Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: Libertarian Socialism and TZM

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25

    Libertarian Socialism and TZM

    I have some questions as well as some objections to TZM and its visions/end-goals. I'm coming from a Libertarian Socialist perspective and more specifically a Libertarian Communist one, as I see communism as the vision/end-goal to strive for. It should be noted, as most zeitgeisters I come across are apparently unaware, that Libertarian Communism is distinct from the authoritarian ideas proposed by Marx and uniquely implemented in places like the Soviet Union and elsewhere under the influence of leaders such as Lenin and so on. The Soviet Union was not a communist society and is more correctly called a state capitalist or state socialist society, with the state playing a substantial role in decision-making (An Anarchist FAQ - H.3 What are the myths of state socialism? | Infoshop.org). It was not a state-less, class-less, or money-less society, which is the gist of communism. As opposed to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat," a state with the workers interests supposedly in mind and that is eventually supposed to transition into communism, Libertarian Communists seek to obtain a communist society immediately and not re-create any kind of state once the existing one has been dismantled. Most anarchists don't fully agree with Marx, and many more are hostile toward state capitalist or state socialist societies like the Soviet Union.

    Here's a few quotes to help clarify the position of Libertarian Communists:

    "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

    "The great difference between the Anarchists and the Bolsheviki was that the Anarchists wanted the masses to decide and manage their affairs for themselves, through their own organizations, without orders from any political party. They wanted real liberty and voluntary cooperation in joint ownership. The Anarchists therefore called themselves free Communists, or Communist Anarchists, while the Bolsheviki were compulsory, governmental or State Communists. The Anarchists didn't want any State to dictate to the people, because such dictation, they argued, always means tyranny and oppression. The Bolsheviki, on the other hand, while repudiating the capitalist State and bourgeois dictatorship, wanted the State and the dictatorship to be theirs, of their Party." Berkman, What is Anarchist Communism

    For some reason TZM, overwhelmingly, mentions Marx and the interpretations of his ideas, in the form of the Soviet Union and so on, more so than Libertarian Socialist thinkers and ideas. I can find very little discussion of where TZM stands on Libertarian Socialist ideas.

    Here's an example (and also a small critique),

    "With that understood, which dismisses the common notion that property is a result of some kind of empirical "human nature", the notion of "no property" is also today often blindly associated with "Communism" and the works of Karl Marx. It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed "Communist" ideals. There is no relation between the two, for communism was not derived from the needs to preserve and manage resources efficiently. Communism, in theory and practice, was based on a social/moral relativism which was culturally specific - not environmentally specific - which is the case with a RBE." TZM FAQ

    I find it strange Marx is mentioned here, but not Proudhon who famously declared "Property is theft!" This means that no single person should own or have a monopoly over the means of production or resources, enabling them to force other people to rent themselves just to survive. All consistent anarchists agree with this and are against private property, or the idea that someone should own something that other people must frequently use. It's a basic ethical objection to private property because of the exploitation it entails, ethics which TZM has problems with apparently. Now I find it contradictory saying that "their" (Marx and Proudhon) objections to private property were based on "communist ideals" and "social/moral relativism," while TZM's objection is based on "logic and efficiency." The very fact that TZM thinks that "logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency" is something that people want in the first place concerns the same kind of question of ethics or "social/moral relativism." You're saying, in essence, this is good for people and something they want, and that is a statement of ethics. "Logic and efficiency" just seems like an attempt at distancing TZM's objection to private property with the ones that came before it (i.e. distancing itself from Marx); both are basically the same ethical objection. It can be expected that workplaces should produce and distribute efficiently and with regard to environmental factors once private ownership of the means of production is gone; that's rational and nothing worth getting hung up on. The degree to which people want "logic and efficiency" and what that entails is a different matter, and should be decided in some democratic fashion in my anarchist opinion (depending on the issue at hand).This of course excludes non-doctors from having a say in how best to perform a surgery or build a bridge, and so on (there's a difference between irrational and rational authority). Let's not forget science can't be applied to all aspects of life due to similar ethical objections, as well as the impossibility of that ever happening (we know very little about ourselves or the universe).

    Given this distinction between Marx and Libertarian Communism, one of my arguments would be that TZM is basically a repackaging of Libertarian Communism, albeit a more technocratic and authoritarian version, depending on what role democracy would play in TZM's envisioned society and just how much power these "experts" have. Feel free to help me differentiate Libertarian Communism and TZM's vision/end-goal. A lot of my thinking and criticisms of TZM coincide with this anonymously posted anarchist-perspective essay (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...with-zeitgeist). I read a previous post that addressed this essay, but it's a bit dated and I don't think the people responding to it had a clue, frankly.

