And arguably they've done much better than states embracing neo-liberalism.

I identify more with Gorbachev than Brezhnev - or even Lenin.

re: 'whose imperialism was worse' ; Well you have to look VERY closely at Central and South America ; as well as Indonesia 1965-66 ; as well as Taiwan and South Korea earlier on - if you want to make that call.

re: "bankruptcy" - take a look at PRIVATE debt levels in Australia right now. Today our capitalist economy rests on massive private debt and it can't go on forever. Arguably - ironically - a 'hybrid' economy is perhaps the only way of 'saving' capitalism fro itself over the medium term - and to stop us lapsing into barbarism. Very big cutbacks are potentially just over the horizon - as a kind of 'corporate welfare' - and a lot of people are likely to suffer - unnecessarily.

also re: Lenin - Its a difficult topic ; He did and said many things I disagreed with. But in a way he tried to make the most of a terrible situation. War, civil war, intervention, assassinations, desperate poverty following economic collapse (because of intervention, war, isolation). Starvation, people freezing to death.... If the West had 'stayed out' the Civil War would have ended quickly. In less desperate circumstances the political strategies and tactics may not have been so extreme. The West hated him (Lenin) first because he took Russia out of the War. But also because he called for a global revolution. Interesting that in some countries - eg: Austria - they disagreed with the program for membership of the Comintern. Like Rosa Luxemburg I would have been torn between wishing the revolution well - and being appalled at some of the strategies and tactics. Though eventually I would have been forced to disavow its direction. Like the Austro-Marxists I could not have accepted the guidelines for membership of the Communist International. ('Third International' or 'Comintern')

Austro-Marxists are really interesting to look at as a 'middle way' between Leninism and Right-Wing Social Democracy.