Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Libertarian Socialism and TZM

  1. #21
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    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.

    It’s not “so-called class struggle.” It’s just class struggle, and it’s an established idea within anarchist and Marxist literature. If you don’t know what class struggle is, then that would suggest you haven’t read any of the aforementioned authors you’ve claimed to. Class struggle is the recognition that your interests aren’t the same as the people you must sell your labor to, the people who own the means of production. Class struggle is the only way to reach TZM's envisioned society, because it's not like the ruling class is just going to allow a RBE to exist against their interests.

    Read this, Class: an introduction


    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    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.

    "One more thing to add ... " Oh please; here's that smugness I was talking about earlier; all that's missing is a "."


    This is an argument in the same category as saying that because you wear Nike or drink Starbucks (I try to avoid both), you can’t be critical of capitalism without being a hypocrite. That’s just ignoring the existing world and current situations. Do you expect anarchist-inspired societies (that includes mass societies as well as smaller commune-type communities) that exist alongside capitalism to be at the very pinnacle of engineering, have all the best technology in place, and to compete with all other countries that have contrary interests? Anarchist-inspired societies/communities that have existed are not representative of any sort of peak-potential or limit to what is possible. Some Libertarian Socialist-inspired societies that have existed in the past did quite well actually in providing for people relative to what they were capable of in their time period. What you’re saying is just ridiculous. Let’s see you organize people into a RBE economy within the existing world alongside capitalism. Where are you going to find the money and resources to produce automated high-speed rails, and so on? Any predictions on how that will end up? Ah yes, the essay I’ve been mentioning has an answer to that:

    “If the first assumption is true, i.e., that a technocratic society sans government and capitalism could be achieved through reform, then this movement is certainly not to be taken seriously. 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.

    To perceive that this first sustainable city is built somehow, without the capitalists shutting it down any way they can, let us hypothetically extrapolate on the scenario: a city gets built in, we’re assuming, the Western world (because third-world US client-states would simply cut their heads off the second they said they were going to build an autonomous self-sustaining city) that is autonomous, has no allegiance to any government, any monetary system, and is completely off-the-grid. What is the first reaction that the State will have? Well, I would extrapolate that the national guard, Blackwater and other fascist, private militias, the police, the FBI, and probably every military force in the world would invade the city and murder everyone they can; this is if they do not simply drop missiles on the first sustainable city. This is the kind of defiance that the bourgeoisie has not tolerated, historically (see the Zapatista Movement and the Spanish Civil War).

    Revolutionary social and political theories that historically come from class struggle in contrary to the development of capitalism are not naÔve about this; these theories acknowledge that if revolution is to be successful, i.e., dismantling the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there must be organized resistance among the majority of people (the working-class) and, an unfortunate matter, a clash with the State (if only in defense). Marx acknowledged the class struggle in he and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto, and believed that the history “of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx & Engels). Further:

    Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (Marx)”

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post
    How is TZM going to make progress toward its envisioned society if it doesnít recognize class struggle? Does TZM think the ruling class will allow change to occur?
    Doesn't recognize Class struggle?? Capitalism inevitably produces this division among societies. And one reason why it should be terminated. Social stratification is something TZM is fighting against. And why the focus is on the people not the Ruling Class so much because they will be the last ones who want to bring this System down. But regardless of what they think, the people must look to each other for some Change to happen.

    I havenít 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 TZMís envisioned society, wouldnít that just be a repackaging of Libertarian Communism?
    Maybe Democracy by way of what the Scientific Method shows us in important areas such as Food, Energy, Nature etc.. And for all other areas not as crucial such as the everyday cultural aspects of society. There can be some type of system in place that oversees these type of matters even using Scientific methods to help. If this sounds similar to what LC would do then great because I think we should be applying the most effective methods we know no matter where they might have originated first. If you think then that it's a repackaging of whatever, that's fine because I believe everyone borrows from somewhere else. We should be focusing on the End Goals and not worrying about who thought of what first.

    If you do concede that TZM has basically re-invented the wheel, so to speak, why doesnít it get behind other Libertarian Socialists that are actually doing something (class struggle) to move toward the kind of society envisioned by TZM?
    I wouldn't go that far and say that because I feel TZM has its own unique ideas of what the Future can look like. I don't know if any group has put an emphasis on Abundance, Sustainability, Advanced Technologies, Scientific Knowledge & a Values Shift the way NLRBE proponents have. And about LS actually doing something(class struggle) to move forward, what do you mean?

