Canada & Progressives

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip (I know.....I said I wouldn't take the bait [sigh])

I tried my best in the Democratic Marxism thread......



That CT group developed a set of DM Statements that were generally considered acceptable to that CT'er group.

There were discussed probably over 20 Discussion Papers on DM issued by the Democratic Marxist Global Institute.

All we ever got from you was: You're not answering the questions, ad nauseum. No one sided with you except Syd. Other CT'ers gave feedback on topic, but not you.

At some point I have to get the message being delivered by you.......

Others must try to get you to understand that the answers are in the wealth of DM material already presented.

And I have told the world that the CT thread on DM is one of the best places to start researching on this new concepts party.

One example only: yes, in that, is the statement that entrepreneurs will be valued in a DM society for the same contributions they make to capitalism, though without exorbitant, obscene profits made on the back of society generally - to just show that you don't want answers.....you just want super-critical, unbased, monologue....your monologue.

Bob A (DM'er)

P.S. I agree with Bob G - if I have to choose between Libertarianism and Democratic Marxism, I too will choose DM. I don't know about the other CT'ers on this new thread I started, but they can speak for themselves, if interested enough to answer Dilip and his Libertarian presentations, as the alternative to DM.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dear Bob,

I had provided an extensive response and a set of questions for you in response to the set of statements on DM that you had posted not too long ago. So it is not true that I did not give feedback.
FYI, smart and hard-working entrepreneurs do not make obscene profits; they work extremely hard to make a decent, comfortable living, with some savings for retirement, but your DM would forcefully snatch away more than 60% (?more than 75%) of what they earn, and so it would become more attractive for them to stop sweating (which they did not mind originally) and relax more, as health care, dental care, children's education, housing, travel, etc. etc. would all be free, leading to the society losing wealth creation by these entrepreneurs. That is what eventually happened in Chile under Allende, and the inflation rate shot to 3-digits, and everybody got poorer...
Those who make obscene income are those who bribe the 'all-powerful' politicians into letting them do so unfairly... These politicians make the earnings of a life-time while they are in power, even though they end up eventually being booted out by DM, only to be replaced by another set of all-powerful politicians, who do the same as their predecessors... (That is why in Libertarianism politicians do not have any 'power' over others, and all the efforts of the government are directed towards enforcing swiftly and comprehensively the Natural Law, to which the politicians are also subject to. As mentioned earlier on discussion on this, one of the main tricks criminals employ in preventing being found liable is 'privacy', which would not be allowed in Libertarianism. The inability of the poor to seek justice because of inability to hire hard-working lawyers who themselves do a lot of investigation, will also not exist in Libertarianism).

Do you realize that the above is the reason that the vast majority of people (including Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Indians, Arabs and Africans) stay away from Marxist principles, which your DM espouses.

[Pargat Perrer]

Good plan. Ignore the trolls.

For the record, I think the world needs to come together somehow, in a loose global framework, allowing for diverse political and economic systems, encouraging democracy and the elimination of human exploitation and environmental collapse. That system does not currently exist, but hopefully will evolve over time.

That is my hope, it maybe is a pipe dream.

Given the choice between Democratic Socialism and Libertarianism, I choose DM.

Hopefully we can evolve.

Very nice post! (just one minor correction: DM stands for Democratic Marxism, not Democratic Socialism, but it's really the same, is it Bob A?)

The unfortunate truth about the changes needed that you speak of is that it cannot happen without a massive, worldwide DIE-OFF of human population. The preponderance of cancerous elitists running the world cannot at this stage be displaced by revolution or coups d'etats or anything else besides total economic / environmental collapse of society. Then the survivors must keep records of all past events to realize what happened.

and then, as you said Bob G, we evolve.

Bob, I was wondering what you think of my take on the Canadian election? Do you think Canadians did what those elephants did in response to a crisis they were unfamiliar with (earthquake) in the video I saw? The elephants came running from all directions, into a circle they formed around their young. In the election, it seemed to me Canadians, dealing with a very unfamiliar crisis of an antagonistic USA, gathered in a circle and voted centrist. like the elephants forming that small circle.

[Pargat Perrer]

FYI, Bob G, pointing out the problems with DM is not trolling. If Bob A wants to tell everyone that DM is beneficial, he should be able to answer the points raised which show that it would be disastrous...

