If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Let us see what the REALITY is, Bob:
Marxism would guarantee free food, free housing with heat and water and electricity, free schooling, free commuting, free medical care, free medicines, free dental care, free nursing homes, some free basic clothing, free internet, in addition to some basic pocket change... quite a good deal if you still have all your time to party and play with friends in the same boat! And with all the entrepreneurs gone, there won't be many jobs around anyway, so the numbers getting the free stuff 'legitimately' will be huge. And why would any sensible person (not a cheater) want to sweat all day to support these huge numbers of benefit recipients for very little post-tax income for himself to pay for all the stuff in draconian inflation (an inevitable occurrence with poor productivity of 'government run' businesses, sparse numbers of entrepreneur led production units, combined with naturally wasteful consumption of free goods and services)... so the vicious cycle will go on till the country ends up in chaos, like Argentina and Venezuela and Chile and the Soviet Union did!
So, when your friend Dilip says that Marxism is broken, he is not warping reality, he is just laying out the bare facts...
I bolded the critical question in your post.
"why would any sensible person (not a cheater) want to sweat all day to support these huge numbers of benefit recipients for very little post-tax income for himself"
If you have to ask that question, then you expose yourself as the greedy Libertarian that you are. But if you were a true entrepreneur, you would never ask this question. You would simply go on being what you are, the entrepreneur, and make your first $1 billion after which Bob G.'s wealth tax would limit your gains to this amount.
Would that make you happy? YES YES YES!!!!
You made your billion $ and you did it doing what you love to do. Did you stop to think about supporting other people who aren't as ambitions as you? NO NO NO!
ONLY IF YOU ARE A GREEDY BASTARD WHO WANTS EVERYTHING FOR HIMSELF / HERSELF WOULD YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT THAT!
And for this reason, your entire logic is broken. You don't even understand the people you claim to represent, the entrepreneur class.
And this is why even the top billionaires want the government to tax them more. They WANT the less ambitious to be supported by government! They WANT those supported people to be buying their products / services!
And this is why Libertarianism will NEVER make it as the system of government!
Fool.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Friday, 23rd February, 2024, 09:02 AM.
"why would any sensible person (not a cheater) want to sweat all day to support these huge numbers of benefit recipients for very little post-tax income for himself"
If you have to ask that question, then you expose yourself as the greedy Libertarian that you are. But if you were a true entrepreneur, you would never ask this question. You would simply go on being what you are, the entrepreneur, and make your first $1 billion after which Bob G.'s wealth tax would limit your gains to this amount.
Would that make you happy? YES YES YES!!!!
You made your billion $ and you did it doing what you love to do. Did you stop to think about supporting other people who aren't as ambitions as you? NO NO NO!
ONLY IF YOU ARE A GREEDY BASTARD WHO WANTS EVERYTHING FOR HIMSELF / HERSELF WOULD YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT THAT!
And for this reason, your entire logic is broken. You don't even understand the people you claim to represent, the entrepreneur class.
And this is why even the top billionaires want the government to tax them more. They WANT the less ambitious to be supported by government! They WANT those supported people to be buying their products / services!
And this is why Libertarianism will NEVER make it as the system of government!
Fool.
