Democratic Marxism

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper Series



We invite all viewers, whatever political stripe, to comment and join in the discussion.

... electing a new city council as delegates from neighborhood assemblies, and restricting officials to a worker’s wage. He expected that communism would look like a society wide worker cooperative.

With a corporate-style top down managerial hierarchy to which workers were utterly subordinate in the USSR, this was contrary to his democratic aims, and he would see right away the working class was still subordinate to an oppressor class. So “the self-emancipation of the working class” that he advocated had not come about.”

What do you think of this analysis?

The only way this sort of worker emancipation can come about is by the 'circles within circles' organization of society, by Libertarianism and easy access to capital for the workers.... definitely not by stealing away money from the hard and smart working...

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper Series

(# 23 – Not old USSR-style Communism)




DMPO will be posting, approximately every 2nd week (Hopefully Tuesdays), one of the Democratic Marxism discussion paper series (# 9 this week).

Every other week (Hopefully Tuesdays), we will post one of the “Statements” on Democratic Marxism.

We invite all viewers, whatever political stripe, to comment and join in the discussion.

We can all learn from each other!

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 23

Democratic Marxism - Not old USSR-style Communism

Tom Wetzel Contribution to Quora - 24/7/14

·Author of Overcoming Capitalism

“Would Karl Marx have been appalled by 21st century communism?

Marx would have been disappointed — especially as it was done in his name. He was a radical democrat and an advocate for workers gaining power in society through their own movement. If you read “The Civil War in France” you’ll notice he praised the highly democratic methods of the French rebels — electing a new city council as delegates from neighborhood assemblies, and restricting officials to a worker’s wage. He expected that communism would look like a society wide worker cooperative.

With a corporate-style top down managerial hierarchy to which workers were utterly subordinate in the USSR, this was contrary to his democratic aims, and he would see right away the working class was still subordinate to an oppressor class. So “the self-emancipation of the working class” that he advocated had not come about.”

What do you think of this analysis?

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

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Original – 24/7/14
Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator

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

Contact Us:

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 - 2024

[Pargat Perrer]

.....

Price Signals as Information Aggregators

In a free market, prices serve as signals that aggregate and convey vast amounts of information about supply and demand. These signals are generated through the interactions of numerous individuals and firms, each acting on their own local knowledge and preferences. This decentralized process allows for a more accurate and dynamic reflection of market conditions than any centralized committee could achieve

......

Very interesting ... that Big Pharma -- an industry that thrives on the very "free market" principles Sid is so much in favor of -- has been roundly CRITICIZED AND VILLIFIED by none other than Sid Belzberg, all based on alleged transgressions that are BASED ON THOSE VERY "FREE MARKET" PRINCIPLES!!!

The hypocrisy is just ooooozing all over your face like eggs, SID BELZBURP.


First, let it be known there is no such thing as a "free market". That nomenclature has been debunked. It was invented to make markets seem like liberators of humans from enslavement misery, when they are no such thing. If anything, there has been MORE enslavement of humans due to 'free markets" than from any other single influence.

Second, the world cannot survive based on a stock market mentality. Allocating resources based solely on supply and demand leads to existential problems, as we have seen from the Industrial Revolution onwards, where we have the explosive growth of fossil fuels and the rape of the planet Earth (destruction of Amazon rainforest a prime example) leading to disaster after disaster around the planet. We have had decades of unparalleled expansion of national economies, only to realize that we are just creating NEW AND MORE INSIDIOUS forms of human misery.

Thirdly, this stock market mentality leads to an ever-widening gap between the few and shrinking numbers of wealthy controllers accumulating more and more reserves for themselves, and the growing base of impoverished human slaves working to serve the wealthy masters. The spin of "free markets" is increasingly less palatable to those who toil for their masters.

This is all excused by the very people who sit at the controls. The Donald Trumps of the world who can declare bankruptcy so as not to pay their contractors, and shrug it off with "That makes me smart" comments.

Sid Belzburp, Dilip Panjwani, Vlad Drukelec, Neil Frarey, Donald Trump, Elon Musk ... either rich or wannabe rich, and all willing to see you the slave class working in increasingly deplorable conditions, for shrinking rewards, so that THEY accumulate more and more for themselves.

This is the truth of the stock market mentality.

