Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: Libertarian Socialism and TZM

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post

    Please address my previous points first:

    At a glance that's just incorrect because someone will need to create those automated machines, maintain those machines, constantly upgrade those machines to the best science has to offer, and then there's all the other automation-unfriendly work, not to mention domestic labor, unless you plan on replacing families with machines as well, and this is all assuming people want this "fully-automated luxury communism." It's impossible to do away with human labor; I take it you mean significantly reduce work hours?
    most of the machines are already in existence but as for new machines - scientists, engineers, programmers, hobbyist and makers would build the machines and maintain them. i know i would.
    its not work its fun . over time automation would reach such a state as to make all work irrelevant.

    please tell me who maintain your computer? your microwave? your refrigerator? you look at automated machines like some abstract entity but in fact we live with them for decades.

    what do you mean by domestic labor? if you mean childcare then mommy and daddy don't have a job so they don't need to send their kids to some stranger to take care of them....

    i'm not interested in reducing work hours, i don't want a job.
    fsir, Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post
    “Fully-automated luxury communism,” is actually an idea popularized by Novara (I think it’s a nice label for TZM) that envisions a society where technology plays a substantial role and work hours have been significantly reduced (but not eliminated because that’s impossible), but you can see that they recognize this utopian (I don’t mean utopian as in “flawless”) society as communist (a state-less, class-less, money-less society).
    We're not about Labels here. Really call it what you want. People get so caught up in certain Terms/Labels today that they often forget to see the similarities between all these schools of thought.

    What TZM is trying to do is develop an Economic System that Automates as much of the Production possible to achieve a level of Abundance that provides for everyone's Needs. Anything that can be automated will be tried like the domestic, "automation-unfriendly" work you mentioned too. Scientist, Engineers, Teachers, Organizers, Inventors, Creators, Teams, Overseers etc.. what ever you want to call them, we can set-up our Socioeconomic System in the most efficient ways that manages & runs everything most fluently. But this wouldn't be the same as Work is today. People would naturally fall into these roles based on what they can & want to contribute in. So it wouldn't even be about someone's 'work hours' but the way they choose to Live their lives in this type of Economic model. If someone doesn't want to contribute, that's their decision. So the more we can Automate the whole system, the less people required in the actual production/distribution of Resources. But everyone in society still receives what they Need to live a satisfying Life.

    I personal wouldn't use the term "Fully-automated luxury communism" because it doesn't sound realistic to me in the sense that people would still be in control of things by applying Scientific/Technological based solutions. No, Robots won't be doing everything for us. But I do envision some type of "utopian" destination when compared to how we are living today. And I think our progresses in Science & Technology have really given us hope in achieving this. But what is standing in our way is our regressive, stagnant Mindset that refuses to believe this & move forward in this direction.
    fsir and droneBEE like this.

  3. #13
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    ok so i watched the movie and i agree with it. if i agree with the movie and you agree with the movie so where is the problem? it doesn't matter who first came with the idea.
    if you want to give the credit to a 10min youtube video from 2014, instead of tzm/tvp who did many full length documentaries about this idea going back to 2000 then fine.

    also, if you want to call RBE "Fully-automated luxury communism" then its also fine.

    if libertarian-socialists want to solve the problem of scarcity then you can call me a libertarian-socialist. but if they just want to grab power from the bourgeois and move it to the proletariat then i'm not.
    Anarchists, which Libertarian Communists are, disagree with the idea of power completely, haha. Thereís a distinction between irrational and rational authority; we donít oppose the rational forms of authority, i.e. experts, etc. Those are people whose thoughts on technical matters such as performing surgeries or building bridges people should respect and listen to. Those people are authorities instead of just having arbitrary authority over other people. Having decisions made for you by a small group of people contribute nothing to production themselves is an example of hierarchical, irrational authority, which anarchists oppose.
    Ernest likes this.