Oh my god, the utter HYPOCRISY!!!!

THE UNMITIGATED HYPOCRISY !!!!

I pointed out all the problems with Libertarianism and got labelled by this piece of shit as a "nasty troll" in response. He was unable to answer the points raised which showed that LIbertarianism would be disastrous ....

WHAT AN UTTER PIECE OF HYPOCRITIC SHIT IS DILIP PANJWANI.

[Pargat Perrer]

......
FYI, smart and hard-working entrepreneurs do not make obscene profits; they work extremely hard to make a decent, comfortable living, with some savings for retirement, but your DM would forcefully snatch away more than 60% (?more than 75%) of what they earn, and so it would become more attractive for them to stop sweating (which they did not mind originally) and relax more, as health care, dental care, children's education, housing, travel, etc. etc. would all be free, leading to the society losing wealth creation by these entrepreneurs.
.....

What percentage of the general population is "smart"???

Let's say 25 percent. That's 1/4.

What percentage of the general population turns out to be "hard-working"?

[People who dig ditches for minimum wage are "hard-working", can we say the same for those who invent pet rocks and other useless paraphenalia that sell millions?]

Maybe another 25 percent. Another 1/4.

Then it would be /16th (1/4 x 1/4, basic math) of the world population that is smart AND hard-working. That's a best-case scenario, it assumes that 1/4 of the smart class are also hard-working, which is sure to be false because smart people tend to be lazy people, inventing ways to do LESS work.

So in the best case scenario, 15 out of 16 people in the world don't fit into Dilip's elitist world view.

Ok, so these 1 out of every 16 are smart and hard-working people. But now Dilip says that if they were taxed on their profits, they would CEASE to be hard-working.

So the smart and hard-working are hard-working ONLY AS LONG AS THEY EARN MAXIMUM MONEY FOR THEIR WORK. TAKE AWAY ANY OF THAT MONEY AND THEY CEASE TO BE HARD-WORKING.

This means that only smart people who are WELL PAID are also HARD WORKING.

Ditch diggers of the world, do you agree?

Tobacco pickers, do you agree?

Fruit and vegetable harvesters, do you agree?

Nannies, do you agree?

Homemaker women, do you agree?

I would argue that all of those people WHO ARE TAXED FAR MORE THAN MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES are more HARD-WORKING than anyone else. So Dilip ... the smart and hard-working class is the WORST class in the world, they only work hard out of pure selfishness while the lower classes work hard just to pay for food on their tables. and when they get taxed they KEEP WORKING HARD.

[Dilip Panjwani]

When there are more entrepreneurs, there are more jobs, and less people aspiring for those jobs, leading to greater remuneration for those who do the jobs. Everyone becomes richer. The opposite happens in Marxism. In Marxism, as happened in Chile under Allende, the government may create jobs and pay well, but these government-run enterprises generate a lot of loss, paid for by the government by printing money, leading to inflation, which reached about 150% in Chile under Allende, making everyone poorer...
And by the way, no one keeps working hard in Marxism, because all essentials are provided free by the government even if you do not work at all....

[Dilip Panjwani]

Oh my god, the utter HYPOCRISY!!!!

THE UNMITIGATED HYPOCRISY !!!!

I pointed out all the problems with Libertarianism and got labelled by this piece of shit as a "nasty troll" in response. He was unable to answer the points raised which showed that LIbertarianism would be disastrous ....

WHAT AN UTTER PIECE OF HYPOCRITIC SHIT IS DILIP PANJWANI.

Hey Nasty Troll PP, you did not point out anything wrong with Libertarianism... you just insulted those who supported Libertarianism...

[Tom O'Donnell]

Voluntary trade is not a zero-sum or negative-sum exchange. If you want to make money you exchange your energy, time, and skills providing other people with something they want. If you can scale this to thousands or millions of people, you make money off of thousands or millions of trades.

A personal example: I own a computer. I use the computer to teach chess online. Without the computer, I cannot teach chess online. In exchange for paying every few years for a new computer, I can provide chess teaching for people who want it and make money. I do not begrudge the people who created the computer and sold it to me, even if they made billions selling computers to millions of people and made money off them. Without the exchange, I would be worse off, so instead of railing against how much they make, I thank them.

