New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

Am I a Democratic Marxist?

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 6

Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.





Survey

In this survey, answering “yes” to many of the questions may indicate you are in mainstream Marxian thought, though you may never have seen your progressive views in this light:

................................................................................................................................................Yes No Unsure

1. Labour should have priority over Capital...........................................................................................................................______ _____ _____
2. Capitalism, of necessity, generates unhealthy extremes of wealth and income........... ______ ____ _____
3. Workers should own, or at least have 50 % control of, the means of production.......______ _____ _____
4. The legal structure of cooperatives should be favoured over corporations................ ______ _____ _____
5. There should be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)...................................................... ______ _____ _____
6. The tax system should include both a wealth and very progressive income tax. Tax loopholes allowing
   legal tax “avoidance” must be closed. Those benefiting most from the common system should
   substantially contribute back into funding the system................................................. ______ _____ _____
7. Self-governance from the bottom-up is always preferable to top-down governance of the electorate.
   (Example: Ontario municipalities should not be dictated to by the province)............. ______ _____ _____
8. There are three historical implementations of “socialism”:
   
   a. USSR-style Communism (Example: China) – unacceptable; maintained at the end of the barrel
   of a gun, with breaching of human rights; no open elections....................................... _____ _____ _____
   
   b. Democratic Socialism (Example: Venezuela) - acceptable when competent government, but
   generally centralizes power, rather than decentralizing it..................................................................................................................................._____ ____ ______
   
   c. Democratic Marxism (Closest Example: Chile - 1971-73 – Unity Government of Socialist
   President Salvadore Allende) – best economic system; best self-governance model.... _____ _____ _____
9. The electorate has the right to decide the system under which it wishes to govern itself. Democratic
   Marxism must win the hearts of the electorate at the ballot box, and then maintain support democratically.............................................................................................................. ______ _____ _____
10. A person can be a “Democratic Marxist” without being a theoretical “expert” in Marx' writings (though the more knowledge, the better).......................................................................... ______ _____ _____

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Chair

Original – 20/10/24; Most Recent Revision – 20/12/18 - Bob Armstrong


Disclaimer

Our main author of our Discussion Papers, Bob Armstrong, readily admits he is no academic, nor a Marxist expert. He considers himself only an “armchair Marxist” - he has read a bit, but thought about Democratic Marxism (DM) a lot. So he writes much the way an ordinary working person might about Democratic Marxism. He hopes these short simple papers will therefore help working people access the concepts of DM fairly easily.

He admits also that these papers are therefore a “work-in-progress”. His concepts and strategies are constantly under revision as he reads a bit more, and thinks a bit more, about this whole area. So you may see evolution of concepts in later papers, only lightly touched on in earlier papers. In fact, some early ideas may be now seen as contradictory, and jettisoned totally. Bob's choice is to let the reader take the same path as he has, and sort things out with him, rather than him constantly having to go back and edit every prior paper, with every change of nuance on the concepts. He hopes readers, like him, will see how the concepts have layers to them, and that they are not obvious at the start.

So please separate the “message” (The actual text concepts) from Bob, the “messenger”, and his limitations in depth of knowledge as author. The author may be weak, yet the message might have some merit, and even, nonetheless, be strong and clear. As always, the readers must not rely on expert opinion, and an appeal to authority – we must do the best to decide for ourselves.

So we ask readers, and Democratic Marxists, to cut us, and Bob, some slack, for the evolution in thinking in some aspects of the overall concepts and strategies, as we push on.

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute – 2020

[Bob Gillanders]

Am I a Democratic Marxist?

That was an interesting survey. I had quite a few Yes answers, OMG, I maybe a Democratic Marxist. LOL

I am not buying all of it, but where you defend democracy against authoritarian rule, and narrow the wealthy inequality problem by taxing the wealthy and support programs like Universal Health Care and Universal Income, excellent. The anything goes, only the strong survive jungle philosophy of Libertarians, not for me.

