James Burnham and others point to Managerialism as the idea behind Marxism. It seems that Bob Whittacker picked up on this when he referred to the Academic Aristocracy. Apparently when Macarthy referred to Communism in the Cold War he was really talking about Managerialism.

The thing that characterizes Marxism is not just it's "claim to support the poor", Queen Victoria was involved with the development of duplex housing in an effort to house the poor. Often helping the poor is resultant of other ideological means than socialism and Marxism.

Marxism seems to come from the terrible traditions of envy that are related to the French Revolution- Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Rand, Bezmenov, Solzynitzen, others commented on them.

Sorry I've been offline for a few days- it appears that the governments new under 16 policies are having unintended (or maybe intended) consequences

Hi Kudos Kid,

Glad you're back. I didn't know you wee ones had been banned from OLO as well as having your Snapchat account turned off! These people you name all the time, like Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Bezmenov, Solzynitzen, are they personal friends or just acquaintances? With names like that I'm sure the Lovely Pauline will have no trouble booting them out of the country, alone with all the Abdul's and Mohammad with em'.

Good on you CM. I like your reference to that "socialist" HM Queen Victoria.

The only the thing real Socialists in Australia are doing for the poor is making them poorer.

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1181353530400827

That could help with thinking about things !

Hi ttbn,

Queen Victoria was a drug addict, she was hooked on opium! As the Kudos Kid will tell us, according to his great philosopher Arsethrolte all opium addicts are Marxists. Can't believe a word the old chook said!

This thread was a wasted opportunity.

It was titled "A quick review of Socialism", but after several dozen comments no one really discussed socialism. Instead, we've had socialism described as envy, resentment, dependency, bureaucracy, managerialism, climate policy, Medicare, Albanese, Net Zero, welfare, and whatever else the person commenting happened to dislike at the time.

Nobody seemed particularly interested in defining socialism before declaring it either the source of all human misery or the foundation of civilisation.

Whether one supports it or opposes it, socialism is an economic idea, not a personality defect. Yet most of the discussion focused on the alleged motives of socialists rather than the actual policies, institutions and economic arrangements involved.

The result was a debate in which everyone criticised or defended a different thing while calling it by the same name.

As mhaze observed, perhaps that's why these discussions never seem to go anywhere. If participants can't agree on what socialism is, it's hardly surprising they can't agree on whether it works.