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 # 6 (24/2/5 – 2/11 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)


.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(6 wks.)

…35........................47.......................31


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

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

Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(6 wks.).

........3.......................5.......................3


2. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are running pretty close to the 2024 stats so far. This indicates a continued steady interest in DM from when the thread started.

That the thread has had 3 posts per week on average from the start shows a relatively 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.

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: 24/2/11

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

[Neil Frarey]

What a ridiculous question ... meant only to muddy the waters.

And I note ... first you say "individual prosperity" ... and then you say "PROSPERITY" meaning in a more general sense. You can't even get your terms consistent.

In your pathetic snot-nosed example ... (I say that because while you view me as myopic, I view you as a snot-nose) ... you ask if an individual bringing an idea to life owns the "prosperity" he produced ... which might actually be negative, by the way. His idea may have been less than nothing.

But just to make a point, let's say we unanimously decree that such individual owns the "prosperity" LOL of his or her idea. Guess what, that helps to DEFINE prosperity. Because prosperity then becomes defined as the result of any individual's actions. So then we have an economy driven by personal ideas. Driven by ideas like the Pet Rock, by the Rubik's Cube, by music from The Backbeat Boys ... but even more seriously, by any idea proposed by the likes of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos .... And yeah, Sid is against ANY idea from Bill Gates, since Gates is part of the WEF. But hey, Bill Gates is an individual who thought up Windows ... LOL yes I know he stole it from Apple. Still, his stealing it was an INDIVIDUAL accomplishment so I guess he owns the "prosperity" from his actions....

You see, you pathetic right-wingers can't get anything right. LOL get it? right-wingers? right? LOL

The fruits of an individual's ideas are not prosperity ... they are profit or loss.

Prosperity needs to be properly DEFINED and that's what I asked of Sid, who has so far refused to answer.

Prosperity affects all of humankind. It is not individual.

Psalm 1:3

He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.


Proverbs 28:25

He who is of a proud heart stirs up strife, but he who trusts in the Lord will be prospered.

...

Any more comments???




..

[Pargat Perrer]

Just curious ... in your myopic personal opinion how should Individual Prosperity occur?

And what would be the fertile ground for such an occurrence?

So for example ... if I have an Idea and bring that idea to life ... does it belong to you ... or does that prosperity belong to me???

Who owns prosperity?


.

What a ridiculous question ... meant only to muddy the waters.

And I note ... first you say "individual prosperity" ... and then you say "PROSPERITY" meaning in a more general sense. You can't even get your terms consistent.

In your pathetic snot-nosed example ... (I say that because while you view me as myopic, I view you as a snot-nose) ... you ask if an individual bringing an idea to life owns the "prosperity" he produced ... which might actually be negative, by the way. His idea may have been less than nothing.

But just to make a point, let's say we unanimously decree that such individual owns the "prosperity" LOL of his or her idea. Guess what, that helps to DEFINE prosperity. Because prosperity then becomes defined as the result of any individual's actions. So then we have an economy driven by personal ideas. Driven by ideas like the Pet Rock, by the Rubik's Cube, by music from The Backbeat Boys ... but even more seriously, by any idea proposed by the likes of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos .... And yeah, Sid is against ANY idea from Bill Gates, since Gates is part of the WEF. But hey, Bill Gates is an individual who thought up Windows ... LOL yes I know he stole it from Apple. Still, his stealing it was an INDIVIDUAL accomplishment so I guess he owns the "prosperity" from his actions....

You see, you pathetic right-wingers can't get anything right. LOL get it? right-wingers? right? LOL

The fruits of an individual's ideas are not prosperity ... they are profit or loss.

Prosperity needs to be properly DEFINED and that's what I asked of Sid, who has so far refused to answer.

Prosperity affects all of humankind. It is not individual.

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip:

I have my answers based on all the info put forward in the various CT threads that have brought up this issue.

I am asking where other CT'ers are, in addition to Sid and you, if they care to comment.

And maybe some other CT'ers have questions they'd like answered to help them make their own decision (They may not have read all the voluminous prior material, or have and feel their question has not yet been dealt with).

