has no usable concept of interface based programming (as in C# interfaces)

Just because the compiler can't check that you're using the interface correctly doesn't mean there's "no usable concept of interfaces". You document an interface, and write unit tests.

As for globals, it's not like public static methods and fields on C# or Java classes are really any different. Consider how java.lang.Math works, for example. Now consider the fact that java.lang.Math isn't a Singleton. They did that for a good reason.

With all these goodies is there really any point to a dependency injection container

I doubt it, but then I never really saw the point of them in C# or Java, either. Dependency injection is a programming technique, in my view. And there's really not that much to it, either.

I have always suspected that Dependency injection as a design pattern was a bad smell that has been created by everything must be a class "Nazi thinking"

No, it isn't. Dependency injection is a good idea a lot of the time. You don't need a class to inject dependencies into, either. Every time you pass something to a free function as a parameter, instead of having the function call another function to get the information, you're basically doing the same thing: inversion of control. Python also lets you treat modules similarly to classes in a lot of ways (certainly more ways than Java and C# do). There are problems that can be solved by passing modules as parameters to functions. :)

So far I think I can cover factories, Singletons, Multi-instance objects, just by using Globals.

Singletons are the bad smell, if anything. In nearly every case, in my extensive experience, they exist because someone thought it would be Bad(TM) on principle to have a global, without really thinking through the possible options, or why they wanted that kind of access to a single shared object, or even why globals are "Bad(TM) on principle" in the first place.

You could make a global function in Python that acts as a factory. However, I would say it's more Pythonic to do any of the following:

a) first, make really, really, really sure you can't just do what you want with __init__. I mean, in a dynamically typed language, you can do a heck of a lot that way.

b) If __init__ won't cut it, try using __new__ to control the behaviour.

In Python, classes are objects themselves, which are callable. By default, calling them instantiates the class. With __new__, you can hook into that.

c) Use a decorator applied to the class. Here is an example that makes a Singleton (just because):

def _singleton(cls):
  instance = cls()
  result = lambda: instance
  result.__doc__ = cls.__doc__
  return result

@_singleton
class example(object): pass

The way this works: when you decorate the class, _singleton() is called, with the class being passed in. An instance is constructed and cached, and _singleton() returns an anonymous function that will return the instance when called. To complete the charade, the class's documentation is attached to the anonymous function. Then Python rebinds the class' name in the global scope to the returned anonymous function. So when you call it, you get the same instance of the class, every time.

Now, this can still be worked around, of course (you can do something like example().__class__() to get another instance), but it's much more clear that you're doing something wrong than if you simply ignored a factory function in order to use the constructor normally. Plus, it means the calling code actually acts as if it were calling the constructor normally :)

The Duck Typing is the thing that is getting me at the moment, so used to defining interfaces then basing classes on these interfaces and letting the static stuff cover my stupidity that I feel that without static typing, containers are a bit useless.

You need to shift your thinking: stop worrying about what the thing you've been passed is, and worry about whether it can do what you want it to do. That's how duck typing works.