Your romanticized view of wealth redistribution overlooks a fundamental flaw in human nature: greed doesn't vanish with government control; it merely changes hands from businessmen to politicians. History isn't kind to your utopia; it's littered with the failures of such systems, where the promise of equality morphs into the reality of universal poverty, except for those in power. Believing that billionaires willingly want more taxes to support a bloated, inefficient system is naive. They navigate these waters to further their interests, often advocating for policies that ultimately benefit them under the guise of altruism. Your argument doesn't champion the entrepreneur spirit; it underestimates the pervasive nature of greed, now cloaked in political power, leading to the very chaos you naively seek to avoid. Your stance isn't just broken; it's dangerously ignorant of the lessons history has painfully taught us
Your romanticized view of wealth redistribution overlooks a fundamental flaw in human nature: greed doesn't vanish with government control; it merely changes hands from businessmen to politicians. History isn't kind to your utopia; it's littered with the failures of such systems, where the promise of equality morphs into the reality of universal poverty, except for those in power. Believing that billionaires willingly want more taxes to support a bloated, inefficient system is naive. They navigate these waters to further their interests, often advocating for policies that ultimately benefit them under the guise of altruism. Your argument doesn't champion the entrepreneur spirit; it underestimates the pervasive nature of greed, now cloaked in political power, leading to the very chaos you naively seek to avoid. Your stance isn't just broken; it's dangerously ignorant of the lessons history has painfully taught us
Hi Sid,
The guy you are responding to keeps on vomiting nonsense combined with very foul language, is a disgrace on chesstalk, and as you know, others also have wanted him barred from it.
Bob A., on the other hand, is worth having conversation with, if only as an opposing lawyer in a court of law! There is hope that he would understand the difference between 'self-interest' and 'greed': The Scottish moral philosopher known as “the father of modern capitalism,” Adam Smith, wrote in The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations that, “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” And Ayn Rand very smartly stated: 'Altruism is a sophisticated form of selfishness'. Even the Bible considers nothing wrong with Christians having self-interest (Wikipedia explains this well)! Self-interest turns into greed when one breaches the Natural Law to serve self-interest.
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 24th February, 2024, 05:56 PM.
Altruism is putting your self-interest, which can be legitimate, after a benefit to another. It is simply being generous of spirit.
And sometimes some benefit may, at the same time, be visited on the altruist. Certainly the altruist in a situation is entitled to feel self-satisfaction that they have contributed in some way to society.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is self-interest run amok.....charge "what the market will bear" (Not a "fair charge" in the marketplace). That is why so many laws are aimed at restraint of unfair business practice. Capitalism, otherwise, leaves a trail of collateral damage.
Much better to reform the "cause" of society's problems, rather than try to contain the "consequences".
Altruism is putting your self-interest, which can be legitimate, after a benefit to another. It is simply being generous of spirit.
And sometimes some benefit may, at the same time, be visited on the altruist. Certainly the altruist in a situation is entitled to feel self-satisfaction that they have contributed in some way to society.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is self-interest run amok.....charge "what the market will bear" (Not a "fair charge" in the marketplace). That is why so many laws are aimed at restraint of unfair business practice. Capitalism, otherwise, leaves a trail of collateral damage.
Much better to reform the "cause" of society's problems, rather than try to contain the "consequences".
Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
Marxism does not reform the 'cause' of society's problems; as Sid rightly pointed out, those in illegitimate power (albeit by a majority of votes cast, power of government forcing stupid corrupt laws over the common man is always illegitimate), are the real problem. The only way to reform is by the simple way of enforcing the Natural Law, as in Libertarianism.
1. The “Weekly Overview” of the topic is posted for the benefit of new members who may have come in between the “Weekly Overviews”. It provides an executive summary of the issue for new viewers.
2. The Stats of participation are important to allow all to determine the extent of continuing interest. For thread originators/responders, they are important to see if the interest no longer warrants the labour. Or alternatively, they show that those of us discussing it are drawing in more participants, because they have begun to see the importance of our topic.
A. Statistics
1. Weekly Stats:
Week # 8 (24/2/19 – 25 [7 days])
(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)
.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day Views/Day........Views/Day.............(8 wks.)
Last week's stats are running slightly behind both the week prior and the 2024 stats so far. But there continues a steady interest in DM from when the thread started. CT'ers are interested in learning more about DM, and about government from the DM perspective.
Also, that the thread has had 3 posts per week on average, from the start, shows a consistently active thread.
This thread is an opportunity to learn something about the political system known as “Democratic Marxism”! It is also an opportunity to question DM in a good and safe forum, where we try to respect the right of all CT'ers to have their own analysis, and to be entitled to put it forward for consideration, even if differing from DM.