    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 movementís earlier involvement in conspiracies and Right-Libertarianism?
    For me, the past is the past. I'm sure people believed all sorts of goofy things that even they might be slightly embarrassed about. But if everyone is pretty much on the same page in the Present, we should be supporting that no matter how we each arrived here. And I'm not so sure if I would have become a supporter of the Libertarian Socialist because I think I was looking for something more fresh if you will. Some of these older political names & ideas never garnered any serious interest for me because I think most of them come with various versions & meanings and therefore all have their own type of reputations. TZM/TVP, to me feels more dynamic and relevant to the World Today and for the Future of our Planet.

    Not expecting that any of this would even matter the way you quickly turned snarky on us but maybe I'm wrong and you are here with good intentions. But I'm not going to lie. The more you responded, the more it looked like you were just here to reinforce your preconceived opinions about TZM/NLRBE being some unoriginal, undeserving, idealist group. It's ridiculous to fight over petty things because like you even said. We are way more alike than different and the stakes are way too Serious to be divided now if we are ever going to fix this Huge Mess

  3. #23
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    So I decided to actually read through TZM Defined that’s been collecting dust on my shelf. I don’t think Joseph is even aware that Libertarian Socialism is a thing, at least that's my conclusion. There seems to be this duality throughout TZM Defined between either capitalism or authoritarian socialism, and here Joseph is presenting the case for neither when really he’s just reinventing the wheel with ideas that go back to the 19th century.

    TZM - Orientation

    "Ideological Polarization and Blame"

    "When the subject of what has “gone wrong” with the world today is broached - given the poverty, ecological imbalance, inhumanity, general economic destabilization and the like - a polarized debate often ensues. Dualities such as “the right or the left” or “liberal or conservative” are common, implying that in the range of human comprehension and preference, there is a rigid guiding line that embodies all known possibilities. Paired with this is also the older, yet still common duality of “collectivism vs. free market”. In short, this duality assumes that all options of economic preference must adhere to the idea that society should either be based on the supposed democratic will of all the people in the form of “free-trade” – or that a small group of people should be in control and tell everyone else what to do. Due to the dark history of totalitarianism that plagued the 20th century, a fear based value orientation, which rejects anything that even remotely hints at the appearance of “collectivism”, is extremely common today, with the related word “socialism” often used in a derogatory way. As noted prior in this essay, people's sense of possibility is directly related to their knowledge - what they have learned. If traditional educational and social institutions present all socioeconomic variation within the confines of such boxed frames of reference, people will likely mirror this assumption (meme) and perpetuate it in thought and practice. If you are not “abc”, then you must be “xyz” - this is the common thought meme. Even the political establishment of the United States exists in this paradigm, for if you are not a “republican”, you must be a ”democrat”, etc."

    Here's Joseph pointing out this simplistic duality people have about it either being capitalism or authoritarian socialism, yet failing to point out the already-existing alternative to these systems which is Libertarian Socialism.

    "History of Economy"

    "As a preliminary point, a point which will reemerge later in this essay, there has commonly been a duality noted in most modern economic thought where the “capitalist free market”, meaning the “free” actions of independent producers, laborer and traders, working in aggregate to buy, sell and employ, is to be contrasted to that of the “state”, meaning a unified system of delegated power that has the capacity to set legal policy and economic mandates that can inhibit the actions of the “free market” through interference. Most economic debates today revolved around this duality on one level or another with the “laissez-faire” interests, or those who wish to have a completely non-regulated market economy, constantly at war with the “statists”, or those who think some kind of centralized government control and decision making over economic planning and policy is best.

    The Zeitgeist Movement takes neither side, even though many who hear TZM's proposals have a knee-jerk reaction to assume the latter association (“statism”).
    As with many traditionalized belief systems, polarized perspectives and defenses are common and the idea that there is no other possible frame of reference with respect to how an economic system can be developed and administered, is to close oneself off dogmatically to many relevant and emerging considerations."