    I think it's important to bear in mind TZM's history and earlier involvement in irrelevant conspiracies and other unsubstantiated views; the 07-08 films come to mind specifically, in which Right-Libertarians like Ron Paul were featured along with conspiracy theories from people like Alex Jones. Today TZM aligns more with traditional Libertarians (Libertarian Socialists), after abandoning and now regularly ridiculing all the conspiracists and Right-Libertarians, though I don't think a lot of zeitgeisters are aware of this or want to admit it. I read in TZM FAQ that the films have no bearing on the tenets of the movement, but I'd say the 11 film is mostly up-to-date with TZM's current views. I often hear people claim that TZM is "not a political movement." I think this just shows a misunderstanding of the word "political," or that they're wanting to separate themselves from more conventional politics. Anything concerning how people should organize is political, so TZM is a political movement. I think it's worth considering that conspiracy-thinking, which TZM undeniably was involved to begin with until it decided to embrace science, is often rooted in a reluctance to do any actual research, whatever those reasons may be. Do many of you think you would have been Libertarian Socialists had you actually studied any of the appropriate literature (assuming you haven't) and Joseph and Jacque weren't around to make documentaries? I just think it's foolish, no offense, to think that Joseph and Fresco came up with all the best ideas and ways of organizing life.

    I could continue with some of my other problems with TZM, but I'll stop here for the sake of not making this too long.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-25-2016 at 08:26 PM.
    HAL9000 and Brian like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post

    one of my arguments would be that TZM is basically a repackaging of Libertarian Communism, albeit a more technocratic and authoritarian version, depending on what role democracy would play in TZM's envisioned society and just how much power these "experts" have. Feel free to help me differentiate Libertarian Communism and TZM's vision/end-goal. A lot of my thinking and criticisms of TZM coincide with this anonymously posted anarchist-perspective essay (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...with-zeitgeist). I read a previous post that addressed this essay, but it's a bit dated and I don't think the people responding to it had a clue, frankly.

    I think it's important to bear in mind TZM's history and earlier involvement in irrelevant conspiracies and other unsubstantiated views; the 07-08 films come to mind specifically, in which Right-Libertarians like Ron Paul were featured along with conspiracy theories from people like Alex Jones. Today TZM aligns more with traditional Libertarians (Libertarian Socialists), after abandoning and now regularly ridiculing all the conspiracists and Right-Libertarians, though I don't think a lot of zeitgeisters are aware of this or want to admit it. I read in TZM FAQ that the films have no bearing on the tenets of the movement, but I'd say the 11 film is mostly up-to-date with TZM's current views. I often hear people claim that TZM is "not a political movement." I think this just shows a misunderstanding of the word "political," or that they're wanting to separate themselves from more conventional politics. Anything concerning how people should organize is political, so TZM is a political movement. I think it's worth considering that conspiracy-thinking, which TZM undeniably was involved to begin with until it decided to embrace science, is often rooted in a reluctance to do any actual research, whatever those reasons may be. Do many of you think you would have been Libertarian Socialists had you actually studied any of the appropriate literature (assuming you haven't) and Joseph and Jacque weren't around to make documentaries? I just think it's foolish, no offense, to think that Joseph and Fresco came up with all the best ideas and ways of organizing life.

    I could continue with some of my other problems with TZM, but I'll stop here for the sake of not making this too long.
    The main difference between libertarian-communism and TZM is not their end goal but their means to achieve it.

    tzm proposal is to create abundance through science and technology, and the intelligent management of the earth resources. by doing so it would eliminate the necessity for human labor thus discrediting most of communism philosophy and ideology. TZM is not against anarcho-communism but its an evolution of it, by phasing out human labor altogether.

    RBE is global , it requires participation of all or most of the people on earth, anarcho-communism propose small communities which is unrealistic in this point in time.
    the first movie is not part of the zeitgeist movement, its a personal production of joseph when he was a ron paul libertarian . he has now changed and not a libertarian anymore.


    there is a wealth of information in this forum about RBE, anarcho-communism and differences between them . here is an example:
    Anarcho-Communism and TZM
    Ernest likes this.

  3. #3
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    The main difference between libertarian-communism and TZM is not their end goal but their means to achieve it.

