Democratic Marxism

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism



Activity

1. Democratic Marxism Global Institute (DMGI)

• a DM think tank
• issues policy and discussion papers
• endorses, when possible, policies of National DM Parties

• Operates through the Fb Page: Democratic Marxism – Global
  (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717)

2. Democratic Marxist Global Forum (DMGF)

• operated by DMGI
• a forum to discuss DM and human self-government and current political events
• an “Open” forum – persons of all political persuasion invited
• there is input from the DM perspective
  
  (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus)
  
  
  
  3. The REAL News (TRN)
• a social media news and societal criticism broadcaster, through the lens of DM
• Operates on the Fb personal account of Bob Armstrong, for which it is the Administrator (Bob is its main poster)
  
  
  
  (https://www.facebook.com/bob.armstrong.9235)
  
  
  
  4. Democratic Marxist Educational Thread
• open to persons of all political persuasions to participate
• On the Non-Chess Forum of the Canadian National Chess Discussion Board, ChessTalk
  
  
  
  (https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...cratic-marxism)
  
  
  
  5. Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (DMPO)
• First (And only at the moment) formal party of Democratic Marxism (Ontario – Canadian Province) in the world – not yet formally registered for the 2026 Ontario provincial election (Thurs., June 4).
• operates through the Fb Page: Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario
  
  
  
  (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064448603475)
  
  
  
  Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)
  
  Original - 24/3/14

Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

Distribution: 24/3/14: (DMPO;CT.DM;DM;DMGF;TRN)

Contact Us: Via Fb:

a. Page: Democratic Marxism - Global:
https://www.facebook.com/Democratic-Marxism-Global-748579292265552/?modal=admin_todo_tour

b. 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 Global Institute - 2024

[Pargat Perrer]

Both you and Sid are right on what is happening, but between the two of you, only Sid is right in how to solve this: which is, by limiting the power of the government to only enforcing the Natural Law... even stuff like research and co-operative 'public' ventures can very efficiently happen without giving the government the power to pass corrupt, stupid laws when bribed by those with capital...

Sid has not expressed anything on Natural Law, and in fact with his comments on Singapore and Hong Kong seems to support a strong legal system of judges and lawyers as we currently have in Canada / USA -- the very judges and lawyers you want to eradicate completely.

It seems that you and Sid have quite different views of Libertarianism. You seem to fall into this category:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...libertarianism

whereas Sid seems to fit this category:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conseq...libertarianism

I consider Sid's views to be far "safer" than your views. You want a police state, Sid doesn't. You are a cultist who wants the state to decide all legal matters on Natural Law, much like a theocracy would decide all legal issues based on theology, except in your case religion is not involved -- the state is a few select elitists, what you keep calling the "hard-working smart-thinking" elite who are so far above everyone else that only they should decide all legal matters. Because everyone else are just lazy good-for-nothings seeking only a party lifestyle.

I have come to realize that Sid patronizes your views here because they help to support his own "free-market" views (an invented term, there is no such thing as a free market) ... and Sid doesn't comment on Natural Law because he appears to be correctly rationalizing that your Natural Law cultist shit is never ever going to see the light of day.

I am not against Sid's view of Libertarianism, because if people want to elect a party that preaches "free-market" capitalism, they will learn their lesson when the "free market" busts and everything comes crashing down. As Sid has pointed out, this has happened many times in history and will continue. People can be duped again and again, we have to learn over and over again.

But on the other hand, YOUR Libertarianism is totally abusing the very concept of freedom, acting like a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is far more nefarious and evil.

Personally, I think Sid should rethink his patronizing of your views ... but that is up to Sid and his conscience to decide.

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid has not expressed anything on Natural Law, and in fact with his comments on Singapore and Hong Kong seems to support a strong legal system of judges and lawyers as we currently have in Canada / USA -- the very judges and lawyers you want to eradicate completely.