    Okay, but non-statist versions of socialism are already a thing. Just go back to Bakunin and his disagreements with Marx and opposition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat," or the need for a state in reaching a socialist society:

    "Once it has taken over the State, it should, as we see it, destroy it immediately for it is the age-old Prison of the proletarian masses: now, according to Mr. Marx's theory, the people not only should not destroy the State but should instead reinforce it, make it even mightier and place it, in this new form at the disposal of its benefactors, tutors and educators, the leaders of the Communist Party - in short, at the disposal of Mr. Marx and his friends who will promptly set about liberating it after their fashion." Bakunin (Marx contemporary and Collectivist Anarchist), No Gods No Masters

    I don’t understand why Joseph is so reluctant to mention Libertarian Socialism anywhere unless he just doesn't know it exists, because that’s the kind of system he’s basically advocating. It's understandable that he'd be against market forms of socialism, as most anarchists are as well. More specifically I believe he's advocating a Libertarian Communist society, as I've been saying, without any form of markets (non-capitalist ones like with Mutualism) or remuneration schemes (like in Collectivism), which is just a communist society (a state-less, class-less, money-less society). Most anarchists today are Libertarian Communists. I mean are there any other reasons for him not to just advocate Libertarian Communism that I’m missing? If democracy is going to play a role and "experts" aren't going to run amok making all the decisions without people's consent, then I don't see how to differentiate these two systems.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-29-2016 at 04:38 PM.

  4. #24
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    One of the differences, to my knowledge of TZM, is that most anarchists recognize class struggle as the means of reaching their envisioned society, whereas Joseph and TZM believe in some sort of consciousness shift combined with further deterioration of the existing world and some more ridiculous, frankly, transitional strategies.


    "Scenario 1" Peaceful Transition


    "This first scenario assumes that there is the basic sanction of the political/economic power structure and the community overall. It assumes that the human species has definitively decided to make this move in a step-by-step manner on the global scale. Of course, the sad truth is that it would likely never happen this way."

    "A systematic move from the market economy to a NLRBE could theoretically occur through a step-by-step "socialization" of the core attributes of the societal infrastructure. Essentially, we dismantle one layer while implementing a new one in the most fluid way we can. This term "socialization", which is of course a stigmatized notion in the West given the hyper-glorification of the market economy and the demonization of anything otherwise, is still technically appropriate to use in this context, bias aside. This simply means that the necessity of money and the market mechanism would no longer apply to the given social attribute (not that a traditionally “socialist”, in the political and economic sense of the word, structure would replace it). Direct, advanced technical means would produce and distribute without a price tag, meeting these needs directly."

    As noted in the essay, the ruling class doesn't have to compromise with anyone as long as the majority of the population is unorganized and unconscious class-wise. What is the motivation for them to change anything rather than keep the status quo? Joseph is right for viewing this scenario himself as unrealistic. To quote the essay again,


    "This brings me to Joseph’s perception of the global economy. He defines the players involved as employers, employees, and consumers. And his perception is that the problem with these relationships is that capitalism is terribly inefficient. Joseph almost seems to place working-class individuals in the same realm as the bourgeoisie, explaining that they simply cannot reach a compromise. This is analogous to saying that those who run prisons cannot compromise with the prisoners. Those who currently own the means of production need not compromise; they have an army of desperate wage-slaves, ranging from neurosurgeons to janitors. Their job is to buy these wage-slaves labor on the cheap, and collect surplus value. Ironically, the capitalist does not use the means of production that she or he “owns.”"


    Discussing class consciousness,

    B.7 What classes exist within modern society? | Infoshop.org

    "Scenario 2" Collapse and Activism

    "This second scenario is the more realistic scenario as it assumes there is no large-scale public sanction and the transition must originate from activism and influence. This essentially looks at exactly where we are today, taking into account the vast range of divisive opinions, political polarization, national hatred, commercial warfare, etc."

    "On the other side are the negative pressures, such as the dramatic failure of a social edifice that shocks the culture and creates unease, loss of confidence and a dire interest in problem resolution by new methods. Given the prior section on societal problems we can logically expect as the current model grinds along, that these negative pressures are bound to help facilitate new incentives toward change. Of course, this is out of the control of TZM and at no point does TZM promote furthering any harm upon anyone. TZM focuses on positive pressure influence in its activist work, showing the world what can be done through education and think tank projects. Yet, TZM does not deny the existence of these other emerging negative pressures and acknowledges them also as a form of mobilizing incentive."

    "Now, all that aside, TZM's most important activist initiatives are the ever emerging think tank style projects, which literally can work to show a better way. R. Buckminster Fuller once stated “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete”. This is the transitional motto of TZM as well."