This is an ongoing open conversation, where all are trying to learn, and then decide.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Globalism



The World Government Conspiracy Theory

Is it only in the minds of Paranoids? Or is this a real-world agenda being pursued by some, somewhat covertly?

In either case, Its motto is said to be::

"You will have nothing...........and you will be happy!"

Let's investigate this falsehood/truth a bit further.

But wait....... who is speaking?

We can assume it is the coming President of the World Council, the new coming totalitarian (Right or Left?) world government.

Is S/He also going to have "nothing"?

The State is going to own everything? And it seems that materially the State will take care of all our needs.........somehow........

Are those running the state going to have, materially, the same as us plebs.....nothing?

What do you think of this projected future for you and your children? Is it a wild false theory, or is it even now being implemented? If so, do you believe what you are being told?

Any comments?

Democratic Marxism is very concerned that this is NOT just a conspiracy theory. We are concerned about the extent to which The Clique are already implementing their agenda, with the implicit consent of the capitalist national governments world-wide. And it is partly out in the open, and partly covert.

Bob A (Democratic Marxism)

Hey Bob,
Some friendly advice:
Remove the blindfolders around your eyes and read all the posts by Sid on this Globalist agenda, and you will get your answers...

[Bob Armstrong]

Globalism



The World Government Conspiracy Theory

Is it only in the minds of Paranoids? Or is this a real-world agenda being pursued by some, somewhat covertly?

In either case, Its motto is said to be::

"You will have nothing...........and you will be happy!"

Let's investigate this falsehood/truth a bit further.

But wait....... who is speaking?

We can assume it is the coming President of the World Council, the new coming totalitarian (Right or Left?) world government.

Is S/He also going to have "nothing"?

The State is going to own everything? And it seems that materially the State will take care of all our needs.........somehow........

Are those running the state going to have, materially, the same as us plebs.....nothing?

What do you think of this projected future for you and your children? Is it a wild false theory, or is it even now being implemented? If so, do you believe what you are being told?

Any comments?

Democratic Marxism is very concerned that this is NOT just a conspiracy theory. We are concerned about the extent to which The Clique are already implementing their agenda, with the implicit consent of the capitalist national governments world-wide. And it is partly out in the open, and partly covert.

Bob A (Democratic Marxism)

[Neil Frarey]

Unfortunately for you, this all breaks down when really looking at the "historical examples" as Naomi Oreskes has so completely pointed out. Because whatever definition you are using for "prosperity", she and many others uses a much more realistic definition that includes the total effects of "economic freedom" (an invented term because there is no such thing, freedom being as Janis Joplin sang "nothing left to lose").

So you want to talk about prosperity? Let's take the most capitalist nation USA. Does prosperity include record deaths of young people from fentanyl and opioid overdoses? Does it include mass killings at USA schools? Does it include environmental disasters like the Exxon oil spill, the British Petroleum desecration of the Gulf of Mexico? Does it include corporate and personal bankruptcies reaching record levels? Does it include record income disparity? Does it include record rates of suicide? Of divorce and alcoholism and mental health issues?

I could go on and on mentioning the bad side of "prosperity" in America. Just as you go on and on mentioning the bad side of government intervention.. We should agree that there are examples of both. Then from there, we can agree that prosperity is unattainable on a widespread basis. And from there, maybe we can agree that extreme left- or right-wing systems are only going to worsen the situation. Perhaps you think I am in favor of total govenment nationalism or something approaching that. No, my radical idea is that what we have now is the best we can hope for and will ALWAYS have costs, and the costs go up with any move to left- or right-wing extremism. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

You can cherry-pick all you like, but prosperity is a double-edged sword and any economic prosperity comes with social costs as I mention above.

EDIT: show me an example of a society based on total Libertarianism, total "economic freedom". I have 2 examples: the Wild West, and the 2000 dot-com boom. Both were environments of total freedom, and both imploded.

Just curious ... in your myopic personal opinion how should Individual Prosperity occur?

And what would be the fertile ground for such an occurrence?

So for example ... if I have an Idea and bring that idea to life ... does it belong to you ... or does that prosperity belong to me???

Who owns prosperity?


.