It seems that you and Sid have quite different views of Libertarianism. You seem to fall into this category:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...libertarianism

whereas Sid seems to fit this category:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conseq...libertarianism

I consider Sid's views to be far "safer" than your views. You want a police state, Sid doesn't. You are a cultist who wants the state to decide all legal matters on Natural Law, much like a theocracy would decide all legal issues based on theology, except in your case religion is not involved -- the state is a few select elitists, what you keep calling the "hard-working smart-thinking" elite who are so far above everyone else that only they should decide all legal matters. Because everyone else are just lazy good-for-nothings seeking only a party lifestyle.

I have come to realize that Sid patronizes your views here because they help to support his own "free-market" views (an invented term, there is no such thing as a free market) ... and Sid doesn't comment on Natural Law because he appears to be correctly rationalizing that your Natural Law cultist shit is never ever going to see the light of day.

I am not against Sid's view of Libertarianism, because if people want to elect a party that preaches "free-market" capitalism, they will learn their lesson when the "free market" busts and everything comes crashing down. As Sid has pointed out, this has happened many times in history and will continue. People can be duped again and again, we have to learn over and over again.

But on the other hand, YOUR Libertarianism is totally abusing the very concept of freedom, acting like a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is far more nefarious and evil.

Personally, I think Sid should rethink his patronizing of your views ... but that is up to Sid and his conscience to decide.

Minimal Government: The Declaration of Independence, authored primarily by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, reflects a strong belief in limited government. The document outlines grievances against King George III and the British government, accusing them of imposing taxes without consent, depriving them of trial by jury, and dissolving representative bodies. These grievances highlight the colonists' desire for a government that would be less intrusive and more accountable to the people.

Natural Law: The Declaration also strongly emphasizes the concept of natural law, which is central to libertarian philosophy. It famously states that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This reflects the belief that these rights are not granted by government but are inherent to human nature and must be protected by government.

[Bob Armstrong]

The Legal Problem with Libertarianism



Pargot:

"Sid doesn't comment on Natural Law because he appears to be correctly rationalizing that your [Dilip's] Natural Law cultist shit is never ever going to see the light of day."

My View:

Having a robust justice system as we do now (Police, Departments of Justice, Courts) does not compensate for "vague" laws. In fact, courts have struck down the legislature's laws on the ground of "vagueness". Sid/Dilip's vaunted "Natural Law" is simply a platitude saying the Golden Rule: "Be Good; Be good to Others." Moral platitudes are notoriously unworkable as laws.

Courts require that Legislatures pass clear and precise laws which they are able to "Interpret" and "Apply".......this is certainly not Sid/Dilip's Natural Law.

You will notice that Argentina (Libertarian Government of Javier Milei) is in no rush to rescind all its laws and pass as the only law, The Natural Law (As framed by Libertarianism). And you will never see this.

Why? .... because it may be Libertarian "theory", but it is never going to be in their "political practice". Don't hold your breath, Sid/Dilip.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Minimal Government: The Declaration of Independence, authored primarily by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, reflects a strong belief in limited government. The document outlines grievances against King George III and the British government, accusing them of imposing taxes without consent, depriving them of trial by jury, and dissolving representative bodies. These grievances highlight the colonists' desire for a government that would be less intrusive and more accountable to the people.

Natural Law: The Declaration also strongly emphasizes the concept of natural law, which is central to libertarian philosophy. It famously states that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This reflects the belief that these rights are not granted by government but are inherent to human nature and must be protected by government.

I bolded the line that is incorrect. It should read that these rights are to be protected by an independent judiciary that is not accountable to and cannot be dissolved by government. And in the U.S., there is the Judiciary Branch all the way up to the Supreme Court which is independent of government (however, it has lately come under government influence via the process of nominating replacement judges on the Supreme Court, but that is another subject altogether).

Other than that, this is all correct. What you don't seem to realize Sid, which you would if you read Dilip's past posts here, is that Dilip wants the Judiciary dispensed with entirely ... no more "corrupt lawyers and judges" (which in Dilip's mind is ALL lawyers and judges), and everything legal gets determined by the state under the one law: "Do no harm to others EXCEPT UNDER FAIR COMPETITION" in which the vague term "fair competition" is left to the state to determine.