  4. #14
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    ok so i watched the movie and i agree with it. if i agree with the movie and you agree with the movie so where is the problem? it doesn't matter who first came with the idea.
    if you want to give the credit to a 10min youtube video from 2014, instead of tzm/tvp who did many full length documentaries about this idea going back to 2000 then fine.

    also, if you want to call RBE "Fully-automated luxury communism" then its also fine.
    I never said I fully agree with Novara’s FALC. "FALC" is just an observation that the growth of technology could reduce work hours significantly and that this is incompatible with capitalism. It’s not like a business is going to welcome inefficiency just to keep people employed instead of automating certain tasks; that wouldn't be profitable. Well, actually, they should because nobody will have the money to afford the crap they produce, one of capitalism's many contradictions. Moving factories to poorer countries with worse labor laws and lower minimum wages to save money would be another example of this contradiction, because the people back at home can't afford the "Nike sneakers" or whatever is being produced there. There are still a lot of questions and concerns about FALC. Here's a nice article discussing it further,

    https://libcom.org/blog/fully-automa...tique-14062015

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    ... where is the problem?
    I've been talking about my problems with TZM the entire time; nobody has really addressed them. I’ve also been responding to your accusations about human labor becoming obsolete and various misconceptions about Libertarian Communism, which you haven't really been acknowledging (an "Ah my mistake, I thought ..." etc. would be nice). I’ll go over some of my questions/problems again, however:

    How is TZM going to make progress toward its envisioned society if it doesn’t recognize class struggle? Does TZM think the ruling class will allow change to occur? What are your thoughts on the essay I linked to before that talked about this? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...with-zeitgeist

    Just to quote again:

    "Is anyone really naÔve enough to believe that abolishing the bourgeois nation-state and the arbitrary economic system that it resuscitates time-and-time again will be welcomed by the ruling-class ? This is, of course, nonsensical. But, to my knowledge, again, the Zeitgeist Movement has no class analysis, no politics, etc. It is agnostic on everything."


    I haven’t read specifically how decision-making is going to be done in TZM's proposed society. I heard Joseph say something about there being some form of direct democracy in a TYT interview. If democracy is going to play a role in TZM’s envisioned society, wouldn’t that just be a repackaging of Libertarian Communism?

    Why does TZM reject the term “communist,” even though a communist society, to my knowledge, is what they aim for? A “communist society” is just the state of society; it has nothing to do with the Soviet Union (or similar “Communist States”), which couldn’t have been further from a communist society. The Soviet Union followed a Marxist-Leninist version of Communism, with a "dictatorship of the proletariat." In Marxist theory, it was still in the State Socialist phase and had yet to transition into communism. Libertarian Communists, as I already explained, seek to obtain a communist society immediately. If you do concede that TZM has basically re-invented the wheel, so to speak, why doesn’t it get behind other Libertarian Socialists that are actually doing something (class struggle) to move toward the kind of society envisioned by TZM?

    Do many of you think you would have been Libertarian Socialists had Joseph and Fresco not been around to make documentaries? Are any of you not concerned about Joseph and his movement’s earlier involvement in conspiracies and Right-Libertarianism?

    I'll let whomever answer these questions before continuing with my other questions/objections to TZM.

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    most of the machines are already in existence but as for new machines - scientists, engineers, programmers, hobbyist and makers would build the machines and maintain them. i know i would.
    its not work its fun . over time automation would reach such a state as to make all work irrelevant.

    please tell me who maintain your computer? your microwave? your refrigerator? you look at automated machines like some abstract entity but in fact we live with them for decades.

    what do you mean by domestic labor? if you mean childcare then mommy and daddy don't have a job so they don't need to send their kids to some stranger to take care of them....

    i'm not interested in reducing work hours, i don't want a job.
    Do you mean significantly reduce work hours? I'm assuming you mean reduced hours of work. That's a poor example for your case of "no human labor whatsoever." I'm constantly having to maintain and upgrade components of my computer, for example.

    Domestic and care labor are forms of human labor or work, and if you don't mean to automate parents or other domestic/care workers with machines, then there will still be human labor.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-27-2016 at 04:40 PM.

  5. #15
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    We're not about Labels here. Really call it what you want. People get so caught up in certain Terms/Labels today that they often forget to see the similarities between all these schools of thought.

    What TZM is trying to do is develop an Economic System that Automates as much of the Production possible to achieve a level of Abundance that provides for everyone's Needs. Anything that can be automated will be tried like the domestic, "automation-unfriendly" work you mentioned too. Scientist, Engineers, Teachers, Organizers, Inventors, Creators, Teams, Overseers etc.. what ever you want to call them, we can set-up our Socioeconomic System in the most efficient ways that manages & runs everything most fluently. But this wouldn't be the same as Work is today. People would naturally fall into these roles based on what they can & want to contribute in. So it wouldn't even be about someone's 'work hours' but the way they choose to Live their lives in this type of Economic model. If someone doesn't want to contribute, that's their decision. So the more we can Automate the whole system, the less people required in the actual production/distribution of Resources. But everyone in society still receives what they Need to live a satisfying Life.

