If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Everything you just wrote may very well be true .... but first of all, it belongs in the covid thread because even non-socialist governments have acted the same with respect to the so-called covid vaccines. I agree that they are not vaccines at all and are experimental treatments ... but let's realize that governments had to do SOMETHING. They couldn't just sit there with their hand in their pockets and expect to survive the next election.
My main arguments in this thread have to do with economics, not with pandemics. I really believe that when it comes to any pandemic that reaches the severity that covid reached, governments of ALL STRIPES are going to act basically the same. So whether we have DM or Libertarianism won't matter in those cases.
You have succeeded in hijacking this thread into covid issues, perhaps my points here were just so strong you felt the need to redirect the whole thread. Dilip himself has been very silent, other than his pathetic backpedaling once I pointed out that the world's happiest countries year after year are all social democracies and the most capitalist country, USA, is way down the list every year due to pervasive poverty, income disparity, health insurance issues, drug and alcohol issues, gun and mass killing issues, etc etc etc.
Dilip's response: "Chesstalkers know that there are minimal differences in the 'happiness' levels of the top 20 countries... the differences having more to do with their historically inherited wealth and their various idiosyncrasies rather than the minor differences in their governance .... blah blah blah...."
Backpedaling.... very hard to face up to the fact that 250 of the world's richest individuals are asking governments to tax them MORE.
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
but let's realize that governments had to do SOMETHING.
This is why it belongs in this thread, not the COVID thread. The governments were the ones that created the virus and attacked us, committing an act of bioterrorism. The goal was one of eldercide and suppressing all treatments so they could get an EUA to mass exterminate the population with slow-kill injectable bioweapons, which is exactly what is happening now. The more jabs, the more the immune system is destroyed.
This has very little to do with "COVID" and everything to do with a genocidal group of governments, which is why it belongs here. You say you trust governments, but I say not! Read about the history of the WHO I posted that has a long history of "culling the population."
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 22nd January, 2024, 11:31 PM.
Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.
Some Confusion
There have always been, side by side in the “free world” a partisan “Socialist” Party, and a partisan “Communist” Party. We have always believed, and we think they both believed, that they had “substantially” different platforms of governance/economics.
Many, though, have really been quite unaware of the fundamentally different features that identify one from the other – we simply have never done much theoretical digging on this.
Recently we developed the view that indeed our concept of “Democratic Marxism” also had a substantially different platform of governance/economics from the other two. We had been of the view that Democratic Socialism and Communism had as a key feature, “central planning”. Democratic Marxism, however, was based on the bottom-up decentralized governance principle (Principle of Subsidiarity), with an economic platform wherein, basically, labour has priority over capital (This latter seemed a feature shared by all three).
But some recently pointed out the fact that “Socialism” can be of 2 types:
Central Planning (Venezuela)
Decentralization (the Jewish Kibbutz system).
The Wikipedia entry on “Socialism”, indeed confirms this view.
The Canadian Situation
What happens when this question is applied to Canada?
It is clearly a “Democratic Capitalist” country. Yet, with respect to resident health care, it is said to have “socialized medicine”. This is as opposed to “Private Health Care” in the USA.
But what are the key features that define Canadian health care as a “socialist government program”? One key factor is that the full cost of the program (Or most, at least) is paid for by all the population generally out of the government general tax revenue. It is also operated by the government itself, and uses various agencies, such as the provinces, to implement the “free-to-the-people” program. But is this health program one of “Centralized Planning” in the “socialist” sense?
First of all, health care is a provincial power, not a federal one. So the federal program is an optional program to the provinces........organize your health care to these basic federal criteria, and you will qualify for funding. Beyond these criteria, you are free to develop the rest of your provincial health care system as you like (Though the reality is that the criteria are so extensive and stringent, that there is not a lot of room for provincial customization).
Secondly, in Canada, the governments provide public services in combination with community participation. So a hospital is not owned and operated by a government. It is a not-for-profit private, community corporation. It has “members” from the community, and they elect their Board of Directors, which decides on that hospital's policies and services (within government regulations). But once again, their government grant money to substantially cover the cost of operating the hospital, comes with the many strings of the outsourcing contract – one of which is to comply with the Ministry of Health guidelines. So...we have a community/government partnership. And the provincial Ministry guidelines must themselves conform with the terms of the federal outsourcing grant.
All this to ask – is “Centralized Planning” (in the socialism understanding) a key feature of the Canadian Health Care Service? In other words, is it a misnomer to refer to the Canadian Health Care system as “socialized”, meaning as would be established in a country with Democratic Socialism, such as for example, Venezuela?