NOT free market, STOCK MARKET.

Supply and demand used as a guiding principle leads to COAL-FUELED POWER PLANTS, OIL SPILLS, BURSTING PIPELINES, GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE DISASTERS, DRUG AND ALCOHOL ADDICTIONS (readily supplied even by governments), MENTAL HEALTH DETERIORATION, PANDEMICS, VACCINES ....

Yeah, Sid, vaccines, the very ones you are so DEAD-SET AGAINST .... created by your supply and demand forces....

Such moronic thinking..... such hyprocrisy .... egg all over your face SID BELZBURP .....

The one thing we can agree on is that centralized planning is the opposite extreme that also doesn't lead to anything good.

Maybe with the advent of AI we can hope someday for an AI political infrastructure ... no more human politicians, no more elections ... just an AI that is programmed to deliver the most benefit for ALL members of the human race ... meaning that there would be some stock market influences, but it would all be regulated by what is good for the species as a whole, rather than what is good for the wealthy masters ... regulated in the sense of wealth limitations, minimizing harm to environment, minimizing harm to mental health, etc.

I think this is what the writers of sci fi shows like Star Trek Next Generation, set in the 24th century, alluded to in their descriptions of human political evolution....

The wealthy and wealthy wannabes would DEFINITELY be against such an idea .... what's in it for them? That's all they care about.

[Sid Belzberg]

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00...w_myk_ro_title
This masterwork is much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology. In short, Mises set out to refute socialism, and instead yanked out the egalitarian mentality from its very roots. For that reason, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis led dozens of famous intellectuals, including a young F.A. Hayek, into a crisis of faith and a realist/libertarian political orientation. All the collectivist literature combined cannot equal the intellectual achievement of this one volume.



https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00...w_myk_ro_title
"We can't sit at the feet of Mises at his famous Vienna private seminar. We can't go back in time and attend his New York seminar, or follow him to the speaking engagements that he held in the 1950s and '60s.

But we do have access to what he said. He is warm, funny, passionate, and learned. This book provides a candid look at the man and his teaching style. It demonstrates his dazzling command over the material, and teaches in a breezier way than his treatises.

This volume contains nine lectures delivered over one week, from June 23 to July 3, 1952, at the San Francisco Public Library. Mises was at his prime as a teacher and lecturer. He shares a lifetime of learning on topics that were (and remain) central to American public life.

As the title indicates, his main focus is on Marxism. He discusses Marx and his place in the history of ideas, the destruction wrought by his dangerous ideology, the manner in which his followers have covered up his errors, and how the Marxists themselves have worked for so long to save Marxism from itself. He discusses Marxist claims about history and refutes the Marxist smear of the Industrial Revolution.

The approach is systematic but casual, so the reader encounters wonderful insights in the form of short asides. For example, "The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends."

As a lecturer, Mises is steady and relentless. The reader can nearly "hear" him speaking through the prose. And there are times when he reveals a level of rhetorical passion that you would never encounter in print. That's because what is printed here are not prepared lectures. They were transcribed by Bettina Bien Greaves from what he actually said.

Thus can we hear this passage: "It is not true, as Marx said, that the improvements in technology are available only to the exploiters and that the masses are living in a state much worse than on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. Everything the Marxists say about exploitation is absolutely wrong! Lies! In fact, capitalism made it possible for many persons to survive who wouldn't have otherwise."

Some readers of Mises's larger works have said that while his rigor is dazzling, the man himself can seem remote. Whether or not you agree with this observation, Mises comes across in these lectures as brilliant but very warm and charming in an old world sense."

Vlad, that is an excellent book; thanks for sharing. The whole thesis of Mises centers around "price signals" being a far more accurate data point for deciding how to allocate resources than any central committee of bumbling corrupt bureaucrats could ever achieve.

Price Signals as Information Aggregators

In a free market, prices serve as signals that aggregate and convey vast amounts of information about supply and demand. These signals are generated through the interactions of numerous individuals and firms, each acting on their own local knowledge and preferences. This decentralized process allows for a more accurate and dynamic reflection of market conditions than any centralized committee could achieve

.Efficient Resource Allocation

Price signals guide resource allocation by indicating where resources are most valued. When prices are high for a particular good or service, it signals that demand is strong relative to supply, encouraging producers to increase production and investors to allocate more resources to that sector. Conversely, low prices indicate weak demand or surplus supply, prompting producers to reduce production or shift resources to other areas

.Incentivizing Innovation and Efficiency

Prices also provide incentives for innovation and efficiency. Firms that can produce goods or services at lower costs can offer them at competitive prices, attracting more customers and increasing their market share. This competitive pressure drives continuous improvement in production methods, product quality, and service delivery.

