Democratic Marxism

[Dilip Panjwani]

"a good person doing good things"

Bob A (Theist Community)

If it was possible to have the same feelings and actions between all individuals in society, as exist between the members of one's immediate family, which however is not possible however much you may stretch your imagination, then Marxism would make everyone "a good person doing good things"...

[Bob Armstrong]

All I know is that it is in a Pope's interest to not get labelled "politically", and just be labelled as "a good person doing good things" (By both believers and non-believers).

Bob A (Theist Community)

[Dilip Panjwani]

On BBC:
Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer who has Trump's ear, swaying the president on top personnel decisions, called the new Pope "anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis"

Congratulations, Bob Armstrong! Maybe you have an ally in the Vatican?

Personally, though, I think Laura Loomer is wildly exaggerating in calling these Popes Marxists... they are far from that... and Bob perhaps feels the same way...

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Bob, It would be nice if Marxists develop the ears to hear the disastrous effects of Marxism (whether democratic or not) on human beings, and to hear why Libertarianism is the best governance for human societies...

300 of America’s wealthiest citizens ask Congress not to carry out tax breaks for them (March 25 2025):

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...hy/ar-AA1BIhtz

More than 300 of the United States’s wealthiest people have asked members of Congress to block Republicans' proposed tax plan that would benefit them, saying it would “dismantle” social programs, “undermine” the U.S. economy and put millions of families “at risk.”

[Dilip Panjwani]

Let those who have ears to hear..........

Hi Bob, It would be nice if Marxists develop the ears to hear the disastrous effects of Marxism (whether democratic or not) on human beings, and to hear why Libertarianism is the best governance for human societies...

[Bob Armstrong]

Let those who have ears to hear..........

[Vlad Drkulec]

"If truth wanted to be very blunt with a man or woman it could ask,
'Who are you trying to kid?'" - Vernon Howard

Democratic Marxism is such an oxymoron.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Inflation is the worst tax, and it affects poorer people the most. That's great for government that want to make the populace dependent on the government, thereby securing votes, but not so great for the people.

Thank you for pointing out why the Marxists now want to use democracy to perpetuate their disastrous system...

[Tom O'Donnell]

Inflation is the worst tax, and it affects poorer people the most. The well-connected can get first access to the new money, and they can buy assets at relatively cheaper prices before the full effects of the money printing make its way through the economy.

The average Joe cannot plan for the future when this is the case. That's great for government that want to make the populace dependent on the government, thereby securing votes, but not so great for the people.

[Dilip Panjwani]

From City Journal:


Patrick HoranThings Are Looking Up for Argentina


Under President Javier Milei, the South American country’s turnaround bolsters the case for free-market economics.

/ Eye on the News / Politics and law, Economy, finance, and budgets
Jan 08 2025/ Share
Just over a year ago, Javier Milei, the eccentric, chainsaw-wielding libertarian economist, won the presidency in Argentina against a backdrop of soaring inflation and rising poverty. Since taking office, Milei has aggressively pursued a free-market program of fiscal austerity and deregulation. This approach contrasts strongly with Perónism, the strongly interventionist economic ideology followed by most Argentine presidents since its namesake, Juan Perón, rose to power in 1946.

Milei’s critics, including prominent economists such as Thomas Piketty, warned that his agenda would prove catastrophic. Though Argentina still faces severe economic challenges, Milei has largely proven these doubters wrong and achieved several victories worth celebrating.

Monthly inflation has fallen sharply since Milei took office. Rising prices have been a recurring problem in Argentine history, with the government frequently turning to the central bank to print money to finance its excesses. Unlike many of his predecessors, Milei has reduced federal spending (by 28 percent) and cut the number of federal ministries in half.

This fiscal discipline has been paying off. In October 2024, Argentina achieved its first budget surplus in 12 years. Since last May, monthly inflation has stayed below 5 percent; in November, it was 2.4 percent, the lowest since July 2020.

If we annualize the data since May 2024 (that is, if we express these monthly changes as if they had lasted an entire year), we find annual inflation trending down to about 33 percent. While that is extremely high by American standards, it’s a welcome change for Argentina, which has been reeling from triple-digit inflation on a year-over-year basis since the beginning of 2023.