    That brings me to one of my other problems with the TZM, which is touched upon in the article I linked to above (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...th-zeitgeist):

    "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.” "

    I think it's a huge error TZM doesn't concern itself with class struggle, the recognition that your interests aren't the same as the people you must sell your labor to in order to survive. I listened to Joseph discuss "structural classism" and "structural violence," which a zeitgeister told me addressed TZM's position on class; he also explained that worker exploitation is not at the forefront of TZM. As far as I know TZM is only acknowledging there are exploited and exploiter classes, those who own the means of production and those who must submit to these people. The solution according to TZM, however, seems to be "wait for a consciousness shift," as if the ruling class cares about all the have-nots and wage slaves or will allow change to happen. That's why the state exists, to protect private property rights (just take a look at the ugly scenes at the DAPL protests, the protection of private interests at the expense of the people). This do-nothing position is in contrast to much of the left which traditionally has concerned itself with these workplace relations and improving the conditions of the working class through organizing, unions, and so on, some striving for workers and the community to actually handle their own affairs in some democratic fashion (i.e. socialism). A change toward the kind of society envisioned by TZM can only come about through class struggle, otherwise it's just another group of people with futuristic, communist (I don't mean this dismissively, but in the class-less, state-less, money-less sense) visions but no concrete ways to get there.

    Here are some more relevant quotes from the essay, feel free to address them:

    "If the first assumption is true, i.e., that a technocratic society [without] government and capitalism could be achieved through reform, then this movement is certainly not to be taken seriously. Is anyone really naive 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."

    "Revolutionary social and political theories that historically come from class struggle in contrary to the development of capitalism are not na´ve 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)"


    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    tzm proposal is to create abundance through science and technology, and the intelligent management of the earth resources. by doing so it would eliminate the necessity for human labor thus discrediting most of communism philosophy and ideology. TZM is not against anarcho-communism but its an evolution of it, by phasing out human labor altogether.

    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post

    RBE is global , it requires participation of all or most of the people on earth, anarcho-communism propose small communities which is unrealistic in this point in time.
    the first movie is not part of the zeitgeist movement, its a personal production of joseph when he was a ron paul libertarian . he has now changed and not a libertarian anymore.

    Libertarian Socialists want to create more decentralized and democratic forms of social organization, and then create a network or federation of these different organizations; that doesn't necessarily mean small and uncooperative communities. Libertarian Socialists want decentralized forms of organization because we recognize the problems with central planning and concentrating decision-making in the hands of a few, illustrated in traditional capitalist workplaces (private tyrannies) and elsewhere like the Soviet Union. Saying this is unrealistic is just a slap in the face to all the anarchist-inspired societies that have and currently do exist. Libertarian Socialist-inspired Rojava would be one example, with a significant population.

    Yes, Joseph's done his homework (and still needs to do some more) it would seem. He did, as described in the essay, a complete 180 with regard to all the films and changing of positions, though. The word "Libertarian" in the US has been perverted starting around the 1950s and intensified with such "thinkers" as Ayn Rand and so on. Outside the US Libertarian is just another way of saying anarchist and socialist, but inside the US it means laissez-faire capitalism. "Anarcho"-capitalism is just an oxymoron and ethically impossible (it would self-destruct in five minutes to quote Chomsky), and contrary to the relentlessly anti-capitalist history of anarchism. It's something that belongs to the internet and college campuses (excluding libraries), because that's where all the gullible and apolitical people are to be found, with advocates like Paul, Johnson, Molyneux, Jones, Watson, and a ton of others I'm not up-to-date or familiar with (or care about).
    Brian likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    602
    you raise some interesting points but i can't respond to each and every one, so i'll just respond in one fell swoop.

    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post

    The solution according to TZM, however, seems to be "wait for a consciousness shift," as if the ruling class cares about all the have-nots and wage slaves or will allow change to happen.
    i don't know about tzm solution, but i can tell you about my solution, and it is to wait for the system to collapse. since more and more work is automated its really only a matter of time before people wont have jobs anymore , or have jobs that pay so little that they won't have money to purchase goods and services . right now we're only inventing new and meaningless jobs to keep the economy going but we can only get away with it for a short period of time.

    only about 5%-10% of the workforce today is necessary to sustain human life , the rest is just meaningless and unnecessary jobs.

    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?

    let me give you an example:

    lets say there's 100 people on an island and they need to come up with a socio economic system to cater to their necessities. my plan would be something like that - first they would obviously need to constantly look for water, food, build shelter, take care of the young and so on...


    over time, with the help of human ingenuity, advances in technology and new inventions their acquisition and distribution of resources become more efficient. for example instead of fishing with spears they throw a net to catch many fish in short amount of time.
    one dude with a net can feed the whole village, working only half an hour a day. of course it creates new problems like how to preserve the food that it won't spoiled and so on but eventually they overcome most of the problems.

    look at agriculture today in the u.s of a :

    Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population. got that? 2 percent.

