Democratic Marxism

[Dilip Panjwani]

Differentiating Democratic Marxist and Capitalist Economies

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 5

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



Fundamental Difference Between the DM Economy & the Capitalist Economy

When profit is the goal, as in capitalism, the point is not to produce for the demand. The point is to create the demand by marketing, so as to be able to maximize production and thus lower costs. This adheres to the principle of volume efficiency – once you have invested the capital to produce one widget, the cost of infinite production of widgets is actually a very small amount more; and the more widgets produced, the cost per widget decreases. The next goal is, at the same time, to try to keep the selling price of a widget high – allegedly to cover the cost of a widget being produced and some profit. Thus the producer ends up making even more money for each additional widget made and sold. This is a deliriously wonderful outcome for capitalism; ever-increasing profit per widget – The Ponzi Scheme realized.

It does not matter that a widget is not needed at all; the issue is solely “marketing”: “Don't fall behind your neighbour in quality of life; you must have a widget too!”

In opposition to this, Democratic Marxism's economy is based on “sustainability” and “meeting actual needs first”. Only produce what is needed in the volume needed. And if planned obsolescence (As in capitalism) is eliminated, then whent the demand is filled, production ratchets back, and goes into a new initial low-volume replacement mode. Workers then shift out of this employment to other jobs, if necessary, with re-training if necessary. The increased cost of replacement widgets must become subsidized by the general economy (We cannot totally do without widgets – so if one breaks down, it will have to be replaced).

The Consequence of the Sustainable Economy

The first major consequence is that employment has to drop; jobs are well below the potential pool of labourers available.

So there are created three classes: the paid employed; the unpaid employed (those on UBI who decide to labour at something beneficial to society for free); the non-contributing in terms of societal contribution (Living private little lives).

The employed will enjoy higher income than the non-employed.....the upper class will not wither away. So the sustainable economy requires a very steep progressive income and wealth tax to generate tax revenues for government for society to provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit (Also, low employment will lead to shrunken tax revenue). The tax grid, however, must not be so steep that non-paid working is seen as more beneficial than working. Of course, there will be some status benefit, likely, in being a paid-worker. Also, for those capable of marrying their passion to their career, there will be a most attractive general quality of life (And likely substantial benefit to society for them being paid workers. There likely will have to be a consumption tax of some kind as well to generate enough government revenue.

The Non-Paid Working Class

The government will provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit to all. The tax system will recoup the benefit, or much of it, from higher income citizens. Or, perhaps, receipt of the benefit may be optional.

The State-Supported Class will subdivide into two: the non-paid working class (will use their time, effort and money to provide free, contributions to society); those who simply wish to live a private, little, enjoyable life, and not work. It will be true that competition will be fierce for any paid-worker positions.......despite the naysayers who believe all will suddenly be satisfied with a life of drinking beer.

Monthly budgets will be lower due to the free products/services provided by the non-paid workers. There will be no charging for unpaid worker labour – all paid employment will have to be registered and government approved. This, of course, will lead to an underground economy, but this exists in any regulated system.

Quality of Life

Quality of life will be in each individual's hands......they will be able to determine their own destiny with many less obstacles than in current day capitalism (Even social democracy). They will determine the level of satisfaction with life they want (Within the bounds of all being taken care of – no more billionaires......those that want that will just fail to reach their self-interested goal). For those who desire a somewhat higher quality of life than the rest, they will have to decide whether to enter the competitive race for employment.

For the non-paid workers, life will be “livable” - a step way up from the quality of life of many, in both the under-developed, and developed, societies.


Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Original – 20/8/4; Recent Revision – 20/10/17

Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

Recent Reviser: Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

24/2/2: CT.DM; DMPO; 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

Hey Bob,
Even though you are a lawyer, how could you write a post which makes absolutely no sense mathematically nor culturally? You seem to be saying something like: the two and a half slices of bread your DM establishment would be lucky to produce in toto, would be so well distributed that it would provide a decent meal for millions of its citizens...
And the common man is not that stupid, to not understand what marketing is all about; it is their desire to enjoy little 'unnecessary' pleasures of life, that makes them buy widgets... will your DM 'government' expropriate them, 'legally'?