Capitalism works well with human nature. People have different levels of skills, of work ethic, of intelligence. Capitalism allows everyone to enrich themselves as much as they want by providing value to other people. Government, on the other hand, often allows people to enrich themselves without providing value to anyone.

Dilip (I know.....I said I wouldn't take the bait [sigh])

...

One example only: yes, in that, is the statement that entrepreneurs will be valued in a DM society for the same contributions they make to capitalism, though without exorbitant, obscene profits made on the back of society generally - to just show that you don't want answers.....you just want super-critical, unbased, monologue....your monologue.

...

[Pargat Perrer]

When there are more entrepreneurs, there are more jobs, and less people aspiring for those jobs, leading to greater remuneration for those who do the jobs. Everyone becomes richer. The opposite happens in Marxism. In Marxism, as happened in Chile under Allende, the government may create jobs and pay well, but these government-run enterprises generate a lot of loss, paid for by the government by printing money, leading to inflation, which reached about 150% in Chile under Allende, making everyone poorer...
And by the way, no one keeps working hard in Marxism, because all essentials are provided free by the government even if you do not work at all....

You mention inflation due to printing money....

But before that, you mention more jobs and less people to do them, leading to greater remuneration, and LOL "everyone becomes richer".

No -- greater cost of production leads to inflation.

Please take ECON 101 at your nearest university.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hey Nasty Troll PP, you did not point out anything wrong with Libertarianism... you just insulted those who supported Libertarianism...

Actually, I did BOTH and the insults were directed at YOU and were done with EXTREME PREJUDICE.

You just won't admit to anything being wrong with Libertarianism, you wear rose coloured glasses.

[Pargat Perrer]

....
Capitalism allows everyone to enrich themselves as much as they want by providing value to other people.

So ... pet rocks provide value to other people.

I wish I could think of many more examples, but Letterman and Leno did their bit to expose the uselessness of many capitalist products on their late night shows. For example, "Things we found on eBay".

The point being, capitalism produces a lot of GARBAGE that ends up floating in the Pacific Ocean.

Even Trump just referenced this notion ... he said his tariffs will cause Western families with young girls to have "2 dolls instead of 30 dolls".

Government, on the other hand, often allows people to enrich themselves without providing value to anyone.

Now in comparison, you suggest ONLY government does this and does it often. Well ... quantify that. HOW OFTEN? HOW OFTEN COMPARED TO CAPITALISM?

Even if it's true, government still does one major service that capitalism doesn't: It provides value and services that no capitalist would dare touch, but which is still necessary to make a much better functioning society.

[Dilip Panjwani]

... the insults were directed at YOU and were done with EXTREME PREJUDICE.

One of the reasons why decent Chesstalkers have stated that you need to be kicked out of Chesstalk...

[Dilip Panjwani]

You mention inflation due to printing money....

But before that, you mention more jobs and less people to do them, leading to greater remuneration, and LOL "everyone becomes richer".

No -- greater cost of production leads to inflation.

In Libertarianism, the effect of better wages is counterbalanced by disappearance of obscene profits and increased efficiencies because of increased competition, and hence inflation does not occur...

[Tom O'Donnell]

Let's deal with this part first. Lots of things create no value to me. An example: I don't own a television. It would not hurt me at all if there was no television. If you gave me a free television I would not take it unless I could sell it.

However, just because I derive no value from something doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold to people who want it. If there's a market for something then, assuming there is no law against it, buyer and seller can try to come to a fair price.

No one is forcing anyone to buy things. Except when the government taxes you; if you don't "buy" what they are "selling" you go to prison.

So, lottery tickets, astrologers, there was even a person who bought a piece of art that was literally nothing:

An Italian Artist Auctioned Off an ‘Invisible Sculpture’ for $18,300. It’s Made Literally of Nothing

Should this person be forbidden for selling this? Should the buyers (note: the final sale price was based on competitive bidding) be prevented from buying it? No, as long as both parties understand what they a selling/buying. I think it's nuts, but my opinion is irrelevant. The transaction has nothing to do with me. If someone wants to buy something voluntarily this implies that they value the good/service more than the money, again assuming they are informed about what they are buying.

So ... pet rocks provide value to other people.

...