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

[Bob Armstrong]

Post on the Fb Page, Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (DMPO) - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064448603475


Democratic Marxism (DM) - It's True Character



It is clear from my [Bob Armstrong] interaction with the world on DM, and the interaction by other DM'ists, that there is great confusion in the public as to the exact nature of this form of "socialism".

The seminal work on this political philosophy is by Kenneth Megill: The New Democracy (In 1970 Free Press/Macmillan published his book "The New Democratic Theory" in which he argued that liberal democracy and dialectical materialism had both failed and that a new theory of democracy was needed that focused on control of the places by those who lived and worked there. - Wikipedia.)

After this, there was little done, to my knowledge, on the elaboration of DM.

One major contribution to the evolution of DM theory and practice, is a list of "DM Statements" (See below). They make clear where DM departs from:

1. Democratic Socialism (Read the Socialist Manifesto - by Bhaskar Sunkara);
2. Old-style USSR Communism (As seen today in China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and many old-style national communist parties)

It is clear we must try to make knowledge of the seminal book, The New Democratic Theory, and this list of DM Statements, go "viral". We must embark now, if we are to make any progress in the future, on a world-wide educational.

Share this information far and wide on any social media to which you have access, world websites, and to family and friends. Until this is accomplished, we can be sure DM has no future.

Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (DMPO)

Democratic Marxism & Government
(23/11/5)

A. Statements

Statement # 1

Democratic Marxism operates within a democratic multi-party electoral system. It can be voted into government; it can be voted out of government. There will be no one-party system.

Statement # 2

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights
b. Constitutional Rights
c. Worker's Rights
d. Rights accorded by Laws

Statement # 3

Democratic Marxism respects all religions, and those not adopting religion, but is neutral between them all. DM takes no position on Atheism, Agnosticism or the Theisms. It will not be a theocracy, but a neutral civic administrator.

Supporting Reasons

Government has no business allying itself with any particular Church, Mosque, Temple, Synagogue. But being respectful of Religions, and being neutral religiously in civic administration, does not necessarily mean that government employees must check the unique trappings of their religion at the door of their civic place of employment.

Despite the conflicts resulting from the actions of various religions, both now and historically, it is the case that all religions teach citizens a model of a good life in society (Though adherents more or less adopt the model). Society in general benefits from this, and in the balance, the positive for society has outweighed the negative.

Statement # 4.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Statement # 5.

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).

Statement # 6.

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).

Statement # 7.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Statement # 8.

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.

Statement # 9

“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 # 10

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 # 11

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.

Supporting Reasons

Government has no business allying itself with any particular Church, Mosque, Temple, Synagogue. But being respectful of Religions, and being neutral religiously in civic administration, does not necessarily mean that government employees must check the unique trappings of their religion at the door of their civic place of employment.

Despite the conflicts resulting from the actions of various religions, both now and historically, it is the case that all religions teach citizens a model of a good life in society (Though adherents more or less adopt the model). Society in general benefits from this, and in the balance, the positive for society has outweighed the negative.

Statement # 12

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

The residents all 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 be their local life.

[Secretarial Note: Statements # 1 - # 12 on Democratic Marxism have been endorsed as accurate by:

a. A group of about 250 members of a Fb group, The Democratic Marxist Global Forum (DMGF). They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum.

b. A group of about 40 Canadian chess tournament players on their national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum.]

B. Processing Protocol

The "Conversation Format Protocol" used operates on two approaches:
a. The Revision Challenge:
1. Someone puts forward a Statement, with Support Reasons (Executive Summary format preferred) that they believe to be generally accepted by this group.
2. If within one week, no DMGF'er launches a “Revision Challenge”, with reasons, to the Statement (It does not represent Democratic Marxism as seen by this group), then it is deemed generally accepted and joins the list of DM Statements.
3. The Statement can be subject to a “Revision Challenge”. A Statement, when proposed, is given the initial benefit of the doubt that it is indeed "generally-accepted". So it is up to the Revision Challenger to muster support, and establish that the Statement is not “generally accepted” as DM policy. [This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: Where there is no objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting is necessary. The motion is given the benefit of the doubt that it is generally accepted; it is passed (by a majority, at least, if not unanimously)]. A “Revision Challenge” can be processed to get an agreed upon Statement. Then it is processed in the normal way.

b. Opposition Challenge

1. A "Challenge" of the Statement that it is unworkable/untenable, with Opposition Reasons, can be put forward, once the Statement has been settled. This group can then see both sides of the issue, before they can make any good assessment as to whether or not they wish to Support the Statement or Supplement the Challenge. There will be a one week period for this.