By your past posts, Sid, I have determined that this is NOT what you want to see happen, and therefore you and Dilip differ SUBSTANTIALLY in your visions of the future.. I hope you will confirm that.

[Pargat Perrer]

The Legal Problem with Libertarianism



Pargot:

"Sid doesn't comment on Natural Law because he appears to be correctly rationalizing that your [Dilip's] Natural Law cultist shit is never ever going to see the light of day."

My View:

Having a robust justice system as we do now (Police, Departments of Justice, Courts) does not compensate for "vague" laws. In fact, courts have struck down the legislature's laws on the ground of "vagueness". Sid/Dilip's vaunted "Natural Law" is simply a platitude saying the Golden Rule: "Be Good; Be good to Others." Moral platitudes are notoriously unworkable as laws.

Courts require that Legislatures pass clear and precise laws which they are able to "Interpret" and "Apply".......this is certainly not Sid/Dilip's Natural Law.

You will notice that Argentina (Libertarian Government of Javier Milei) is in no rush to rescind all its laws and pass as the only law, The Natural Law (As framed by Libertarianism). And you will never see this.

Why? .... because it may be Libertarian "theory", but it is never going to be in their "political practice". Don't hold your breath, Sid/Dilip.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Bob, we are in complete agreement on this. I am not the one calling for everything to be determined judicially under a "vague" law which includes an undefined term "fair competition". That is Dilip.

And see my reply to Sid post 215, I believe he does NOT want the future that Dilip wants (judicially).

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Sorry if I was a bit unclear.........I agree that we have pretty identical views, on both Dilip's version of Libertarianism, and Sid's different version of Libertarianism.....neither will work.....but Dilip's will be even more of a disaster.

Question: Argentina - President Javier Milei - So far, it doesn't seem to me that he holds either Sid's, or Dilip's, view of Libertarianism. Is there a "third" version of Libertarianism?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist - scratching his head over this one)

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Pargat:

Sorry if I was a bit unclear.........I agree that we have pretty identical views, on both Dilip's version of Libertarianism, and Sid's different version of Libertarianism.....neither will work.....but Dilip's will be even more of a disaster.

Question: Argentina - President Javier Milei - So far, it doesn't seem to me that he holds either Sid's, or Dilip's, view of Libertarianism. Is there a "third" version of Libertarianism?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist - scratching his head over this one)

Victims of Emergencies Act bank account freezes file statement of claim against Trudeau, banks

By
Harrison Faulkner
-

LinkedinSource: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
A group of Canadians targeted by the unconstitutional invocation of the Emergencies Act have filed a statement of claim in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the federal government, police, and banks.

Loberg Ector LLP, a Calgary law firm representing 19 individuals and one corporation, has filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking millions of dollars in damages against a range of actors, including Justin Trudeau and several members of his cabinet, Canadian financial institutions, the Ottawa Police Service and RCMP, as well as the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.

The plaintiffs are each seeking $2.2 million in damages plus legal fees and a declaration that their Charter rights to freedom of expression and protection against unlawful search and seizure were violated.

Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court ruled earlier this year that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and unconstitutional, promptingseveral civil lawsuits from people affected by the use of the extreme law.

The statement of claim describes the invocation of the Emergencies Act against the participants in the Freedom Convoy as “one of the largest and most egregious collective breaches of Charter rights in Canadian history.”

“The scope of the unlawful searches and seizures was astonishingly broad, disproportionate, ill-conceived, and contrary to the core constitutional values of all Canadians in our free and democratic society,” the claim goes on to say.

Trudeau is named personally in the lawsuit, as are Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, former ministers Marco Mendicino and David Lametti, as well as Trudeau’s then-national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Ottawa Police are named, as are former RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki and the acting Ottawa Police commissioner Steve Bell at the time of the Emergencies Act’s use.

The lawsuit also singles out Canada’s big five banks, as well as several small regional banks and credit unions.

Besides financial damages, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration from the Ontario Superior Court that the defendants acted unlawfully by declaring a public order emergency against the Freedom Convoy and that they acted unlawfully when they ordered the seizure of bank accounts.