Adaptability to Change

Market prices are highly responsive to changes in supply and demand conditions. When market conditions change (e.g., due to technological advancements, changes in consumer preferences, or natural disasters), prices adjust quickly to reflect these new conditions. This adaptability is vital for ensuring that resources are reallocated efficiently in response to changing circumstances

.Limitations of Central Planning

In contrast, centralized planning committees lack the detailed, localized knowledge and the dynamic feedback mechanisms that market prices provide. Without price signals, central planners must rely on incomplete and often outdated information, leading to inefficiencies and misallocations of resources. This is because no single entity or committee can gather and process the vast amount of information that is dispersed among market participants.

The Soviet Union

The Soviet Union's experience with central planning is often cited as an example of the failures of socialism in practice. Despite having vast resources and a highly educated workforce, the Soviet economy was plagued by inefficiencies, shortages, and misallocations due to the lack of market price signals. This led to chronic problems such as long queues for basic goods, poor product quality, and a general lack of innovation. Mises's argument that socialist systems cannot replicate the efficiency of market price signals is rooted in the understanding that prices are a powerful mechanism for aggregating information, incentivizing efficiency, and facilitating adaptive resource allocation. This critique remains the ultimate resource for market advocates for debates about the relative merits of market-based versus centrally planned economic systems

[Dilip Panjwani]

As a broad generalization, there is nothing noteworthy in either extreme. One is based on a fairy tale and the other on control/repression.

"There is nothing healthy in being well-adjusted to a sick society".
- attributed to J. Krishnamurti

Given the brain-washing done by a sick society, the promise of Libertarianism may sound like a fairy tale to you; you need to think beyond the biases of the sick society to understand its true potential!

[Peter McKillop]

Thanks, Vlad.
Yes, the system most aligned with realism is Libertarianism, while the most delusory is Marxism.

As a broad generalization, there is nothing noteworthy in either extreme. One is based on a fairy tale and the other on control/repression.

"There is nothing healthy in being well-adjusted to a sick society".
- attributed to J. Krishnamurti

[Dilip Panjwani]

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00...w_myk_ro_title
This masterwork is much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology. In short, Mises set out to refute socialism, and instead yanked out the egalitarian mentality from its very roots. For that reason, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis led dozens of famous intellectuals, including a young F.A. Hayek, into a crisis of faith and a realist/libertarian political orientation. All the collectivist literature combined cannot equal the intellectual achievement of this one volume.



https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00...w_myk_ro_title
"We can't sit at the feet of Mises at his famous Vienna private seminar. We can't go back in time and attend his New York seminar, or follow him to the speaking engagements that he held in the 1950s and '60s.

But we do have access to what he said. He is warm, funny, passionate, and learned. This book provides a candid look at the man and his teaching style. It demonstrates his dazzling command over the material, and teaches in a breezier way than his treatises.

This volume contains nine lectures delivered over one week, from June 23 to July 3, 1952, at the San Francisco Public Library. Mises was at his prime as a teacher and lecturer. He shares a lifetime of learning on topics that were (and remain) central to American public life.

As the title indicates, his main focus is on Marxism. He discusses Marx and his place in the history of ideas, the destruction wrought by his dangerous ideology, the manner in which his followers have covered up his errors, and how the Marxists themselves have worked for so long to save Marxism from itself. He discusses Marxist claims about history and refutes the Marxist smear of the Industrial Revolution.

The approach is systematic but casual, so the reader encounters wonderful insights in the form of short asides. For example, "The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends."

As a lecturer, Mises is steady and relentless. The reader can nearly "hear" him speaking through the prose. And there are times when he reveals a level of rhetorical passion that you would never encounter in print. That's because what is printed here are not prepared lectures. They were transcribed by Bettina Bien Greaves from what he actually said.

