Democratic Marxism

[Pargat Perrer]

How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?

The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.

Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Actually Bob, Dilip's position is like Blue Swiss Chess.

Full of holes and stinking like sewage.

[Pargat Perrer]

While Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is primarily concerned with protection against physical or legal harm by the state, its reference to 'security of the person' might be broadly interpreted in contexts involving severe psychological and emotional impact. Consider, for instance, a situation where government policy results in the expropriation of a business that is not merely a source of income but also central to an individual's identity and purpose. Such an action transcends mere financial loss, profoundly affecting the individual's psychological and emotional well-being.

In scenarios where the loss of a business due to government action leads to severe mental distress for the owner, it could be argued that this constitutes an infringement on their 'security of the person.' The impact here is not just economical but deeply personal, striking at the core of their identity and sense of self.

....

This approach not only overlooks but actively causes the destruction of the very essence of people's lives — something no amount of money can compensate for. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established to protect citizens from such profound violations. Any government policy that significantly interferes with personal livelihoods and identities should be carefully evaluated for its human impact, respecting legal, financial, and, crucially, personal and emotional aspects. This respect for the multi-dimensional nature of human rights and dignity is precisely why the Charter exists, and any system that seeks to undermine these protections is, in my view, inherently flawed and ethically questionable.

Ok, smartass, what about people LOSING JOBS because of corporate downsizing?

Is that violating the Constitution?

Such sanctimonious crap about "mental distress" ... would be ok if it covered ALL such cases, but you cherry pick against DM's policy on private property while at the same tine you would expound corporate violations of the EXACT SAME TYPE AND EFFECT ... simply because corporations in your opinion know better what they are doing! LOL

We cannot be protected against everything. Life throws us curveballs, we have to learn to hit them for home runs.

[Sid Belzberg]

How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?

The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.

Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Even elected officials can not violate the Constitution, as was shown recently when Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act was deemed unconstitutional despite his insistence that was what Canadians voted for ("fringe minority with unacceptable views".) Sorry to disappoint you, Bob, but it does not matter what platform is proposed to the electors; the Constitution can not be violated PERIOD!

[Bob Armstrong]

How can the majority of taxpayers, who support the government and the laws passed by their government, such as taxation, levies, fees, expropriation, "steal" from THEMSELVES?

The majority is asserting that the laws they have, and the government they have, is the best for society, and for them. Rather they are asserting that payments made to government are good, and help pay for the services the people want from their government. You cannot say "Tax Me Please", and then turn on a dime and call it "robbery" when the government does what they have asked.

Your position, Dilip, is like swiss cheese........full of holes.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Other examples of 'stealing' by the government:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/fbi-vi...ls-court-finds

https://www.foxnews.com/us/legal-the...ing-cash-trial

Using fancy terms like 'asset forfeiture' and 'expropriation' (the latter often occurs without appropriate compensation), or for that matter 'progressive taxation', does not make 'legal theft' any better...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

I did not say expropriation without compensation, which is nationalization. Expropriation with compensation is a time-honoured capitalist government action. I made clear that it was this kind of expropriation. I wish you would read carefully, then your comments would not be irrelevant or just wrong.

No matter how many times you say it, "expropriation with compensation" is NOT "theft" or "stealing".

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enforced by the courts, will, as now, prohibit the DM Government from over-reaching.

Bob A

The comments you refer to were neither irrelevant nor wrong. You are sadly mistaken if you think a DM government would be able to appropriately compensate everyone for their private property... they would have to just steal it from them... God forbid....

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I did not say expropriation without compensation, which is nationalization. Expropriation with compensation is a time-honoured capitalist government action. I made clear that it was this kind of expropriation. I wish you would read carefully, then your comments would not be irrelevant or just wrong.

No matter how many times you say it, "expropriation with compensation" is NOT "theft" or "stealing".

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enforced by the courts, will, as now, prohibit the DM Government from over-reaching.

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Assuming that Sid (Post # 84 above) is saying that this section protects right to private property (He mentions the DM position of abolition of bourgeois property), he is wrong in saying DM breaches Section 7.

The transition from Capitalism to Democratic Marxism will involve government expropriation, the same as is now practised by capitalist governments the world over.....no breach of Section 7 here!

Bob A (DMPO Coordinator/Party Leader//Inactive lawyer with the Law Society of Ontario)

While Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is primarily concerned with protection against physical or legal harm by the state, its reference to 'security of the person' might be broadly interpreted in contexts involving severe psychological and emotional impact. Consider, for instance, a situation where government policy results in the expropriation of a business that is not merely a source of income but also central to an individual's identity and purpose. Such an action transcends mere financial loss, profoundly affecting the individual's psychological and emotional well-being.