A Definitional Realignment
Given all of the above, it is our conclusion that “Socialism” is a broad generic word indicating certain key features on implementation. And there are three distinct historical implementations of “Socialism”:
Democratic Socialism – as in Venezuela
Communism – as in China (Non-democratic; implemented by force)
Democratic Marxism – the closest a government came to this was Chile (1970-3) under the Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende (Coalition of a plurality Socialist party and smaller traditional national Communist Party).
This is why it [Sid's last few posts in this thread] belongs in this thread, not the COVID thread. The governments were the ones that created the virus and attacked us, committing an act of bioterrorism. The goal was one of eldercide and suppressing all treatments so they could get an EUA to mass exterminate the population with slow-kill injectable bioweapons, which is exactly what is happening now. The more jabs, the more the immune system is destroyed.
This has very little to do with "COVID" and everything to do with a genocidal group of governments, which is why it belongs here. You say you trust governments, but I say not! Read about the history of the WHO I posted that has a long history of "culling the population."
Ok, now it is me that has to ask you a question: you seem to be criticizing all governments, thus are you saying we need to be totally rid of governments?
You are saying "the governments" created the covid virus .... really? I've heard of the Wuhan lab theory and the Chinese wet market theory and the U.S. military theory but not a theory that says all the world governments created the virus (deliberately, I would have to assume).
I just read today that Denmark is the nation that trusts its government more than any other nation. And as a result, Denmark has now gone almost totally cashless. The people trust that if something breaks the digital payments system, the government will save them. That simply could NOT happen here, and definitely not in USA. Interestingly, as a result of going cashless, Denmark now has for the past year 0 bank robberies. I am not in favor of cashless economy, in fact I am deadset against it, because I believe such a level of trust is NOT good. So no Sid, I am not saying I totally trust government. Not at all. In fact, if indeed Denmark had 0 bank robberies in the past year, I would bet that they had a huge INCREASE in cyberattacks and ransomware attacks and similar things. They have, I wold bet, only traded one problem for another (and worse) problem.
What I have been saying is that government is NECESSARY to do things that entrepreneurs won't do but still need done, and lawyers are also necessary to figure out how to apply regulations that MUST be maintained. Dilip doesn't agree, he believes anyone can become an entrepreneur and should be free of government regulation in the process. That would just not work at all, as the dot com crash of 2000 proved to us. Dilip only believes in one regulation, "fair competition" which he leaves undefined and says judges and police will enforce (police state). So the other reason we need lawyers is to fight for the oppressed against the tyranny of such a police state.
I've said it before in this thread and here it is again: what we have now, the balancing act between moderately right-wing and moderately left-wing administrations of government, is the best we can hope for. Any swing to the extreme left or extreme right will be bad, as it always has been.
I would also say that so far, I don't think Bob A.'s Democratic Marxism is an extreme swing to the left. I seem to remember reading in my younger days about the Greek city states, which sounds a lot like Bob A's local political units. It didn't work too well for Greece as I seem to recall, but I could be mistaken. Did they get invaded and found themselves unable to act in a cohesive manner in self-defence because they had ceded away central authority? I'm having some kind of a flashback to reading about that, years ago.
Bob A, maybe you can compare your DM with the Greek idea of city states and comment on what entailed for the Greeks during that time (the time of Plato and Socrates, I believe).
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Tuesday, 23rd January, 2024, 06:40 AM.
You are dead on........the city-state model is one kind of "Local Political Unit" system. It also was the system in Italy until Garibaldi united them.
And the issue, to me, is why was it seen by these city-states that bigger was better? And.......was the view reasonable at the time? But, now, with nuclear arms, it should be "small is beautiful"?
You are also right, IMHO, that Democratic Marxism is NOT extreme.......it is a very balanced system, when one looks at all the prior documents posted here! My friends, once they have read my materials, express surprise that the policies are quite reasonable and logical. No rifles in the background falsifying any voting......
.....the city-state model is one kind of "Local Political Unit" system. It also was the system in Italy until Garibaldi united them.
And the issue, to me, is why was it seen by these city-states that bigger was better? And.......was the view reasonable at the time? But, now, with nuclear arms, it should be "small is beautiful"?
Democratic Marxism is NOT extreme.......it is a very balanced system, when one looks at all the prior documents posted here! My friends, once they have read my materials, express surprise that the policies are quite reasonable and logical. No rifles in the background falsifying any voting......
Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
Marxist LPUs cannot survive, as lack of entrepreneurs means very little productivity and lacking fulfillment of diverse needs. Also, Marxists always have their eyes on other people's money, and so the poorer 50% will demand to join with the richer 50%, and then the poorer half of the amalgamated units would again demand to join the richer half... and so on and so forth... till everything ends up in one big lousy mess of a unit!
