Zeitgeist and ‘Marxism’
- This topic has 15 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following is a discussion on the page titled: Zeitgeist and ‘Marxism’.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!As a member and believer of the Zeitgeist Movement and it's overall proposals and synopsis, I basically agree with much of your post.To your credit and my frustration I do not understand why Peter, Jacque and so many others dismiss "Socialism", "Communism" and "Marxism" as if they are as distant from TZM's ideas as other capitalist systems. They are so similar that they belong to with very high fidelity, the same "genre" of systems, vastly different from any monetary-market economy with capitalist and property ideals.I believe they have done this in error knowing full well the similarities but figured they would not have received the world support they have now if they were associated with these movements as they have been demonised and supposedly been proven "false" by the failings of the Soviet Union etc. In my opinion it would have been better served declaring these similarities and defending them considering how ridiculous it is to call on the Soviet systems failure due to the lower communication technology of the era which made such a large scale socialist state untenable with corruption, a problem solved today even for a world encompassing socialist movement which because of technology could maintain direct democracy AND scientific assessment of resources/application of first pronciples. They also could have pointed out that the Soviet (and other) systems never really approximated the TRUE systems proposed in reality, more like "State Capitalism" in reality, and most importantly, they could have pointed out the overwhelming economic SUCCESSES that all major socialist/communist systems did have in the rapid development of technology and expansion of industry and the fact that they were actually ganged up on by a majority of the world with a majority of the wealth also and STRANGLED to death. "Intrinsic economic weakness" had far less to do with it obviously!Where I depart from you is on your declaration that TZM has not taken into account some issues like the class structure or has played down certain aspects you feel are more important. On the contrary TZM has taken into account everything by it's very nature encompassed within it's present scope. It is basically the most advanced and fleshed out version of Socialism we have to date, utilising systems theory, a notion inherent in some part but absent directly in Marxist literature and has been enabled by communication technology advance to be viable on a global scale.TZM is basically Communism on steroids! Stripped of all useless tissue and beefed up. Previous Socialist thinkers and systems can revere it's spawn just as TZM proponents SHOULD pay reverance to the ground work done by them all.The only thing needed to be addressed by TZM in my opinion is the "Contribution System", that is a system that determines the allocation of people to what work they need to do. Peter Joseph has so far simply declared people would volunteer for it and that far fewer jobs would be needed to be done which is a complete cop out of the issue. IT is the single thing that has made it untenable for basically any free thinking person and easy target for the power elite to pick on, but once that HAS been addressed and can be solved from scientific first principles as far as possible (eliminating the need for "politics") and then through a direct democratic approach in keeping with the theme of all it's other perfected systems operation, then I can think of no valid reason why or even HOW, every single person on the entire planet (other than maybe the top 1% of disgustingly rich people) could ever resist or not want to immediately adopt in worldwide with immediate urgency!You see I KNOW TZM will work.. Because the OLDER versions of Socialism worked!! (Yes TZM is obviously Socialism!)..The only difference is that it has become increasingly tenable and corruption resistant on larger and larger scales through improved theory and systems and the technology to provide the interface for participation necessary so that now it will work on any scale.We are all on the same side… I think we should stick together against the real enemies of our world, not squabble about petty differences amongst our very similar versions. As you said, the capitalists view all of us as pretty much the same and on this point they are right.
I am sure we can still be in comradely disagreement about some aspects of our positions. Even within our own organisations members are not clones of one another and there always is healthy debate and discussion about where we lay our emphasis and place our priorities. As i often say, we come to very similar conclusions by different routes and on that journey we acquire our own particular baggage and we should understand this. Let a thousand flowers blossom.