In scenarios where the loss of a business due to government action leads to severe mental distress for the owner, it could be argued that this constitutes an infringement on their 'security of the person.' The impact here is not just economical but deeply personal, striking at the core of their identity and sense of self.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. My family endured a similar situation when our business, which employed skilled cabinet makers, was expropriated by the city of Calgary to build a convention center. Despite financial compensation, the loss had a devastating impact on my father's emotional well-being. This personal experience illustrates how the destruction of a business can equate to the destruction of a life's work and identity.

Under the system you advocate, targeting entrepreneurs labeled as 'Bourgeois' for their profit-making, particularly those employing others, is akin to the experience my family had. However, it potentially goes even further, violating Section 15 of the Charter, which mandates equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. Unlike the case with my father, who had options to relocate and rebuild, your proposed system seems to offer no such recourse.

This approach not only overlooks but actively causes the destruction of the very essence of people's lives — something no amount of money can compensate for. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established to protect citizens from such profound violations. Any government policy that significantly interferes with personal livelihoods and identities should be carefully evaluated for its human impact, respecting legal, financial, and, crucially, personal and emotional aspects. This respect for the multi-dimensional nature of human rights and dignity is precisely why the Charter exists, and any system that seeks to undermine these protections is, in my view, inherently flawed and ethically questionable.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Assuming that Sid (Post # 84 above) is saying that this section protects right to private property (He mentions the DM position of abolition of bourgeois property), he is wrong in saying DM breaches Section 7.

The transition from Capitalism to Democratic Marxism will involve government expropriation, the same as is now practised by capitalist governments the world over.....no breach of Section 7 here!

Bob A (DMPO Coordinator/Party Leader//Inactive lawyer with the Law Society of Ontario)

Just by using a fancy word for 'stealing', you cannot deprive Canadians of their rights, Mr. Lawyer! Any government which practices expropriation without appropriate compensation, is a thief... and you are proud to legitimize theft, Bob A!! The true colors of DM are showing...

[Bob Armstrong]

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Assuming that Sid (Post # 84 above) is saying that this section protects right to private property (He mentions the DM position of abolition of bourgeois property), he is wrong in saying DM breaches Section 7.

The transition from Capitalism to Democratic Marxism will involve government expropriation, the same as is now practised by capitalist governments the world over.....no breach of Section 7 here!

Bob A (DMPO Coordinator/Party Leader//Inactive lawyer with the Law Society of Ontario)

[Sid Belzberg]

Allegation in Sid's Post # 80 above re Democratic Marxism in Canada (See my Post # 79 - DM Discussion Paper # 4)

That DM would fail to respect and seek the ouster of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have re-read the article and in no way in Canada would DM seek to oust the jurisdiction of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Generally Accepted List of Statements (Post # 1) declares in Statement # 2:

"Statement # 2

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights

b. Constitutional Rights

c. Worker's Rights

d. Rights accorded by Laws"

The Working Paper # 4 goes on to state:

"It [Democratic Marxism] is committed first to “democratic process” and “local power”."

The comments on the possibility of a "rogue" LPU do not refer to any ouster of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Should any LPU attempt this, they would be subject to a court action, as now, alleging unconstitutional illegality within Canada.

Further the paper acknowledges that any provincial restructuring in Ontario will be done in compliance with the Constitutional system in Canada.

Bob A (DMPO Coordinator/Party Leader//Inactive Lawyer of the Law Society of Ontario)

The reason is the possibility of fundamental societal structure change within the existing Canadian Constitutional documents. Canada presents the possibility because constitutionally, municipalities are the “creatures” of a province. It is therefore open to a Canadian province to realign local government as currently existing, into the DM LPU structure.

Backpedaling, are we?

May I remind you that in your Great Reset thread, when discussing Marx's four-word summary of communism, "abolition of private property," you spoke
of a "transition to this". No way can this happen without subverting Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

[Bob Armstrong]

Allegation in Sid's Post # 80 above re Democratic Marxism in Canada (See my Post # 79 - DM Discussion Paper # 4)

That DM would fail to respect and seek the ouster of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have re-read the article and in no way in Canada would DM seek to oust the jurisdiction of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Generally Accepted List of Statements (Post # 1) declares in Statement # 2:

"Statement # 2

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights

b. Constitutional Rights

c. Worker's Rights

d. Rights accorded by Laws"

The Working Paper # 4 goes on to state:

"It [Democratic Marxism] is committed first to “democratic process” and “local power”."

The comments on the possibility of a "rogue" LPU do not refer to any ouster of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Should any LPU attempt this, they would be subject to a court action, as now, alleging unconstitutional illegality within Canada.

Further the paper acknowledges that any provincial restructuring in Ontario will be done in compliance with the Constitutional system in Canada.

Bob A (DMPO Coordinator/Party Leader//Inactive Lawyer of the Law Society of Ontario)

[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.