    This is the most realistic scenario, but it all depends on how much "negative pressure" is required and what TZM's activism actually amounts to. It's not like the status quo can't be maintained in the face of horrendous living conditions, just look at the present, and if we're on the brink of extinction then a transition won't matter obviously because there will be nothing left to transition to. This is just observing that situations are getting worse but still not addressing the culprits of all these social and environmental problems or the class relations within society. It's not enough to just create models of what a society could look like, hoping that will persuade people; we have plenty of those already; the science and engineering is mostly out there. If this is what TZM's activism amounts to, not addressing class relations and organizing people against the ruling class, then a collapse would be the more realistic agent of change there. But as I said, the status quo can be maintained despite all the dire situations.

    "Lone Country Transition" A country that leads by example


    "After a period of this success, the world slowly begins to see the incredible result of their moneyless economy. The population, which had a very low standard of living prior, is elevated to an economic abundance they have never seen. It helps greatly that the people's values in that country consist of conversation and modest living, furthering balanced progress of the nation."

    Barf

    "So, given this evidence of feasibility and fruitfulness, other adjacent nations begin to understand the vast merit of the new model and decide to take part. This process of joining expands the resource network greatly and the more it expands the more other country's people also see the merit and the more they demand it, and so on. In time, the world unites."

    This is never going to happen, as this country would never have the chance to develop to an advanced state. That would be against the record of the US involving itself in other country's affairs for its own benefit (regime change, backing coups, invasions to "spread democracy," etc.); Chomsky has written about and documented these events quite nicely in his works. Other countries would certainly take notice of it, but it wouldn't be the kind of attention this "Lone Country's" after. Sorry to go back to the essay again, but this "Lone Country" is addressed precisely there,

    "To perceive that this first sustainable city is built somehow, without the capitalists shutting it down any way they can, let us hypothetically extrapolate on the scenario: a city gets built in, we’re assuming, the Western world (because third-world US client-states would simply cut their heads off the second they said they were going to build an autonomous self-sustaining city) that is autonomous, has no allegiance to any government, any monetary system, and is completely off-the-grid. What is the first reaction that the State will have? Well, I would extrapolate that the national guard, Blackwater and other fascist, private militias, the police, the FBI, and probably every military force in the world would invade the city and murder everyone they can; this is if they do not simply drop missiles on the first sustainable city. This is the kind of defiance that the bourgeoisie has not tolerated, historically (see the Zapatista Movement and the Spanish Civil War)."


    So I think we can rule out the "Lone Country Transition," because the ruling class and US specifically simply won't allow this to ever happen.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-29-2016 at 04:32 PM.

  5. #25
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Doesn't recognize Class struggle?? Capitalism inevitably produces this division among societies. And one reason why it should be terminated. Social stratification is something TZM is fighting against. And why the focus is on the people not the Ruling Class so much because they will be the last ones who want to bring this System down. But regardless of what they think, the people must look to each other for some Change to happen.
    And that's why historically much of the left has concerned itself with improving the conditions of the working class through organizing workers, creating unions, various kinds of worker resistance, forming cooperatives, and so on. Class struggle is just the awareness that there are different competing classes under capitalism. Your interests aren't the same as the people who own the means of production and who you must sell your labor to. The capitalist or ruling class includes the state as well which defends private property rights. The working class is not just blue collar workers either; it can be workers in more "professional" occupations as well. As I alluded to earlier, the DAPL protests and attempts to break it up, defending private/corporate interests, would be an example of this class struggle.

    This isn't to say the working class should be a permanent feature of any future society. All classes should be eliminated because of the hierarchy and competition they entail; that's part of what a communist society is, classlessness. It's not a celebration of the working class; it's just a recognition that they're the ones being exploited and treated unfairly. The ruling class is doing just fine; the system works great for them. Class struggle is the only real transitional strategy or way of making progress. Creating models of new societies or "waiting for the collapse," as TZM advocates, isn't addressing these issues. As I noted earlier the status quo can be maintained even if situations are dire, as it is now with all the social and environmental issues we face. The "Lone Country Transition" strategy is just ridiculous for reasons I already mentioned; it just wouldn't be allowed by the ruling class and US specifically. TZM doesn't recognize these competing classes/interests to my knowledge; the fact that the working class has it worse doesn't seem to be of concern to TZM. Joseph is just treating everyone the same, despite all the conflict of interests and the fact that the system works fine for the ruling class, and saying that capitalism is only inefficient. It's discussed in the essay I've been quoting,


    "Revolutionary social and political theories that historically come from class struggle in contrary to the development of capitalism are not naÔve about this; these theories acknowledge that if revolution is to be successful, i.e., dismantling the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there must be organized resistance among the majority of people (the working-class) and, an unfortunate matter, a clash with the State (if only in defense). Marx acknowledged the class struggle in he and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto, and believed that the history “of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx & Engels). Further:

    Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (Marx)

    Marx’s acknowledgements are spot-on; it is his techniques on how to have revolution that many believed to be flawed. Marx favored an educated sect of the working-class, what he referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat, running a transition state which would yield a stateless, classless, society, sans monetary systems (sounds a bit like the Zeitgeist Movement, no?).