Plaintiffs are seeking $1,000,000 in punitive damages for “the malicious, reprehensible, and high-handed misconduct of the Defendants,” along with $500,000 in general and special damages for the breach of contract and the seizure of bank accounts.

The statement of claim seeks a further $500,000 in damages for the breach of Charter rights, plus $200,000 in damages for “injurious defamation” and “assault and battery”.

“This action provides an important opportunity for this Court to vindicate the Charter rights of the Plaintiffs and in so doing promote the important constitutional and legal principles which ought to be safeguarded,” the statement reads.

The statement to the court goes on to read, “(T)his action further provides an important opportunity for this Court to deter future governments from improperly enacting draconian measures without justification for political means by providing an award of compensable damages to the Plaintiffs.”
Author

[Dilip Panjwani]

Victims of Emergencies Act bank account freezes file statement of claim against Trudeau, banks

By
Harrison Faulkner
-

LinkedinSource: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
A group of Canadians targeted by the unconstitutional invocation of the Emergencies Act have filed a statement of claim in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the federal government, police, and banks.

Loberg Ector LLP, a Calgary law firm representing 19 individuals and one corporation, has filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking millions of dollars in damages against a range of actors, including Justin Trudeau and several members of his cabinet, Canadian financial institutions, the Ottawa Police Service and RCMP, as well as the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.

The plaintiffs are each seeking $2.2 million in damages plus legal fees and a declaration that their Charter rights to freedom of expression and protection against unlawful search and seizure were violated.

Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court ruled earlier this year that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and unconstitutional, promptingseveral civil lawsuits from people affected by the use of the extreme law.

The statement of claim describes the invocation of the Emergencies Act against the participants in the Freedom Convoy as “one of the largest and most egregious collective breaches of Charter rights in Canadian history.”

“The scope of the unlawful searches and seizures was astonishingly broad, disproportionate, ill-conceived, and contrary to the core constitutional values of all Canadians in our free and democratic society,” the claim goes on to say.

Trudeau is named personally in the lawsuit, as are Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, former ministers Marco Mendicino and David Lametti, as well as Trudeau’s then-national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Ottawa Police are named, as are former RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki and the acting Ottawa Police commissioner Steve Bell at the time of the Emergencies Act’s use.

The lawsuit also singles out Canada’s big five banks, as well as several small regional banks and credit unions.

Besides financial damages, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration from the Ontario Superior Court that the defendants acted unlawfully by declaring a public order emergency against the Freedom Convoy and that they acted unlawfully when they ordered the seizure of bank accounts.

Plaintiffs are seeking $1,000,000 in punitive damages for “the malicious, reprehensible, and high-handed misconduct of the Defendants,” along with $500,000 in general and special damages for the breach of contract and the seizure of bank accounts.

The statement of claim seeks a further $500,000 in damages for the breach of Charter rights, plus $200,000 in damages for “injurious defamation” and “assault and battery”.

“This action provides an important opportunity for this Court to vindicate the Charter rights of the Plaintiffs and in so doing promote the important constitutional and legal principles which ought to be safeguarded,” the statement reads.

The statement to the court goes on to read, “(T)his action further provides an important opportunity for this Court to deter future governments from improperly enacting draconian measures without justification for political means by providing an award of compensable damages to the Plaintiffs.”
Author

Thank you, Sid, for pointing out why stupid laws need to be scrapped, and the Natural Law needs to be enforced by a strong Judiciary and Police on all at all times...
As you know, Bob's DM is set up to see even worse scenarios than described in your post, acting out!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob A (Democratic Marxist - scratching his head over this one)

Ha-ha! How can someone with blind faith in DM ever understand logic?
And how threatened does he feel that he would get woken up from his DM dream by Libertarianism...

[Pargat Perrer]

Victims of Emergencies Act bank account freezes file statement of claim against Trudeau, banks
.....
The lawsuit also singles out Canada’s big five banks, as well as several small regional banks and credit unions.