[Pargat Perrer]

Dillip's perspective values empirical evidence and logical reasoning to support its principles, often pointing to historical examples where increased economic freedom has led to prosperity and where government intervention has led to economic and social decline. This facts-based approach seeks to demonstrate the practical benefits of libertarian principles for creating a more prosperous, free, and just society.
You, Bob, on the other hand, still sound like an impetuous adolescent who never did grow up and discern rhetoric from reality.

Unfortunately for you, this all breaks down when really looking at the "historical examples" as Naomi Oreskes has so completely pointed out. Because whatever definition you are using for "prosperity", she and many others uses a much more realistic definition that includes the total effects of "economic freedom" (an invented term because there is no such thing, freedom being as Janis Joplin sang "nothing left to lose").

So you want to talk about prosperity? Let's take the most capitalist nation USA. Does prosperity include record deaths of young people from fentanyl and opioid overdoses? Does it include mass killings at USA schools? Does it include environmental disasters like the Exxon oil spill, the British Petroleum desecration of the Gulf of Mexico? Does it include corporate and personal bankruptcies reaching record levels? Does it include record income disparity? Does it include record rates of suicide? Of divorce and alcoholism and mental health issues?

I could go on and on mentioning the bad side of "prosperity" in America. Just as you go on and on mentioning the bad side of government intervention.. We should agree that there are examples of both. Then from there, we can agree that prosperity is unattainable on a widespread basis. And from there, maybe we can agree that extreme left- or right-wing systems are only going to worsen the situation. Perhaps you think I am in favor of total govenment nationalism or something approaching that. No, my radical idea is that what we have now is the best we can hope for and will ALWAYS have costs, and the costs go up with any move to left- or right-wing extremism. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

You can cherry-pick all you like, but prosperity is a double-edged sword and any economic prosperity comes with social costs as I mention above.

EDIT: show me an example of a society based on total Libertarianism, total "economic freedom". I have 2 examples: the Wild West, and the 2000 dot-com boom. Both were environments of total freedom, and both imploded.

[Dilip Panjwani]

A Durable Tactic

When one doesn't like the Message, and is unsure how to attack the "reasonableness" of the Message,..............

Bob A (The beneficiary of many labels from Sid & Dilip)

The 'unreasonableness' of the message was explained in great detail, only to get attacked by you of being 'elitist', instead of a response to the very reasonable points raised...

[Sid Belzberg]

A Durable Tactic

When one doesn't like the Message, and is unsure how to attack the "reasonableness" of the Message,..............

attack the Messenger ("impetuous adolescent")!

Bob A (The beneficiary of many labels from Sid & Dilip)

You omitted the rest of the statement; 'sound like an impetuous adolescent who never did grow up and discern rhetoric from reality."

[Bob Armstrong]

A Durable Tactic

When one doesn't like the Message, and is unsure how to attack the "reasonableness" of the Message,..............

attack the Messenger ("impetuous adolescent")!

Bob A (The beneficiary of many labels from Sid & Dilip)

[Sid Belzberg]

Seems like Dilip and I are agreeing to disagree.

It is up to CT'ers to evaluate both positions, and then decide what they accept and what they don't.

It is helpful to viewers that there is some debate, in addition to the discussion papers elaborating Democratic Marxist principles.

But I fear we have the view of the "worker" vs the view of the "elitist". But without other CT'ers joining in, this is what we have for the moment.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Dillip's perspective values empirical evidence and logical reasoning to support its principles, often pointing to historical examples where increased economic freedom has led to prosperity and where government intervention has led to economic and social decline. This facts-based approach seeks to demonstrate the practical benefits of libertarian principles for creating a more prosperous, free, and just society.
You, Bob, on the other hand, still sound like an impetuous adolescent who never did grow up and discern rhetoric from reality.

[Dilip Panjwani]

But I fear we have the view of the "worker" vs the view of the "elitist".

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Actually, it is a 'desperately narcissistic view' (so appropriately labelled by Mr. Frarey) vs. a 'facts-based view'.
Now that Bob has been shown the facts very clearly, yet another time, he obviously wishes to retreat from any facts-based discussion, and instead of letting go the stupid DM ideology, still clings on to it.... as if his very identity is rooted in DM...