    I personal wouldn't use the term "Fully-automated luxury communism" because it doesn't sound realistic to me in the sense that people would still be in control of things by applying Scientific/Technological based solutions. No, Robots won't be doing everything for us. But I do envision some type of "utopian" destination when compared to how we are living today. And I think our progresses in Science & Technology have really given us hope in achieving this. But what is standing in our way is our regressive, stagnant Mindset that refuses to believe this & move forward in this direction.
    FALC isn’t a specific, detailed plan for a society like TZM is. "FALC" is just an observation that technology could significantly reduce work hours and that this would be incompatible with capitalism. It’s not like a business would allow inefficiency just to keep people employed. They actually should do this, though, because if nobody’s employed, then nobody can afford to buy whatever products they produce, one of capitalism’s many contradictions. By saying that it’s in a communist state, they’re saying people will be able to freely consume what they need and it will be a class-less, state-less, money-less society. TZM refuses to use the word communist to my knowledge, though that’s the state of society I believe they’re aiming for as well. All the other terms I’ve been using (Libertarian Communism, Communism, Libertarian Socialism) are not meaningless labels; they actually mean something and are worth looking into.

    I don’t fully agree with Novara's FALC. I agree that the growth of technology in the workplace is incompatible with capitalism. There are still concerns about how much automation is truly possible and what that entails. We can’t produce luxury goods for everyone, for example; some resources are in short supply. Not everyone can have their own personal luxurious super yacht, etc. Is “FALC,” whatever it entails, something that people even want? After all you can’t force any kind of conditions on people without their consent. Here's a nice article that discusses FALC further:

    https://libcom.org/blog/fully-automa...tique-14062015

    I wouldn’t agree with any sort of dictatorial blueprint for a society; we can really only talk about specific issues like whether any envisioned society should have, for example, private property or markets (most anarchists would say no to both) and let the rest be decided naturally. Most of the VP’s designs will become obsolete in a few years as better designs and newer ideas come about. Any of the technical plans or science TZM asserts could be implemented now won't be as relevant in five or ten years. And again, there is the question of whether people want to implement any of the VP's exact designs or TZM's exact solutions. That's why most anarchists, myself included, are reluctant to go into detail about what a future society would, or should, look like; it's dogmatic and will be irrelevant unless some revolution is occurring within the near future. The present should be of more concern.

    An Anarchist FAQ - I.2 Is this a blueprint for an anarchist society? | Infoshop.org

  6. #16
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    ok so i watched the movie and i agree with it. if i agree with the movie and you agree with the movie so where is the problem? it doesn't matter who first came with the idea.
    if you want to give the credit to a 10min youtube video from 2014, instead of tzm/tvp who did many full length documentaries about this idea going back to 2000 then fine.

    Libertarian Socialist thought, by the way, goes back to the 19th century and beyond, with such thinkers as Proudhon, Bakunin, etc.; that's way before TZM and their documentaries, obviously.

  7. #17
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    We're not about Labels here. Really call it what you want. People get so caught up in certain Terms/Labels today that they often forget to see the similarities between all these schools of thought.

    ...

    I personal wouldn't use the term "Fully-automated luxury communism" because it doesn't sound realistic to me in the sense that people would still be in control of things by applying Scientific/Technological based solutions. No, Robots won't be doing everything for us. But I do envision some type of "utopian" destination when compared to how we are living today. And I think our progresses in Science & Technology have really given us hope in achieving this. But what is standing in our way is our regressive, stagnant Mindset that refuses to believe this & move forward in this direction.

    I notice a tendency among zeitgeisters to behave a bit condescendingly toward others because, I guess, they watched a single documentary and think they have all the answers. A zeitgeister seriously once told me something like, "TZM and VP are the only systems that can work; everything else is half-hearted and flawed." The Berkman quote I gave before, about "technology eliminating certain tasks," basically imagined this society before TZM or the VP even existed, and Anarchist Communists have actually been doing something to reach this because they recognize class struggle as an issue.