But I don't think your Local Political Units (LPU) will ever be popular. Too hard to explain. You have to work with the world we have, evolutionary process, make changes as opportunity presents itself. Anyway, don't get absorbed in arguing this stuff on chesstalk, live your life in the real world. Enjoy it.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The anything goes, only the strong survive jungle philosophy of Libertarians

But I don't think your Local Political Units (LPU) will ever be popular.

Anything goes, especially the harming of others as in the jungles, is just the opposite of what Libertarianism offers; you have not yet understood it...

And LPUs are the only sensible thing in Bob A's lengthy posts...

[Pargat Perrer]

Anything goes, especially the harming of others as in the jungles, is just the opposite of what Libertarianism offers; you have not yet understood it...

And LPUs are the only sensible thing in Bob A's lengthy posts...

If Bob G. is not yet understanding Libertarianism, it is because of you Dilip. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" seems apropos here.

You, Dilip, have utterly FAILED to communicate how Libertarianism is going to bring about an end to the "harming of others" in the world economy. Specifically, you have FAILED to communicate what exactly is "fair competition" because your Libertarian credo is "do no harm to others except in fair competition."

Until you define that, right down to the smallest detail, you fail to communicate. If you really want to be a spokesperson for Libertarianism, you need to step up the plate and communicate this concept of "fair competition" without your usual resorting to technobabble.

You need to define it so clearly that even a skilled lawyer couldn't run rings around it. Come on, I dare you! I dare you because I know you CANNOT do it.

[Dilip Panjwani]

If Bob G. is not yet understanding Libertarianism, it is because of you Dilip. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" seems apropos here.

You, Dilip, have utterly FAILED to communicate how Libertarianism is going to bring about an end to the "harming of others" in the world economy. Specifically, you have FAILED to communicate what exactly is "fair competition" because your Libertarian credo is "do no harm to others except in fair competition."

Until you define that, right down to the smallest detail, you fail to communicate. If you really want to be a spokesperson for Libertarianism, you need to step up the plate and communicate this concept of "fair competition" without your usual resorting to technobabble.

You need to define it so clearly that even a skilled lawyer couldn't run rings around it. Come on, I dare you! I dare you because I know you CANNOT do it.

I do not need to convince any nasty trolls...
On the other hand, Bob G may be currently misguided, but he will eventually get to the truth...

[Bob Armstrong]

Sorry - duplication of post # 449 (23/10/21)

Now deleted here.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Gillanders]

If Bob G. is not yet understanding Libertarianism, it is because of you Dilip. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" seems apropos here.

You, Dilip, have utterly FAILED to communicate how Libertarianism is going to......

Waiting for Dilip to explain was frustrating, so I did my own research. Libertarianism appears to be just extreme Capitalism dressed up as something else. Not my cup of tea.

[Bob Armstrong]

Partisan Statements: Democratic Marxism

(Generally Accepted by both CT'er DM's and CT'er Non-DM's as accurate policy or acceptable comment)



Statement # 12 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

Currently, and in the past, most daily services for residents have been the jurisdiction of cities, towns, villages, townships, etc...What is found is that this tends to minimize abuse of authority and criminality.


Supporting Reason 1 - Bob Armstrong

This is the case because the residents know each other, know what is going on, and discuss it among themselves. They can intervene where something is going off the rails, because the power system is small and local. In representative government, in small format, the politicians are neighbours of the electors......the representatives cannot afford to make the residents' lives miserable, or so will their local life.

Processing

There shall be one week for both "Revision" and "Opposition" Challenges; deadline: Thursday, November 3, 2023 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

I did my own research. Libertarianism appears to be just extreme Capitalism dressed up as something else.

That is what your marxist sources tell you. Ask our next PM, Pierre P, and he will explain to you that Libertarianism is the system designed to fairly reward hard and smart work/entrepreneurship (not capital)... and in which free handouts from legal theft do not exist...

[Bob Armstrong]

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)

Weekly Overview




A. Statistics


Week # 15 (23/10/23 – 29, 2023 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(15 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(15 wks.).

