Elroy1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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.