There is also discussion of current political affairs from the different perspectives of various participants.
B. Goal of this Thread
To make clear what Democratic Marxism is, and what it is not (Old-style USSR Communism)
To provide materials that help CT'ers analyze the pluses and minuses of DM.
Additional Notes:
1. The goal of this thread is not to try to beat opposing views into oblivion. Political economy spans the spectrum. 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 among the many competing political philosophies.
2. I, Bob A, personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I may sometimes fall short on this. So it is necessary that a number of other CT'ers post responses here somewhat regularly as well.
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.
The New Democratic Theory – Kenneth Megill
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
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.
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)
Original – 20/11/16;
Author: Bob Armstrong, Interim Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Chair
Most Recent Revision – 21/5/8; Reviser: Bob Armstrong
b. Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus
The Nature of the “Public” (Mainly composed of the Working Person)
Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 9
[Part I of 2 parts]
Background
The young Karl Marx wrote an essay against government censorship at that time. He argued the state was acting improperly. But the public did not see it as such, having accepted that there were necessary reasons for it. He wrote:
“The attention of a superficial public is thus diverted.”
“Superficiality”
For the public, life is a struggle.
Many must work long hours, flat out, to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Often, now, both partners must work, and have their children in day care or school. Humans are not meant to be capitalist machines.....so leisure time is an absolute necessity, for the working person to regenerate themselves. They need to revive their drooping spirits.
So if one is exhausted most of the week, and recovering during the short weekend interlude period, while at the same time tending to all the personal life tasks to be done, since they couldn't be done during the work week, what energy and time is left in the public to analyze the legitimacy of the societal rules under which they live? Do we expect the working person to undertake Noam Chomsky-like societal criticism in the little spare time they have?
It is not like the public does not know when it is their oxen that is being gored. They complain to family and friends. But it is true that, without some help, somehow, public analysis of the issue may not go very deep........though there often can be a very accurate intuition of where the problem lies. It is not that good analysis is not available.....experts are writing tomes and tomes of analysis of the drawbacks to current society. The work is published and available.
But for the reasons given above, and others (Such as elitist professional jargon), these texts do not ever make even the very bottom of the public's “best seller” list. Today, how many working people have The Manifesto of the Communist Party in their e-book or hard-copy libraries? How many have any idea what is even in it? The working public in the 19th century (1800's) did read manifestos; the public in the 21 st century does not.
So can we blame the public for their unsophisticated analysis of the issues of their life? There is clearly, today, a disconnect between the levels of analysis of the “experts” of the ills of society, and the public's understanding of the daily problems they face, and why. One need only look at the state of the USA public in the last 4 years, and during the 2020 Presidential election, to see the actual “Anti-Expert/Science” hold that grips almost half the American working people.
The Consequence of Inadequate Public Analysis
The difficulty caused by the limited “awareness” of the public is that analysis promoting change is suspect; it meets resistance due to lack of education and understanding. This resistance is fortified by the fact that biologically, man is “hard-wired” AGAINST change.
So is education of the public impossible? Is it, as Marx contended, necessary that the oppression of the worker become so bad, that working persons rise up in revolution to overthrow the establishment, despite the fact that they do not have any good analysis of how they got into this state, or what should be the future after the revolution?
Or is it possible to have an “evolution” to remove the oppression in the developed world in the 21 st century, founded on the working person gaining a reasonably good analysis on which his/her motivation for emancipation is founded.
And will it be the case, that the establishment will have such power that they will be able to suppress the evolutionary desire of the worker?
The question: Can society progress and move forward, and eliminate oppression, by means other than desperate revolution? Can such change be won at the ballot box, freely voted for by an educated public.