Austerity has not been painless, as Milei himself cautioned in his inaugural address. Slashing government spending deepened the recession that began in 2023, and poverty and unemployment have both risen. But the recession ended in the third quarter of 2024, as the economy grew at a 3.9 annual rate. Economists now forecast that Argentina’s economy will expand 4.2 percent in 2025.

According to the Financial Times, this growth would only bring GDP per capita back to its 2021 level, so Argentina still has a long road ahead. Nevertheless, the strong rebound in the face of steep austerity, coupled with a rapidly improving inflation environment, is a significant milestone.

Argentina’s changed fortunes are not just the result of a more disciplined fiscal policy. Milei’s newly created Ministry of Deregulation has been radically liberalizing the economy. This is crucial, as Argentina has one of the worst regulatory environments in the world. It is known for its many stifling regulations, which have more to do with protecting politically connected incumbent firms than with improving public welfare.

As the Cato Institute’s Ian Vasquez and Guillermina Sutter Schneider observe, the Ministry of Deregulation has been removing about one regulation per day. For example, the government has repealed its rent-control law. In Buenos Aires, the supply of apartments is up threefold, and rents have fallen nearly 50 percent in real terms. Vasquez and Schneider also note the deregulation of imports, which has led to cheaper home appliances and clothing, as well as the removal of rules favoring Argentina’s state-owned airline.

Milei still faces daunting challenges. One is the issue of currency controls, which keep the Argentine peso stronger relative to the U.S. dollar than the black-market rate, restrict the number of dollars that Argentines can buy every month, and require exporters to convert foreign currency earnings into pesos. Milei has vowed to end the controls, which deter investment in Argentina, but this change could come with drawbacks. If the currency controls are removed, the nation could see a surge in demand for dollars, and the peso’s value could fall. To prevent a collapse in the peso, which could reignite inflation and cause economic chaos, the government could prop up its value by buying pesos with dollars. Unfortunately, Argentina has very few dollars in reserve and already owes $44 billion to the International Monetary Fund. Milei is working to secure a new loan, but the IMF may be wary of lending to a nation that is already its biggest debtor.

To succeed, Milei needs to maintain his current momentum. He must convince outsiders, whether private investors or the IMF, to invest in his country. The best way to do that is to keep eliminating burdensome rules and regulations and continue putting the country’s fiscal house in order. Let’s hope he can do it.

Patrick Horan is a research fellow at the Mercatus Center.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Salvador Allende:
Immediately after coming to power, he forcibly grabbed away the prime businesses in Chile, without adequately compensating the true owners, thereby transiently being able to give away a lot of freebies to his voters. The true colors of Marxism soon showed themselves, and the Chilean economy was in shambles, with an inflation rate in triple digits, with misery and uprising amongst the citizens, which Pinochet took advantage of. That is when he committed suicide...

[Bob Armstrong]

Chile - President Salvadore Allende - 1970-3

(From another thread, but more appropriate here)



Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens was a Chilean socialist politician who served as the 28th president of Chile from 1970 until his death in 1973. As a socialist committed to democracy, he has been described as the first Marxist to be elected president in a liberal democracy in Latin America. Wikipedia

Of course there will be some law changes to switch from Capitalism to Democratic Marxism. This does not make all new laws "authoritarian".

Secondly, Allende was freely elected, and campaigned openly on these legal changes his party wished to make (It was a coalition of his socialist party with the traditional Chilean Communist Party). So the electors knew and accepted that these changes would be good for society.

In fact, Allende's government was so popular that he was removed from office by a USA-inspired coup by General Augusto Pinochet of the Chilean Military (The first time for Chile - it had the best democratic history of any Latin American country).

Allende knew he would be tortured if captured within the Presidential Palace (The soldiers were entering). So he gave his last Presidential speech, and then committed suicide in the Presidential palace.

So no......the history of Democratic Marxist governments is NOT authoritarianism.......it is full on democracy (And note: achieved under an electoral system within Capitalism).

Bob A (DM'er)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism (DM)



Myths & Reality

(From another thread, and really should be in this one)

1. "The [DM] government dictates to its citizens what they can do.....and what they cannot do"

Refutation: DM implements a democratic form of government, based on the rule of law - it does NOT dictate - as an elected government it will pass laws for the common good. If the citizens see it otherwise, they can throw the rascals out in the next multi-party election.

What you are saying is that the DM government will dictate by passing laws! Don't try to hide facts by playing with words, Bob...

