In 2005 - the 20th Anniversary of Live Aid - I attended an International Policy Network (IPN) conference in London. It was run by Julian Morris and his fellow economists. With electric guitars slung over their shoulders, they opened the conference playing some really awful and loud music.
Mercifully, after about a minute they stopped playing, and in a reference to Live Aid, said, “We’ve just demonstrated that economists don’t make good rock stars. Likewise, rock stars don’t make good economists!”
Conference delegates were then treated to a systematic dismantling of the folly of events like Live Aid and the damage that people such as Bob Geldof, Bono and others do with their fatuous statements along the lines of, ‘they have nothing, because we have everything’.
The ‘they’ of course refers to the third world, and the ‘we’ refers to us in the West.
In other words, their problems are all our fault.
Decades of experience show that large-scale financial transfers have failed to produce lasting prosperity. Instead of lifting people out of poverty, such aid frequently entrenches corruption, props up inefficient or authoritarian regimes, and disrupts local economies
To quote British writer Gareth Roberts, “In a way, it is our fault. The Ethiopian famine, for example, certainly was our fault – but not in the way Live Aid blithely assumed. It was the direct result of the deadliest of all western exports, Marxism.“
The Derg regime of Ethiopia – the Red Terror – forced farm collectivisation and so-called ‘land reforms’.
“The Marxist government of the dictator Mengistu is estimated to be responsible for the deaths of two million Ethiopians in the famine.
“We exported Marxism to Ethiopia, and it starved to death.
“But don’t worry, Mengistu is living in luxury in exile in Harare, today.”
It was former South Australian MP Bert Kelly who said, ‘The really bad ideas never go away’.
That is certainly the case with Marxism – or its modern-day stalking horse, ‘democratic socialism’, led globally by the Democratic Socialists of America.
We have seen this ideology play out in both Australia and the United Kingdom, where its influence continues to shape policy debates and public discourse despite repeated historical failures.
Modern socialists increasingly integrate indigenous and anti-racist struggles into their analysis. They focus on the displacement of indigenous populations through the lens of ‘settler colonialism’ and ‘indigenous sovereignty’.
Groups such as the Democratic Socialists of America portray the history of the United States and other Western nations as ongoing projects of ‘settler colonialism’.
These projects, they argue, persist through systemic ‘racial oppression’, ‘land theft’, and ‘corporate exploitation’ of native territories.
This framing turns complex historical and economic realities into a simple narrative of perpetual guilt and redistribution.
Global solidarity to the cause further defines the modern socialist project.
The movement also strongly aligns with the Palestinian cause, explicitly framing Israeli government policies in Gaza and the West Bank as an extension of ‘Western-subsidised settler colonialism’ – the ‘red-green alliance’ of Marxists and Islamists.
This alignment reinforces a worldview in which Western success is treated as original sin, while failures elsewhere are attributed to external oppression rather than internal governance, institutions, or culture.
As a result, efforts to reform traditional top-down government aid packages to developing nations are becoming harder, not easier, even though the evidence against them is compelling.
Decades of experience show that large-scale financial transfers have failed to produce lasting prosperity. Instead of lifting people out of poverty, such aid frequently entrenches corruption, props up inefficient or authoritarian regimes, and disrupts local economies by creating dependency and distorting incentives. Palestinian aid was routinely funnelled into building terror tunnels and purchasing weapons.
A better approach rests on three interconnected principles.
First, market-based development, with a strong emphasis on individual property rights, offers the most reliable path out of poverty.
When poor citizens can hold clear title to land, homes, or businesses, they gain the ability to leverage those assets for credit, investment, and long-term planning. Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown that the lack of private ownership in many developing countries leaves vast amounts of ‘dead capital’ that cannot be productively used.
Formalising those rights unlocks economic potential far more effectively than external grants.
Second, free trade. Eliminating global trade barriers allows developing countries to grow through commerce rather than charity. Access to larger markets encourages specialisation, innovation, and the creation of real jobs.
History demonstrates that nations which opened themselves to trade achieved sustained growth that foreign aid alone never delivered. Protectionism and preferential treatment for favoured regimes, by contrast, often shields inefficiency and punishes the very producers who could drive progress.
Third, the rule of law and transparent legal systems.
Democratic accountability, independent courts, and predictable enforcement of contracts create the institutional foundation on which markets and property rights can function. Without them, even well-intentioned reforms collapse under the weight of arbitrary power, corruption, or political favouritism.
Establishing these institutions is slower and less glamorous than writing large cheques, yet it is far more durable.
These alternatives – secure property rights, open trade, and the rule of law – directly challenge the central Marxist/Socialist claim that poverty is primarily the product of Western extraction or systemic oppression.
They locate the solutions inside the societies that need them, rather than in perpetual transfers from outside. They also refuse the moral blackmail that treats every disparity as evidence of guilt.
Democratic accountability, independent courts, and predictable enforcement of contracts create the institutional foundation on which markets and property rights can function.
Bert Kelly’s observation remains as relevant as ever. The really bad ideas never go away; they simply reappear in new clothing – democratic socialism, settler-colonial theory, or solidarity politics – each time promising justice while delivering the same familiar results: dependency, stagnation, and the quiet empowerment of those who thrive on grievance rather than growth.