The Problem of Revolution
It is sometimes necessary to overthrow by force an oppressive police-state national government. Nelson Mandela in South Africa tried all possible avenues to get change. But he decided that it would never happen under the existing regime. Ballot box change would never be allowed. Only then did he take up the gun to try to use violence to bring about the freedom from oppression. We have seen where the oppressed have given up hope for any democratic substantial change: The French Revolution; the Russian Revolution; the Chinese Revolution; the Cuban Revolution; the American Revolution; etc. Generally in these situations, the leaders of the revolution do have a much deeper analysis of what has led to the state of affairs causing violent revolt, and what they wish to implement as the new revolutionary government. The working person has been far behind.
So the problem in revolution is the analysis gap between the leaders and the masses. In the early 1800's, some of the theoreticians argued that this gap necessitated that the “educated/experts” take power in the revolutionary government since the masses cannot be trusted to confirm the new power structure and ideology at the ballot box. The public would splinter into a myriad of positions on everything the new revolutionary government proposed. It is at this point that old-style USSR Communism turned the gun that had brought about the overthrow, on the working masses themselves, and introduced a police-state to keep the ideology in place, and order in society. If breach of human rights was required, it was carried out for the “greater good”.
Of course, the theory was that once the working person was in the new regime for a while, and saw the benefits of it, they would have become “educated” in analysis, and power could then be given, finally, to the worker.
There seems to be something to problems arising in revolution from this “analysis gap”.
But it is interesting that the great revolutionary, Marx, was adamantly against this “elitist” power grab.
The Nature of the “Public” (Mainly composed of the Working Person)
[Part II; see Part I above]
Evolution
Fortunately now, many countries are free democracies (Free-vote in a multi-party system). (Of course, whether any government elected actually serves the common interest of the public is debatable; they often seem to govern for the elite, and themselves.) So the role of “leaders of change” (E.g. Moving from a capitalist system to a socialist one) is to “educate” the public. Unfortunately, many revolutionary theorists have agreed with Marx, that this foundational education only occurs in the very throes of a violent revolution – so they despair at any project to educate the public to adopt fundamental change at the ballot box.
It does seem true, that if “evolutionary” change is to occur (That is, through the ballot box, with the voting system being under the control of the cabal sought to be ousted), then there is no other answer than to bring the majority of the public up to the level of general theoretical analysis. The analysis gap must be closed for at least a majority of the public; and in some cases, a plurality may be sufficient). The public is much more comfortable with evolutionary change. It does not demand, as Marx does, that the working person be trodden down to the very bottom, before the public reacts to the ultimate oppression by revolution......the working person sees that if evolution is possible, then they may be able to survive within the oppressive system, even if just barely, and live to see the necessary change, and then see their quality of life go back up again, to heights never dreamed of under the old system.
The reasonable hope is that if the majority have voted for socialism, then they will continue to support its sometimes lurching progress forward, and will not lose faith......will not demand recall in order to return to the old, known system. The expectation of the change leaders is that as the new system is implemented, benefits will start to flow immediately to all the public, and slowly a greater portion of the public will be won over to democratic support of socialism.
Democratic Marxism
Democratic Marxism seeks a “revolution” in public analysis, prior to the necessity of violent on-the-street revolution. This revolution will allow democratic evolution into the new system without all the collateral damage that comes with violent revolution (And it is the working persons themselves in many revolutions that suffer the most collateral damage).
The mandate, therefore, for DM is the daunting task of presenting its positions, through communication acceptable to the general public(Short discussion papers vs long, heavy Manifestos; popular media; education round-tables; word of mouth, etc). The goal is to change the perception of the public, of their own person, and its relation to the state.
There is no need for a “revolutionary leadership cabal” to power grab, to keep the public under the thumb of the new system, and to keep societal order while implementing the new system.
Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)
Original – 20/11/7
Author: Bob Armstrong, Interim Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Chair
b. Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus
The Nature of the “Public” (Mainly composed of the Working Person)
[Part II; see Part I above]
Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Hey Bob (and the Karl Marx within you),
The public is smarter than you think they are. They clearly realize (and one does not need much more than common-sense to do so) that Marxism will add misery to their lives, as has happened in Chile, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc., and will never vote for Marxism, despite you and the Karl Marx inside you desperately hoping that their 'numbers' will bring about Marxism via the 'Democratic' back-door...
