Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:"Nevertheless, it should be plain by now that any speaker from TZM is merely expressing their own opinion and not necessarily the current message which Peter Joseph is attempting to get over. ""James Phillips who describes himself as the Project Co-ordinator for TZM Education."Doesn't the fact that he has an "official" title cloud the issue of stating a personal opinion or whether representing the TZM's overall position. Does he offer a disclaimer for the responsibility of his speech at the beginning of it?
Good point Alan in regards to what is considered an "official" and "unoficial" title or project with TZM. It depends on what particular Admin Team (Global/Country/City Chapter) the title or project is supervised by. Starting from the top with the Global Admin Team they would most definitely not recognise the "Project Co-ordinator for TZM Education" as an "official title or project" for the movement, however on the other hand the UK Chapter do.This lack of a coordinated approach stems from what I've said earlier in reference to the mushroom effect on the structure and organisation of TZM globally. And this is the result of a lack of a listed registered membership being established right from the begining. Why TZM had (and never will) have a listed or registered membership stems from Peter Joseph using the Civil Rights Movement and the experiences which came out of that, has a framework for structure and organisation for TZM – which is loose and flexibile to ever changing circumstances.This framework allows individuals to come up with ideas on how to promote the TZM Mission Statement through a variety of projects at a local or country level. If the project is thought to be positive its given the go ahead and the person(s) who introduced it are then deemed to be the official project coordinators. Once it embedded and developed its then passed to the Global Admin Team to consider for inclusion into the Global Program and hence become part of the official global projects.In this respect the UK Education Project is still in its early stage of development, although its been going for over 2 years. I suspect the main reason why the UK Admin Team have not as yet passed this particular project to the Global Admin Team is due to its current association with TVP and the consequences this could have on its future development.How this project fares once Fresco pops the bucket is anybodies guess but I'm sure that James Phillips is considering the issues and problems involved there.
Your report is a pretty accurate account of the numerous talks James Phillips is giving in schools. However, to me James is living in a time warp of before the split with TZM and TVP took place and when it was common place to try and link the idea of circular cities with a RBE. TVP (Jacque Fresco) has always stated that the circular cities would be islands in a sea of capitalism, but this is not the current thinking in TZM (Peter Joseph). In fact lately I'm constantly picking mentions of a Global Resouce Based Economy (GRBE) which seems to imply they are starting to widen their horizons somewhat.James has in fact been challenged on several occasions by TZM supporters regarding this rather gaping hole in the circular city theory. But always insisted that these models of a RBE would be the stepping stones towards a global moneyless economy for unless the model is observable it is impossible to assess and quantify how the impact a RBE will affect human behaviour. Which means he's failing to rigorously apply the scientific method to the theory of circular cities.Nevertheless, it should be plain by now that any speaker from TZM is merely expressing their own opinion and not necessarily the current message which Peter Joseph is attempting to get over.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi moderator1,There is no escaping evolution. It gets everywhere. No wonder biblical creationists hate the idea.But seriously, I agree we should get this thread back on topic.So, I would like to ask, what is the hoped for outcome of joining TZM on their Team Speak forum? It is not meant as an antagonistic question. Merely a question to get this topic going again and to analyse our relationship with TZM.Do we hope to convert them or are we looking to build constructive bridges?I know I will be looking to build links with TZM, if possible, but I am not a party member.I've always made my intentions clear about attending TZM Chapter meetings on TS 3. Firstly, its to make that vital connection on the future society. Secondly, to snap up the opportunity to put the socialist case. Finally, its not a question of "converting" people but ensuring the facts speak for themselves in a logical and rational manner so that TZM supporter arrive at the conclusion our case for socialism is based on promoting self-emancipation for the class which counts.The general outcome which I'm seeking is to make socialists and not party members in particular. By its very nature this approach means "building constructive bridges" where all parties concerned participate in the design, construction and use of the bridge.It goes without saying if socialists are looking for an opportunity to have a friendly chat with their fellow workers the place to be is TS 3.
The main topic with TZM appears to be monetary reform: http://www.facebook.com/groups/147039565328926/ There are only so many questions I can bat, especially when they are coming in thick and fast.
ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I think I'll give the TZM Team Speak 3 a go on the 22nd.You realise that they can't understand a North East English accent in America, don't you? Look what happened to Cheryl Cole. But good luck all the same.
Adam, Seeing we'll be attending the UK Chapter meeting I'm sure there wont be any problems with accents. Before I forget I've checked the date and its on the 19th not the 22nd. Adam if they are stuck for a guest speaker again OK if I suggest you give a talk on monetary reform?
If you would like me to give you a run down on what to expect on TS 3 I'm available most evenings to take you through the process. Just say when and I'll meet you there.
ALB wrote:Brian wrote:Just checked the link to the Minneapolis Chapter web site and it appears that their Mission Statement is the one by Peter Joseph. Luckily I had saved their old one:Actually, they are both there. The good one which you reproduced is under About/Resource Based Economy here:http://www.zeitgeistminneapolis.com/RBE
Which says to me that the purge – I mentioned earlier – has already taken place in the US with a compromise being reached, on Chapter autonomy and integrity, by allowing the Minneapolis Chapter to retain their 'Mission Statement' under the FAQ box.