    Today’s farmers produce 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs (labor, seeds, feed, fertilizer, etc.), compared with 1950.

    over time productivity is so high to essentially create abundance + most of it is automated(requires few people to work) to eliminate the necessity for human labor.

    in short this is the end goal:

    to use the energy from the sun to replace human muscle.... and using technology, mechanization and automation to transform natural resources into products that people need / want and deliver it to them.
    now of course this process doesn't happen over night, it takes time but we are getting closer to a stage where almost all of our needs and wants can be manufactured automatically. some people estimate that in 2050 most of the jobs today will be gone.

    i can't think of any job that either can't be automated or is necessary today. look at your own job....look at your friends and family jobs..... can't it be automated? is it necessary?


    please respond to my points first, and after that we can go on to discuss decentralization and decision making.
    Phil and Ernest like this.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    114
    der is no classes just as der r no races:S if u dont talk about dem dey dont xist

    have u even read d communist manifesto

    1. landed property and expropriation of rent to public purposes.
    2. Strong progressive taxation.
    3. The hereditary abolition.
    4. Confiscation of all emigrants and rebels.
    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    6. Centralization of the transportation system in the state's hands.
    7. Extension of domestic factories, instruments of production, cultivation and improvement of the soil for a social plan.
    8. Equal of all to labor, the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; measures to eventually obliterate the distinction between town and country.
    10. Public and free education for all children. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
    1. 2 not have d rite 2 do anythin u like on a pice of land where u live
    2. yeah taxation, gr8 just gr8, d fact is we do not need taxes at all its just another opression, from: D GOVERMENT
    3. u r not obligated 2 own anythin
    4. yeah only d state can have guns, rl gr8 if d state just 1 day decide 2 start killing errybody dey have NOTHIN 2 protect demself w/
    5. so ders a monopoly n ders another monopoly
    6. all cars will b automated n u cant travel whereever u want hence 2 restriced/forbidden areas just like d movie eqlibrium
    7. we tryd dis in cambodja 1/5 of d population got murderd fantastic work(!)
    8. yeah so ur not only a slave, u r a "befefited slave" w/ previlages
    9. obliterate
    10. dis we alrdy got were as children have no rite 2 work n r obligated 2 go 2 school

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens View Post

    Please elaborate, even if "no labor" were possible, on how this would discredit Marxian "philosophy and ideology," which I'm assuming you mean.
    according to marx theory of human nature, man gets his fulfillment and satisfaction from producing products freely and creatively.
    Marx and Engels considered labor to be a natural and desirable activity of the human being.

    he also sees the machine as a destructive force that alienate humans from their creation.

    karl marx might ask:
    in a post scarcity society without the need for human labor what will man do? how will he satisfy his desire to produce?

    is it a surprise that people like Richard Wolff reject the complete automation of the workforce? i think not....

    "Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase." - Karl marx

  7. #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    you raise some interesting points but i can't respond to each and every one, so i'll just respond in one fell swoop.



    i don't know about tzm solution, but i can tell you about my solution, and it is to wait for the system to collapse. since more and more work is automated its really only a matter of time before people wont have jobs anymore , or have jobs that pay so little that they won't have money to purchase goods and services . right now we're only inventing new and meaningless jobs to keep the economy going but we can only get away with it for a short period of time.

    only about 5%-10% of the workforce today is necessary to sustain human life , the rest is just meaningless and unnecessary jobs.

    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?

    let me give you an example:

    lets say there's 100 people on an island and they need to come up with a socio economic system to cater to their necessities. my plan would be something like that - first they would obviously need to constantly look for water, food, build shelter, take care of the young and so on...


    over time, with the help of human ingenuity, advances in technology and new inventions their acquisition and distribution of resources become more efficient. for example instead of fishing with spears they throw a net to catch many fish in short amount of time.
    one dude with a net can feed the whole village, working only half an hour a day. of course it creates new problems like how to preserve the food that it won't spoiled and so on but eventually they overcome most of the problems.

    look at agriculture today in the u.s of a :

    Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population. got that? 2 percent.

