Tweet
Originally posted by Fred Harvey
View Post
-
I think that is exactly what I said. We are in agreement!
-
Whatever Scandinavia has, it is certainly not DM! Far from it...Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View PostComment
-
Sid - Post # 410 - sorry - you are right - I was responding to Pargat's Post # 410. I've edited my post # 417. Sorry for the confusion folks......moving too quickly I guess.Comment
-
The Scandinavian countries have a "Capitalist" economic system. It is called "Social Democracy" (Which is totally different from "Democratic Socialism - France under President Mitterrand). Social Democracy is popularly know as "Capitalism with a Human Face".
Bob AComment
-
I've previously mentioned this book:
Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered - a collection of essays published in 1973 by German-born British economist E. F. Schumacher.
It is on the Democratic Marxist's basic reading list.
Bob AComment
-
Of course equality of opportunity, as provided in Libertarianism, is needed, but what about equality of effort and equality of hard and smart work? These latter do not seem to count in DM, and because rewards are not tied to these, what happens in a DM society is that people take the 'easy route' (only eat, drink, play and dance) to living their lives (who wouldn't?), which obviously leads to overall stagnation and poverty for all (even the power holding politicians and their sycophants eventually meet misery in such a society), as history has time and again shown about marxism, communism and socialism... the eating, drinking, playing and dancing soon gets replaced with weeping and agony. Is that what you want, Bob? Remember, you cannot defy human nature.Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
Looking forward to your enlightenment and good riddance to all the delusionary posts you have been making. It may be too much to ask of you, despite you being a believer in micro-democracy (but forgetting that a majority of four posters, Sid, Fred, Neil and me, are 'voting' for that), but there is always hope... (don't get me wrong: we do not want to snatch away your right to post, but just pray for your enlightenment)Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Friday, 29th September, 2023, 08:18 PM.Comment
-
Democratic Marxism & the Incentive System
Dilip Panjwani - Post # 426 - 23/9/29
"in DM..... rewards are not tied to these [ effort and ...... hard and smart work]"; "in a DM society ...... people take the 'easy route' (only eat, drink, play and dance)"
Response
It is part of human nature to wish to be recognized for contributory effort. Democratic Marxism fully accepts that this dynamic must be accounted for in its economic/political system.
So there will be recognition in DM for "hard and smart work".
But DM does NOT accept that this recognition should be by the allowing of the amassing of obscene wealth/income. This is the Capitalist reward system, within the context of an ever-widening wealth/income gap, the necessary consequence of Capitalism. Note that Libertarianism is, at its heart, a Laissez-Faire Capitalism system:
Wikipedia
"In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.[34] "
Dilip bleats consistently that MP Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party Leader), and HE, see Libertarianism as NOT Capitalist.......well, they're the only two!! Or, maybe they are really, both, SOMETHING ELSE dressed up in the sheep's clothing of a brand of Libertarianism that does not exist, except in their two well-developed (?) minds.
DM will factor into its system recognitions and rewards for "hard and smart work", and contribution to the community, which are compatible with a modest quality of life in a democratic and altruistic system, based on equality of all.
Bob A (DM'er)
Comment
-
Bob A. is now hoping that his marxist leaders of DM will be the omnipotent arbiters of who gets what, using some magical methods involving legal theft, trying to emulate what true Libertarianism is designed to automatically achieve, which is: "there will be rewards for "hard and smart work without the amassing of obscene wealth/income". He is desperately trying to ignore the fact that amassing of obscene wealth occurs only because of corrupt politicians passing corrupt laws in exchange for bribes from corrupt capitalists, and that Libertarianism by its very design, prevents this, by ensuring that politicians do not have the power to pass any laws against the Natural Law.Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
This is what his favorite Wikipedia says about DM: "Democratic Marxism is authentic Marxism: loyalty to the movement, not loyalty to any particular doctrine. During years of democratic Marxist government, however, Chile faced severe economic and political crises". What else except crises as in Chile, could one expect from authentic marxism, democratically ordained or not?
Bob, use the little time you say you have wisely, by reading what I have written about true Libertarianism... and do not get repeatedly lost in confusing nomenclature...
The good news is that what Libertarianism offers you is a solid system to achieve exactly what you want DM to achieve, by using the implementation of Natural Law, instead of using the doctrine of legal theft, and history shows that glamorizing legal theft has invariably led to disaster for the society doing so (and which led to near-downfall of the previously very rich, rich because of their uncorrupted capitalism, Scandinavian countries in the 1980s, till they dramatically reversed their most socialist laws like progressive taxation).
And in your role as the self appointed micro-democratic secretary, do mention in your chesstalk summary on DM, if you have the honesty, that the majority (as you define it) of chesstalk posters consider your DM to be BS!Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 30th September, 2023, 10:14 AM.Comment
-
Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Ok, this is progress, I'm not being called a nasty troll just because I ask a genuine question. Let's see where this goes.....