Thus can we hear this passage: "It is not true, as Marx said, that the improvements in technology are available only to the exploiters and that the masses are living in a state much worse than on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. Everything the Marxists say about exploitation is absolutely wrong! Lies! In fact, capitalism made it possible for many persons to survive who wouldn't have otherwise."

Some readers of Mises's larger works have said that while his rigor is dazzling, the man himself can seem remote. Whether or not you agree with this observation, Mises comes across in these lectures as brilliant but very warm and charming in an old world sense."

Thanks, Vlad.
Yes, the system most aligned with realism is Libertarianism, while the most delusory is Marxism.

[Vlad Drkulec]

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00...w_myk_ro_title
This masterwork is much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology. In short, Mises set out to refute socialism, and instead yanked out the egalitarian mentality from its very roots. For that reason, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis led dozens of famous intellectuals, including a young F.A. Hayek, into a crisis of faith and a realist/libertarian political orientation. All the collectivist literature combined cannot equal the intellectual achievement of this one volume.



https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00...w_myk_ro_title
"We can't sit at the feet of Mises at his famous Vienna private seminar. We can't go back in time and attend his New York seminar, or follow him to the speaking engagements that he held in the 1950s and '60s.

But we do have access to what he said. He is warm, funny, passionate, and learned. This book provides a candid look at the man and his teaching style. It demonstrates his dazzling command over the material, and teaches in a breezier way than his treatises.

This volume contains nine lectures delivered over one week, from June 23 to July 3, 1952, at the San Francisco Public Library. Mises was at his prime as a teacher and lecturer. He shares a lifetime of learning on topics that were (and remain) central to American public life.

As the title indicates, his main focus is on Marxism. He discusses Marx and his place in the history of ideas, the destruction wrought by his dangerous ideology, the manner in which his followers have covered up his errors, and how the Marxists themselves have worked for so long to save Marxism from itself. He discusses Marxist claims about history and refutes the Marxist smear of the Industrial Revolution.

The approach is systematic but casual, so the reader encounters wonderful insights in the form of short asides. For example, "The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends."

As a lecturer, Mises is steady and relentless. The reader can nearly "hear" him speaking through the prose. And there are times when he reveals a level of rhetorical passion that you would never encounter in print. That's because what is printed here are not prepared lectures. They were transcribed by Bettina Bien Greaves from what he actually said.

Thus can we hear this passage: "It is not true, as Marx said, that the improvements in technology are available only to the exploiters and that the masses are living in a state much worse than on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. Everything the Marxists say about exploitation is absolutely wrong! Lies! In fact, capitalism made it possible for many persons to survive who wouldn't have otherwise."

Some readers of Mises's larger works have said that while his rigor is dazzling, the man himself can seem remote. Whether or not you agree with this observation, Mises comes across in these lectures as brilliant but very warm and charming in an old world sense."

[Dilip Panjwani]

Just trying to stay in practice.

Do not hesitate to let me know if you need any more clarifications...

[Pargat Perrer]

Just trying to stay in practice.

LOL ok .... but it's kind of mean, making Dilip think he actually has a captive audience who are thinking his nonsense might have some viability. We all know he's never going to see his version of Libertarianism, he will die of old age still saying "enforce natural law .... easy access to capital .... enforce natural law .... easy access to capital ...." in a delerium.

[Peter McKillop]

Peter, why do you even try to get a proper answer from this clueless cultist? You KNOW he has no proper answers to give!

This just keeps going around in circles, you are all just dogs chasing your tail.

Just trying to stay in practice.

[Dilip Panjwani]

UBI is a simple and eloquent idea, it has my full support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ-p...nnel=TEDxTalks

Thanks for the link to the video, Bob G.
The government gave up the idea because:
1. The majority were unhappy with it.
2. It led to the majority of 'net recipients' resorting to laziness/leisure.
3. The government would have to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers who currently 'work' on the programs UBI is meant to replace.
4. The corrupt politicians' corrupt friends in business would never allow the discontinuation of 'corporate subsidy'.
5. Because UBI is universal and straightforward, the corrupt politicians would not be able to buy votes by 'selling' the programs which UBI would be replacing to the special interest groups enjoying those programs.

Libertarianism provides a much more workable and fairer solution to betterment of society....