[Bob Armstrong]

Seems like Dilip and I are agreeing to disagree.

It is up to CT'ers to evaluate both positions, and then decide what they accept and what they don't.

It is helpful to viewers that there is some debate, in addition to the discussion papers elaborating Democratic Marxist principles.

But I fear we have the view of the "worker" vs the view of the "elitist". But without other CT'ers joining in, this is what we have for the moment.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Responses to Bob's questions:

1, Labour should have priority over Capital:

Priority implies favoring someone while discriminating against someone else, which is wrong.
When an entrepreneur 'invests' in a unit of production (business), he is contributing in two ways: he works hard, using his expertise, and he either puts the rewards of his family's 'sweat' from the past or he puts borrowed money to create the infrastructure of the business. His justified goal therefore is to work hard with his expertise to make rewards which are greater than the going rate of interest on the capital invested, and the amount he makes depends on what the market forces would allow.
When a worker chooses to do a job, he enters into a contract with the entrepreneur to provide his services for as big a salary as the market forces would allow.

The Marxists have a problem with this very fair set up... and because they try to implement a system which ignores market forces, their economy crumbles, as has happened in each and every Marxist country in history. China's economy is booming, despite the misery of its citizens, because it is a weird mix of capitalism and communism.

2. Capitalism, of necessity, generates unhealthy
extremes of wealth and income:

No. What generates unhealthy extremes of wealth and income are the corrupt politicians and the stupid discriminatory laws which they have created over the centuries, by which access to capital is corruptly restricted, fair competition is corruptly restricted, and criminals corruptly enjoy freedom of criminality... That is why the first step to removing unhealthy extremes of wealth and income is restricting the power of government to just the function of enforcing Natural Law.


3. Workers should own, or at least have 50 % control
of, the means of production.

Nobody is stopping them from having 100% ownership, if they can work hard with expertise to run the business, borrow enough money to invest in the business and are willing to face the consequences of market forces.

Bob's use of the word 'control' again exposes the moral bankruptcy of Marxism, as no one is supposed to 'control' anybody else's destiny, just their own, as the Natural Law is all about...

4. The legal structure of cooperatives should be
favoured over corporations:

There goes Bob again... favoring one while discriminating against the other! Let the market forces decide which fares better...

5. There should be a Universal Basic Income (UBI):

What? Rob 'Peter' to pay 'Paul'? And it is preposterous for Bob to think that he has moral superiority over 'Peter' to order him to be charitable towards 'Paul'! Charity begins at home, and the more closely woven the 'circles within circles' set up is, the more will charity flourish...

6. The tax system should include both a wealth and
very progressive income tax. Tax loopholes allowing
legal tax “avoidance” must be closed. Those
benefiting most from the common system should
substantially contribute back into funding the system

Bob's paradox: the lazy bums benefit the most out of the Marxist set up, but they have the least ability to substantially or 'progressively :-)' contribute back. So Bob's rationale for taxation is only an oxymoron!

7. Self-governance from the bottom-up is always
preferable to top-down governance of the electorate:

Well done, Bob! You have my vote on this!!


8. There are three historical implementations of “socialism”:

a. USSR-style Communism (Example: China) –
unacceptable; maintained at the end of the barrel
of a gun, with breaching of human rights; no
open elections

b. Democratic Socialism (Example: Venezuela) -
acceptable when competent government, but
generally centralizes power, rather than
decentralizing it

c. Democratic Marxism (Closest Example: Chile -
1971-73 – Unity Government of Socialist
President Salvadore Allende) – best economic
system; best self-governance model

All of the above are examples of misery for the common man. Socialism is nasty, isn't it, Bob?

9. Marxism must win the hearts of the electorate at the
ballot box, and then maintain support democratically

Wishful thinking or desperate narcissism (Frarey's conclusion)?

10. A person can be a “Democratic Marxist” without
being a theoretical “expert” in Marx' writings (though
the more knowledge, the better):

Please do not confuse knowledge with 'Marx' writings, Bob; the former is a clarifier, the latter is a stinker...