I have agreed completely with this all along, and have suggested we need to have politicians who are rewarded minimally so that we know they do their work out of a driven desire for the betterment of society. I did not see this addressed in the LIbertarian "manifesto", so Dilip if it is there, please express it. If it matches what I just wrote, I'm all for it.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Ok, you are mentioning the NEGATIVE aspects of government power, i.e. the electioneering, the bribing and lobbying. There is also a POSITIVE aspect of government power, which is the limiting of corporate power involved in bribing. and lobbying. If government can bribe and lobby, so can corporations, can we agree on that? Therefore we need to severely limit both government AND corporate power to bribe and lobby.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
We should not assume that corporations do not engage in the same underhanded techniques as government. We should recognize human nature in both government structures and corporate structures, treat them the same in that respect.
This is a great ideal, but it runs into the problem of the so-called Natural Law being in effect a decree. A one-size-fits-all Natural Law can never be truly fair because we really can't concisely define this concept of "fair competition" which is the exempting clause that allows (in Libertarianism) for harm done to others free from retribution.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
I know Dilip you've written here that judges and juries can define fair competition, but judges and juries are just as corruptible as governments and corporations. We have to recognize that corruption can occur in ANY societal grouping -- government, corporations, judges, juries, police, and as Covid proved to us, even health administration. Corruption is in fact very well entrenched in all these groupings.
It isn't enough to just avoid more corruption. We must REMOVE the existing corruption, which basically involves a societal reset.
So what to have instead of a Natural Law? This gets to the heart of the matter because it will declare WHO GETS TO DECIDE.
If the politicians get to decide, AND the politicians are very low paid and unglorified, we have a chance at a truly fair system of justice. But as I've already written, ALL groupings of humans are corruptible, and the corruption is like rust on metal, it is absolutely GUARANTEED to occur. So incorruptible politicians, low-pair and unglorified as they may be, will not last.
Even back when the U.S. Constitution was being written, there were predictions that corruption would infest in the future, and those predictions have been proven true. Therefore it seems we can only have a near-perfect political system if we also have a near-perfect HUMAN NATURE which seems .... not attainable.
This suggests an even stronger societal reset, a reset that strikes humanity to its very core. I will elaborate at the end of this post.
This seems the weakest argument of Libertarianism. True, we don't want the bribing and deceiving "Trumps" getting most of the investment capital. But we also do not want ALL getting the investment capital. As I pointed out in an earlier post, we tried that back in the very early 2000s with the dot-com boom in which capital was doled out in huge amounts to anyone with an idea. The actual idea didn't matter, just that there WAS an idea. Oh, you have an idea? Here's $200k, run with it!Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
The dot com bubble burst and it was not pretty. And it proved that equal opportunity to capital is NOT EVER going to work and we were stupid to think it could.
Again, total societal reset is the only thing that could bring this about.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Ok, great.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Sure, no problem on this point.Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Well.... there is always the concept of being led to Hell in a handbasket!
Ok.... time to define what societal reset might entail.
What about an AI government?
Isaac Asimov wrote many robot novels, and devised the 3 laws of robotics. I encourage anyone not knowing about this to google it.
Is it possible that all future politicians -- who decide the laws that humans must obey -- be AIs, presumably incorruptible much like Asimov's robots?
Is it the only political future that makes possible species survival?Comment
-
If the politicians get bribed, we end up with laws helpful to the briber, but harmful to others. The politicians' power to frame whatever laws they want to, is the problem (and the issue we are discussing), which gets removed in Libertarianism.Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View PostComment
-
Well, you are right that we may need AI judges to deal with the problem of corruptible human judges!Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View PostComment
-
AI's
I would not be so certain about the incorruptibility of AI's. They will have human personality programs. They will have emotional reactions (The advanced one's).
If there program goal is to duplicate human behaviour, then they will perhaps be just a bit less corruptible than humans.
Just a thought........so it is not going to be that Libertarianism has a "quick fix".
Bob AComment
-
ChessTalk
Human Self-Government
(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)
(Started: 22/12/5)
[Part I of 2 parts]
Statements Update
A. 11 Statements On Human Self-Government Generally
(All processing currently completed – 23/10/1)
Statement # 1.
World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.
Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:
“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”
Statement # 2.
Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).
Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:
“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".
The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.
There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”
Statement # 3.
Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).
Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31
Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).
Statement # 4.
People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.
Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)
“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”
Statement # 5.
People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.
Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):
“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”
Statement # 6
“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practiced in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.
Statement # 7
Since people should be able to focus on higher activities of life (Philosophy, the Arts, Politics, etc.), automation will be a key factor in making this happen. It can free people from lower, less rewarding, work and life tasks. So some citizens will be able to dedicate more time to public life and government, and how to improve it.
Statement # 8
Good education enlightens the mind. Today's rote data learning only challenges the memory. Without the former, society will have neither a wise electorate, nor a wise government.
Statement # 9
When we add "human nature" to "power" in governing, corruption and abuse of power result. This is the reason all political human self-governance structures have resulted in:
I) the creation of an elite group who wield the power, and
II) the exploitation, by the elite group, of the powerless and marginalized segments of society.