    "But the hardest and most onerous task could be made easier and cleaner than is the case today. The capitalist employer does not care to spend money, if he can help it, to make the toil of his employees pleasanter and brighter. He will introduce improvements only when he hopes to gain larger profits thereby, but he will not go to extra expense out of purely humanitarian reasons. Though here I must remind you that the more intelligent employers are beginning to see that it pays to improve their factories, make them more sanitary and hygienic, and generally better the conditions of labor. They realize it is a good investment: it results in the increased contentment and consequent greater efficiency of their workers. The principle is sound. To-day, of course, it is being exploited for the sole purpose of bigger profits. But under Anarchism it would be applied not for the sake of personal gain, but in the interest of the workers’ health, for the lightening of labor. Our progress in mechanics is so great and continually advancing that most of the hard toil could be eliminated by the use of modern machinery and labor saving devices. In many industries, as in coal mining, for instance, new safety and sanitary appliances are not introduced because of the masters’ indifference to the welfare of their employees and on account of the expenditure involved. But in a non-profit system technical science would work exclusively with the aim of making labor safer, healthier, lighter, and more pleasant." Berkman, What is Anarchist Communism

    So why not Libertarian Communism? The idea of using technology to reduce work hours or the need for human labor could hardly be less original an idea; it's discussed by utopian socialists, sci-fi writers (Star Trek, etc.), anarchists, as well as by Marx. I'm guessing Joseph doesn't want to mention Berkman or Marx because that would mean "politics" or "Marxism" or "Libertarian Communism"? I really don't understand how people find this so novel, unless they've only concerned themselves with TZM.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-28-2016 at 12:54 AM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post
    I notice a tendency among zeitgeisters to behave a bit condescendingly toward others because, I guess, they watched a single documentary and think they have all the answers. The Berkman quote I gave before, about "technology eliminating certain tasks," basically imagined this society before TZM or the VP even existed, and Anarchist Communists have actually been doing something to reach this because they recognize class struggle as an issue.

    So why not Libertarian Communism? The idea of using technology to reduce work hours or the need for human labor could hardly be less original an idea; it's discussed by utopian socialists, sci-fi writers (Star Trek, etc.), anarchists, as well as by Marx. I'm guessing Joseph doesn't want to mention Berkman or Marx because that would mean "politics" or "Marxism" or "Libertarian Communism"? I really don't understand how people find this so novel, unless they've only concerned themselves with TZM.
    listen , i have read marx, i have read bakunin, i have read Kropotkin, and i have read Proudhon. none of them is talking about a system that is even remotely resembling what tzm/tvp are talking about.

    i haven't read berkman so maybe he bring something new to the table.

    lets do this if you are ready to take the challenge:
    i link here 2 books -

    1. What Is Communist Anarchism? by alexander berkman.
    2. the best that money can't buy - by jacque fresco.


    let me go ahead and read berkman's book, while you take your time to read fresco's book. what do you say?

    the best case scenario is we can reach an agreement that they are essentially the same thing, and then i'll convert immediately to anarcho-communism and you'll have a new convert. i'll also publicly admit my mistake of differentiating RBE from anarcho-communism because it was there all along.

    but what if they're not the same thing? then you'll have to admit that RBE is an evolution of anarcho-communism , and although it is somewhat influenced by it, (like its also influenced by capitalism) it also brings many new ideas to the table.

    i'm ready to change my mind.... are you? let us first look at the chapters to get an idea of what they're talking about:

    berkman:

    Chapter 1: What Do You Want Out Of Life?
    Chapter 2: The Wage System
    Chapter 3: Law and Government
    Chapter 4: How the System Works
    Chapter 5: Unemployment
    Chapter 6: War?
    Chapter 7: Church and School
    Chapter 8: Justice
    Chapter 9: Can The Church Help You?
    Chapter 10: Reformer and Politician
    Chapter 11: The Trade Union
    Chapter 12: Whose Is The Power?
    Chapter 13: Socialism
    Chapter 14: The February Revolution
    Chapter 15: Between February and October
    Chapter 16: The Bolsheviki
    Chapter 17: Revolution and Dictatorship
    Chapter 18: The Dictatorship at Work
    Chapter 19: Is Anarchism Violence?
    Chapter 20: What is Anarchism?
    Chapter 21: Is Anarchy Possible?
    Chapter 22: Will Communist Anarchism Work?
    Chapter 23: Non-Communist Anarchists
    Chapter 24: Why Revolution?
    Chapter 25: The Idea is the Thing
    Chapter 26: Preparation
    Chapter 27: Organization of Labor for the Social Revolution
    Chapter 28: Principles and Practice
    Chapter 29: Consumption and Exchange
    Chapter 30: Production
    Chapter 31: Defense of the Revolution


    fresco:

    1. A DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE
    2. CHANGING VALUES IN AN EMERGING CULTURE
    3. LANGUAGE OF RELEVANCE
    4. FROM SUPERSTITION TO SCIENCE
    5. NEW FRONTIERS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
    6. THE INHUMANITY OF A MONETARY-BASED SYSTEM
    7. WHEN MONEY BECOMES IRRELEVANT
    8. THE NEXT PHASE OF EVOLUTION: MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
    9. WHEN GOVERNMENT BECOMES OBSOLETE
    10. WHO WILL MAKE THE DECISIONS
    11. CLEAN SOURCES OF ENERGY
    12. CHANGING HUMAN NATURE
    13. TECHNOPHOBIA IN A CYBERNATED AGE
    14. EDUCATION: MINDS IN THE MAKING
    15. CITIES THAT THINK
    16. LIFESTYLE IN THE FUTURE
    17. FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
    18. THE OCEAN FRONTIERS OF TOMORROW
    19. BEYOND UTOPIA
    20. THE VENUS PROJECT DIRECTION

    now i'm going to read it starting tomorrow and will be back in a week to discuss further.

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...narchism#toc20

    http://thezeitgeistmovement.se/files...y-Cant-Buy.pdf
    Last edited by HAL9000; 11-28-2016 at 02:51 AM.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    653
    as for the so called "class struggle" i haven't the slightest idea what it means....

    it is obvious that some people want to exploit others in a state of scarcity and doesn't require a special "analysis".

    in RBE there are no classes because everyone is provided with their necessities.
    one more thing to add is that anarcho-coomunist / libertarian socialist communities have been tried all over the world with varying degrees of success.

    more often than not those communities tend to be poor / low energy / low technology / and quite frankly boring in general.

  10. #20
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    listen , i have read marx, i have read bakunin, i have read Kropotkin, and i have read Proudhon. none of them is talking about a system that is even remotely resembling what tzm/tvp are talking about.

    i haven't read berkman so maybe he bring something new to the table.

    lets do this if you are ready to take the challenge:
    i link here 2 books -

    1. What Is Communist Anarchism? by alexander berkman.
    2. the best that money can't buy - by jacque fresco.


    let me go ahead and read berkman's book, while you take your time to read fresco's book. what do you say?

    the best case scenario is we can reach an agreement that they are essentially the same thing, and then i'll convert immediately to anarcho-communism and you'll have a new convert. i'll also publicly admit my mistake of differentiating RBE from anarcho-communism because it was there all along.

    ...
    Okay, I doubt that first of all, judging by all your misconception about Libertarian Communism, Marx, Communism, and Anarchism. I seriously doubt you’ve researched anything other than TZM or the VP. Stubbornly pretending to know more than you actually do will not help anything. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d be giving me direct answers instead of telling me who you’ve read or who you’re going to read; that doesn’t say anything. That’s like saying, “I’ve read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon!” You’re not engaging with me or addressing any of my points. If the communist society TZM envisions is different, then differentiate it instead of just saying they’re different. If you don’t think you can answer my questions, then don’t waste your time. Let someone more knowledgeable step in instead of digging this hole you’re in any deeper. This lion was never inside the bag to begin with; I’m sorry but you’re not fooling me…


    Just to recap all your misconceptions (none of which you've conceded to being wrong about) and respond to them again:


    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    if libertarian-socialists want to solve the problem of scarcity then you can call me a libertarian-socialist. but if they just want to grab power from the bourgeois and move it to the proletariat then i'm not.
    Putting power into the hands of the working class? I already told you I’m a Libertarian Socialist. Where have you read that Libertarian Socialists want to do this (certaintly not in any of those authors' works)? Why would you need to ask if we want to give any group power over other people? That just suggests you haven’t read any of the appropriate literature. Libertarian Socialists are against anyone possessing power over other people. Hierarchy and illegitimate authority are two social arrangements that all anarchists are against.

