Democratic Marxism

[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 # 29 of 2024 (7/15-21 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)


.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(29 wks.)

….…34...................20.......................23


................................................2024 Average

Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(29 wks.).

........4......................1......................2


2. Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are way ahead of the prior week, and the year to date – Dilip and I got into a rapid back and forth......which hopefully did provide some new insights into both our positions. Generally, at the start of a thread, there is a flurry of responses, and then things slow down.

So the current rate of response is much higher than normal for this late in the thread.

More discussion/increased participation does happen when a current controversial issue is brought into the thread. The thread does involve discussion of current political affairs from the different perspectives of the various participants, so “current” issues do arise.

Fundamentally, though, this thread is an “educational” thread about something that may not be that attractive to some CT'ers. Nonetheless, the yearly average stats for this thread (Per day: Views – 24; Responses - 2) are good.

The stats do show that CT'ers are interested in learning more about DM, and about government from the DM perspective. 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.

Note: I, as originator/main poster, am now just posting per week, on Mondays, the past week's stats, and on Tuesdays, 1 DM discussion paper. But I do try to respond to response questions, and introduce new “current” topics when they seem appropriate, especially re “current events”. So, overall, it is expected that the stats have slowly come down, and are now at a slower, steady pace.


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. CT'ers are welcome to post responses here regularly, in addition to our core group of very active responders.



Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)



Author: Bob Armstrong, DMGI Coordinator

Most Recent Revision: 24/7/21

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

[Dilip Panjwani]

I always respectfully consider Dilip's opinion.....it has helped me elaborate why DM is a better future.

Thanks, Dilip.

Bob A

Sincerely, Bob, you are not explaining what needs to be explained. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts of economics 101 / human nature 101 and facts of history.
I hope that as President Biden just did, you will finally agree to what is best for yourself and for Chesstalk ...

[Bob Armstrong]

I always respectfully consider Dilip's opinion.....it has helped me elaborate why DM is a better future.

Thanks, Dilip.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob, my reason for communicating with you was to convince you, that as dictated by common sense, and as repeatedly documented in history, Marxism is seriously deleterious to human society, whether democratic or not. If you have any reason to believe otherwise, please explain why addicting the not-so-wealthy to stolen fish is better than creating conditions for them to be able to fish for a living (if only some of the current not-so-wealthy start new businesses, perhaps in co-operation with co-workers, even those who prefer to work for others will be better off). If you cannot explain why it is better to keep on stealing from the smart-and-hard-working and make all, including the not-so-wealthy poorer, as happened in Argentina pre-Milei, in Chile under Allende, and elsewhere, please give up your blind faith in DM... just some friendly advice!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I will grant you this........

I think both our positions are clearer to the viewing CT's as a result of us continuing to talk......

Any confirmation of this would be welcome !

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Give a man a fish, and he has a meal.

Teach a man to fish, and he can provide for himself.

I think we agree on the principle.......we disagree on how to implement .

Bob A

As I have explained, the simplest, surest and most decent way to implement is with:

• easy access to capital
• realization that the choice for us is between smart & hard work vs. starvation in the absence of stolen subsidies (the stealing fails shortly after implementation anyway)
• enforcement of the Natural Law, and
• freedom from stupid laws generated by the evil alliance between the crooked amongst us and the corrupt politicians...

Libertarianism, in short!

[Bob Armstrong]

Give a man a fish, and he has a meal.

Teach a man to fish, and he can provide for himself.

I think we agree on the principle.......we disagree on how to implement .

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Something we finally agree on, Dilip!!

Bob A

About teaching to fish and not giving stolen fish for eternity?

[Bob Armstrong]

Something we finally agree on, Dilip!!

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Even ranked balloting will not stop Libertarian Pierre Poilievre from winning our next federal election... Go Pierre!

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism (DM) favours an improvement of current democracy:

1. Decentralization of Power: The planet becomes a "Collection of Villages".

2. Direct Democracy (With ranked balloting).

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob has apparently been a Canadian all his life, but has not yet realized that most 'Majorities' in Canada are won by a minority of the vote. He keeps on mumbling about coalitions, despite being told that even without a coalition, in a multi-party system a minority of voters over-rules the will of the majority of voters against the party winning the majority in parliament. And he is happy to let that minority of voters exercise Marx's 'dictatorship' over the majority... that is the fallacy in the D of his DM...