SocialistPunk wrote:It is easy to pick and choose quotes as I am doing, but my point is TZM are offering a solution so similar to ours, that ultimately goes way beyond reform.I would like to extend an invitation to TZM members to join us on this forum to discuss ideas.That has already been done, with unfortunately not much effect. Why not do what I do and attend the TZM UK Chapter meetings on Team Speak 3. The next one is on the 22nd of Nov. Paddy gave a talk at the last one which was very well received with an invitation extended for a further one.Just purchase a cheap headset from your nearest discount store then follow the voice chat link on the UK web site.
However I just spotted this blooper:"When education and resources are made available to all people without a price tag, there would be no limit to the human potential. Although this is difficult to imagine, even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in a resource based society as proposed by The Venus Project. Today the middle classes live better than kings of times past. In a resource based economy everyone would live better than the wealthiest of today."Which appears to say a levelling up would occur.
Hi Adam,Just checked the link to the Minneapolis Chapter web site and it appears that their Mission Statement is the one by Peter Joseph. Luckily I had saved their old one: Resource-Based EconomyAll social systems, regardless of political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social customs, ultimately depend upon natural resources, i.e. clean air and water, arable land and the necessary technology and personnel to maintain a high standard of living.Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides an equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and can make available food, clothing, housing, medical care, a relevant educational system, and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. It is now possible to have everyone enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilization can provide. This can be accomplished through the intelligent and humane application of science and technology.To better understand the meaning of a resource-based economy consider this: if all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as topsoil, factories, and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we choose to build and fulfill any human need. It is not money that people need; rather, it is free access to the necessities of life. In a resource-based economy , money would be irrelevant. All that would be required are the resources and the manufacturing and distribution of the products.When education and resources are made available to all people without a price tag, there would be no limit to the human potential. Although this is difficult to imagine, even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in a resource based society as proposed by The Venus Project. Today the middle classes live better than kings of times past. In a resource based economy everyone would live better than the wealthiest of today.In such a society, the measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.The Choice Is Ours To MakeHuman behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur.Today, much of the technology needed to bring about a global Resource-Based Economy exists. If we choose to conform to the limitations of our present monetary-based economy, then it is likely that we will continue to live with its inevitable results: war, poverty, hunger, deprivation, crime, ignorance, stress, fear, and inequity. On the other hand, if we embrace the concept of a global resource-based economy , learn more about it, and share our understanding with our friends, this will help humanity evolve out of its present state.
Hi Adam,I can confirm that Peter Joseph is the author of the Mission Statement, however the draft was then passed to the coordinator of the Linguistic Team and the Danish coordinator for proofreading, and I suspect that's where the jargon like "temporal integrity" crept in.I assume that the leaflet you mentioned was produced by the London Chapter? If this is the case they can expect to eventually come under scrutiny from the Global Admin Team who are currently carrying out a purge on those Chapters failing to follow the Mission Statement and the procedures and processes laid down by that team.In reference to the statement by the Minneapolis Chapter this needs to be passed to the comrades in the US and Canada so they can make contact with them.
It appears that Franceso and Steve are unaware of what's stated in TZM Mission Statement: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement in reference to monetary reform.But its no surprise to me that both speakers are expressing a personal preference. For the reality is that the Mission Statement is in fact the personal preference of Peter Joseph for it as never gone through the process of Rational Consensus supposedly adopted by the movement to determine policy.The Mission Statement was his reaction to the split with the Venus Project and like I said earlier is an example of their lack of structure and organisation.
I am not being economical with the truth in relation to the hostility clause which the question from Socialist Punk related too. Indeed it could be argued that the votes in 2011 have no bearing on expressing any kind of party hostility to TZM and that the vote carried 49 to 47 is in recognition that TZM are fellow participants in the class struggle (albeit, as a "political organisation" and not as a political party).That said this particular resolution need not had been placed on the agenda for it goes without saying by adopting a broad brush approach – which we do – to political affairs and discourse all working class organisations are 'political'.
TZM could not in any shape or form be described as a political party. They are a social movement attempting to spread awareness around the fact that capitalism has outlived its sell by date. Despite their proposals for a Global Resource Based Economy based on common ownership, classless, free access, moneyless society they have no intention in mounting a political challenge to effectively bring this about. Although the broad similarities between socialism and a RBE are plain to see they disassociate themselves from any "ism".Obviously, any organisation which springs into existence – virtually overnight – out of the visual experiences of a couple of films will have some major weaknesses in respect of its structure and organisation and more importantly in its understanding of social evolution and in particular its role in the class struggle. However, its early days and many of its supporters – in reality they have no membership – are eager to find their feet in the political arena so they can effectively combat the supporters of capitalism in the battle of ideas.Finally, I suspect you are mistaking analysis for hostility. Indeed, if we were 'hostile' to TZM how do you account for the fact that since their inception several discussions and meetings have taken place around the subject of a commonality in our object? Their supporters are to all intents and purposes on a learning curve. And I for one will encourage them to continue this process by explaining the socialist case and by projecting the need to understand historical materialism whenever the opportunity arises.And may it stay that way!