    Libertarian Socialists want more horizontal (i.e. non-hierarchical), democratic workplace arrangements, and to cease the robbery of what workers produce. They want workers to handle their own affairs in some democratic fashion and not have decisions made for them by a small group of people who contribute nothing to production themselves (their “labor” being exploitative, not productive) but profit from the work of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    if you care so much about working conditions why don't you want to relieve them from the necessity to work in the first place?
    Most Libertarian Socialists aren't against freeing people from mundane or tiresome work and would use the best science has to offer to eliminate certain work (doesn't mean elimination of human labor because you still have to maintain and upgrade whatever machines, etc.) and reduce work hours significantly for more leisure time or other pursuits. It's not that novel of an idea, and as I showed before, Berkman spoke about this in the book I've been quoting.

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    please tell me who maintain your computer? your microwave? your refrigerator? you look at automated machines like some abstract entity but in fact we live with them for decades.

    what do you mean by domestic labor? if you mean childcare then mommy and daddy don't have a job so they don't need to send their kids to some stranger to take care of them....
    I'm still assuming you mean significantly reduce work hours. "No human labor whatsoever" is impossible; you'll always have to maintain and upgrade machines and there's still all the automation-unfriendly work. Domestic and care labor are forms of human labor or work, and if you don't mean to automate parents or other domestic/care workers with machines, then there will still be human labor.




    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    but what if they're not the same thing? then you'll have to admit that RBE is an evolution of anarcho-communism , and although it is somewhat influenced by it, (like its also influenced by capitalism) it also brings many new ideas to the table.

    What do you mean by a more "evolved state of anarcho-communism"? What is the more evolved state of a communist society? Libertarian Communists aren't against embracing the best science has to offer, so it's not more evolved in that sense whatsoever. In fact, TZM has de-evolved compared to Libertarian Communism, because TZM doesn't have any realistic way of obtaining its end-goal, thinking it's going to happen via some kind of consciousness shift, whereas Anarchist Communists and other Libertarian Socialists recognize class struggle and are organizing the working class against the ruling class. TZM is just another utopian vision that's detached from present-day struggles, takes everything for granted about what people even want, and has no way to reach its desired goals because it doesn't recognize the conflict of interests in the existing world. To quote the essay again,

    "The main problem is that it’s a utopian vision, i.e., the Zeitgeist Movement goes in depth on how the new world will look, but it offers no vision on how to create the new world within the shell of the old. The second problem is essentially an extension of the former: people should not be told what kind of society they should have. It is highly doubtful that anti-authoritarian theory can come from an authority, academic or otherwise. Anti-authoritarian theory is participatory, and if meaningful, is created by a majority. Wherein “revolution” is needed, to remain anti-authoritarian and relevant to a majority of the population, it requires the majority. Otherwise, it risks the danger of becoming a vanguard. But “Zeitgeist” has no mention of how to get from here-to- there.

    Troublesome in the dialogue I have heard, as mentioned, is the idea that “Zeitgeist” is anarchism (Johnson, 2009). Anarchism has never preached one way, as does “Zeitgeist” (save for the anarcho-dogmatists). The lack of plurality within the movement and acceptance, of say, primitivists, syndicalists, communists, or other socialists, is not known because it is omitted. “Zeitgeist” also immediately connotes hierarchy since it puts all of its faith in science, hence scientists. Since some will be more apt than others towards science, this could easily give us a new bureaucracy."



    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    i'm ready to change my mind.... are you? let us first look at the chapters to get an idea of what they're talking about:

    Great, I’m delighted that you’re going to read Berkman. He intentionally wrote What is Anarchist Communism with the layperson in mind and without using too much jargon; it should be an easy read. Please come back with your thoughts on it. If you’ve read Kropotkin, though, then you really shouldn’t need to read Berkman. Berkman is just explaining the ideas of Libertarian Communism, often citing Kropotkin and other anarchist works like Proudhon's. If you really want to read/watch anyone, you should follow people like Chomsky or Wolff, whom you mentioned earlier, who discuss more current issues like neoliberalism and workplace democracy in today’s world.

    I’m not reading Fresco’s book, which has nothing in it that I don’t already know. You mean to say that private ownership of the means of production combined with wage-slavery doesn’t work (except for the ruling class), is destroying the planet because of profit over environmental interests, and that we’re actually able to provide for everyone on the planet within reason!? Color me surprised! This realization was reached by intellectuals and critics of capitalism approximately 150 years ago. That’s akin to telling Chomsky to read Russell Brand as if he has some incredible insight he wasn’t already aware of, or knew more about.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-28-2016 at 08:43 PM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1