Democratic Marxism

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism
(Started: 24/1/3)

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”. 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 # 10 (24/3/4 – 3/10 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(10 wks.)

…16........................12.......................28


................................................2024 Average

Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(10 wks.).

........1.......................1.......................3

2. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

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.

I, as originator/main poster, will now likely just post 1 discussion paper per week, near the start of the week.

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.


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, DMGI Coordinator

Most Recent Revision: 24/3/11

Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

Fb 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

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development



Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI) - 2024

[Sid Belzberg]

In addition to the fact you mischaracterized me as far-left politically....

I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...

I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.

The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.

Note, modern history only, if you say some ancient civilization was Libertarian, it doesn't suffice.

Hong Kong (pre-1997): Hong Kong before the handover to China in 1997 showcased what a largely laissez-faire economic policy could achieve. With low tax rates, minimal government intervention in the economy, and a robust legal system to protect property rights and contracts, Hong Kong rapidly developed from a small fishing village into one of the world's leading financial centers.

[Pargat Perrer]

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

In addition to the fact you mischaracterized me as far-left politically....

I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...

I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.

The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.

Note, modern history only, if you say some ancient civilization was Libertarian, it doesn't suffice.

[Pargat Perrer]

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.

[Bob Armstrong]

World Economic Systems



Agree or Disagree?

"There are clearly 5, all quite different:

Democratic Capitalism
Fascism
Democratic Socialism
Communism
Democratic Marxism."

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Revolution's Dual Intent

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 10



Background

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.


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Original – 20/12/19

Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

Distribution: 24/3/5: (CT.DM;DMPO;DM;DMGF;TRN)

Contact Us: Via Fb:

a. Page: Democratic Marxism - Global:
https://www.facebook.com/Democratic-Marxism-Global-748579292265552/?modal=admin_todo_tour

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

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism

(Started: 24/1/3)

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”. 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 # 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.)

…12........................30.......................30


................................................2024 Average

Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(9 wks.).

........1.......................3.......................3


2. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

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.


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, DMGI Coordinator

Most Recent Revision: 24/3/4

Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

Fb 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

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development



Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI) - 2024

[Dilip Panjwani]

[QUOTE


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...

[Bob Armstrong]

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

Distribution: 24/2/29: (CT.DM;DMPO;DM;DMGF;TRN)

Contact Us: Via Fb:

a. Page: Democratic Marxism - Global:
https://www.facebook.com/Democratic-Marxism-Global-748579292265552/?modal=admin_todo_tour

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

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development


Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Bob Armstrong]

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 19^th 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.

[See Part II Below]

DMGI

[Bob Armstrong]

The REAL News



A Democratic Marxist Global News and Societal Criticism Site

On Social Media (Fb)

https://www.facebook.com/bob.armstrong.9235


Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[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)

Original – 20/11/16;

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

Most Recent Revision – 21/5/8; Reviser: Bob Armstrong

Distribution: 24/2/26: (CT.DM;DMPO;DM;DMGF;TRN

Contact Us: Via Fb:

a. Page: Democratic Marxism - Global:
https://www.facebook.com/Democratic-Marxism-Global-748579292265552/?modal=admin_todo_tour

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

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development


Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism

(Started: 24/1/3)


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”. 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.)

…30........................41.......................32


................................................2024 Average

Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(8 wks.).

........3.......................3.......................3

1. Analysis of Last Week's Stats
   
   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.



Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, DMGI Coordinator

Most Recent Revision: 24/2/25

Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

Fb 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

E-mail:

demmarxglobalin@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

DMGI

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Website:

In development



Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI) - 2024

[Dilip Panjwani]

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.

[Bob Armstrong]

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)