In trying to defend the M of his DM, he once says (post 404): 'Under DM, someone who wishes to create a small, start-up enterprise will be free to follow a strategy that they think will be best for them', but elsewhere he says he wants to ban them from accepting 'capital investing', not realizing that unless easy access to capital is available, as with Libertarianism, businesses may be forced into looking for capital investing. He confuses the majority of business 'failures' (the deliberate bankruptcies of crooked Trumpism) with the rare instances of 'failure to make a decent profit', the latter being amenable to 'change of course' by smart and hard-working businessmen.

And finally, he is very proud about DM stealing from the smart and hard working citizens; instead of teaching the not-so-wealthy how to fish, he wants to give them stolen fish for the rest of their lives...

Maybe he should accept an apprenticeship under Javier Milei to understand why a true majority of Argentinians is now for Libertarianism, having seen Milei in action...

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip's Post # 407 (24/7/21)

1. I have been consistent: there will be "capital lending". "Capital investing in the business of others" will be banned. People with wealth will obviously be able to use it to start a business. Obviously the DM equalizing factor will be both a wealth and income tax, steeply progressive...all DM Policy from the start of this thread.....no inconsistency (Except in your mind).

2. Minority parties after a hung election form a "majority coalition" to become the government. You are being anti-democratic with your view of minority government (I hope it is not the policy of Libertarianism).

3. Worker Cooperatives used to be very successful; one reason was supportive policies from Liberal Governments. All changed with the Conservative Government. Now not so easy to form a cooperative and be competitive (But some are doing it: Alterna Savings and Credit Union.)

There ARE many worker start-ups now......I don't have a clue what stats you are looking at.

Workers borrow for capital; if wealthy, they use it. And under Capitalism, they can seek "investors" who then get a totally obscene number of shares.

And what I have told you before, and as always you ignore, is that 80 % of new small businesses have failed within 5 years. Somewhat risky to try a start-up, rather than working for others, especially if you have a family to shelter, feed and clothe.

Libertarianism, being "wild west, unregulated Capitalism", will only make things worse......watch Argentinian society blow apart under Javier Milei and his Libertarian policies....the vulnerable there are now suffering more than when he took over.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob,
After reading the above post, you may turn into a Libertarian from being a Marxist... there is always hope...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

1. I think I have been clear that "capital loan" is quite different than "capital investing". So abolition of private "investing" is correct.

2. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is Marx term. I think it is a bit unfortunate. DM will be democratic. DM will be voted in, and may be voted out. Perhaps coalitions will be necessary. Coalition governments are not "dictatorship of the minority". Politics is the art of the possible.

3. Under DM, the not-so-wealthy workers will have the right to work in cooperatives (Worker ownership)., They therefore may, through them, by lending capital, or by State/Private structure, be involved in start-up businesses. Or an individual may have a good idea, and lenders will support it, even when the worker her/himself is not wealthy.

Bob A

1. This policy of yours (which contradicts other statements you yourself have made recently) benefits no one. And btw, is it not against basic human rights to prevent a citizen from using his/her own money to start a business which is legal and moral? Remember, laws are meant to help people, not take away their freedom to do good things. Is DM so stupid that it cannot understand this basic fact? And also, Bob, you need to know that in Libertarianism (and even today), business profits outweigh interest on invested capital, so not-so-wealthy workers will be able to compete with the wealthy, who invest their own hard-earned money. A Libertarian government would purposely keep interest rates near-zero for businesses, as business expenditure reduces inflation, not increase it...

2. Why are you denying the well-known fact of multi-party democracies that, without any coalition, a minority of voters can elect a 'majority' which the majority of voters dislike? Is your blind faith in DM really turning you blind to simple facts?

3. What you are describing is allowed to happen today. My question was: "Why are not workers doing this today? Are they waiting for Libertarianism wherein easy access to capital will become a reality?"