A Resource Based Economy
- This topic has 17 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following is a discussion on the page titled: A Resource Based Economy.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!Hi EditorI think one main difference between the NLRBE proposed by the Zeitgeist Movement and 'Socialism' or ' Communism' is that they are not proposing 'ownership' by either people or the state. They see ownership as unnecessary. It is also not really a political movement, it is simply in place to put forward the ideas and value shift, the people themselves need to sort out how best to implement them.The Zeitgeist 'members' are made up of individuals who have various ideas, but see the movements ideas as a basis for a new society. Some may have different ideas on the path to get there, and look at ways to adapt capitalism in the meantime, but it is a fundamental principle of the movement that money and capitalism, and in fact any other type of political control are removed. The new society is not 'us and them', just us.Alice
Neither does the WSM/SPGB propose individual ownership by either people or the state. So in that respect both organisations are in agreement. However, we do propose 'common ownership' of the means of production and distribution under the democratic control of society as a whole. Under such an arrangement there will be political control by the wider community over the administration of things. But this political control will not consist of 'party political control' which suggests a class society will still be in existence, effectively meaning the antagonism between 'us and them' continues to divide society.
Hi AliceBrian summed it up quite neatly.I would say that the WSM and ZM are pretty close in advocating what I and most other socialists would call a shift in concioussness. It takes a big shift to imagine a world without leaders and money where things are produced soley for need with a view to eliminating waste so that the worlds resources cease to be squandered on profiteering. Something socialists within the WSM desperately want, as do people in TZM.There is a problem I see with TZM, in that is has no single focus as to how to achieve such a massive change in how society functions. As you say some think in terms of adapting capitalism, a processs that has been ongoing for well over a hundred years, with gains and losses in equal measure.Seeing as TZM and the WSM are very similar in aim, may I ask how you see such a change being sparked off.
If everything is owned by everybody then effectively no-one owns anything. As Brian touched on we insist upon social control, again as he says, not by the government, but more importantly and much to the chagrin of those who advocate syndicalism and co-operatives not even by those who do the actual producing who are simply after all just sections of society Although they will have day to day control of the production process…what they make and how they make it and the way it is distributed will be be decided and controlled by the wider community – the consumers. To achieve our desired new society, once we agree on the aim…which i think you and we do…the next step must determine the best way for us all to reach that goal.As the new society depends on collective collaboration , coordination and cooperation so does the means to achieve it.Our rulers are united and has a much stronger sense of class consciousness than we have right now (divided on race religion and nationality) and they are also able to direct the coercive control of the government to maintain their power of ownership…They won't be persuaded by moral force to surrender but will be dispossessed by political action when they no longer have that state in their hands to do their bidding. But for the majority to have political power we have to come together on agreed tactics and strategy…where limited democracy exists we suggest we use it in the similar way that the owners of industry do, win elections… But to participate in the electoral process we need a political party…and for a party to be effective people have to agree with its object and have control of it …We say we represent an example of that type of organisation …only those who understand what we want and agree with our methods are accepted for membership and once in there are no leaders to tell them what and what not to do but all policy decisions taken by party polls of every member. We are all leaders which makes us leader-less. As you can see from this forum, we sometimes disagree and then discuss and debate and dispute and eventually our democracy comes to a resolution. But unlike other organisations we have a rule-book and a structure and in the end all members have the responsibility of accepting the will of the majority in the decision making…
To BrianTZM sees the idea of ownership as an figment of our minds, and a now unnecessary concept with the ability to create abundance and provide for everyones needs. It is really about just doing things the best way whilst recognising the limitations of the planet. It does not need to be 'democractic' it is a mathematical formula. Yes we will need to have some kind of consensus on social aspects, but will hopefully have better motives underlying this, once our everyday needs are provided for.TZM like you agree the existing system sucks, but don't look at it as requiring adaption, more a complete change.