"Many of us worry about crime, fearing that it rises inexorably and we are ever likelier to be its victims. Politicians of all stripes encourage such anxiety, promising to be tough on criminals and delivering their just punishments. But in fact, our era is the safest and least violent in human history. We are less likely to killed, assaulted, or otherwise physically harmed today than ever before.
For other kinds of offenses, such improvement is less clear. Today we have more ways of violating the law and therefore more potential crimes than earlier. We are wealthier and therefore own more things that may be stolen. New technologies bring new crimes. The most common offense is now the robocall — committed an estimated 180 million times daily in the U.S. alone. But these are not the sort of violations that keep us awake at night."
Democratic Marxist Government - Best on Climate Change
National Parties Need to be Established, and then win the VOTE for being able to best manage Negative Climate Change
[Jane Goodall,] the celebrated primatologist, thinks governments around the globe are not working hard enough to combat climate change. And in a year when more than 40 countries — including the United States, India and South Africa — will be electing their leaders, Goodall is telling anyone who will listen that the health of Earth itself is on the ballot.
Democratic Marxist Government - Best on Climate Change
National Parties Need to be Established and then win the VOTE to be able to best manage Negative Climate Change
[Jane Goodall,] the celebrated primatologist, thinks governments around the globe are not working hard enough to combat climate change. And in a year when more than 40 countries — including the United States, India and South Africa — will be electing their leaders, Goodall is telling anyone who will listen that the health of Earth itself is on the ballot.
Jane Goodall is a fan of depopulation based on long-debunked Malthusian theories that the Nazis and their 21st-century version of the WEF and its WHO/UN
affiliates not only promote but have been doing a great job of executing. Consider Sri Lanka's destruction of agriculture all in the name of WEF climate change.
Very similar to Stalin's collective farming and induced artificial famine of the early 1930s.
Primatologist Dame Jane Goodall has warned that human population growth is damaging the planet's future.
Goodall said that United Nations figures showed that in the last 50 years the global population has doubled to 7.8bn and is expected to increase to 11.2bn by 2100.
In a message to the 2019 Population Matters conference, she said: “I would encourage every single conservation organisation, every single government organisation to consider the absurdity of unlimited economic development on a planet of finite natural resources.
“We can't go on like this. We can't push human population growth under the carpet.“ Dame Jane added that empowering women and girls was key to addressing unsustainable population growth.
She said: “It's been shown all around the world that as women's education improves family size tends to drop.“
Population Matters campaigners want action to reduce human population growth by voluntary means included in the post-2020 Convention on Biodiversity.
Start-Up capital will be by government taking an equity position with the workers.
THAT WILL SPELL THE MARXIST DISASTER...
Can you elaborate on this? I know Dilip you normally don't like to elaborate, you like to just make inflammatory statements against anything left of center politically, but his one really demands further explanation.
What is wrong with government taking an equity position with the workers? I'm thinking this happened with Poland in the past decades and now Poland is becoming an economic powerhouse in Europe.
What is wrong with government taking an equity position with the workers? .
What is wrong with government taking an equity position with the workers?
The 'Government' is an employee.
It is employed by the people. NOT employed by itself.
Without getting too technical for you Pargat ... entrepreneurs are the heart and soul of democracy. They bring ideas to life. Take all the risk. They hire workers. Workers do NOT hire the entrepreneur nor take the risk.
Control of an idea belongs to the entrepreneur, obviously. Workers do the work the entrepreneur provides them to do.
Government is an employee. They are NOT overlords.
Democracy protects the rights and freedoms of the Individual. One person at a time. That includes the entrepreneur.
NOT the collective and NOT the government.
Sorry to dummy this down, Dilip but some folks just don't understand their places in our world.
Under a Marxist government, the people are smart enough to know that enterprise matters. So they instruct the government to assist the Marxist entrepreneurs in start-ups that have potential. Business is the economy.
So the gov't carries out the will of the people by non-exploitative loans (realistic and modest interest rate) or by taking up an equity position and becoming partners with the workers. This is totally up to the entrepreneurs. And if the start-up is successful as a private/public enterprise, then the profit earned by the government gets recycled for the people in the form of more money for the government bank to make available to the future entrepreneurs.
The system is logical, fair and will be successful!
Under a Marxist government, the people are smart enough to know that enterprise matters. So they instruct the government to assist the Marxist entrepreneurs in start-ups that have potential. Business is the economy.
So the gov't carries out the will of the people by non-exploitative loans (realistic and modest interest rate) or by taking up an equity position and becoming partners with the workers. This is totally up to the entrepreneurs. And if the start-up is successful as a private/public enterprise, then the profit earned by the government gets recycled for the people in the form of more money for the government bank to make available to the future entrepreneurs.
The system is logical, fair and will be successful!
Tweet
Comment