    ...

    This brings me to Joseph’s perception of the global economy. He defines the players involved as employers, employees, and consumers. And his perception is that the problem with these relationships is that capitalism is terribly inefficient. Joseph almost seems to place working-class individuals in the same realm as the bourgeoisie, explaining that they simply cannot reach a compromise. This is analogous to saying that those who run prisons cannot compromise with the prisoners. Those who currently own the means of production need not compromise; they have an army of desperate wage-slaves, ranging from neurosurgeons to janitors. Their job is to buy these wage-slaves labor on the cheap, and collect surplus value. Ironically, the capitalist does not use the means of production that she or he “owns.”

    ...

    Joseph is correct: capitalism is inefficient and will most certainly destroy the planet left to its own cancerous devises. But his lack of class-analysis connotes that he’s never seriously studied capitalist critique. I suppose this is a good thing, that people inherently see the flaws in capitalism, but when one has a platform speaking of these ills as if they happen in a vacuum, I find it quite troubling.

    When the words “wage-slavery,” “subordination,” and, perhaps most importantly, “private property” are missing from a critique of capital, it begs many questions, and suggests liberalism and reformism, like the social democrats attempts to create a “green” capitalism."

  6. #26
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post

    Maybe Democracy by way of what the Scientific Method shows us in important areas such as Food, Energy, Nature etc.. And for all other areas not as crucial such as the everyday cultural aspects of society. There can be some type of system in place that oversees these type of matters even using Scientific methods to help. If this sounds similar to what LC would do then great because I think we should be applying the most effective methods we know no matter where they might have originated first. If you think then that it's a repackaging of whatever, that's fine because I believe everyone borrows from somewhere else. We should be focusing on the End Goals and not worrying about who thought of what first.

    I wouldn't go that far and say that because I feel TZM has its own unique ideas of what the Future can look like. I don't know if any group has put an emphasis on Abundance, Sustainability, Advanced Technologies, Scientific Knowledge & a Values Shift the way NLRBE proponents have. And about LS actually doing something(class struggle) to move forward, what do you mean?

    I think TZM gets too hung up on science; it's rational to expect that work that could be eliminated now through automation or with labor-saving devices would be in a non-capitalist, socialist system, offering people more leisure time and allowing them to pursue other interests. As I said earlier, it's a bit authoritarian and mostly irrelevant, though, going into exact details about what any society should look like; we should really only be talking about specific issues like whether any society should have private property or markets, for example. These are the issues that concern Libertarian Socialists. Some work people may not even want to eliminate; some people may find pleasure in the work itself. It's also naive to think that science can be applied to all aspects of life, if that's what you're getting at, when we hardly know anything about the universe. I'm assuming you're talking about very concrete scientific problems (like automating stuff in the workplace, building high-speed rails, etc.), and not trying to create some "scientific theory" that dictates which shirt I should wear that would provide me with the most satisfaction on any given day, etc. All the designs and technical plans that TZM asserts could be implemented now won't be as relevant in five or ten years, anyway, as newer designs and technical plans come about; and again most issues, in my anarchist opinion, should be decided in some democratic fashion by the people affected by them and not just forced on them. But this doesn't mean people in the community should have a democratic say in how best to perform a surgery or build a bridge. The present-day struggles and building the new world in the shell of the old should be of more concern (let's face it, we're never going to see a NLRBE in our lifetime), but again, TZM isn't involved with class struggle. TZM's only real transition strategy is to just "wait for the collapse" while spreading awareness about their specific vision of a society, and dismissing all other political affiliations like Libertarian Socialists as somehow flawed.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-30-2016 at 02:43 AM.