I think you are right that the reason Peter Joseph and his inner circle refuse to recognise that the world-wide moneyfree resource-based economy of abundance that TZM advocates is socialist or communist is fear of being tarred with the brush of what happened in state-capitalist Russia. It's a fear we can understand since we've had to put up with it for the whole period of the existence of the USSR and still do, but that hasn't made us abandon the word. Basically, Russia wasn't socialist and was not even on the road to it. The only constructive thing that came out of it was the theory of non-monetary, resource allocation associated with Kantorovich.Having followed the evolution of TZM from the start we have noticed a change towards recognising the class nature of present-day society. The other change, at least as far as TZMers like yourself are concerned, is a change towards recognising that a RBE/socialism has to be democratic. Originally, democracy as a form of organisation was dismissed as the mere counting of ignorant noses and some form of technocracy (decision-making by technical experts) envisaged instead. This was in fact the main difference between our conception of socialism and TZM's and may still be to some extent but not, as I said, in your case, as you write
Quote:technology could maintain direct democracy AND scientific assessment of resources/application of first pronciples.The other difference was over how to get there. We have always favoured democratic political action, involving electoral action, by people who want and understand socialism. TZM has traditionally eschewed politics, even this type of politics. We too reject conventional politics which is based on professional politicians seeking votes on the basis of saying trust me and I'll do this, that or the other for you. We favour do-it-yourself, democratic politics. Actually, Peter Joseph seems to have moved a little in this direction in favour mass action by people who want to establish an RBE, while not ruling out elections as one aspect of this.So, yes, there is some convergence between TZM and us not just over the goal to be achieved (a propertyless, moneyless world of abundance) but also over the means to get there. There are still difference of course as, for instance, over trying to gradually transform the present capitalist system into a RBE by means of a series of reforms. We reject such a reformist approach, along with that of trying to combine getting reforms to capitalism with working to replace it.. We favour an all-or-nothing revolution but an essentially peaceful one.We think that in the longer term concentrating on the spreading the idea of socialism/RBE is the most effective thing those of us who today want it can do.
I appreciate your very detailed response mate (yes I am Australian LOL) I'll just offer my thoughts on your main points because I haven't the luxury of much time just at the moment…Yes I don't know why Peter and others at the forefront of the movement are so sheepish when it comes to the question of similarities or reference to socialist systems. I would have thought men so bold as they are would have confronted that issue head on. I believe the movement would have been better served making it broad knowledge in the spirit of the endeavour exactly WHY such allegations about Marxism, communism and socialism are in fact flimsy or false.I don't subscribe to the notion that you guys have presented that the class structure issue has ever been dodged by TZM. In fact the term coined "Structural Classism" is purposely censored by the United States (you don't find a wiki article on it for a reason) and was coined I believe by the movement. At a glance I think Marxist thinkers have seen "classism" as more "causititve" where as TZM views classism as an inevitable negative result of such a system. The films even devote a significant portion of their rhetoric on the matter and if you don't already know there is already a definitive text describing TZM's position on these matters "Zeitgeist Defined"..If anybody on this site has not read Zeitgeist Defined with footnotes I recommend you definitely do, just as I was a supporter of socialist ideals long before Zeitgeist came along.You have most seriously mentioned democracy. I don't also believe TZM has made a "change" toward democracy. Capitalists have tried to criticise Fresco for being anti-democratic and all that but those comments are handwavable. For you gentleman on the other hand, I will offer my precise interpretation of the issue which I am sure is Mr. Joseph's and co's intent…"Scientific FIRST principles" are to be followed on all technical social problems as far as possible. THIS is by nature not democratic, and I believe should not be! The first principles are basically taken from logic and science in a way where there is no logical alternative and hence, it is NOT a political issue. Of course, there are not "Natural Laws" that can determine everything about a society and from the point where science cannot provide the complete answer, REAL DIRECT DEMOCRACY must prevail which TZM has always recognised. For reasons that require an essay to descibe but are logically hard to challenge, this seems the only logical way to reach conclusions for society. I am not sure what "you" envisioned as the train of thought but I will say this…I don't believe in the current "political system" as in the way we go about "politics" altogther. The whole concept of voting for a person or party of people to make decisions for you is totally archaic. Like PEter said we want to vote for ideas and actions, not for people! I don't think I have to disclose to a socialist forum why such an idea is inherently bad. That being said though, getting the people on side for change is of course the mode of operation chosen by TZM as opposed to violent revolution. You don't see the activist arm throwing molotovs for example.However although not implied in the text or video's or lectures, "overthrow" of the present system is actually an unstated goal in reality. The idea is that yeah, a reformist approach may be pushed outwardly but through mass education the idea is also to enlighten enough people to the truth about how digraceful the present trends are that the majority will revolt anyway. It doesn't take much ingenuity to see that.Personally I see just an updated version of socialism that has so far just failed to answer some difficult questions…For example, it's obvious that a first principle would be that everybody who can contribute should contribute to society as required on a fair and even basis to their respective ability. Therefore even in an environment with a drastically reduced NEED for work, every person should be prepared to pitch in a piece of the pie. That much isn't difficult. Except, who or what determines who does what work and where!! Obviously the proximity principle will come into play and education details (which is another system that needs to have its general theory fleshed out also) are one way to arbitrate "merit" for job placings that will also take into account not only need but individual desire to do the work they like. The problem isn't unsolvable, indeed I have no doubt there can be a complete socialist system, however it is a more difficult problem to solve in terms of meshing direct democracy and first principles than the others.Suffice to say that the same could be said for TZM's Production System, which I could not envision but always tried to in vain to imagine similarly to how Peter so beautifully presented it in terms of the Collaborative Design Interface concept replacing the traditional market. That very difficult problem was also solved.The main point of contention I have with TZM is how on the internal labour issue and the external issue of comparison to other socialist systems is that if they don't have an immediate answer to the accusation or problem, they gloss it over or handwave it. Thankfully the movement is so open source that it evolves continually.Another negative is that their website system sucks, they don't even have a working blog unlike you more organised fellows!! Great site gentleman sincerely! It is nice to be able to discuss such topics with genuine thinking people to be sure.And btw, since I am a new, I am respectful and open to any criticism or prompting for further info always. I belive in that. Please don't take brashness as a closed view of the world. I just believe in having a voice too.
G'day. Actually you are preaching to the converted. We have been advocated a moneyless world society of abundance before Peter Joseph and even Jacque Fresco were born !Here for instance is the blurb on the back of a booklet written by two of our sympathisers during the last World War:
Quote:The new social system must be world-wide. It must be a WORLD COMMONWEALTH. The world must be regarded as one country and humanity as one people.All the people will co-operate to produce and distribute all the goods and services which are needed by mankind, each person, willingly and freely, taking part in the way he feels he can do best.All goods and services will be produced for use only, and having been produced, will be distributed, free, directly to the people so that each person's needs are fully satisfied.The land, factories, machines, mines, roads, railways, ships, and all those things which mankind needs to carry on producing the means of life, will belong to the whole of the people.There's also this article from even further back:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1934/no-354-february-1934/money-businessAs to class, it wasn't meant as a criticism to say that TZM has eventually come round to recognising it. That's a good thing, though TZM seems to see the inevitable class struggle in a class-divided society as one social problm amongst many others. Whereas we see it as the motor and agent for changing from the capitalist wages-prices-money system to a classless, moneyfree society of production for use and distribution in accordance with the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to need". I should add that in our view the working class is not only those who work in factories but anybody compelled by economic necessity to try to sell their mental and physical skills to live, i.e the vast majority of the population. So by class struggle we mean this vast majority v the tiny minority who currently own and control the means of production and who benefit from this. Or if you like, nearly everybody v the oligarchs (Greek for the rule of the few).
