One description of Socialism not generally expressed is that it is a situation in which “ the weakest and most envious among us acquire political power”. Or, it is what happens when those who cannot compete in society through effort and risk decide to change the rules.

Enter Albanese: most left wing leader of the most left wing Australian government ever.

Some people who cannot get ahead by their own initiative and achieve the rewards of their initiatives, come to resent the rewards themselves.

Socialism is anti the human instinct to be rewarded for effort. Socialism views risk and reward as the enemy, despite the fact that it is what builds prosperity. Capitalism might have its flaws but, unlike socialism, it is the only system that works because it motivates people to improve their lives, and even helps those who don't.

Socialists want to control people - make them dependent on them - all the better to control them. People are just something to be managed and taxed for the benefit of the managers.

Australia was built through aspiration. Our political culture, certainly under Albanese, appears to be “uncomfortable with aspiration itself”, always on about redistribution, never creation.

(Source: Damien Costas, ‘When risk becomes the enemy’. Costas is an entrepreneur and author of ‘What Happened To The Lucky Country’, Amazon)

I would be very careful about your description of socialism if I were you ttbn. Many of the quotes you use are justly applicable to your favourite love child Pauline.

Take “… always on about redistribution, never creation…” That’s all we have heard from Pauline recently. Take the homes off people she doesn’t think deserve them and absolutely zero about how to create any new ones.

“…Socialists want to control people - make them dependent on them - all the better to control them. People are just something to be managed and taxed for the benefit of the managers…” That’s right out the playbook of her preferred supplier of aeroplanes, the lovely Gina. Wasn’t it Gina who wanted to import workers from 3rd world countries who would work for $2 p/hr. And of course, Gina has always been on about reducing the taxes she pays. Then there was the time when she bought a major share in a national newspaper, thinking she could control the editorial content of it. Talk about benefiting the managers.

And finally “… the weakest and most envious among us acquire political power …” Pauline would have to be the most envious person I an aware of, desperately seeking political power

Not my description, Aries. the description of the author whose article I reviewed.

I acknowledged the author at the bottom. The quotes are from the article. There is nothing of me in it.

You will know by now that ON has no intention of taking anyone's house from him or her. That was Bomber Barny's blue.

I have no more connection to One Nation than you do, but it is my understanding that they are opposed to foreigners being allowed to invest in domestic properties for rental purposes. As is the Coalition.

You will have to enlighten me with what you call Hanson's play book. I don't keep tabs on everything politicians do.

I don't see what a private citizen's gift has to do with Socialism or whatever brand you have on One Nation. It's perfectly legal.

That same private citizen might or might not have imported cheap labour - you don't provide evidence of that, nor that the person has done anything illegal under the immigration laws or labour laws.

ttbn, Yes, I know they are Damien’s thoughts, but you quoted them. Therefore, I reiterate my statement - I’d be careful when quoting definitions of socialism.

There was, and still is, a great deal of confusion over just exactly what Pauline’s position is on foreign, non-citizen and permanent resident’s home ownership. Her gripe of foreigners owning homes is as far as she goes. As things stand at the moment, she has no clear plan for creating more homes. To me, this reeks of the concept you quoted that – “…Socialists want to control people…”

Yes, Gina’s gift as a private citizen is totally legal, but it does play into the “…benefit of the manager…” criteria you (sorry, the author you quoted. but distance yourself from) attributes to socialism.

F.Y.I.- Here is 1 article about Gina’s thoughts on workers earning $2 p/day. There are plenty of others if you care to search.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/09/05/160614909/asias-richest-woman-slammed-after-musing-about-workers-paid-2-a-day

I hope this clears things up

Who do I have to be careful of? The Socialists? They have certainly killed millions of people in the past - their own people.

As for your old BBC (even less trustworthy than our ABC) article, Gina Rinehart never paid anyone $2 an hour. She was warning Australian workers almost 15 years ago that they needed to get more competitive. Pointing out that Africans in Africa worked for $2 an hour. She wasn't saying that Australians should do the same. Unions blew up the tongue in cheek commen out of all proportion.

Her workers are paid $130k to $145k a year. Federal backbenchers, including the Socialists, get around $240k plus perks.

But, of course what she does has nothing to do with Socialist politics, which fails every time voters with short memories put them into power.

The confusion about Pauline Hanson (who by the way is only 10 years younger than I am, and hardly my “love child”) lies mainly with the mainstream media and her political opponents. Pauline herself has been sure what she stands for over 30 years. She has not wavered or ‘changed her position’ like Albanese.

ON's idea for getting more housing includes a 5 year freeze on GST for new builds, reviewing, scrapping mandatory design rules and disability requirements on the chance of some disability that most people never incur, and reviewing government charges and taxes, fees and red tape.

Finally, dragging up your pet hates against non-Socialist politicians, and a rich woman who provides jobs and wealth for the country and workers - as well as herself - doesn't take the heat off Socialism, which always drags society down.

15 years after Rinehart's warnings, Australia's growth and economy, its cost of living, is close to the bottom of a list of similar countries.

If you like Socialism, you could always try to convince us of its virtues with a thread of your own.

Hanson and Rhinehart have intersecting worldviews.

Gina isn't a manager she's an owner. James Burnham warned in his criticism of managerialism, that trained managers who don't know how to create businesses beyond their immediate responsibilities, equate with the classic abstractionist's that Marx referred to. The red tape of corporatism, especially creeping corporatism, creates scarcity.

Both Hegel and Marx attempted to synchronise/ consolidate Plato's 'Abstraction' with Aristotle's 'Experience' who essentially got it from the line that is attributed to the dialogue between Socrates and Plato from memory in The Republic- where they come to the conclusion that 1. Philosophers should become rulers or 2. rulers should become Philosophers. Alexander the Great was the culmination of the philosopher ruler but he rejected this idea. And I agree 2 is ok, 1 is not- rulers should become philosophers not the other way around.

Adam Curtis talks about the rise of managerial corporatism in order to control the "unstable capitalist". But we need to return to people that are willing to take "risk to produce" based on how they see the world in existentialist subjective experiential experimental terms.

Ayn Rand says the rich can only become rich by producing something of value, if you destroy the rich you destroy the production, then there is scarcity, prices increase, and the poor suffer.

Bob Whittacker said Marxism is an academic aristocracy.

Essentially Aristotle said that truth is about experience, Plato said that experience was a projection of the absolute abstractions- Plato was wrong.

Hegel in his dialectic said that the abstract mind created experiential reality. Marx said in his dialectic materialism that the material experiences of the sum of the individuals created the abstract institutions that enslave them- but not everything is slavery- and Marxist's don't love the slaves- they envy and hate the rich- because they can never reach it- they can't produce.

Marxist's need to realise that, they can't break the laws of physics, only break themselves against them.