2. "[workers must] work in [DM] government owned businesses"

Refutation: DM implements a society where there are government-owned businesses, privately-owned businesses, in the forms of private corporations, non-profit businesses, and cooperatives, and community-based non-profit organizations. Amazing!.......looks exactly like what we have now under Democratic Capitalism!

It is impossible to compete with government owned businesses, as the latter can accumulate huge losses in order to provide free or cheap goods. The net effect: In whichever field the government starts a business, the others just cannot. And Marxism does favor the government controlling many fields of business.

3. "[workers] cannot take home a big chunk of what they earn"

Refutation: Progressive taxation allows that the poorer you are, the smaller the chunk of the workers' monthly income becomes "tax". It is reasonable that those making the most, are benefiting the most from the economic system, mostly paid for by the average citizens, and therefore they should pay back into the system more (Yes, a bigger chunk as tax). Paying tax is the way citizens pay for the expenses associated with having a livable society. Taxation is not "theft", despite detractors constantly repeating such tripe.

Forcibly snatching money from someone in order to give freebies to someone else who would vote you to power, does sound like theft. Livable societies existed more happily and more progressively before the system of taxation was invented.

4. "The [DM] government is the owner of almost all businesses"

Refutation: See item # 2 above. The determination of whether a government should own a business is often decided by the fact that the service is a necessary one for society, but it is almost impossible to keep it afloat with profit in the competitive marketplace (Which, by the way, also exists in DM, just like in DC!).

Bob, if a service is necessary, customers prioritize paying for it, and is the most likely service to stay afloat, without the government bringing its inefficiency into running it. Marxism just loves having the government do most of the stuff that citizens can do for themselves...

5. "those who 'run' it [the DM government-owned businesses, whatever they may be], in order to keep their government given jobs, have as their priority the pleasing of their political masters"

Refutation: viability is not determined by the whims of politicians; government-owned businesses are to "deliver the goods" & if successful, then are kept alive to continue good service to the citizens.

If that were the case, why is the Health-care system in such a mess in Canada, spending humongous amounts for the very little it really achieves?

6. "[DM] government-owned businesses have always been politically correct but economically disastrous and extremely inefficient."

Refutation: this is true, sometimes, of capitalist government-owned businesses. A DM government will have to do better, if it is to get re-elected for more than a once-in-a-lifetime term.

When the government grabs from the minority to give freebies to the majority, the majority continues to vote for it despite the system being economically disastrous and extremely inefficient (Trump voters seem to be an exception to this general rule).

7. "lawyers keep on fighting with each other in the courts of law to establish what these [myriad of] laws actually imply..."

Refutation: welcome to the real working of society, even under Capitalism. It is not easy to draft perfect laws. When they are ambiguous, then courts must interpret them......good for lawyers (I happen to have been one in Ontario). It will be no different under a DM Government (Nor a Libertarian one, for example - in fact it will be worse, because the Natural Law is the vaguest of laws having to have one set of words apply to galaxies of different situations of dispute).

Everybody can understand the Natural Law very clearly (though lawyers don't like that :-)) .

8. "Only the [DM] government has real access to capital"

Refutation: A DM Government will establish "Capital for Workers Institutions" to lend money for all kinds of worker start-ups (It takes the same view as Libertarianism - capital is needed by workers to continue to provide goods and services for the society).

Good for DM!

9. "they [the DM government] cannot grab enough from those [workers] who actually earn it; the earners gradually become impoverished".

Refutation: The progressive tax law will be fair, and will have been chosen by free election of the citizens. No one will be pushed into bankruptcy through the payment of tax under a progressive system.

There will be many who decide that it is better to be the recipient of freebies, than be a provider of freebies to people you do not even know, leading to impoverishment of the entire society.

10. "they [the DM Government] have to keep on printing lots of it [money], resulting in the currency becoming valueless.....[example:] the Soviet Union and Venezuela (where the circulating money was not matched by growth in GDP)..."

Refutation: A DM government will have no desire to create a basket-case country.

They may not desire it, but their policies will inevitably lead to it, as history has repeatedly shown! You are again trying to defend the indefensible, Bob!


Bob A (DM'er)

Thanks Bob, for trying to explain DM. It will help readers realize, as per the comments in bold italics after each point above, that hardly any goodness can come out of DM (the exception being point no. 8 above). You now have the option of rooting for Libertarianism in a circles within circles system instead, wishing society lots of progress in the right direction...