  7. #27
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post

    For me, the past is the past. I'm sure people believed all sorts of goofy things that even they might be slightly embarrassed about. But if everyone is pretty much on the same page in the Present, we should be supporting that no matter how we each arrived here. And I'm not so sure if I would have become a supporter of the Libertarian Socialist because I think I was looking for something more fresh if you will. Some of these older political names & ideas never garnered any serious interest for me because I think most of them come with various versions & meanings and therefore all have their own type of reputations. TZM/TVP, to me feels more dynamic and relevant to the World Today and for the Future of our Planet.

    Not expecting that any of this would even matter the way you quickly turned snarky on us but maybe I'm wrong and you are here with good intentions. But I'm not going to lie. The more you responded, the more it looked like you were just here to reinforce your preconceived opinions about TZM/NLRBE being some unoriginal, undeserving, idealist group. It's ridiculous to fight over petty things because like you even said. We are way more alike than different and the stakes are way too Serious to be divided now if we are ever going to fix this Huge Mess
    In what ways is Libertarian Socialism not fresh or relevant in today's world? That's just another slap in the face to all the anarchist-inspired societies/communities (Rojava), anarchist unions, cooperatives, communes, and so on that exist today. And really that's just spitting in the face of working class who are struggling for better lives, which TZM doesn't recognize as an issue, treating all classes the same.

    I'm sorry if I have seemed snarky; I like to think I'm only giving firm responses where I see that others are wrong. I came here with questions as well as objections. I don't think it's petty at all. Perhaps TZM will just turn itself into another LibCom website if I'm persuasive enough. It's not like Joseph hasn't changed his positions in the past; it's all natural.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post
    Okay, I doubt that first of all, judging by all your misconception about Libertarian Communism, Marx, Communism, and Anarchism. I seriously doubt youíve 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, youíd be giving me direct answers instead of telling me who youíve read or who youíre going to read; that doesnít say anything. Thatís like saying, ďIíve read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon!Ē Youíre 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 theyíre different. If you donít think you can answer my questions, then donít waste your time. Let someone more knowledgeable step in instead of digging this hole youíre in any deeper. This lion was never inside the bag to begin with; Iím sorry but youíre not fooling meÖ

    well my friend i never wanted it to be a confrontation, i just wanted to learn new things.

    you are correct, i lied to you, i've never read much material beside tzm and i'm pretty clueless about anarchism. but I'm going to start to read about it as soon as possible.

    i've heard of richard wolff and noam chomsky but never investigated their literature or thought about their ideas.

    at the end of the day i'm just a simpleton tzm member who watch documentaries from time to time.

    how can we possibly compare peter joseph or jacque fresco to the great anarcho-communists giants who lived when there was no electricity, no computers, no information theory, no control theory, no automation theory or robotics.

    there were no planes, no tv or radio, no solar panels, or nuclear energy, no internet.



    now seriously, i have not only read the books mentioned earlier i will give you a detailed description now:

    peter kropotkin - mutual aid(hard copy), the conquest of bread (pdf)
    emma goldman - anarchism and other essays(the anarchist library)
    bakunin - on anarchy (pdf) never finished it but read most parts
    berkman - i'm now in chapter 3 of what is communist anarchism.
    noam chomsky - manufacturing consent(hard copy), profit over people(hard copy), hegemony or survival(hard copy), the fateful triangle(hard copy). i know that most of them are not about anarchism.
    Proudhon - what is property?(read it from the anarchist library)
    richard wolff - capitalism hits the fan, democracy at work (both pdf). watched almost every lecture he published.

    i have been an anarchist since i was 16 years old and started to read about it then . i have lived many years in a libertarian communist commune so i have personal experience. what about you do you have any experiences to share from your days in the commune? or maybe you only like to read about it?

    you can say that i'm arrogant or over confident and thats fine, but you can't say that i don't know what i'm talking about.

    P.S - peter joseph talked about kropotkin's mutual aid concept many times, too much to count.

    maybe its you that is clueless , son.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    194
    We are all extremely limited in our perceptions, experiences and understanding. Each of us has only one brain. Why not just be grateful for anything we can learn from each other?
    HAL9000 and Ernest like this.