[Pargat Perrer]

1. Can you give us a specific example of a provision in the "Natural Law" that would protect the "not so rich" from exploitation by the rich?
2. Who would draw up and codify this Natural Law? By any chance would it be .... the rich, i.e. the people who have the wealth and power to put themselves in charge?
3. If your answer to question 2 is yes, it would be the rich, then where would this spirit of egalitarianism come from whereby the powerful would enact laws to protect the not-wealthy from the wealthy? I'm asking this question because you've previously expressed admiration for Peter Thiel, a wealthy individual, who has made it clear that he feels no obligation to help those less fortunate than he is. And Thiel is not alone among his fellow billionaires. So in your libertarian world, Dilip, where will all of these powerful Boy Scouts come from?

Peter, why do you even try to get a proper answer from this clueless cultist? You KNOW he has no proper answers to give!

This just keeps going around in circles, you are all just dogs chasing your tail.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Peter,
No one needs to codify the Natural Law...it has always been the same and will always be the same: 'No one can harm anyone, except in fair competition' (and we have discussed what this means, previously).

Yes ... you defined fair as "using no means to harm others". And so the "except in fair competition" can be removed and Natural Law basically says "No one can harm anyone, period." which of course means all use of fossil fuels must stop immediately because it harms everyone!!!

You wrote "Those who are found to be committing the offences (or deliberately filing frivolous suits) would be the primary bearers of the cost of this enforcement". So any company using fossil fuels must pay ongoing fines until they cease using fossil fuel.

You have to find another definition for "fair". THAT IS THE PART THAT HAS TO BE CODIFIED, SO PETER IS CORRECT TO ASK ABOUT THIS CODIFICATION.

Under your definition, the fair competition clause is NO CLAUSE AT ALL.

... The main rationale for Marxism, ensuring that the 'workers' are paid a fair wage, will be more than adequately realized by Libertarianism's provision of easy access to capital, as the demand for 'workers' will multiply, and the supply drop, enabling the workers to successfully demand better wages simply by market forces...
.....

ahhh yes, for sure the supply of workers WILL drop. Resulting in much higher wages, resulting in higher inflation, resulting in businesses going out of business because they can't find cheap workers, but Chinese and other non-Libertarian nations will have plenty of low-wage workers and wlll undercut your prices until you are out of business.

This "easy capital" (free money, basically) skews the market causing economic chaos .... until everything corrects itself and we end up with what we have now .... a sustainable balance between entrepreneurs and workers.

Meanwhile, the providers of "easy capital" are also going out of business, not getting ROI. People who aren't meant to ever be entrepreneurs, who can't run a business, who go bankrupt in droves, will also cause chaos in the market AS HAPPENED IN THE 2000 DOT COM BUBBLE.

You just can't admit that this dream of yours is fundamentally FLAWED. It was tried and it failed spectacularly.

[Pargat Perrer]

Okay! So the hard and smart working tax payers have to pay for the Leisure activities of all Marxists too!! Add that to your DM principles, Bob!!!

Yes, exactly .... because it is a business expense. If you run a business with many workers, and you want your workers happy and productive, you pay taxes so that the government makes their lives happy and healthy. As a businessperson, you understand that this is a necessary business expense.

Of course, you can always be a Scrooge and penny pinch to the extreme and even refuse to pay taxes, maybe via fraud or maybe using legitimate loopholes. Buf if your penny-pinching results in many workers leaving, and you have to go through the hiring process again and again, and you have trouble finding qualified candidates ... you will eventually realize you need to stop the penny-pinching.

You see, Dilip, your fantasyland utopia of everyone becoming an entrepreneur because they have "easy access to capital" LOL can never be realized. It's certainly not happening in "Libertarian" Argentina. One reason it can't happen is that every business in order to grow needs workers. Workers are people who don't want or need to become entrepreneurs. They just want a steady job that they enjoy and that pays the bills. There are many of these people and they exist under all political systems. And all the systems, all the nations, need these people.

If you give them all free money (free because you will likely never get it back, as in the 2000 dot-com bubble), and tell them "go start your own business, be smart and hard-working", 90% of them will not achieve that. But if we imagine that they DID try and run their own business, guess what? No labor force! No workers! You have to offer HUGE wages and benefits to get someone to accept being a worker.

You have no understanding of basic economics.