Yes of course it echoes very closely the same ideas. The part where you illustrate the centrepoint of class as being the primary driver of problems and hence will ultimately necessitate it's solution (overthrow of the capitalist regime) is an example of structural violence which for non-readers can find extensive lecturing and a whole chapter or 2 devoted to it in "Moving Forward". Structural violence, behavioural science as outlayed by the Zeitgeist transcipt Moving Forward and in the texts and lectures and it's close examination of "inequality" also in moving forward- all reach these conclusions.The only thing I don't see in the writings of Karl Marx and his contempory's is a clearly defined and structurally sound alternative to a capitalist economy. I never seen Systems Theory applied to soicety in such an all encompassing way in order to solve the inherent problems of a transition which TZM basically annihilated so thoroughly as to leave pretty much no doubt as to capitalist, corportatist obsolescence.To be fair though, this is to be expected. Marx was thinking and operating within 19th century perspectives. He did not have any notion of the enabling technology that would be developed in the future and people like Fresco and Joseph had the luxury of being able to learn from the great thinkers before them.The small island economy with say 10 cast aways illustrates how silly and wasteful and structurally violent the capitalist system really is. IT would be ridiculous for each to specialise on the island and buy and sell the product each person contributes off each other. Living in a collective fashion is obviously the only way to do it and nobody would argue. The difference when applied to a nation or the world whole is simply scale! And with increasing scale comes increasing complexity with which comes increasing corruption and structural problems. However, with increasing communication and transport technology, comes the ability for ever greater monitoring and control over resources production and distribution and the ability for more and more mass participation.This last point was key because for the first time in history a kind of direct democracy through use of internet is now possible across the board rendering the previously more efficient "representative democracy" which was really a totalitarian farce anyway (voting was the only democrating practice which was only between 2 candidates who were selected as suitable anyway, hence a farce) completely obsolete- eliminating the wasteful effort and resources put into every representative democracy in trying to get reelected through their campaigns and always thinking solely in the short term.
You're right. Had Marx drawn up a detailed model of how a socialist (or communist, the two words meant the same to him) society might have worked, it wouldn't be of much practical use today, just of historical interest .After all, he knew nothing of the internal combustion engine or radio let alone atomic power and electronic computers or anything electronic. In fact this was one reason why he always refused to draw up a blueprint for socialism or, as he put it, write recipes for the cook-shops of the future.So he limited himself to saying what the basis of such a society would be, i.e common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, production directly to satisfy human needs and not for the market and so the disappearance of money, profits, working for wages, banks, etc. And of course democratic control involving the election of councils to run things. See here.We take the same position, though we have gone into more detail in this pamphlet as to how society could organise the production and distribution of useful goods and services with having recourse to markets and money:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativeEven this is outdated as it was first published in 1987 but have a read of it as it does deal with some of the questions you raise about how a moneyless society of abundance might work today.
My own experience of TZM is one of frustration, they refuse to deal with the issue of class ownership of the means of production believing that we can ignore it and build RBE, some even advocate lobbying Tory MP's to support 'green' investment.The fact is, the earth's resources are in the hands of a tiny minority and nothing short of revolution will change that reality.
Yes, there is a gap between the official TZM publications (some of which are quite good) and the views expressed by individual TZMers. As you say, some of these are awful, eg currency crankism, conspiracy theories, banking reform as a transition to a moneyfree society, etc. Others are not so bad, but don't amount to much more than charity work.I think this arises because TZM pursues a different policy from us. We want an organisation composed of people who know and understand what we want (a worldwide classless, stateless, moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control) and so only admit people who do; which is why at present we are small. TZM has adopted a different approach: get as many people as possible involved and then educate them in TZM principles. Which means that they may be larger but that many of them won't and don't really understand what TZM stands for (a moneyless world of abundance).
Elroy1 wrote:The only thing I don't see in the writings of Karl Marx and his contempory's is a clearly defined and structurally sound alternative to a capitalist economy. I never seen Systems Theory applied to soicety in such an all encompassing way in order to solve the inherent problems of a transition which TZM basically annihilated so thoroughly as to leave pretty much no doubt as to capitalist, corportatist obsolescence.To be fair though, this is to be expected. Marx was thinking and operating within 19th century perspectives. He did not have any notion of the enabling technology that would be developed in the future and people like Fresco and Joseph had the luxury of being able to learn from the great thinkers before them.Actually there were blueprints drawn up in the nineteenth century by contemporaries of the socialist movement but they were far from clearly defined. Robert Owen tried to implement his plan and much later Alexander Bogdanov was a forerunner of systems theory. There were works of fiction too by Edward Bellamy and William Morris. As commented though, they are of historical interest in the twenty first century.