Besides financial damages, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration from the Ontario Superior Court that the defendants acted unlawfully by declaring a public order emergency against the Freedom Convoy and that they acted unlawfully when they ordered the seizure of bank accounts.

Plaintiffs are seeking $1,000,000 in punitive damages for “the malicious, reprehensible, and high-handed misconduct of the Defendants,” along with $500,000 in general and special damages for the breach of contract and the seizure of bank accounts.

The statement of claim seeks a further $500,000 in damages for the breach of Charter rights, plus $200,000 in damages for “injurious defamation” and “assault and battery”.

“This action provides an important opportunity for this Court to vindicate the Charter rights of the Plaintiffs and in so doing promote the important constitutional and legal principles which ought to be safeguarded,” the statement reads.

The statement to the court goes on to read, “(T)his action further provides an important opportunity for this Court to deter future governments from improperly enacting draconian measures without justification for political means by providing an award of compensable damages to the Plaintiffs.”
Author

First of all ... you are responding to Bob A.'s question about Argentina and their new Libertarian leader ....

What in the world does this lawsuit have to do with Bob A.'s questions on Argentina?

Secondly ... because this lawsuit threatens both the Big 5 banks AND the very notion of government ability to contain emergency situations ....

I am guessing this lawsuit has 0% chance of success. However, we will see what comes out of it, and it could trigger a Canadian constitutional crisis. If indeed the WEF and cohorts are controlling everything that happens nowadays, they will gather the resources necessary to quash this lawsuit. After all, seizure of bank accounts is the very BASIS of the WEF's strategy for total world domination.

VIA DIGITALIZATION! THANKS TO SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS!

Something you should have foreseen years ago, Sid.

[Pargat Perrer]

Thank you, Sid, for pointing out why stupid laws need to be scrapped, and the Natural Law needs to be enforced by a strong Judiciary and Police on all at all times...
As you know, Bob's DM is set up to see even worse scenarios than described in your post, acting out!

Oh, now you want a strong Judiciary? Contrary to all your previous posts! So ok, let's hire more judges and lawyers!

Oh, and you want "STUPID LAWS" scrapped.

Do you get to play God and decide which laws are "stupid"?

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

Sorry if I was a bit unclear.........I agree that we have pretty identical views, on both Dilip's version of Libertarianism, and Sid's different version of Libertarianism.....neither will work.....but Dilip's will be even more of a disaster.

Question: Argentina - President Javier Milei - So far, it doesn't seem to me that he holds either Sid's, or Dilip's, view of Libertarianism. Is there a "third" version of Libertarianism?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist - scratching his head over this one)

The ones I posted links to (Wikipedia articles) are the two main ones it seems ... but since Libertarianism is much like a cult or religion, yes, there are many sub-sects of the cult.

In fact, if you go to this link about what I think is Sid's view of Libertarianism ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conseq...libertarianism

you will see on the right side a panel showing links to MANY apparent sub-sects of Libertarianism. "Agorism" .... "Anarcho-capitalism" ... "Autarchism" ... "Market Anarchism" ... "Minarchism" ...

Isn't life full of surprises? LOL

[Bob Armstrong]

OK - so we now have Sid on the Libertarian spectrum - "Consequentialist Libertarian".

Dilip seems to have changed camps - from abolition of corrupt courts, judges and lawyers (And somehow State Enforcement of The Natural Law) to "Enforced by a strong Judiciary and Police".

So are Sid and Dilip now in the same Libertarian camp?

And I'll renew my earlier question to our resident Libertarians:

Does President Javier Milei of Argentina hold the Consequentialist Libertarian position (As it seems, now, do both Sid and Dilip)?

2nd Question: Does the Libertarian Party of Canada hold the Consequentialist Libertarian position?

Guys?

Bob A (Not a Libertarian)

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid - Post # 213 (24/3/15)

"[Human] rights are not granted by government but are inherent to human nature and must be protected by government."

Well put.

Certain rights flow from the very "being/existence" of a person, from their "human nature". Constitutions are passed to protect these rights from abolition in lawby the majority/the State.

Bob A