The “Weekly Overview” of the topic is posted for the benefit of new members who may have come in between the “Weekly Overviews”. It provides an executive summary of the issue for new viewers.
The Stats of participation are important to allow all to determine the extent of continuing interest. For thread originators/responders, they are important to see if the interest no longer warrants the labour. Or alternatively, they show that those of us discussing it are drawing in more participants, because they have begun to see the importance of our topic
A. Statistics
1. Weekly Stats:
Week # 9 (24/2/26 – 3/3 [7 days])
(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)
.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day Views/Day........Views/Day.............(9 wks.)
Last week's stats reflect the fact that there are fewer initiating responses being posted per week now. So it is expected that activity will be less in what is predominantly an “educational” thread
But there continues a steady interest in DM from when the thread started. CT'ers are interested in learning more about DM, and about government from the DM perspective.
And discussions/increased participation does happen when a current controversial issue is brought into the thread. There is discussion of current political affairs from the different perspectives of the various participants.
This thread is an opportunity to learn something about the political system known as “Democratic Marxism”! It is also an opportunity to question DM in a good and safe forum, where we try to respect the right of all CT'ers to have their own analysis, and to be entitled to put it forward for consideration, even if differing from DM.
B. Goal of this Thread
To make clear what Democratic Marxism is, and what it is not (Old-style USSR Communism)
To provide materials that help CT'ers analyze the pluses and minuses of DM.
Additional Notes:
1. The goal of this thread is not to try to beat opposing views into oblivion. Political economy spans the spectrum. 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 among the many competing political philosophies.
2. I, Bob A, personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I may sometimes fall short on this. So it is necessary that a number of other CT'ers post responses here somewhat regularly as well.
In earlier papers, we have argued that “reform” and “evolutionary” implementation of Democratic Marxism was preferable to the harsh, blunt tool of “revolution”.
We wish to make a clarification on this.
Historically, however, these words were associated with upper class “Leftism” and capitalist social democracy. They were not in favour at all of a “revolution”, such as the Russian Revolution, The French Revolution, or later, The Chinese Revolution, The Cuban Revolution, etc.). We now realize that our softer language is going to put a rightist veneer over the farther left concepts we are espousing. Or it may even be that we ourselves downplayed the revolution option, or unwittingly strayed into a Marxist heresy.
First Intent Revolution
So we feel the need to be clearer on the revolution concept. It is necessary to link “on-the-street revolution” with “political revolution” differently.
Mao Zedong, the great revolutionary Chinese leader, opined that political power would only come out of the barrel of a gun. President Nelson Mandela, of South Africa, in his earlier revolutionary phase, took up the gun, but only as a very last gasp resort. Educational sessions, peaceful non-violent protests, meetings with the then apartheid government, and even unlawful non-violent civil disobedience protests all had made no progress with these “stiff-necked” people. So for Nelson, the only last option to get change from the oppression was through violent civil war, for which he spent many long years in prison. Karl Marx firmly held that it was absolutely a necessity that capitalism degrade the worker to the very lowest point, before the workers would fully recognize their situation of exploitation, and their power, and understand that violent revolution had become their only option. The worker government which was established after overthrowing and tossing the old structure of government, was going to be the best, democratic form of government, that he called “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. Today we see the choice of term “dictatorship” as unfortunate, since today dictatorship involves the exact opposite of democracy; it is authoritarian rule, generally with all power lodged in one leader. Marx wanted the exact opposite – one worker/one vote.
So, to be clear, Democratic Marxism does not shrink from the tool of revolution, in case we gave this impression in earlier papers. The oppressed, in fact, and we've seen this historically, will tolerate extreme oppression only so long, because they no longer have anything to lose by dying in a violent uprising. They also, often for the first time as a mass, realize what power they actually do possess to create a revolution to solve their situation. They will seize political power, as opposed to winning it through the ballot box, as they have every right to do at their nadir.