To Socialist PunkTZM see change as being sparked by making enough people aware that there is an alternative, and rejecting the old model. There are signs of this already appearing with opensource and zero margin cost initiatives. There are also some political signs such as the European election rejection of the main parties, tragically toward the idiots of UKIP, but rejection it was.Adapting capitalism is not one of the movements aims, these are just some of the ideas expressed as possible ways of making the change by individuals who interested in seeing a NLRBE society.
To AlanTZM see the electoral process as inevitably corrupt, as it seeks to give power to one group or another over the rest of us. In the short term it may be a way of raising awareness of the alternatives, but in the longer terms it is redundant. We don't really need politicians of any colour. Democracy is only better than dictatorship in that it gives the winning group some say in who the dictators are, and a small element of control over what they do.As for the problem of the entrenched elite, they have an unavoidable achilles heel 'money'. Enough people stop using it and their power disappears.
aliccam wrote:TZM sees the idea of ownership as an figment of our minds, and a now unnecessary concept with the ability to create abundance and provide for everyones needs. It is really about just doing things the best way whilst recognising the limitations of the planet. It does not need to be 'democractic' it is a mathematical formula. Yes we will need to have some kind of consensus on social aspects, but will hopefully have better motives underlying this, once our everyday needs are provided for.TZM like you agree the existing system sucks, but don't look at it as requiring adaption, more a complete change.Please don't run away with the idea that a democratic decision making process by definition means that this will result in a continual use of the vote. The everyday technical decisions will of course be arrived at through consensus. But even the consensus does not entirely consist of a mathematical formula. If it did it would be just a matter of pulling a suitable number out of the box which fits the formula exactly.Fortunately, its doubtful if humankind will ever go down that reductionsist route, even when using the consensus decision making process. That aside, Direct Participatory Democracy will have an essential role to play in human affairs when it comes to the bigger picture and important decisions need to be arrive at concerning our well being and the finite resources of the planet.Such a scenario strongly suggests a social process will be taking place utilising the tools of production, communication and distribution we will have inherited from capitalism and adapting these to serve human needs and not profit. However, this scenario also implies that a total transformation of the social relationships of Capital and Labour have taken place which in essence is non-adaptable in a society geared to production for use and free access to the means of living.So yes in many respects a complete change will have taken place but socialists are realists and have no intention of throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to using the the tools which we produced for the benefit of the capitalist class.
Brian wrote:Please don't run away with the idea that a democratic decision making process by definition means that this will result in a continual use of the vote. The everyday technical decisions will of course be arrived at through consensus. But even the consensus does not entirely consist of a mathematical formula. If it did it would be just a matter of pulling a suitable number out of the box which fits the formula exactly.There may be some debate about whether some things should be produced, but those that are can be produce in the best way currently possible using a formula of their individual components, including things such as time, resources, environmental impact, demand, user preferences etc.
Quote:Fortunately, its doubtful if humankind will ever go down that reductionsist route, even when using the consensus decision making process. That aside, Direct Participatory Democracy will have an essential role to play in human affairs when it comes to the bigger picture and important decisions need to be arrive at concerning our well being and the finite resources of the planet.TZM is not promoting reductionism other than in cases of excess or inappropriate use of planetary resources. They want everyone to have the best possible quality of life.
Quote:Such a scenario strongly suggests a social process will be taking place utilising the tools of production, communication and distribution we will have inherited from capitalism and adapting these to serve human needs and not profit. However, this scenario also implies that a total transformation of the social relationships of Capital and Labour have taken place which in essence is non-adaptable in a society geared to production for use and free access to the means of living.So yes in many respects a complete change will have taken place but socialists are realists and have no intention of throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to using the the tools which we produced for the benefit of the capitalist class.TZM does not suggest getting rid of the existing production capabilities (which you strangely attribute solely to the capitalists), more that we should start improving on them and the ways they are used.
