Democratic Marxism

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip Post # 113

1. "DM emphasizes the right to consume instead of the duty to produce, which will lead to a precipitous drop in GDP and a gigantic rise in inflation"

DM Response:

.....an economy depends on production, which supplies jobs, which brings to government tax payments.


Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Jobs lead to production of goods for consumption and income for the workers to buy products for consumption. But your DM thinks jobs are meant for the government to be able to steal some money from the workers ... LOL ... how sad the DM thinking is....

[Dilip Panjwani]

The workers will be able to organize for successful enterprises....

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)[/COLOR][/I][/B][/SIZE]

Why would they try to do that in DM, when the alternative is free stuff without having to pay taxes? The only system which would encourage them to do so is Libertarianism.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip Post # 113

1. "DM emphasizes the right to consume instead of the duty to produce, which will lead to a precipitous drop in GDP and a gigantic rise in inflation"

DM Response:

Totally untrue.....

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Is that your response after trying for so long...claiming the most fundamental tenet of economics to be untrue? That is why Mr. Frarey calls you a desperate narcissist, as all you are doing is turning a blind eye to facts, and only trying to praise the nonsensical DM

[Bob Armstrong]

Am I a Democratic Marxist?

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 6

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




Survey

In this survey, answering “yes” to many of the questions may indicate you are in mainstream Marxian thought, though you may never have seen your progressive views in this light:

........................................................................................................Yes...... No.....Unsure

1. Labour should have priority over Capital............................ ______ _____ _____

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


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

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

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

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............... ______ _____ _____

7. Self-governance from the bottom-up is always
preferable to top-down governance of the electorate.
(Example: Ontario municipalities should not be
dictated to by the province)....................................................... ______ _____ _____

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............................................ _____ _____ _____

9. The electorate has the right to decide the system
under which it wishes to govern itself. Democratic
Marxism must win the hearts of the electorate at the
ballot box, and then maintain support democratically................. ______ _____ _____

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


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)


Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

Original – 20/10/24

Most Recent Revision – 20/12/18 - Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

24/2/7: CT.DM; DMPO; DM-G; DMGF; TRN

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.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

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

[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...

[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]

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...

[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.

[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]

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."

[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...

[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.

[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?


.

[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)

[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...