Brushing up on your Zeitgeist
- This topic has 53 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Steve. Well, yes we disagree with a lot of what many TZMers say about the root of our problems. They deny class politics and they believe our social problems lie in the money system not in the class system. But as they are not socialists, why would we expect them to agree with us, or to express socialist views? I don’t understand this kind of complaint. We know most people disagree with us; why should TZMers be any different?
The point of having a debate with any other group is to publicly air socialist views and to get a dialogue going with other people. And that’s not all. We believe that our views accurately reflect the world we live in – we wouldn’t be promoting them otherwise, but if, as we claim, our views are based on ‘scientific’ principles, or at least on evidence and argument, we constantly have to test them out publicly. If we ever stopped and felt content to rest on our laurels, then our approach would just become dead and doctrinaire. And dead things go nowhere.
I don’t think it even stops there. Not by a long way. We are not here to be ‘right’ – whatever that means. Being ‘right’, if that is what we are, is not sufficient. On its own it delivers no more than a big hit of self-gratification. If we are going to help change the world, which I believe is what we claim to be here for, then we need to start looking outwards.
Having confidence in the socialist case is of course, important. But it is only the beginning, and probably also the easy bit. If we are going to help others see that their interests lie in promoting socialism we have to learn good communication. And since we claim our case is an evidenced and reasoned one, we have to use evidence and reasoning to communicate it to others. (A bit of sincere gut-socialism to sauce it up a little doesn’t come amiss though, I think.) Complaining that other people have views that contradict our own is hardly a good way to communicate. Castigating them for it, as we sometimes do, is even worse: it’s self-defeating, and a good way to make us look like a bunch of self-satisfied tossers.
The TZM do not have socialist views but by their own rationalist method they have arrived at a number of conclusions that are remarkably close to our own in several areas. When was the last time that happened? This in itself merits a respectful dialogue and that, in turn, means recognising the differences between us. The hostility clause was never meant to be taken literally – I hope! You don’t have to agree with someone to respect their point of view. And without a respectful and reasoned dialogue you will lose an opportunity to test our your own case and theirs.By the way Steve, though it was your comment that set me off on my last rant, most of my last post was not aimed at you.
Ozymandias, I’m not sure how Zeitgeist is doing harm. But I have to agree that from our perspective it is clear that their ‘official view’ (if they have such a thing) will take them nowhere. They will wait for a very long time for capitalism to collapse.That’s why we need a dialogue. Unlike the SWP they are as open to discussion as any organisation that is commited to a point of view is likely to be. And after all they are members of the working class like ourselves, they are anti-reform and they are eager to look beyond capitalism for a solution to global problems.
It may be true, as we would hold, that they are running up a dead end. But that hardly matters. If we content ourselves, once again, about being ‘right’ about that and turn our back on them, as we do about so many things then we deserve to be called sectarian.
When will Sunday’s debate be available to watch online? I can’t see any reference to it on the UK Zeitgeist site. In the past couple of years I have noticed a distinct falling off in TZM activity. I don’t think they are going anywhere. Peter Joseph’s decision to get rid of the global forum (just one example of how undemocratic they are) is central to this. Also the last few times I’ve logged onto the TZM teamspeak site there is nobody there. When I first heard of TZM (by way of SOYMB) I put up a rather hard line post on the Zeitgeist website which led me into a mini online debate with PJ himself. My position towards TZM softened somewhat after this especially after watching “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” which (except for the last 10 minutes) I thought was mostly excellent. I find that I oscillate between hope and enthusiasm that TZM even exists and despair that they can be so short sighted…especially about concepts of class and history which they ignore completely. I think at the end of the day despite how professional their message is presented, their position is totally half baked. Their story contains gigantic plot holes which only a Socialist can see through. I think in the past I had naively hoped that in some way both TZM and WSM could collaborate in some way. However as long as the Zeitgeister’s believe that Capitalism will eventually collapse and that the next society can be arrived at gradually and with no recourse to political or democratic action then they are about as relevant as the SWP or any other anarchist group. After I rushed into a branch meeting in Glasgow four years ago like a loon to tell the members about this new miracle called Zeitgeist, Vic Vanni prophesised that they could end up doing more harm than good in the end. Maybe he was right.
