Hi CM,
While I'm not very cluey on Marxism.
(And if you want to send my some basic videos that can help me get up to speed on the topic, please do)

I look at your 'false binary';

"Here is my 'false binary' we have a choice between 1. Maoist Marxism and one thousand years of world authoritarianism OR 2. fight it in a internecine war."

Your opening paragraph in your reply identified "creating a parallel parasitic governing structure within western nations", for that you identified Maoist Marxism - "in a fragmented society that has been corrupted by Maoist Marxism and it's distribution channels" as the cause.

And I think to myself, what makes you think it's China promoting THIS Marxist ideology in the West?

I don't necessarily think these woke university professors are agents of China, but more to the point they are agents of a Western Marxist ideology.

In any case you stated our government is already corrupted by Marxism, doesn't that then essentially mean that it's Marxism V's Marxism, and that it doesn't matter either way, based on your response?

Me personally, I have my own refined beliefs on things, and I'm always open to changing my opinion based on new info, but me personally, I think the best society we could have is one that is neither completely capitalist or completely socialist, but contains aspects of both.

Let me give you an example.
I believe governments should provide a basic level of education and healthcare to all its citizens, a socialist base level if you will, and a higher quality level of education and healthcare - a capitalist level, for those who can afford it.
(I also think the same system should apply to employment)
A base level job for everyone, doing things to help the government save money as a socialist base level job, and regular jobs by regular employers in a capitalist system.

You've raised some interesting points Armchair Critic.

Perhaps I need to revisit things reviewing my definitions.
Some say that there are different types of communism Marxism being one. Classic Fascism derived from Hegel also includes many of the elements of communism.

Often people will seek power and they see Marxism as a way to achieve it. Some would say that authoritarianism is a feature in Marxism rather than an outlier.

According to some like Bob Whittacker- Marxism is very similar to Capitalism but it differs in who controls the system Academics vs Business people. They are both industrialist systems based on 'materialism' and are in a sense liberal and believe in continuous growth.

I believe that Marxism is essentially an evolution of the Asian governing model that Machiavelli refers to in the prince. Nietzsche approaches the Asian governing model "elephant" from a different direction when he talks about the priestly vs knightly codes (see Jeffrey Kaplan on Genealogy Of Morals).

Marxist's like to talk as if western rulers don't care about the people, in order to legitimize themselves, and their class warfare.

Victoria and Albert promoted duplex housing as a way of creating better living conditions for those in the lower social quartile. This predates modern Marxism. The problem of lower quartile living standards is a problem for rulers due to the issue "they're poor because they're poor".

Because they're poor they have a poor understanding of the world, of economics, of politics, of engineering, etc which means they stay poor. Because they're poor they can't send their children to school which means they are inter-generationally poor. One of the reasons for poverty is a lack of self control or even knowing what they should be controlling

Marxism advocates seizing the means of production as a solution, but your just giving the power to a different "gang"- probably less capable of running things efficiently than the original ones. This makes the people poorer, but the Marxist's don't care, because the intent was to seize power. Hence Marxist's don't love the poor they hate the rich.

Anyway, I don't think I answered your question well... perhaps no one does... but I'll have another go later.

Essentially the battle between Capitalism and Marxism seems to be a battle between the west and asia as it has always been.

Capitalism believes that in order to have a better life you need to increase the size of the pie.

Marxism says that the pie is going to the wrong people, not because they want to give it to the right people, but to take it for themselves.

There are pie thieves everywhere, but if the pie gets bigger, at least those in the bottom quartile get some pie, even if they waste most of it.

Marxist's want scarcity because they have control

H CM,
I started watching a video about Marxism last light, from a bloke a don't mind too much, - he is a Marxist economist Richard Wolff
http://youtu.be/eU-AkeOyiO
It's a 2 hr video, but I'll slowly work my way through it.

I also watched a video which mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski and 'techocrats'
He talks about weaponising identity politics.
I actually have the book somewhere that is spoken about.
'The Grand Chessboard', I'll have to try and find it and read it.

Please watch this (skip to the second half of the video):
http://www.youtube.com/live/nB68hZCiQ4U
Alastair Crooke : Imperial Hubris in Syria

You may also hear the words 'Total War' you earlier mentioned.

And don't forget it's westerners that want World Government.

Zbigniew Brzezinski
"We cannot leap into world government through one quick step... The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg
"He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

The Multipolar World is pushback aainst the U.S. lead Unipolar World Order.

BRICS Success in 2024 Proves We're Living in a MULTIPOLAR WORLD
http://youtu.be/EgWHlUnQACU

Alastair Crooke- West has been compromised by non-Traditional ideology.

Crooke throws a lot of terminology around. He's an interesting guy. See my amateur breakdown of some of the concepts.

In a sense Managerialism, Corporatism, Technocracy is code for Marxism. On the other hand identarianism is code for Traditionalism and Anti-Liberalism- it defines two points on a spectrum in a sense.

Adam Curtis describes corporatism as separating the role of the owner from the manager within companies, creating an additional layer of bureaucracy, similar to James Burham's Managerialism. This has a side benefit for academics in creating a demand for university educated managers and positioning academia within wealth structures.

There is a difference between maintaining ethnic identity and identity warfare and identity expansionism and identity territorialism, but as is known in democracy if an outlet to express community and act on community needs isn't provided, the only way to change the regime is by war. There are those that engage in proxy war through identity but obviously most identities want to ensure their own survival, rather than allow their identity to be destroyed through genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Before the term technocracy was coined, technocratic or quasi-technocratic ideas involving governance by technical experts were promoted by various individuals, most notably early socialist theorists such as Henri de Saint-Simon.

Arguably, the Platonic idea of philosopher-kings represents a sort of technocracy in which the state is run by those with specialist knowledge, in this case, knowledge of the Good rather than scientific knowledge.

The former government of the Soviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[22] Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background. In 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers.

Several governments in European parliamentary democracies have been labelled 'technocratic' based on the participation of unelected experts ('technocrats') in prominent positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy#Critiques

In a 2022 article published in Boston Review, political scientist Matthew Cole highlights two problems with technocracy: that it creates "unjust concentrations of power" and relies on a "flawed theory of knowledge".[58] With respect to the first point, Cole argues that technocracy excludes citizens from policy-making processes while advantaging elites. With respect to the second, he argues that the value of expertise is overestimated in technocratic systems, and points to an alternative concept of "smart democracy" which enlists the knowledge of ordinary citizens.