Democratic Marxism

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob,
After reading the above post, you may turn into a Libertarian from being a Marxist... there is always hope...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

1. I think I have been clear that "capital loan" is quite different than "capital investing". So abolition of private "investing" is correct.

2. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is Marx term. I think it is a bit unfortunate. DM will be democratic. DM will be voted in, and may be voted out. Perhaps coalitions will be necessary. Coalition governments are not "dictatorship of the minority". Politics is the art of the possible.

3. Under DM, the not-so-wealthy workers will have the right to work in cooperatives (Worker ownership)., They therefore may, through them, by lending capital, or by State/Private structure, be involved in start-up businesses. Or an individual may have a good idea, and lenders will support it, even when the worker her/himself is not wealthy.

Bob A

1. This policy of yours (which contradicts other statements you yourself have made recently) benefits no one. And btw, is it not against basic human rights to prevent a citizen from using his/her own money to start a business which is legal and moral? Remember, laws are meant to help people, not take away their freedom to do good things. Is DM so stupid that it cannot understand this basic fact? And also, Bob, you need to know that in Libertarianism (and even today), business profits outweigh interest on invested capital, so not-so-wealthy workers will be able to compete with the wealthy, who invest their own hard-earned money. A Libertarian government would purposely keep interest rates near-zero for businesses, as business expenditure reduces inflation, not increase it...

2. Why are you denying the well-known fact of multi-party democracies that, without any coalition, a minority of voters can elect a 'majority' which the majority of voters dislike? Is your blind faith in DM really turning you blind to simple facts?

3. What you are describing is allowed to happen today. My question was: "Why are not workers doing this today? Are they waiting for Libertarianism wherein easy access to capital will become a reality?"

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

1. I think I have been clear that "capital loan" is quite different than "capital investing". So abolition of private "investing" is correct.

2. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is Marx term. I think it is a bit unfortunate. DM will be democratic. DM will be voted in, and may be voted out. Perhaps coalitions will be necessary. Coalition governments are not "dictatorship of the minority". Politics is the art of the possible.

3. Under DM, the not-so-wealthy workers will have the right to work in cooperatives (Worker ownership)., They therefore may, through them, by lending capital, or by State/Private structure, be involved in start-up businesses. Or an individual may have a good idea, and lenders will support it, even when the worker her/himself is not wealthy.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

Under DM, someone who wishes to create a small, start-up enterprise will be free to follow a strategy that they think will be best for them.



The goal is NOT the Vanguard of the Proletariat.....It IS the Democratic "Dictatorship" (I do cringe at Marx' classic term) of the Proletariat.



Bob A

With your first statement above, Bob, you are agreeing that your earlier statement that DM will have 'abolition' of private investing, is not really true. Right?

And your second statement above, seems to indicate that DM will be a 'Dictatorship' of the 50.1% over the 49.9%, or even worse, there could be a 3 or more parties scenario, where it would be the 'Dictatorship' of a minority of voters over the majority voting against the DM party. (Dictatorship is your word choice, not mine).

And the absence of your response to my posts 398/401 seems to indicate that you agree that unless Libertarianism arrives, 'not-so-wealthy' workers will not be able to start their own businesses. Please confirm.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Under DM, someone who wishes to create a small, start-up enterprise will be free to follow a strategy that they think will be best for them. Most workers do not have "wealth". So your suggestion that everyone is "best" to use their own wealth for the needed capital is simply not in tune with our real world out there today.

I have posted before, and maybe you have forgotten, that in a most wealthy country like Canada, over 50% of active workers, some working multiple part-time jobs simultaneously, have only $ 250, or less, "wealth" in the bank!!??? Over 50% of Canadians live from pay cheque to pay cheque!!?? One can say: This shouldn't be. That, and 25 cents won't even get you a cup of coffee.

Or, re failing Canadian capitalism, how about from today's Montreal Gazette:

Older and facing homelessness, many for the first time in their lives

As Quebec’s population ages and housing costs soar, a growing number of the elderly are finding themselves in the streets of Montreal and at emergency shelters.

The fact is that some individual, or some small business lending bank, is an absolutely essential factor to a country having a thriving new business sector, as a DM society will have (without the obscene profit now "stolen" from the worker that current Capitalism, and so also Libertarianism, engenders).

Yes, DM says there is a place for "return on capital", which is essential for start-ups. And DM will make it an "equitable interest return" (Not an obscene profit return).

The goal is NOT the Vanguard of the Proletariat.....It IS the Democratic "Dictatorship" (I do cringe at Marx' classic term) of the Proletariat.

