Paul Keating abuses columnist Paddy McGuiness (whom I found a fairly ordinary writer and analyst)after Paddy died. Apparently McGuinness's crime was to often disagree in strong terms with the world's greatest Treasurer.

Yet Keating praises and honours one of last centuries' biggest war criminals by attending the funeral of mass murderer Suharto.

For Keating the pen appears mightier than the sword. The 1 million or so people Suharto killed (some at the time Keating was in Government fawning over the war criminal) might disagree, if they could.

Keating, the bilge barnacle from the back of Burke.

Hypocrite!

Paul Keating abuses columnist Paddy McGuinness (whom I found a fairly ordinary writer and analyst)after Paddy died. Apparently McGuinness's crime was to often disagree in strong terms with the world's greatest Treasurer.

Yet Keating praises and honours one of last centuries' biggest war criminals by attending the funeral of mass murderer Suharto.

For Keating the pen appears mightier than the sword. The 1 million or so people Suharto killed (some at the time Keating was in Government fawning over the war criminal) might disagree, if they could.

Keating, the bilge barnacle from the back of Burke.

Hypocrite!

Chris,

I've always thought of socialism as a movememnt, essentially economic in nature, which intended vesting the control of the means of production and capital in the community as a whole as well as seeking to abolish private land ownership.

I'd like to see your definition.

Keith,

Your definition seems pretty right to me. I’d say that of socialism means government ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, which is about the OED definition - “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates State ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange”. My Funk and Wagnalls puts it at greater length – “Public collective ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use rather than profit, and of assuring to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services, and welfare benefits; as a system of social and economic organization planned, attempted, or achieved through various methods…”, and it goes on to list various methods.

Do you regard communism and socialism as the same thing? What socialist policies did Hitler actually implement? Did he give the community control of the means of production and capital? Did he abolish private land ownership?

Thank you Chris,

Like Marx and others I think Socialism is merely a step along the road to communism.

I don't know what socialist policy Hitler ever implemented. That's beside the point. The point was he was elected as a socialist. Whether his corruption was sooner or later doesn't change that fact ... but as in all socialist/communist systems he turned totalitarian.

Keith says: "[Hitler] ... was elected as a socialist. Whether his corruption was sooner or later doesn't change that fact ... but as in all socialist/communist systems he turned totalitarian."

None of this is true. The crisis in German capitalism saw the German ruling class support Hitler to smash the trade union movement and the Left more generally. They were among the first occupants of Hitler's camps.

Rather than being a movement of the working class, fascism is initially in times of social crisis a movement of the middle classes, caught as they are between big business and the labour movement. (Hansonism for example was a movement of the middle class.)

To survive, as it gets closer and closer to power, fascism abandons its middle class support and once in power implements the policies of the ruling class, ie clears out working class resistance and drives down wages to increase profit rates.

The writings of Trotsky from as early as 1928 make clear the danger fascism presented to working class movements, including socialist and communist movements. I suggest Keith try reading some of those writings to understand what fascism is and why Hitler cannot at any stage be called a socialist.

Second, getting back to the article, Suharto was a brutal dictator representing the interests of capital both local and foreign.

Paul Keating wrote a eulogy for him in Saturday's Age. Yet the day before in the Financial Review he attacked Paddy McGuinness. McGuinness killed no-one. Suharto killed millions. The moral and political bankruptcy of Keating is the bankruptcy of Labourism in Australia. It is important for Laborites to have stability in Indonesia, a stability built on the bones of millions.

I put human life first.