[Pargat Perrer]

The equivalence (between the natural dynamics of business failure and the draconian government expropriation of private property) is false because business failures occur within market dynamics, influenced by consumer choice, competition, and innovation—elements of a free economy. Government expropriation of private property, however, is a unilateral action that strips individuals of their rights and assets without their consent or the natural interplay of market forces. It's not merely an economic transaction but a fundamental violation of personal freedoms and property rights protected under the law.

You CLAIM that expropriation lacks "the natural interplay of market forces" and that is the source of your error. It is a claim without foundation. If a new highway needs to be built to get goods to a growing metropolis, that is a response to market forces.

But I would even add that market forces are not the be-all and end-all of modern society. As has been noted in this thread, governments often have to do the things that entrepreneurs won't do but that must be done for the good of society or of the homeland. So even in these cases, if expropriation is a part of that government action, then as long as it is done with proper compensation to the landowners, it is legitimate. It has been happening for generations under both right- and left-wing administrations.

If you are so much in favor of landowner rights, maybe you are also in favor of foreign entities buying up all our farmland ... and someday deciding that all produce from that land must be exported to their home country, not sold in Canada.

EDIT: I also note your use of the term "free economy" and I remind readers that this term used to be "private economy" but was renamed with the word "free" by the National Association of Manufacturing for POLITICAL REASONS. Let no one doubt that Sid's arguments in these threads are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. He is here to sell a radical right-wing agenda, same for Dilip.

[Sid Belzberg]

You CLAIM that expropriation lacks "the natural interplay of market forces" and that is the source of your error. It is a claim without foundation. If a new highway needs to be built to get goods to a growing metropolis, that is a response to market forces.

But I would even add that market forces are not the be-all and end-all of modern society. As has been noted in this thread, governments often have to do the things that entrepreneurs won't do but that must be done for the good of society or of the homeland. So even in these cases, if expropriation is a part of that government action, then as long as it is done with proper compensation to the landowners, it is legitimate. It has been happening for generations under both right- and left-wing administrations.

If you are so much in favor of landowner rights, maybe you are also in favor of foreign entities buying up all our farmland ... and someday deciding that all produce from that land must be exported to their home country, not sold in Canada.

EDIT: I also note your use of the term "free economy" and I remind readers that this term used to be "private economy" but was renamed with the word "free" by the National Association of Manufacturing for POLITICAL REASONS. Let no one doubt that Sid's arguments in these threads are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. He is here to sell a radical right-wing agenda, same for Dilip.

Your conflation of government expropriation with market dynamics is a glaring fallacy. Asserting that coercive land seizure is akin to market responses erodes the very foundation of individual rights and consent. The notion that government imposition is justified for societal good dangerously undermines personal freedoms, with compensation hardly mitigating the violation of autonomy. Suggesting my defense of property rights equates to support for exploitative foreign ownership is a misleading diversion from the issue at hand. Furthermore, labeling my arguments as politically motivated to discredit them is a transparent ad hominem, sidestepping the substantive debate. Your stance not only reveals a profound misunderstanding of economic principles but also a worrisome indifference to the sanctity of individual rights against state overreach.
What can we expect from someone who voluntarily injects himself with government-mandated poison after being given massive evidence of the danger? The entire European continent is at a standstill from protesting farmers thanks to insane globalist government policies that will likely cause a famine. You and Bob sit here and lecture for years about the benevolence of government??
On that's right, you are also the one that has "no problem viewing mankind as a cancer." The real cancer is the unelected globalist governments and their Marxist puppets that state "You will own nothing and be happy" That means "We will own everything and you will own nothing' https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...602#post231602
Dilip is right; you are nothing but a brainless, nasty troll not worthy of discourse.

[Sid Belzberg]

Government & Expropriation

How far will the majority of capitalist voters go?

BREAKING: documents show Ontario may move to allow expropriation of land before environmental review


The Ontario government is mulling changes to environmental laws it believes will block lawsuits from landowners and fast-track highway, energy and transit projects.