  10. #30
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    now seriously, i have not only read the books mentioned earlier i will give you a detailed description now:

    peter kropotkin - mutual aid(hard copy), the conquest of bread (pdf)
    emma goldman - anarchism and other essays(the anarchist library)
    bakunin - on anarchy (pdf) never finished it but read most parts
    berkman - i'm now in chapter 3 of what is communist anarchism.
    noam chomsky - manufacturing consent(hard copy), profit over people(hard copy), hegemony or survival(hard copy), the fateful triangle(hard copy). i know that most of them are not about anarchism.
    Proudhon - what is property?(read it from the anarchist library)
    richard wolff - capitalism hits the fan, democracy at work (both pdf). watched almost every lecture he published.

    i have been an anarchist since i was 16 years old and started to read about it then . i have lived many years in a libertarian communist commune so i have personal experience. what about you do you have any experiences to share from your days in the commune? or maybe you only like to read about it?

    Okay, how do you reconcile all your misconceptions about Libertarian Communism, Marx, Communism, Libertarian Socialism, and Anarchism with the fact that you've claimed to read all those authors? Again you're just telling me who you've read and are going to read but not engaging any of my points. Why don't you respond to any of my other posts? It's not a confrontation at all; you've simply said things that were wrong and I've been refuting them. Why don't you acknowledge anything I've said or concede to being wrong?

    I mean I'll just recap all your misconceptions again:


    1. You think Libertarian Socialists are primitive despite that just being wrong and ridiculous.

    That’s just ignoring the existing world and current situations. Do you expect anarchist-inspired societies (that includes mass societies as well as smaller commune-type communities) that exist alongside capitalism to be at the very pinnacle of engineering, have all the best technology in place, and to compete with all other countries that have contrary interests? Anarchist-inspired societies/communities that have existed are not representative of any sort of peak-potential or limit to what is possible. Some Libertarian Socialist-inspired societies that have existed in the past did quite well actually in providing for people relative to what they were capable of in their time period. What you’re saying is just ridiculous. Let’s see you organize people into a RBE economy within the existing world alongside capitalism. Where are you going to find the money and resources to produce automated high-speed rails, and so on? Any predictions on how that will end up? Ah yes, the essay I’ve been mentioning has an answer to that:

    “If the first assumption is true, i.e., that a technocratic society sans government and capitalism could be achieved through reform, then this movement is certainly not to be taken seriously. 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.

    To perceive that this first sustainable city is built somehow, without the capitalists shutting it down any way they can, let us hypothetically extrapolate on the scenario: a city gets built in, we’re assuming, the Western world (because third-world US client-states would simply cut their heads off the second they said they were going to build an autonomous self-sustaining city) that is autonomous, has no allegiance to any government, any monetary system, and is completely off-the-grid. What is the first reaction that the State will have? Well, I would extrapolate that the national guard, Blackwater and other fascist, private militias, the police, the FBI, and probably every military force in the world would invade the city and murder everyone they can; this is if they do not simply drop missiles on the first sustainable city. This is the kind of defiance that the bourgeoisie has not tolerated, historically (see the Zapatista Movement and the Spanish Civil War).


    2. You admit you don't know what class struggle is but claim to have read anarchist literature, in which class struggle is discussed.

    It’s not “so-called class struggle.” It’s just class struggle, and it’s an established idea within anarchist and Marxist literature. If you don’t know what class struggle is, then that would suggest you haven’t read any of the aforementioned authors you’ve claimed to. Class struggle is the recognition that your interests aren’t the same as the people you must sell your labor to, the people who own the means of production. Class struggle is the only way to reach TZM's envisioned society, because it's not like the ruling class is just going to allow a RBE to exist against their interests.



    3. You think it's possible to eliminate all human labor; I'm assuming you mean reduce work hours, but you haven't clarified what you mean.

    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? Please elaborate, even if "no labor" were possible, on how this would discredit Marxian "philosophy and ideology," which I'm assuming you mean. TZM's envisioned society is in a communist state (a state-less, class-less, money-less society). What is the more evolved version of this state?


    4. You think Libertarain Socialists want to ".. grab power from the [bourgeoisie] [(bourgeois is an adjective)] and move it to the proletariat ..." when no Libertarain Socialists advocate doing this; that's what Libertarian in "Libertarian Socialism" means. And had you read any of those authors you've claimed to, you'd know this.

    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 (certainly 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.


    5. You continuously assert TZM is some "evolution of anarcho-communism" despite that not being an intelligible claim, first of all, and the fact that the contrary, TZM being a de-evolution of Libertarian Communism, is more convincing.

    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."




    I'm probably missing some more of your misconceptions, but you should get the point by now. Please address all of these misconceptions and my refutations to them; I don't care about who you've read, who you're going to read, or where you've lived.
    HAL9000 likes this.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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