1. The Stats of participation are important to allow all to determine the extent of continuing interest.
2. 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

Week # 4 (24/1/22 – 28 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

A. Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(4 wks.)

…49........................29.......................29


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

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

Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(4 wks.).

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


B. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are showing a significant rise from when the thread started. There is growing interest in CT'ers for learning something about the political system known as “Democratic Marxism”!

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: 24/1/28

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

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

I agree.

Let me re-read this paper to ascertain where it does what you claim.

Devolving powers from the Province to the LPU is not in itself a breach of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, as long as the Province doesn't seek to dissolve itself, I would think.

But, according to the Supreme Court decision on the last Quebec Independence Referendum, it would appear that a Province can ditch the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by separating and becoming its own country.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Democracy & Diversity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 4

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


The Gamble

Democratic Marxism sets out a platform of self-governance and economics. And it sets up a fundamental structure within which this platform can be implemented. But what happens when ideology meets the local democracy of the Local Political Unit (LPU)?

The problem old-style Communism faced was the revolt of many (Majority?) electors to many of the Communist platforms. Communism's answer? Use the gun; trample human rights of the citizens; suppress all opposition – then implement the ideology & platform without any public opposition. Did it really work?? The jury is still out on Chinese Communism, but it has all the negative features that necessitate its rejection.

What will be Democratic Marxism's answer when an LPU wants to go its own way, differently somehow, democratically? The problem is that DM proudly declares that the LPU's have all power! They have the real control! Democratic Marxism's Global Model LPU can be tweaked by any LPU, or even outright rejected for itself!

This is where Democratic Marxism has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. It is committed first to “democratic process” and “local power”.

Human society is governed by laws. Laws are passed by the governing authority, whether it be by direct democracy (Citizen voting), or, by the representation circle to which the electors have given power over their lives. And if the system is working, and Dem. Marxism has it right, each LPU, hopefully, will implement laws modelled after the proposals of the Democratic Marxist Vetting Committee (DMVC). But should an LPU, within its borders, decide to revert to Wildwest Capitalism, this will be legal........but, hopefully, the effect of such rogue actions will be limited and minimized and restrained by the general structural governing context within which every LPU exists. Diversity will definitely be the order of the day in a true democracy – and maybe one should support the saying used financially: There is safety in diversity.

A Suitable Test Nation for DM

The DMVC has targeted Canada for the first partisan Democratic Marxist Party......and it will be provincial.

The reason is the possibility of fundamental societal structure change within the existing Canadian Constitutional documents. Canada presents the possibility because constitutionally, municipalities are the “creatures” of a province. It is therefore open to a Canadian province to realign local government as currently existing, into the DM LPU structure. The province also has, constitutionally, full jurisdiction over certain civil powers, as against the federal government (Eg. Health Care, Education, etc.). So.....IF it was determined to do it........any Canadian province could “down-load” all of its powers to the LPU's. Thereafter it would identify itself in two ways:

1. as the hand-maiden of the LPU's, while remaining, as a provincial representative circle of the provincial electors;
2. as the traditional province with which the federal government must deal within the existing constitutional structure of Canada.
   
   The federal government may object to the provincial restructuring, but will be toothless....it is within the provincial power of a Canadian province to do this. And the federal government will have to continue to deal with that province as the valid “Provincial Government”.
   
   Commencement of Partisan Democratic Marxism in Canada

The DMVC will receive applications from those wishing to apply for provincial party status as: The Democratic Marxist Party of (Province). For those ideologically acceptable, the DMVC will grant a formal “Endorsement” - the approval of the ginger group's use of the name.

Thereafter, the provincial party will develop a provincial DM platform suitable to their province, in concert with the DMVC.

Should the Provincial Party at any time stray from adhering to fundamental DM principles/platforms, it risks the DMVC withdrawing the “Endorsement”, and disowning the Provincial Party. Of course, the DMVC may still consider itself an ally of the rogue party, and see it as still the best provincial option, and thus continue to work with the provincial party, should it so desire.


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Original – 20/6/22

Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator, DMGI

Recent Revision: 20/10/17 - Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

24/1/28: CT.DM; DM-G; DMGF; TRN

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 - 2020

A province in Canada cannot declare a designated geographic area within its boundaries that is exempt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution and applies uniformly across all provinces and territories in Canada, ensuring that fundamental rights and freedoms are protected consistently nationwide.

The Charter binds all levels of government in Canada, including federal, provincial, and municipal. This means that laws or policies enacted at any level of government must comply with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. If a provincial government attempted to create a geographic area exempt from the Charter, such an action would almost certainly be challenged and overturned in court, as it would violate the principles of the Constitution.

The uniform application of the Charter across Canada is fundamental to its role in protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, regardless of where they live. Any attempt by a province to exempt a geographic area from the Charter would be inconsistent with the constitutional framework of Canada.