All economic systems should be called as central bank economy (CBE), because every system used money, coming from money power, originating from the central bank (CB). Remember Rothschild said – give me the power of printing money, and I won’t care which party or system controls the nation. – Thus the root cause of all economies is money.Money is false, because money is not an object of nature. Anything you create by using money has to be false. Something false cannot become true at any time, no matter what process you use. CBE has hanged a price tag on every object of nature thus creating scarcity. There is no rationality behind apple is $10 and Orange is $5. You cannot compare apples and oranges in nature. Entire CBE is false. If you want to blame somebody, you must blame CB. Just like a CEO is responsible for everything in the corporation, similarly the CB must be responsible for all problems of the CBE.It is great that TZM has decided to remove money from the economic system, and create money-less economy (MLE). And that removes the root cause of all problems. Therefore resource management is not necessary. MLE will automatically make all resources abundant again. Take a look at the MLE chapter in the free book at the blog site https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/ As an example – nobody will build large houses any more under MLE, because house prices will not go up, since there is no money. Those who will build large houses will feel guilty of wasting resources. Thus house building materials will become abundant again. In reality nobody will horde any free stuff. Same thing will happen for all other resources.The idea of scientific management of human society is completely wrong and without any foundation. The present science and technology were created by using money and therefore all of science and engineering must be wrong, because money is false. Take a look at many examples of false science and engineering in the above free book.TZM has no idea about human life, because all important features of life have been systematically eliminated by the CBE. To understand human life you must understand that all objects of the universe are created by their own individual souls. We are all souls, not our bodies, not even our brains. Soul theory is a very vast subject yet very fundamental to nature. Soul theory includes – yoga, yogic meditation, yogic powers, reincarnation, destiny, memory in nature, eternal recurrence, etc. Take a look at many chapters in the above book. As an example life can be precisely predicated moment by moment and also for long term. Thus the concept of feedback as mentioned by TZM is false not only for society, but also for engineering.
Why focus on the mechanism that prints the money? After all, the central bank was developed quite later than the various banking institutions. And a lot later than the development of money.(The first banks were the merchants of the ancient world that made loans to farmers and traders that carried goods between cities. The first records of such activity date back to around 2000 BC in Assyria and Babylonia. Later in ancient Greece and during the Roman Empire lenders based in temples would make loans but also added two important innovations; accepted deposits and changing money. (Wasn't Jesus throwing out, not money-lenders, but money-changers from Jerusalem Temple) There is the independent development of lending of money in ancient China and India. The Knight Templars began generating letters of credit for pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land: pilgrims deposited their valuables with a local Templar preceptory before embarking, received a document indicating the value of their deposit, then used that document upon arrival in the Holy Land to retrieve their funds. This innovative arrangement was an early form of banking and may have been the first system of travellers cheques. The Templars arguably qualify as the world's first multinational corporation. Banking in the modern sense of the word can be traced to medieval Renaissance Italy, Florence, Venice, and Genoa. Perhaps the most famous Italian bank was the Medici bank, set up in 1397.)What we have to abolish is an economy that is based upon exchange where some sort of note or certificate is required as a medium of exchange for buying and selling which also turns labour-power into a commodity to be bought and sold on the market. The main WSM criticism of Zeitgeist is that it fails to offer a political process for the establishment of a money-free society.
Another point is thatyou should avoid the Rothchild quote since they tend to circulate around anti-semitic sources.It is also problematic since it is very unlikely he said such a statement.It is adapted from another well-known quote: "Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."This is in turn attributed to the Scot, Andrew Fletcher in An Account of a Conversation: "I knew a very wise man so much of Sir Christopher's sentiment, that he believed if a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation."Who is the "very wise man"? It is Sir Phillip Sydney, an English poet who came todominate the court of Queen Elizabeth. Sydney is the one who originated the phrase "Let me make the ballads of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
In our time, all focus are intended toward Rothschild, and Soros, and that the world is controlled by the Zionists, and Banks. Nobody wants to go deeper into real causes of our problems which is capitalism, and capitalist market.Instead of the workers moving forward, we are moving backward. Every lyrics sang by the ruling class, the workers are repeating them like parrots or macaw. I think that our liberation is still far away . Most of these reformist tendencies they do not support socialism-communism, and they will never do it either
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.