…20.........................14.......................32..........................1........................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running slightly ahead of the prior week despite there being the same number of responses per day. It is behind the year to date.

Do we care who is going to be in control, as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence (Negative Climate Change; Possible Nuclear War; Pandemics; etc.)?

B. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

Conspiracy Theory?

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order/Great Reset project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories”, such as QAnon.

The Time Line

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence (Sometimes quite overt) is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe. They are incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual authoritarian, but benevolent, one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run. And it is not good, even if this group sees itself as a “Benevolent Dictatorship”.

C. A Proposal: The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it. It is not a pipe-dream.......but requires a forceful coming together on the future of mankind.

D. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on four main principles:

1. A member can propose a Statement they consider “generally accepted, with Supporting Reasons.

2. If there is no proposed Revision of a Statement, with Reasons, nor Opposition Challenge, within one week, then the Statement is considered "generally-accepted”. (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

3. If the Statement is Challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement can post Supplementary Supporting Reasons. Those opposing the Statement may also post supplementary Challenges, with Reasons.

4. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-accepted".

E. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere. Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human self-governance is one of the most important in our human future, especially if some covert group of influential people is trying to have us give up our human rights, and take control!

Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government (Even if “benevolent”)?

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

Bob A (Anti-NWO/As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

A DMGI 2020 Perspective on
The Canadian Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada (The “Waffle” Manifesto [WM] – 1969)

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 7



Stylistic Limitations

Manifestos are written for theoretical/ideological purists/theorists.........not for the ordinary working person. If this is kept in mind, then their purpose is clear. But what is required is documentation that is simple, clear, free of jargon, short and easily readable, if the goal is to at some point have won the understanding of over 50% of the voters to prefer some partisan implementation of “socialism”. The working person must be brought to see, and agree, that capitalism serves, unhealthily, mainly the interests of the financial elite. They must also accept that Democratic Marxism (Our particular partisan brand of socialism) will mainly serve the interests of the common good, and reign in the historical power of Capital. This is a long battle, and must be aggressively pursued before one can even consider any type of foot-fold in the legislature.

So, stylistically, the historical rhetoric of the left of the past must be jettisoned to whatever extent possible. “Comrade” to the ear of the Canadian working person only conjures up the old USSR, and the oppression of the working person by old-style Communism. Also, the historical jargon does not speak to the ordinary working person of today, and when they hear it, it is clearly and quickly categorized as “out of date”. Another example: “revolution” - loved by we theorists; creates stress and anxiety in the working person, because in revolutions, it is the workers who get killed. “Evolution” is a much more comfortable process to the working person.....it means that their lives will not be totally upended in the service of reaching quickly some rather uncertain future situation. Evolution makes for a gradual and manageable change, which may take longer, but will eventually get to the end point, without all the collateral damage (Lenin's: To make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs). This kind of change the worker will accept as both possible, and not dangerous to their daily life.

So anyone who believes that Manifestos will be read by the ordinary working person is dreaming in technicolour. I'd love to have a survey done of middle & lower middle class, and working class, workers as to how many have read Karl Marx's/Frederick Engels “Communist Manifesto”! I'll hazard a guess that the percentage will be so low it will astound all us theorists. If changing the world-view of the worker is the method of implementing Democratic Socialism, or Democratic Marxism, no manifesto of the traditional style will do so. In fact, it is likely that even the word “manifesto” makes the Canadian working person nervous (Again, the association with the USSR and oppression of its citizens, and breaches of their human rights).

Impression Limitations

The WM's main contention is that the greatest danger to Canadian sovereignty is Canada's being, willingly, a branch plant economy of the American Empire. True enough.

But the implementation of Democratic Socialism, should it ever happen in Canada, simply cannot disengage the now three economies overnight (USA/Canada/Mexico Agreement). Socialism is going to have to be implemented on many levels within Canada, despite the economic integration, and to promise otherwise is to deceive the electorate.