2. When the deadline has expired, the Group Secretary makes the decision as to whether the Statement has been generally accepted, and will join the list of other generally accepted Statements.
3. Statements are always open to a “new” Challenge; the Group Secretary will make a decision as to whether a Challenge is identical to one already dismissed and need not be processed again.

C. Goal

The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is majority "general acceptance” of a Statement.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Short Answer here, Dilip - I don't like theoretical questions, with not a shred of basis in reality - counting angels on the head of a pin.

The NDP is social democratic. Ed Broadbent's (Former Federal NDP leader, liked by PM Pierre Trudeau) new book is entitled: Seeking Social Democracy. In earlier years, Leader Stephen Lewis, Ontario NDP leader (Son of David Lewis, former Federal NDP leader) kicked the socialist faction (The Waffle - which became for about 2 years a "Socialist Party and then folded) out of the party. There has always been a socialist caucus in the NDP, both federally and provincially, and they have no influence. In the formation of the "new party" out of the CCF and The Canadian Labour Congress, the term "socialism" was deliberately dropped......the party felt a "socialist party" could never be elected in Canada.

And you ask, apparently seriously, about the NDP morphing into the Democratic Marxist Party of Canada?

No, I will not answer the question in Post # 149 under the Collapse of Civilization. Both I, and you, have better things to do with our time.

There is, as of yet, only one Democratic Marxist Party on the planet: The Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (& it is not yet formally registered as an Ontario political party).

We are in early days, my friend.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

The Democratic Marxist (DM) Reading List

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 8

1. Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society – the Doubleday Anchor Book has a good overview in the Introduction by editors (And translators) Loyd D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat.
2. The New Democratic Theory – Kenneth Megill
3. The Manifesto of the Communist Party – The Norton Critical Edition has a good executive summary of Marx as a preface to the original papers by editor Frederick L. Bender. - 1988
4. Tearing Away the Veils: The Communist Manifesto - Marshall Berman - Dissent Magazine, May 6, 2011 (This essay is the introduction to the Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition of the Communist Manifesto, published March,2020. (http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=860).
5. Chile's Democratic Road to Socialism – Michael H. Fleet
6. Adventures in Marxism - Marshall Berman – 1999.
7. The Socialist Manifesto – Bhaskar Sunkara (There is a 288-page paperback edition) - 2019
8. Hal Draper's "The Two Souls of Socialism." - Hal Draper - 1966
   
   [ https://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary...6-TwoSouls.htm ]- PDF Download: https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/.
   
   9. Small is Beautiful – E.F. Shumacher - 1973
   
   10. Leisure: The Basis of Culture – Josef Pieper – 1948
   
   11. Strongmen – Ruth Ben-Ghiat - 2020
   
   12. Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada (1969 – popularly called the “Waffle” Manifesto) – Basic Document of the federal socialist party, Movement for an Independent Canada.
   
   13. Manifesto for a Socialist Canada (2001) – by the Socialist Caucus of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
   
   14. Socialism in Canada – Ivan Avakumovic - 1978
   
   15. Additional good readings: check the list created by the organization, Connexions: https://www.connexions.org/Marxism/index.htm).

Note: There is specifically Canadian content on the list because the Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (A Province within Canada) is the first party on the planet to seek formal 'endorsement' from the Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI) for its electoral platform.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

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

Original – 20/11/16; Most Recent Revision – 21/5/8; Reviser: Bob Armstrong

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

Hi Bob,
I would appreciate if you would answer my post #149 under 'collapse of civilization', telling us whether Canada would comply with most of your requirements for a DM compatible set-up, if the NDP were to become a fully Marxist party...

