Canada & Conservatism

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob, I appreciate your support for progressive taxation as a principle, but I take issue with how you align this with Marxism, a philosophy that goes far beyond tax policy. Marx explicitly called for the abolishment of private property—a stance incompatible with the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society.

Democracy is not merely about majority rule. In Canada, the Charter of Rights, and in the United States, the Constitution, exist precisely to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. These documents ensure that no government, no matter how popular, can infringe on fundamental freedoms—be it through authoritarian overreach or policies that disregard individual rights.

Your assertion that your brand of Marxism differs from historical examples, such as the USSR, is contradicted by your support for regimes like Venezuela under Maduro. The international community widely rejects Maduro's leadership because of his systematic erosion of democracy, including the suppression of free and fair elections. His actions demonstrate that Marxist rhetoric often leads to the same oppressive outcomes we’ve seen in past regimes.

Moreover, your occasional alignment with the Marxist-Leninist Party on Facebook undermines your claim of being distinct from traditional Marxist doctrine. Advocacy for specific causes may seem harmless, but supporting groups with such ideologies send a clear message about your broader political stance. Actions often speak louder than words.

The progressive taxation system you support can coexist with democratic principles, but it is entirely separate from Marxism. If you want to advocate for progressive policies, perhaps it's time to reconsider labeling yourself as a Marxist, as the term carries implications far beyond what you seem to intend.

---

I guess what you are saying is that sensible progressive taxation, like indirect taxation (which the wealthy end up paying more according to what they spend) is a reasonable principle, but Marxists take it to an entirely absurd level, like huge progressive direct taxation in order to support everyone, including those who do not choose to work hard and smart...

[Dilip Panjwani]

There is an obvious flaw in your argument. I'll leave it to you to discover it yourself. :)

Ha! That is another way of saying I do not know what is the flaw, but I am stubborn enough to stick with my point even though there may may be a valid argument against it!!

[Bob Gillanders]

If you want to advocate for progressive policies, perhaps it's time to reconsider labeling yourself as a Marxist, as the term carries implications far beyond what you seem to intend.

Bob A, Sid's suggestion is worth considering. The Marxist brand has just too much baggage attached to it, justified or not.

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob, I appreciate your support for progressive taxation as a principle, but I take issue with how you align this with Marxism, a philosophy that goes far beyond tax policy. Marx explicitly called for the abolishment of private property—a stance incompatible with the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society.

Democracy is not merely about majority rule. In Canada, the Charter of Rights, and in the United States, the Constitution, exist precisely to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. These documents ensure that no government, no matter how popular, can infringe on fundamental freedoms—be it through authoritarian overreach or policies that disregard individual rights.

Your assertion that your brand of Marxism differs from historical examples, such as the USSR, is contradicted by your support for regimes like Venezuela under Maduro. The international community widely rejects Maduro's leadership because of his systematic erosion of democracy, including the suppression of free and fair elections. His actions demonstrate that Marxist rhetoric often leads to the same oppressive outcomes we’ve seen in past regimes.

Moreover, your occasional alignment with the Marxist-Leninist Party on Facebook undermines your claim of being distinct from traditional Marxist doctrine. Advocacy for specific causes may seem harmless, but supporting groups with such ideologies send a clear message about your broader political stance. Actions often speak louder than words.

The progressive taxation system you support can coexist with democratic principles, but it is entirely separate from Marxism. If you want to advocate for progressive policies, perhaps it's time to reconsider labeling yourself as a Marxist, as the term carries implications far beyond what you seem to intend.

---

[Bob Gillanders]

Canadian Taxation



It is what is called "progressive". The more income you earn in a year, the higher rate of tax on your earnings you pay. The reason is that if you have profited most from the society developed by all, then you should contribute back the most.

Do CT'ers (regardless of your country of residence) also object to this law passed by the majority of Canadians, and left in place for eons (Like Vlad [Post # 11], Dilip [Post # 13] and Tom [Post # 14], who argue it is "legal theft")?

If so, do you have any reason beyond that given by Vlad, Dilip and Tom.