There will be severe internal dislocations in some industries, which will cause major push-back. Then there is the international withdrawal from the existing North American economy, and new trade agreements with USA and Mexico (And other trade agreements in the Americas will likely next require renegotiation, given the different international relations perspective of Democratic Marxism, and then other trade agreements throughout the world).

The difficulty, in my view, of the Manifesto presentation of this issue, is that it so dominates the document, it overwhelms andy strategic plan of socialism implementation. It almost gives the impression that socialism will not be achieved until this issue has been resolved. The timeline actually is that Socialism (Or Democratic Marxism) will be achieved first, and then the issue of economic sovereignty in a trading world.

The working person is generally aware that much employment in Canada is tied into trade, mostly with USA, and somewhat with Mexico. So this issue of economic sovereignty is scary to the working person. It must not overwhelm a strategy of slow evolutionary growth of a Marxist economic and self-governance structure, first in the provinces, and then secondly at the federal level.

Lastly, the Manifesto seems almost silent on strategy to change over Canada from capitalist to socialist.

This is unhelpful to the working person. The document appears as pie-in-the-sky ideology. Only educational documents will be read by, and make an impression on, the working person, where they set out steps of a plan to move forward. And it is better that a document-to-be-read does not attempt to explain the whole strategic plan from start to finish in one sitting. This will engender concern that the task is so long and arduous, that it is unachievable.

Language Limitations

The working person has an acute reaction to theoretical key words and phrases. When seen, the tendency is to dismiss the whole content as theoretical and quit reading. For example, the terms “American Empire”, “revolution”, “radical change” are problems, in my view. Historical and traditional Socialist/Marxist jargon key words should be avoided. This is especially noteworthy in the publications of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). They still use the far-left jargon of the Cold War Era and the USSR – the working person simply turns off at this language, and abandons reading further........even I have trouble getting through it, and I'm committed.

Change must be “evolutionary”, and written about as such. Historical theoretical jargon is to be avoided at all cost (Despite the fact that they are handy for theorists since a single phrase realizes a whole complex interconnected set of thoughts).

[See Part II below]

DMGI

[Bob Armstrong]

A DMGI 2020 Perspective on

The Canadian Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada (The “Waffle” Manifesto [WM] – 1969)

[Part II; Part I above]

The Father's Day Manifesto (By DMGI)

This is a short one-page discussion paper. It avoids theoretical jargon. It sets out theory only in broad general terms. It emphasizes initial strategy for evolutionary implementation of Democratic Marxist decentralized local governing. It encourages that this strategy is achievable. It only deals with “first step” and does not attempt to convince of some long, drawn-out “grand plan”.

The test will be how the working person responds when presented with the DMGI Manifesto to read. And reading it is a prerequisite before buying a DMGI membership, or a membership in any local partisan Democratic Marxist Party. We will see if it is well-received.

Addendum

Democratic Marxist Global Institute - Originating Document

The Father's Day Manifesto : A Human Government Alternative Identified

(Democratic Marxism - Elaborated by the DM Global Institute – A Recommended Platform)

1. Ownership of the Means of Production

a. Generally, Worker majority, at least.


b. Worker Cooperatives will be favoured by tax incentives, over legal corporations.


c. Abolition of Capital investing.

2. Subsidiarity

Most local societal civil unit (Likely cities/towns/etc.) have ALL power, following the Principle of Subsidiarity. This will be done by the higher political units downloading their authority.

3. Democratic

Only established through free elections; forcing populations into a Democratic Marxist Governance at the point of a gun is totally opposed by DM.

4. Authentication

Global local Democratic Marxist Parties are free to choose whatever platforms meet their needs. But local parties may seek an “Authentication” from the DM Global Institute that their policy in total, at least “generally”, complies with the DM Global Institute's model Democratic Marxist Platform. The DM Global Institute may suggest revisions as a condition of the granting of “Authentication”.