[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

Notes:

1. The “Weekly Overview” of the topic is posted for the benefit of new members who may have come in between the “Weekly Overviews”.
2. The Stats of participation are important to allow all to determine the extent of continuing interest, and whether, at some point, the interest no longer warrants the labour.

A. Statistics


Week # 17 (23/11/6 – 12, 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.............(17wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(17wks.).

…7.........................14.......................30..........................0........................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running behind the prior week and 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 (Collapse of Civilization; 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”.

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

1. 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.
   
   It is not a “pipe dream”. But, yes..........it requires a great human act of change!
   
   We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it. It 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”)?

Additional Notes:

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]

The Democratic Marxist (DM) Reading List

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 8

1. Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society – the Doubleday Anchor Book has a good overview in the Introduction by editors (And translators) Loyd D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat.
2. The New Democratic Theory – Kenneth Megill
3. The Manifesto of the Communist Party – The Norton Critical Edition has a good executive summary of Marx as a preface to the original papers by editor Frederick L. Bender. - 1988
4. Tearing Away the Veils: The Communist Manifesto - Marshall Berman - Dissent Magazine, May 6, 2011 (This essay is the introduction to the Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition of the Communist Manifesto, published March,2020. (http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=860).
5. Chile's Democratic Road to Socialism – Michael H. Fleet
6. Adventures in Marxism - Marshall Berman – 1999.
7. The Socialist Manifesto – Bhaskar Sunkara (There is a 288-page paperback edition) - 2019
8. Hal Draper's "The Two Souls of Socialism." - Hal Draper - 1966
   
   [ https://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary...6-TwoSouls.htm ]- PDF Download: https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/.
   
   9. Small is Beautiful – E.F. Shumacher - 1973
   
   10. Leisure: The Basis of Culture – Josef Pieper – 1948
   
   11. Strongmen – Ruth Ben-Ghiat - 2020
   
   12. Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada (1969 – popularly called the “Waffle” Manifesto) – Basic Document of the federal socialist party, Movement for an Independent Canada.
   
   13. Manifesto for a Socialist Canada (2001) – by the Socialist Caucus of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
   
   14. Socialism in Canada – Ivan Avakumovic - 1978
   
   15. Additional good readings: check the list created by the organization, Connexions: https://www.connexions.org/Marxism/index.htm).

Note: There is specifically Canadian content on the list because the Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (A Province within Canada) is the first party on the planet to seek formal 'endorsement' from the Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI) for its electoral platform.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

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

Original – 20/11/16; Most Recent Revision – 21/5/8; Reviser: Bob Armstrong

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[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 # 16 (23/10/30 – 11/5, 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.............(16 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(16 wks.).

…14.........................20.......................31..........................1........................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running slightly behind the prior week despite there being the same number of responses per day. It is well behind the year to date. Is interest tailing off?

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 (Collapse of Civilization; 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”.

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.

It is not a “pipe dream”. But, yes..........it requires a great human act of change!

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it. It 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]

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)

Partisan Statements Update

Democratic Marxism





A. Statements on Democratic Marxism


Statement # 1

Democratic Marxism operates within a democratic multi-party electoral system. It can be voted into government; it can be voted out of government. There will be no one-party system.


Statement # 2

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights

b. Constitutional Rights

c. Worker's Rights

d. Rights accorded by law.

Statement # 3

Democratic Marxism respects all religions, and those not adopting religion, but is neutral between them all. DM takes no position on Atheism, Agnosticism or the Theisms. It will not be a theocracy, but a neutral civic administrator.

Supporting Reasons

Government has no business allying itself with any particular Church, Mosque, Temple, Synagogue. But being respectful of Religions, and being neutral religiously in civic administration, does not necessarily mean that government employees must check the unique trappings of their religion at the door of their civic place of employment.

Despite the conflicts resulting from the actions of various religions, both now and historically, it is the case that all religions teach citizens a model of a good life in society (Though adherents more or less adopt the model). Society in general benefits from this, and in the balance, the positive for society has outweighed the negative.