    Today’s farmers produce 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs (labor, seeds, feed, fertilizer, etc.), compared with 1950.

    over time productivity is so high to essentially create abundance + most of it is automated(requires few people to work) to eliminate the necessity for human labor.

    in short this is the end goal:

    to use the energy from the sun to replace human muscle.... and using technology, mechanization and automation to transform natural resources into products that people need / want and deliver it to them.
    now of course this process doesn't happen over night, it takes time but we are getting closer to a stage where almost all of our needs and wants can be manufactured automatically. some people estimate that in 2050 most of the jobs today will be gone.

    i can't think of any job that either can't be automated or is necessary today. look at your own job....look at your friends and family jobs..... can't it be automated? is it necessary?


    please respond to my points first, and after that we can go on to discuss decentralization and decision making.

    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?
    Libertarian communists aren’t opposed to freeing people from mundane and tiresome work; that’s just an incorrect perception you have. I never said anything about us not having the technological ability to provide for everyone. Why would we be opposed to embracing the best of science? As I said earlier, that's rational and not worth getting hung up on; the difference is the degree and extent to which people want "logic and efficiency in their lives." I said that this should be decided in some democratic fashion, depending on the issues at hand. To quote Berkman:

    "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

    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?
    Brian likes this.

  8. #8
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Lifee View Post
    der is no classes just as der r no races:S if u dont talk about dem dey dont xist

    have u even read d communist manifesto

    1. 2 not have d rite 2 do anythin u like on a pice of land where u live
    2. yeah taxation, gr8 just gr8, d fact is we do not need taxes at all its just another opression, from: D GOVERMENT
    3. u r not obligated 2 own anythin
    4. yeah only d state can have guns, rl gr8 if d state just 1 day decide 2 start killing errybody dey have NOTHIN 2 protect demself w/
    5. so ders a monopoly n ders another monopoly
    6. all cars will b automated n u cant travel whereever u want hence 2 restriced/forbidden areas just like d movie eqlibrium
    7. we tryd dis in cambodja 1/5 of d population got murderd fantastic work(!)
    8. yeah so ur not only a slave, u r a "befefited slave" w/ previlages
    9. obliterate
    10. dis we alrdy got were as children have no rite 2 work n r obligated 2 go 2 school

    Pardon me? Is this an approximation of the German language or a recently invented one? Could you please clarify? I don’t mean classes in the sociological sense. I mean economic classes in the Marxist and anarchist sense. There are two main classes, those who must sell their labor in order to survive, the working class (this includes more “professional” occupations as well as manual ones), and those who own the means of production, the capitalist or “bourgeoisie.” Don’t confuse these economic classes as attempts to group people together along some sociological lines. To ignore the existence of these classes and conflict of interests is to just have visions/end-goals but no path to get there. How do you expect progress to be made if TZM ignores class struggle and wants to do nothing about it? As quoted above:

    "If the first assumption is true, i.e., that a technocratic society [without] government and capitalism could be achieved through reform, then this movement is certainly not to be taken seriously. Is anyone really naive 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."

    Here’s a link to help you understand classes: Class: an introduction

    And yes I have read the communist manifesto but how is that relevant to anything I’ve said? There are Non-Marxist versions of communism such as Libertarian Communism, the main scholar being Kropotkin.
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-26-2016 at 01:15 PM.
    Brian likes this.

  9. #9
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    according to marx theory of human nature, man gets his fulfillment and satisfaction from producing products freely and creatively.
    Marx and Engels considered labor to be a natural and desirable activity of the human being.

    he also sees the machine as a destructive force that alienate humans from their creation.

    karl marx might ask:
    in a post scarcity society without the need for human labor what will man do? how will he satisfy his desire to produce?

    is it a surprise that people like Richard Wolff reject the complete automation of the workforce? i think not....

    "Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase." - Karl marx

    You haven’t explained how that would “discredit” the ideas of Marx, which I’m assuming you meant by “[communist] philosophy.” There are Non-Marxist versions of communism, like Libertarian Communism. TZM shares much in common with Marxist thought, as do Libertarian Socialists share much in common with Marxist thought; that doesn’t mean we agree on everything (the “dictatorship” of the proletariat, for instance). Libertarian Communists don’t rely entirely on Marxist ideas; Kropotkin would be the main Libertarian Communist scholar. Communism is just the final state of society once the state has “withered away,” classes are no more, money is gone, and society can operate according to the maxim, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” You have yet to explain how TZM’s envisioned society is a more evolved version of this state. “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). You’re just quoting at random passages from Marx that you disagree with; I never said TZM were Marxists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmQ-BZ3eWxM
    Last edited by austindstephens; 11-26-2016 at 01:24 PM.
    Brian likes this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by austindstephens 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.
    Ernest and droneBEE like this.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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