According to an internal government document reviewed by The Narwhal, the change is expected to be announced as part of an omnibus bill in February, referred to as the Get It Done Act. It includes new proposed tools that could make it easier for the government to allow for expropriation of land to proceed with major infrastructure projects — a change the document notes could be viewed as “further weakening” of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#in...fGJspRMGRGTqrP

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Your attempt to equate the proposed changes in Ontario's environmental and expropriation laws with the sweeping abolition of private property rights under Marxist ideology is not only misleading but intellectually dishonest. The Ontario government's consideration of legislation to streamline infrastructure projects, while contentious, operates within the framework of a democratic society where such measures are subject to public scrutiny, legal challenges, and electoral accountability.

Contrastingly, the Marxist approach to property rights—or the lack thereof—entails an inherent denial of individual freedoms and a centralization of power that history has repeatedly shown leads to economic ruin and the erosion of civil liberties. To draw a parallel between a government's attempt to expedite infrastructure development and a totalitarian eradication of private property is a gross misrepresentation that ignores the fundamental differences in intent, method, and outcome between these actions.

Moreover, your focus on the "Get It Done Act" as an emblem of capitalist overreach ignores the essential debates around governance, efficiency, and environmental stewardship. While concerns about the potential for environmental oversight and landowner rights to be compromised are valid, addressing these requires nuanced debate and engagement with the democratic process, not alarmist comparisons that serve to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

Your narrative serves less as a critique of policy and more as an ideological broadside against capitalism itself, ignoring the complex realities of governance, infrastructure development, and environmental protection. If your aim is to foster genuine discourse on these issues, I suggest focusing on constructive criticism and viable alternatives rather than resorting to hyperbolic comparisons that fail to advance the conversation.

[Pargat Perrer]

....is a glaring fallacy.
....erodes the very foundation of individual rights and consent.
....undermines personal freedoms, with compensation hardly mitigating the violation of autonomy.
....is a misleading diversion from the issue at hand.
....is a transparent ad hominem, sidestepping the substantive debate.
....not only reveals a profound misunderstanding of economic principles but also a worrisome indifference to the sanctity of individual rights against state overreach.

All of the above are merely Sid's opinions. No facts presented.

Oh, but he did bring up vaccination status, farmers blocking roads in Europe, unelected globalist governments and their Marxist puppets ..... as if he himself is elected and is no one's puppet. LOL

Some people just can't stay on topic.

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism is no puppet of "Globalists" (Those implementing the New World Order/Great Reset).

Democratic Marxism rejects totally a future totalitarian world government, whether it labels itself right or left.

The counter-plan of DM is that the world "go small"......that it diffuse power in the world by implementing the "Collection of Villages Project"....small is indeed beautiful.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Democratic Marxism is no puppet of "Globalists" (Those implementing the New World Order/Great Reset).

Democratic Marxism rejects totally a future totalitarian world government, whether it labels itself right or left.

The counter-plan of DM is that the world "go small"......that it diffuse power in the world by implementing the "Collection of Villages Project"....small is indeed beautiful.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

And so says the one that characterizes the unelected genocidal WEF as "benevolent" because you are too stupid to recognize their climate change scam and their scamdemic used to promote their insane depopulation goals.
Both acts are the greatest crimes against humanity in history, but in your infinite wisdom, they are "benevolent." Massive evidence has been posted here proving both points in the video and print, but you chose to ignore them and spew the WEF propaganda. You are indeed their puppet, and you don't even know it.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism is no puppet of "Globalists" (Those implementing the New World Order/Great Reset).

Democratic Marxism rejects totally a future totalitarian world government, whether it labels itself right or left.