Bob A (Supporter of Canadian Progressive Taxation)

Thanks Bob A. Good post. Progressive taxation is the best way to go.

It seems that Dilip feels that if he can just state his position just one more time, that we'll all agree.
Sorry Dilip, still not buying it. There is an obvious flaw in your argument. I'll leave it to you to discover it yourself. :)

[Dilip Panjwani]

...if you have profited most from the society developed by all, then you should contribute back the most.


Bob A (Supporter of Canadian Progressive Taxation)

Let us delve deeper into the above statement:
The first question is, why is it that only some, and not all, have profited proportionately to their efforts? We know that there are ups and downs in everyone's fortunes for no fault of their own, but these are generally temporary, and should not affect the majority for a life-time! So, is there something wrong in our society which prevents all hard and smart working people from remaining well supported by their own hard and smart work over a life-time? It seems that the underlying problem in our society is that we have given a lot of power to our politicians, forgetting that power corrupts, and these corrupted politicians have made a myriad of unnecessary regulations, which in fact prevents the rigorous enforcement of the simple Natural Law, or provide easy access of capital to all, as well as disillusions people away from being charitable.
Therefore, is it not better to correct that fault in our society (which could include having safeguards for misfortunes, which includes easy access to capital and a charitable network for the orphaned/disabled, which has existed in all healthy civilizations in the form of the extended family and 'village'), and ensure that no one can harm anyone else except in fair competition, rather than resort to another wrong of 'stealing' from the wealthy, forgetting that two wrongs do not make a right, and forgetting that many of the wealthy have become so not because of, but despite the society they live and work in and therefore do not owe to the society any progressive direct taxation... get it, Bob A?

[Bob Armstrong]

Canadian Taxation



It is what is called "progressive". The more income you earn in a year, the higher rate of tax on your earnings you pay. The reason is that if you have profited most from the society developed by all, then you should contribute back the most.

Do CT'ers (regardless of your country of residence) also object to this law passed by the majority of Canadians, and left in place for eons (Like Vlad [Post # 11], Dilip [Post # 13] and Tom [Post # 14], who argue it is "legal theft")?

If so, do you have any reason beyond that given by Vlad, Dilip and Tom.

Bob A (Supporter of Canadian Progressive Taxation)

[Tom O'Donnell]

The problem with pure democracies is that people can convince themselves that because they are voting in the majority that therefore what they are doing is moral and good. Governments should not be a method where people can engage in acts which allow them to "legally" violate Natural law. Using taxation to steal from people violates their property rights.

[Dilip Panjwani]

...some problems that have happened in implementing Democratic Socialism (If that is what Venezuela is)

Bob A

Some problems? Venezuela is full of problems, thanks to its Marxism, which is nothing but utter nonsense, for all the reasons you have been repeatedly given, and have no sensible argument against any of those facts, but in your stubbornness, just choose to ignore them, and continue to have blind faith in your DM!

[Bob Armstrong]

Vlad - some aspects are factual about some problems that have happened in implementing Democratic Socialism (If that is what Venezuela is; it is certainly not "Communist" and does not so self-label); the rest is "utter nonsense".

Bob A

[Vlad Drkulec]

1. to bring more wealth/income equality into society - most of society is hard and smart working citizens; but there will always, under any system, be some who are more financially successful than the majority, and will be the "wealthy" (but not so abominably so).
2. a progressive taxation system is redistribution of wealth/income in order to make society more equal; it is a law passed by the majority of society democratically; no one is being "robbed"!!

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

That is complete and utter nonsense. If the majority decides to rob and murder people does that make it right? I don't think so.