aliccam wrote:There may be some debate about whether some things should be produced, but those that are can be produce in the best way currently possible using a formula of their individual components, including things such as time, resources, environmental impact, demand, user preferences etc.TZM is not promoting reductionism other than in cases of excess or inappropriate use of planetary resources. They want everyone to have the best possible quality of life.TZM does not suggest getting rid of the existing production capabilities (which you strangely attribute solely to the capitalists), more that we should start improving on them and the ways they are used.You can't have it both ways its either a "mathematical formular" or its not for the use of such a term strongly suggests a promotion of reductionism. Again the use of the term "adaption" as used in the context of this post its OK for TZM to use the tools but not for the SPGB according to #6&7.Again it appears you have misread what I wrote in my previous post. Indeed, I'm not attributing the production of tools to the capitalists but quite the opposite in that the majority have designed and produced them yet the capitalist appropiate the benefits. You are either putting up strawman arguments or you are failing to see there is a problem of language here. I'm reluctant to go down the path of requesting definitions for every turn of phrase when its so apparent we are on the same lines.
Brian wrote:You can't have it both ways its either a "mathematical formular" or its not for the use of such a term strongly suggests a promotion of reductionism. Again the use of the term "adaption" as used in the context of this post its OK for TZM to use the tools but not for the SPGB according to #6&7.Again it appears you have misread what I wrote in my previous post. Indeed, I'm not attributing the production of tools to the capitalists but quite the opposite in that the majority have designed and produced them yet the capitalist appropiate the benefits. You are either putting up strawman arguments or you are failing to see there is a problem of language here. I'm reluctant to go down the path of requesting definitions for every turn of phrase when its so apparent we are on the same lines.Sorry about my misinterpretation of reductionism. (looked up the definition). And sorry for misinterpeting your quote 'we will have inherited from capitalism'.There are a lot of similarities between TZM and socialism. I think the main difference is that TZM does not see the need for politics or political leaders, or with 'democracy' as these imply control of people with ideas or needs that differ from the majority. TZM would like people to be individuals cooperating for mutual benefit, rather than members of groups vying for control.
aliccam wrote:Sorry about my misinterpretation of reductionism. (looked up the definition). And sorry for misinterpeting your quote 'we will have inherited from capitalism'.There are a lot of similarities between TZM and socialism. I think the main difference is that TZM does not see the need for politics or political leaders, or with 'democracy' as these imply control of people with ideas or needs that differ from the majority. TZM would like people to be individuals cooperating for mutual benefit, rather than members of groups vying for control.Neither do the WSM/SPGB see the need for 'party' politics or Leaders in any shape or form. Politics and their outcomes – as social discourse – will however continue to rule and regulate our behaviour. In a true democracy (not the representative democracy we are currently experiencing) like DPD its the majority who will decide, but also unreservedly cater for minority views, albeit so long as they are realistic and don't cause harm to wider society. The change in social relationships will ensure that any groups vying for control will be dealt with under DPD. If such a threat does occur consensus on its own is not a suitable framework for dealing with such social issues, fine for the technical side and everyday matters but pretty useless when it comes to threats from those who will hanker for taking a step back to a class society.
Quote:TZM see the electoral process as inevitably corrupt, as it seeks to give power to one group or another over the rest of us. In the short term it may be a way of raising awareness of the alternatives, but in the longer terms it is redundant. We don't really need politicians of any colour. Democracy is only better than dictatorship in that it gives the winning group some say in who the dictators are, and a small element of control over what they do…..I think the main difference is that TZM does not see the need for politics or political leaders, or with 'democracy' as these imply control of people with ideas or needs that differ from the majority. TZM would like people to be individuals cooperating for mutual benefit, rather than members of groups vying for control.Some anarchists recognise that the political party that the SPGB is and the model it advocates is not your run-of-the-mill left-wing political party which wishes to be elected to take office and then decree by acts of parliament that socialism/RBE has been established.
Quote:As for the problem of the entrenched elite, they have an unavoidable achilles heel 'money'. Enough people stop using it and their power disappears.James Connolly once said the in a strike it is a matter of "empty bellies against fat wallets". In the fight to see who lasts the longest in a war of attrition, sadly it will be the ruling class who sit back and starve the workers back into submission.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.