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism - Main Features

(From another thread but should also be here; lightly edited)

Old Style USSR Communism & Democratic Marxism do have some commonalities, both being different forms of "socialism".

But there are two dramatic differences:



1. Marx was a democrat (Plurality in Democracy); you must win fairly at the ballot box. Communism is not democratic; one - party system - you get to chose Black X or White X.

2. Marx trusted the worker (Not only to vote for worker policies); he respected "workers' rights". Communism, under Lenin, after the worker revolution, turned the revolutionary guns back against the worker to keep them in line, advised them that they would be ruled by "The Vanguard of the Proletariat" (Definitely not in Marx), and breached normal worker rights.

Many are unaware of, or obscure, the difference between Democratic Marxism & old-style USSR Communism (Now China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.). That is why Democratic Marxists are spending a lot of lead time at the moment on "education" rather than in organizing.

Also, there are opponents of all socialism's who DO know the difference between the different types. They deliberately and dishonestly lie that various socialism's are all Communist or Lead to Communism (Obfuscate, confuse, send up smoke screens, smear, etc.).

Bob A (DM'er)

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism (DM)



Myths & Reality

(From another thread, and really should be in this one)

1. "The [DM] government dictates to its citizens what they can do.....and what they cannot do"

Refutation: DM implements a democratic form of government, based on the rule of law - it does NOT dictate - as an elected government it will pass laws for the common good. If the citizens see it otherwise, they can throw the rascals out in the next multi-party election.

2. "[workers must] work in [DM] government owned businesses"

Refutation: DM implements a society where there are government-owned businesses, privately-owned businesses, in the forms of private corporations, non-profit businesses, and cooperatives, and community-based non-profit organizations. Amazing!.......looks exactly like what we have now under Democratic Capitalism!

3. "[workers] cannot take home a big chunk of what they earn"

Refutation: Progressive taxation allows that the poorer you are, the smaller the chunk of the workers' monthly income becomes "tax". It is reasonable that those making the most, are benefiting the most from the economic system, mostly paid for by the average citizens, and therefore they should pay back into the system more (Yes, a bigger chunk as tax). Paying tax is the way citizens pay for the expenses associated with having a livable society. Taxation is not "theft", despite detractors constantly repeating such tripe.

4. "The [DM] government is the owner of almost all businesses"

Refutation: See item # 2 above. The determination of whether a government should own a business is often decided by the fact that the service is a necessary one for society, but it is almost impossible to keep it afloat with profit in the competitive marketplace (Which, by the way, also exists in DM, just like in DC!).

5. "those who 'run' it [the DM government-owned businesses, whatever they may be], in order to keep their government given jobs, have as their priority the pleasing of their political masters"

Refutation: viability is not determined by the whims of politicians; government-owned businesses are to "deliver the goods" & if successful, then are kept alive to continue good service to the citizens.

6. "[DM] government-owned businesses have always been politically correct but economically disastrous and extremely inefficient."

Refutation: this is true, sometimes, of capitalist government-owned businesses. A DM government will have to do better, if it is to get re-elected for more than a once-in-a-lifetime term.

7. "lawyers keep on fighting with each other in the courts of law to establish what these [myriad of] laws actually imply..."

Refutation: welcome to the real working of society, even under Capitalism. It is not easy to draft perfect laws. When they are ambiguous, then courts must interpret them......good for lawyers (I happen to have been one in Ontario). It will be no different under a DM Government (Nor a Libertarian one, for example - in fact it will be worse, because the Natural Law is the vaguest of laws having to have one set of words apply to galaxies of different situations of dispute).

8. "Only the [DM] government has real access to capital"

Refutation: A DM Government will establish "Capital for Workers Institutions" to lend money for all kinds of worker start-ups (It takes the same view as Libertarianism - capital is needed by workers to continue to provide goods and services for the society).

9. "they [the DM government] cannot grab enough from those [workers] who actually earn it; the earners gradually become impoverished".

Refutation: The progressive tax law will be fair, and will have been chosen by free election of the citizens. No one will be pushed into bankruptcy through the payment of tax under a progressive system.

10. "they [the DM Government] have to keep on printing lots of it [money], resulting in the currency becoming valueless.....[example:] the Soviet Union and Venezuela (where the circulating money was not matched by growth in GDP)..."

Refutation: A DM government will have no desire to create a basket-case country.


Bob A (DM'er)