5. Strategy

Intermediate governments are the first to be targeted (E.g. States in USA; Provinces/Territories in Canada; etc.) The main platform of the DM Parties at this level will be three:

a. to set up the identifiable Local Political Units (LPU);
b. to download all the provincial powers possible to the LPU's;
c. the intermediate structure will remaining only as a coordinator/facilitator, to carry out instructions at that level for LPU's who need to cooperate to achieve a goal, they cannot get on their own as a small power centre.

6. Evolution

This foundation platform for Democratic Marxism is an evolving document. Elaboration of new concepts & strategies, and corrections, will all be required to keep DM relevant. The DM Global Institute will be charged with this task. One of the methods for seeking evolution, is to manage a Facebook “Democratic Marxist Global Forum” (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045711862207056/), open to all, where respectful and informative debate on all things political will assist the DMGI.
.
Note: Contact Us: Via our Fb Page: Democratic Marxism - Global:
https://www.facebook.com/Democratic-Marxism-Global-748579292265552/?modal=admin_todo_tour


Democratic Marxist Global Institute
19/6/15
Author: Bob Armstrong, Interim Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Interim Chairperson
Most Recent Revision: 20/12/2 - Bob Armstrong

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2019


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, Interim Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Interim Chair

Original – 20/10/28

Revision – 23/10/30 – Bob Armstrong

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute – 2020

[Peter McKillop]

.....
c. Abolition of Capital investing.
.......

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by the above?

Also, what is DMGI? Is that you?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

1. DMGI - Democratic Marxist Global Institute - a hoped for "Marxist Think Tank" of a number of members - at present I am the sole member and policy writer. It does not yet have its own website.....simply a Facebook account.

2. In capitalism, private capital can be invested, and expects a return. In fact, it turns out to be generally quite profitable. It is arguable that the return would not be there without "labour". There is an argument that labour is being shortchanged in the deal, and that the capital return is often obscene. This is driving the wealth/income gap wider, by necessity, under capitalism.

The proposal is that start-up capital will be "loaned", and have a fixed, modest rate of return, in line with its secondary nature after labour. So a cooperative will borrow capital to start up, and then pay interest, and slowly pay down the capital loan, just as any other business expense.

The most likely source of capital loan will be a state start-up lending institution.

It is unclear whether there will be "private capital" that can also fill this role. It is a debate as to what abolition of private bourgeois property under Marxism will actually entail.

Capital is always required for new enterprises - all is front-end loaded. What is abolished is obscene return on capital on the backs of the worker.

I am well aware, that someone who sticks their head up, may get it shot off...........I'm a bit of a gambler.

Let me know if my concepts are unclear.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Peter:

1. DMGI - Democratic Marxist Global Institute - a hoped for "Marxist Think Tank" of a number of members - at present I am the sole member and policy writer. It does not yet have its own website.....simply a Facebook account.

2. In capitalism, private capital can be invested, and expects a return. In fact, it turns out to be generally quite profitable. It is arguable that the return would not be there without "labour". There is an argument that labour is being shortchanged in the deal, and that the capital return is often obscene. This is driving the wealth/income gap wider, by necessity, under capitalism.

The proposal is that start-up capital will be "loaned", and have a fixed, modest rate of return, in line with its secondary nature after labour. So a cooperative will borrow capital to start up, and then pay interest, and slowly pay down the capital loan, just as any other business expense.

The most likely source of capital loan will be a state start-up lending institution.

It is unclear whether there will be "private capital" that can also fill this role. It is a debate as to what abolition of private bourgeois property under Marxism will actually entail.

Capital is always required for new enterprises - all is front-end loaded. What is abolished is obscene return on capital on the backs of the worker.

I am well aware, that someone who sticks their head up, may get it shot off...........I'm a bit of a gambler.

Let me know if my concepts are unclear.

Bob A

"So anyone or any group will borrow capital to start up, and then pay interest, and slowly pay down the capital loan, just as any other business expense."

This is how Libertarianism differs from Capitalism. You are on the right path at least in this regard, Bob A...