Statement # 10
If a hard and smart-working, disciplined family is unable to live comfortably, then something is wrong with their government system being followed.
Supporting Reasons
Dilip Panjwani - Post # 323 - 23/9/8
People will be always struggling to get a decent portion of an ever-shrinking common pie; and the common pie shrinks rapidly despite the running of anything efficiently will become the government's business. But for the bunch of government appointed administrators who do not have their own skin at stake if the system is a mess, the only task will be to convince everyone that the system is very very expensive to run. In this situation it becomes hard for many citizens to live "comfortably".
Supplementary Support 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 323– 23/9/8
Fact
As an example, 50% of Canadians work hard, and save next to nothing.......living paycheck to paycheck. And this in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. The situation is even much worse in many developing nations.
I fear that the issue causing poverty in the world is not efficiency and excess spending of governments of all types (An example often given is re Canadian socialized medicine. Even if this is so, no Canadian is willing to opt instead for the USA Health Care model, except some extreme, wealthy Canadian Oligarchs). It is the very type of system, not how it is operated (All systems are subject to some inefficiency and luxurious & corrupt spending.
In Capitalism, it is the very dynamic of Capitalism which MUST keep some pool of poor, for there to be a much smaller pool of rich.......this drives ever wider, by necessity, the wage gap. This is why Capitalist Social Democracy arose ........ to try to find ways within Capitalism to moderate the rate of divergence between the haves and the have-nots.
Replacing Capitalism with some type of Democratic Socialism seems at least a first step to citizens living "comfortably".
Statement # 11
Some political systems inhibit the amount and extent of government corruption and exploitation by the "elite" (Whomever they may be in any particular system) than others. The systems that do best are "local & small" (Everyone knows what is going on) and have direct democracy (Not representative government).
Supporting Reasons
If the planet were to dissolve nations, and become a planet of a "Collection of Villages", with "direct" voting on substantial issues, then corruption would be less, and the consequences would be less (Likely hard for a small village to amass an arsenal of nuclear weapons).
[Secretarial Note re all Statements: Statements on this topic are generated, and adopted, or not, by a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum): https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...he-great-reset.
The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.]
[See Part II below]
Bob A (As Group Secretary)Comment
-
Human Self-Government (Continued)
[Part II; see Part I above]
B. Partisan Statements
a. Libertarianism
10 Statements - Last full update (All completed to the date) – Post # 354– 23/9/12
[Secretarial Note # 1 - re all Statements
Statements are generated, and adopted, or not, by a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum): https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...205-new-world- order-nwo-sometimes-called-the-great-reset.
The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.]
b. Democratic Marxism
11 Statements - Last full update (All completed to the date) – Post # 405 – 23/9/26
[Secretarial Note # 2: re Statements # 1 - # 11 on Democratic Marxism
These have been endorsed as accurate, not only by the group mentioned in Secretarial Note # 1, but also by a group of about 250 members of a Fb group, The Democratic Marxist Global Forum. They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum.]
C. Group Secretary Rulings
Ruling # P1 (Procedural)
When a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. These reasons are preferred to be in Executive Summary form. Where the Support Reasons are extensive, they will not be carried forward, but the Post # and date will be. The proposer is free to submit a replacement executive summary Statement, and it will then be used.
D. Group Decisions
Secretary Replacement Nominations
The position of Group Secretary was open for one week for Nominations. Bob Armstrong, then current Group Secretary agreed to let his name stand to continue, if elected.
Processing
After one week, no other CT'er had been nominated to run for Secretary.
Conclusion
Bob Armstrong was acclaimed volunteer Group Secretary indefinitely or until the next election, when called for.
E. Processing
1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.
2. There is one week for someone to launch a Revision Challenge, or an Opposition Challenge, with Supporting Reasons. If there is no challenge, then the Statement is “generally accepted” and joins the list of Statements.
3. If a Challenge is launched, then the onus is on the Challenge Proposer to muster support for the Challenge (To establish that they are not the lone Challenger in the Group). The fact that some time may have passed before the launch of the Challenge does not affect the one week processing time).
4. Silent members of the group are “assumed” to be willing to go with the plurality after voting (Regardless of their opinion, they will be subject to the plurality/majority decision.............by not making a choice, they do in fact make one in our electoral system).
Bob A (As Group Secretary)Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 2nd October, 2023, 06:35 AM.Comment
-
Dilip, to wrap up our discussion on Scandinavian countries:Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post
Yes, they have higher taxation.
Yes, they have high levels of happiness.
They have a mixed economy of Capitalism and robust social programs (ie. Socialism, Nordic Model).
Please don't confuse my comments with Bob A. The term Socialism has different interpretations around the globe.
When I speak of Socialism, I mean strong social programs like universal health care, free public education, minimum wage laws, guaranteed annual income, progressive taxation, and the such to help balance the playing field under a Capitalist economic framework. Capitalism can work, but you can not give "freedom" to employers to exploit workers or the environment. You need strong democratic governments and strong regulations to protect the 99% from the 1%.
Comment
Comment