Marxism is a system built on envy and murder. It cannot work because you kill the people or at least neutralize the people who help create the wealth in the first place. The problem is that if you just look at the surface of things and are a sociopath as most Marxists are, then you say, "Oh this person has more than me. Let me take everything he has. They also usually then murder the person and his family but lets say they don't. Once they have taken all his money, how long will this person's wealth last, now that you have killed the Golden Goose? Not very long. The Marxist leaders have large appetites that must be quenched. They have to move on to less wealthy people. They take everything that they have. Everything is fine for perhaps a few weeks. Pretty soon the second tier of robbed people's wealth runs out and you have to go to the third tier, and the fourth tier and so on. In actual practice the people you robbed are also murdered as it doesn't do to have them hanging around as they are very unhappy and might seek to do the Marxist leaders harm. Pretty soon you have the situation that you had in Venezuela and you have already eaten all the zoo animals.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism (DM) - Goal

a progressive taxation system is redistribution of wealth/income in order to make society more equal; it is a law passed by the majority of society democratically; no one is being "robbed"!!

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Just because Marxists pass laws to enable forceful snatching of large amounts of wealth earned by hard and smart work, does not make the robbing a good thing...it continues to be immoral and hence BAD for the society as a whole... especially when there are fairer, more sensible ways, as outlined by me earlier and including charity, to achieve fairness and equity for all.

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism (DM) - Goal

a. According to Dilip:

1. a laudable goal - ensuring that all hard and smart working citizens are wealthy (and not just a few lucky ones);

but

2. a stupid, self-defeating goal - robbing the wealthy and redistributing it to all others.

b. According to DM:

Neither of Dilip's iterations are the goals of Marxism - he is spouting trite "propaganda", to undermine the strength of DM. The accurate goals are:



1. to bring more wealth/income equality into society - most of society is hard and smart working citizens; but there will always, under any system, be some who are more financially successful than the majority, and will be the "wealthy" (but not so abominably so).
2. a progressive taxation system is redistribution of wealth/income in order to make society more equal; it is a law passed by the majority of society democratically; no one is being "robbed"!!

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

[B]

...redistributing wealth to build a utopian society

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

While ensuring that all hard and smart working citizens are wealthy (and not just a few lucky ones), is a laudable goal, the socialist way of keeping on robbing the wealthy and redistributing it to all others is a stupid, self-defeating way of achieving this; instead, strict enforcement of the Natural Law to prevent the wealthy (in collusion with the corrupt politicians) from unfairly exploiting the not-so-wealthy, and giving the latter easy access to capital to be able to compete fairly, is the surest way of achieving long-lasting equity...

[Bob Armstrong]

The Wrong Conservative Interpretation of Nazism



Some Conservatives Upset

"Bob Ransford, a well-known Vancouver real estate developer, responded to [Pierre] Poilievre’s [interpretation of Nazism - July post on X]:

“As a long time Conservative who has campaigned against socialism in Canada I am APPALLED at your effort to attempt to equate democratic socialism in our country with Nazism,” Ransford wrote. “Shame on you! You have dragged national politics down to a new level.”

Pierre's Position

July 2021 post on X: “Woke left goes crazy when people point out the undeniable historical fact that ‘national socialists’ in Germany & Italy were, as the name proves, ‘socialists.’ Fascism/socialism/communism glorifies the state over the people and always with the same horrific result.”

Correct Position

a. Popular View of Fascism

Fascism — a rigid, militaristic regime that venerated nationalism, conquest and imposing extreme views of racial superiority, which included killing millions of Jewish people and members of other marginalized groups.

b. Expert Historians View

- the central ideology of Nazism was racism.

- Robert Paxton, American historian
"its initial antibourgeois and anticapitalist program [are discarded once it has power].”

- Heidi Tworek, history professor at the University of British Columbia
a. "To understand so much of their ideology, you have to understand how it’s underpinned by antisemitism and racial hierarchies".
b. "[In] the media industry, there are rules about not owning more than one newspaper, so that the Nazis themselves can control the media industry".
"government [is given] the power to control certain industries, while in other areas — like weapons manufacturing — it supported large, private companies.

- Ronald J. Granieri, history professor, in the Washington Post in 2020:
a. attempts to link the fascism of the Nazis to socialism are deeply inaccurate.
b. “Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a utopian society, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy....They promised solidarity for members of the Volksgemeinschaft (‘racial community’) even as they denied rights to those outside the charmed circle.” -

The Tyee - Angle Newsletter - 24/11/26

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)