This is the first and fundamental intent behind “revolution”.
This being said, history has also shown that the state will fight back in its death throes, and their will be significant collateral damage to the revolutionaries.......many lives are lost; many institutions of value fall; the economy in the short-run usually suffers.
Second Intent Revolution
For this reason, in our view, behind the word “revolution” is a second intent, somewhat softer, but not less revolutionary. The second intent is a pre-requisite step before reaching the finality of the first intent; it is the attempt to seize political power of the state before the point of total degradation of the working person. The goal is to be able to quickly, during a necessary transition period, legally implement the democratic socialist state. This allows for an immediate lifting of some of the most oppressive terms of capitalism, and a moving forward in quality of life of each individual worker. Revolution by second intent can head off the more hash solution of first intent revolution.
In the history of socialist parties' attempt to gain power through election, we are not unaware of the difficulty associated with second intent revolution. It is being attempted within the rules of the capitalist state, and the establishment has many societal tools available to hobble the socialist effort (Such as mainstream media; laws removing rights of minority political organizations that keep them for organizing, and keep their supporters from voting). Also, the working person is bombarded with capitalist propaganda and alleged valid arguments against socialist platforms. It is in this environment that socialist are trying to organize their electors, and educate them on socialism and its benefits. And of course, there is always the last smear from the right, that Democratic Marxism is simply the new phrase for USSR-communism, which is so anathema to North America, because of its inherent implementation flaws (Police state; breach of human rights; surveillance; etc.). Democratic Marxism which is the exact opposite of USSR-Communism, has the problem that both claim orthodox lineage from Karl Marx, and thus the public confusion, including among the working persons. Though Democratic Marxism labels USSR-Communism as a deformed heresy within Marxism, and that it became the exact opposite of its Marxist roots, it is a hard sell.
Second Intent Revolution is, indeed, attempted revolution from within (A fifth column). To win power in such a situation, is definitely, a revolution of its own kind. The legal levers of law, regulation and policy can then be used, during an interim transition period, to: implement a state that financially supports the poor and oppressed citizen; to phase out investment capital, while maintaining the private capital of the worker; to take under state ownership and control those major enterprises of societal concern, and eliminating their profit-taking from the working person, and lower costs to the worker.
But, should this second intent revolution fail, as have the electoral attempts of many socialist parties of the past across the planet and through the last centuries, then the Democratic Capitalist degradation of the worker will come about, the worker will see that their interests have not been served by continuously electing capitalist parties to government, and first intent revolution will be the only option for meaningful change.
We do note that in the countries of USSR-Communism, the plight of the oppressed worker is worse. This second intent revolution from within is foreclosed to them. Free multi-party elections are prohibited; dissent is brutally dealt with by the police-state. In those countries, first intent revolution will be the only way for the worker to regain their rights, and political and economic power, which is their inherent right as human beings.
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, with a newer world as our goal.
b. Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus
Your romanticized view of wealth redistribution overlooks a fundamental flaw in human nature: greed doesn't vanish with government control; it merely changes hands from businessmen to politicians. History isn't kind to your utopia; it's littered with the failures of such systems, where the promise of equality morphs into the reality of universal poverty, except for those in power. Believing that billionaires willingly want more taxes to support a bloated, inefficient system is naive. They navigate these waters to further their interests, often advocating for policies that ultimately benefit them under the guise of altruism. Your argument doesn't champion the entrepreneur spirit; it underestimates the pervasive nature of greed, now cloaked in political power, leading to the very chaos you naively seek to avoid. Your stance isn't just broken; it's dangerously ignorant of the lessons history has painfully taught us
Responding from Europe on a tablet....
You haven't paid attention to my last posts. I am not a Marxist not extreme left wing. I am the one who is saying the political system we have now is probably the best we can ever hope for.
Tweet
Comment