[Secretarial Note: re Statements # 4- #11:

1. These Statements were passed by this CT'er group as part of our Human Self-Government list at a time when Supporting Reasons were not necessary to propose a Statement. Thus there still are none for earlier Statements; the Statements were just generally accepted.
2. These 8 Statements have been adopted not only by this HS-G group, but also by a Facebook Democratic Marxist discussion group.....they were brought there, from here, and were passed!]

Statement # 4

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Statement # 5

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).

Statement # 6

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).

Statement # 7

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Statement # 8

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.

Statement # 9

“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 # 10

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 # 11

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 # 12

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

The residents all 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 be their local life.

B. Group Secretary Rulings (Group Confirmation)

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.

[Secretarial Note: Statements have been Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. 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.]

C. Processing [re Partisan Groups]

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; However, A Revision Challenge does pause the processing of an opposition Challenge....the Opposition must know the wording of the Statement being opposed; if there is a Revision, then the Challenger has the opportunity to revise the out-of-date Challenge; the one week period will then start again).

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).

Note:
Phase I - Interpretation Challenge (That this is an inaccurate Statement, as seen by the other group itself) : If there is no "Challenge" within one week , then the Statement is generally accepted, and joins the list of generally accepted DM Statements.


Phase II - Opposition Challenge (That this is an unworkable position or false statement): Cannot be processed until the Statement itself becomes generally accepted by the Partisan Members in this group.]



Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[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

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

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

After one week, no CT'er has launched either a "Revision" or an "Opposition" Challenge.

Conclusion

Statement # 12 is generally accepted; it joins the list of DM Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Clear and well-put. Thanks for the explanation ......I was not that familiar with the VC/ROI scene.

DM also allows for State Equity. It is the choice of the start-up owners: Loan Capital only (No State Partner); State "Investment" Capital - State becomes part owner.

You seem absolutely right, that to protect the taxpayers $$ being lent/invested, the State will have to set conditions such that it does not blow the taxpayers $$. Obviously the start-ups will understand, as taxpayers, that they cannot expect the State to subsidize their bankruptcies.

Detailing this at present is virtually impossible, because the infrastructure of a DM society will be quite different than now, under a Capitalist Society.

We will have to see what the very changed world looks like, to do our business economic analysis, and determine what conditions are necessary, to protect the taxpayer $$, and still be fair to the start-ups.

Excellent discussion IMHO!

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

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

Bob A., in capitalism we have what are called "VC" firms (Venture Capital). These firms invest in newly-formed companies, at their discretion based on a prospective company's Business Plan documents which outlines the business' expectation of future Return On Investment (ROI).

So DM seems to want to replace these with state lending firms that would give the capital as loans.

But the sad reality is that about 8 or 9 out of every 10 new businesses will go belly-up before seeing any actual returns. The VC firms counter this by imposing a percentage of ownership in the new companies. So for the 1 or 2 businesses that do see future returns, the VC firm(s) get a slice of the profit pie. This helps to offset the losses from the businesses that go under early. This model works to some extent because the new companies do offer their products or services at prices way beyond what they would be if the VC firms did not have ownership in the companies.

As an example, remember the product that was called (I think) the FitBoard? It was just a piece of plastic formed in such a shape that you can stand on it with both feet and try and maintain balance because the center is the only part of the board actually touching the floor. This improves one's balance capabilities and many twisting exercises can be done. This piece of formed plastic cost about $50 US in stores like WalMart!!! As a piece of formed plastic, it was worth about maybe a buck. The markup had to be huge just to recover the initial start-up costs of the business.

I don't know if WalMart and such stores still sells this product... I recently bought one at a thrift store for about $5, reflecting more accurately its true value.

So I don't know if it is really "labour" that is being short-changed, although for sure labour costs are kept as low as possible for startups, and the production may even be done in Asia or Africa or somewhere that labour is very cheap. But the CONSUMER is also bearing the costs as well.

So anyway, I believe that if DM replaces VC firms with state lending, the state will have to do what the VC firms do, which is take partial ownership (equity) of the companies to offset all the failing companies. In effect, the model would be the same and only the players of the game would change. Or do you have something more to say about that? It seems that if the state does not take equity, then the terms of the loans would need to have exorbitant interest rates on the loans just to break even?

[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...

[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

[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]

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

[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