I feel you are now starting to distinguish DM from Old USSR-style Communism, Dilip! You are, therefore,k on the right path to conversion from Libertarianism to Democratic Marxism......there is still some hope for you yet!!

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

The Father's Day Manifesto : A Human Government Alternative Identified

(Democratic Marxism - Elaborated by the DM Global Institute – A Recommended Platform)

1. Ownership of the Means of Production

I agree that all individuals will have the right to start a business.

But there will be no private "investing of capital" into start-up businesses (With the exception of a public/private enterprise, as discussed above). Capital needed will be obtained through "loans", where earnings from "capital" will be limited by interest rates. Loans may be from a State Bank for Small Business, or from individual lenders (They will not be termed "investors" in the old Capitalism sense.

Bob A

So Bob, are you saying that those who borrow money to start or grow a business (almost all private investors fall in this category today, even those with huge private wealth) will be allowed to do so by DM?
Is it not 'more Marxist' to prefer investors who use their own hard-earned money to do so, than to prefer Trumpism in which one borrows a lot of money, and then proudly declares bankruptcy, leaving the poor guys with some savings accounts in the banks having to suffer lower returns, because of the bank's losses?
Are you sure you are not confused about what DM really wants?

[Bob Armstrong]

The Father's Day Manifesto : A Human Government Alternative Identified

(Democratic Marxism - Elaborated by the DM Global Institute – A Recommended Platform)

1. Ownership of the Means of Production

..............

c. Abolition of Capital investing.

The concepts are four:

1. Abolition of "private" capital investing;
2. Start-up capital will generally be obtained by "loan";
3. There may be "State capital investing" should the workers desire a Public/Private Company;
4. There may be "State-owned" enterprises.

Dilip's post # 400 is not accurate.

I agree that all individuals will have the right to start a business.

But there will be no private "investing of capital" into start-up businesses (With the exception of a public/private enterprise, as discussed above). Capital needed will be obtained through "loans", where earnings from "capital" will be limited by interest rates. Loans may be from a State Bank for Small Business, or from individual lenders (They will not be termed "investors" in the old Capitalism sense.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to enlighten chesstalkers on Democratic Marxism. Answering my post no. 398 will go a long way in that endeavor...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

I use "workers" generally to refer to the members of society.


Bob A

So you finally agree that anybody from 'society' can start a private business of their own, and that Marxism would not forbid 'private' investors from doing so, and that point no. 1 in your post 394 is not really what you believe?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I use "workers" generally to refer to the members of society.

But it may well be that there may be individuals wealthy enough to not have to sell their labour, and can just live off savings, and perhaps interest earned from loaning to start-ups.

You may be right that it would be more accurate to call them "entrepreneurs" (Though they do have the capacity to also "work"). Also, most entrepreneurs do work with their brain, though may not be doing the physical grunt jobs.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Workers will have all the chance they do now to build an enterprise

Bob A

Then why are they not doing it now? Do you think they are waiting for Libertarianism, wherein they can have easy access to capital?

[Dilip Panjwani]

I prefer that the "loan" be from a state bank for small business. I would consider "private loaning", since the payback is limited to a fair interest rate, rather than the obscene profit capital now garnishes at the expense of worker labour.


Bob A

It appears, especially from your second sentence, that only workers can take a loan to start a business (or more likely, to run a business that was started by someone else, which the Marxist government took away from the entrepreneur to give it to the 'workers') and that 'entrepreneurs' cannot invest by borrowing from a bank, and hence cannot start a business. You seem to think that entrepreneurs are not also workers, that they do not have to work to be able to make the right decisions for their business to survive and grow. Is that what you truly believe?

[Bob Armstrong]

I prefer that the "loan" be from a state bank for small business. I would consider "private loaning", since the payback is limited to a fair interest rate, rather than the obscene profit capital now garnishes at the expense of worker labour.

Workers will have all the chance they do now to build an enterprise, likely more.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

1. Abolition of "private" capital investing;
2. Start-up capital will generally be obtained by "loan";


Bob A

So investing with a private loan is okay, but investing with one's pre-earned capital is not? Or will it just be impossible for a talented individual or small group of individuals with novel ideas to start a business of their own?
Can you clarify what you mean?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I am not totally happy with this initial wording.....it is too simplified and easily misinterpreted.........further discussion will likely lead to an amendment here.

But the concepts are four:

1. Abolition of "private" capital investing;
2. Start-up capital will generally be obtained by "loan";
3. There may be "State capital investing" should the workers desire a Public/Private Company;
4. There may be "State-owned" enterprises.

Bob A