The counter-plan of DM is that the world "go small"......that it diffuse power in the world by implementing the "Collection of Villages Project"....small is indeed beautiful.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Big or small or anything in-between, DM will only make a sad mess of it, because it 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, it forgets that the current 'wealth' of the billionaires is overwhelmingly in the form of well-run units of production, and 'nationalizing' the same will make these very units a dysfunctioning chaos (as everyone's business is no-one's business), and in DM the majority will choose to go for the option of getting free stuff of all kinds from the 'government' while they keep themselves busy 'playing', instead of the alternative of 'sweating' and a huge chunk of their returns being stolen to provide for all the 'players' around....
Anyways, thanks for revealing the stupidity of DM in your post # 102 !

[Sid Belzberg]

"Democratic Marxism"

[Bob Armstrong]

Unfortunately, Sid (Post # 114) has not yet understood the substantive difference between "Democratic Marxism" and old-style USSR "Communism".

He ignores the fact the Democratic Marxism refers to "Communism" as a bastardization of Marx' thought.

Until Sid "gets it", he will continue to post irrelevancies.

Pointing to the failures of "Communism" has nothing to do with evaluating "Democratic Marxism".

Sid needs to re-read (And take in) the principles of Democratic Marxism posted in the first posts in this thread (VERY different than the principles/policies of USSR-style "Communism").

If Sid is posting that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two, then I ask those evaluating his assessment to re-read the first few posts setting out broadly the democratic nature of Democratic Marxism, and then draw their own conclusions about the soundness of Sid' argument.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[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.

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

1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 5 (24/1/29 – 2/4 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(5 wks.)

…47........................49.......................31


......................................................2024 Average
Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Responses/Day....Resp./Day...........(5 wks.).

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


2.. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats continue to run well ahead of the 2024 stats so far. This indicates a continued rising interest in DM from when the thread started. This thread is an opportunity to learn something about the political system known as “Democratic Marxism”! It is also an opportunity to question DM in a good and safe forum, where we try to respect the right of all CT'ers to have their own analysis, and to be entitled to put it forward for consideration, even if differing from DM.

B. 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: 24/2/4

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

[Sid Belzberg]

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.

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

1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 5 (24/1/29 – 2/4 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(5 wks.)

…47........................49.......................31


......................................................2024 Average
Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Responses/Day....Resp./Day...........(5 wks.).

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


2.. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats continue to run well ahead of the 2024 stats so far. This indicates a continued rising interest in DM from when the thread started. This thread is an opportunity to learn something about the political system known as “Democratic Marxism”! It is also an opportunity to question DM in a good and safe forum, where we try to respect the right of all CT'ers to have their own analysis, and to be entitled to put it forward for consideration, even if differing from DM.

B. 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: 24/2/4

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, whether it is "USSR communism," "Chavez Communism," "Allende Communism," etc, you all have one thing in common. You support the abolishment of private property of the "Bourgeois," aka entrepreneurs. Hence, the description on the picture, "say it wasn't real communism," fits you to a tee. In the twentieth century alone, 100,000,000 died thanks to Marxism. Shove it, you know where.

[Dilip Panjwani]

[QUOTE=Bob Armstrong;

I, Bob A, personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week

[/QUOTE]

Bob,
Despite trying, you are unable to post a response to the very relevant points in my last two posts {in dark violet, to make it easy for you to find them :-) }, which clearly show that DM is a stupid way to govern ourselves.
Does that mean that despite having no valid basis to defend DM, you are continuing to have BLIND FAITH in it, spending so much time posting weekly statistics on it?

[Bob Armstrong]

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......an economy depends on production, which supplies jobs, which brings to government tax payments. No different for a DM economy.
"The right to consume" is a fancy way of bringing out the old saw that welfare for the jobless will bust the government.....totally untrue now and in a future DM government in Ontario (Dilip's description (Fanciful) - "the majority will choose to go for the option of getting free stuff of all kinds from the 'government' while they keep themselves busy 'playing', instead of the alternative of 'sweating'.")

2. The Wealthy will be robbed..........

DM Response: The workers will be able to organize for successful enterprises........they will do well, and there will be very progressive taxation to keep the economy/society sustainable.......no economic collapse......sorry to burst your script.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Neil Frarey]

Bob,
... spending so much time posting weekly statistics on it?

Desperate narcissist ... Dem-onic Marxist Bob A. ?!