Brief response to you and Ozymandias; rather than looking at organisations as a whole, maybe we should see them as a collection of individuals? Within the SPGB we encounter many viewpoints of how to achieve particular goals but we broadly agree on the overall concept. Zeitgeist is a – well what can we call it really? – a loose collection of independently -minded individuals who, as individuals, could well be disposed to hearing and being convinced by our arguments.Not having met anyone from Zeitgeist nor having visited their forum, has anyone from WSM/SPGB had any positive feedback from a one to one or small group encounter? (I did read about last week’s discussion with them, but apart from that?)
stuartw2112 wrote:it seems the debate is over whether private banks “create money” by extending credit, which the central bank is then forced to deal with by creating money. Hence the debate is at least partly over what is meant by “money”.Found this useful and interesting:http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2012/05/16/an-attack-on-paul-krugman/As you say, this debate seems to be about the extent to which, if at all, a central bank can control the amount of banking lending that goes on in the economy, which has taken on the form of a debate about whether banks can create money (as both sides include bank loans in the definition of money).
Quote:Krugman represents the mainstream of neoclassical economics, which believes that a combination of central bank monetary policy and government fiscal policy can moderate the business cycle.Well, he’s obviously wrong there.
Quote:Keen thinks central bank controls are not as effective as Krugman believes, because private banks can create money in the form of debt through a process that is beyond the central bank’s control.Yes, banks can make loans (so-called “create money”) which the central bank can’t control, as long as there is (as there generally is when the economy is expanding) both a demand for loans and a supply of deposits or other sources of funding.
Quote:Because of that, the economy will regularly experience “financial instability,” as advocated by Keynes’s disciple Hyman Minsky.If this is suggesting that crises are purely financial then those on this side of the debate are wrong too. Although finance can make things worse, crises originate in the real economy.
Quote:the core of the debate is whether or not private banks can create money “out of thin air” to their heart’s content, by extending credit – leaving the central bank with no choice but to sanction this money creation.As just stated, banks can make loans which the central bank can’t control. But not “to their heart’s content” and not “out of thin air”. This depends on both the demand for loans and the supply of funding for them. But it is misleading (and silly) to describe this as the banks creating money out of thin air. What they lend is “created” out of the funds they obtain from sources other than the central bank,e.g. from depositors or from borrowing elsewhere.
Quote:those, like Keen, who say banks can create money out of thin air also say that the central bank must condone, willy-nilly, this so-called “endogenous” money creation.A clumsy, but not so misleading way of putting it. I don’t think we’d feel the need to take to task those who talk of banks having the ability to make loans “endogenously”.
Quote:Do banks take in deposits and then lend, or do they loan first, then use the proceeds of the loan to create deposits?I would have thought that the answer was obvious.
I agree completely, Janet. Although I tend to think that is true of any organisation it is particularly the case with TZM as they have very little in the way of organisational structure and enbody a wide diversity of opinion.
Ozymandias wrote:When will Sunday’s debate be available to watch online? I can’t see any reference to it on the UK Zeitgeist site.TZM filmed the debate and will notify us when the completed video is ready to be uploaded onto YouTube.
Ozymandias wrote:In the past couple of years I have noticed a distinct falling off in TZM activity. I don’t think they are going anywhere.This was evidenced by their poor attendance at the debate. Although 18 people RSVP’d on the TZM Meetup site no more than 7 or 8 of them showed. That compared with 26 party members and supporters. About 4 or 5 other people appeared to be ‘unattached’ so to speak.
Hud955 wrote:…they are anti-reform…Are they? Not judging by the remarks made by one of their speakers (Francesco) and at least one other Zeitgeister present who appeared to suggest that a reform of the banking system might be a first step. And according to Cliff Begley, TZM’s London Chapter Organizer, there are those in the movement who are discussing the very real possibility of reformist political action.
It was pointed out at least three times in the meeting that Francesco was voicing a personal opinion about banking reform, which did not reflect the attitude of the group as a whole. Several other people pointed out that though they thought monetary reform was inevitable, they were not advocating it. I think we have to take them at their word on this until proven otherwise.
I will agree that their analysis of capitalism and ‘the money system’ lends itself to a reformist position and they could go down that route if they get frustrated waiting for capitalism to collapse. But that is not the same thing as saying they are currently reformist in this matter. Let’s wait and see.Thanks for the reply ALB. One more question, have you, or anyone else, read Steve Keen’s book, Debunking Economics? Is it worth reading?
Hud955 wrote:It was pointed out at least three times in the meeting that Francesco was voicing a personal opinion about banking reform, which did not reflect the attitude of the group as a whole. Several other people pointed out that though they thought monetary reform was inevitable, they were not advocating it. I think we have to take them at their word on this until proven otherwise.What is not being realised here is that Francesco a) was representing TZM in a public debate and b) is part of a substantial wing of TZM who, make no mistake, are going down the reformist road. Remember too that Francesco was incredulous when he learnt that the WSM was advocating the establishment of Socialism via the ballot box. You say we should “take their word”; which, or whose, word do you have in mind? I certainly take the “word” of Cliff Begley, a prominent member of TZM London Chapter and ex-member of the SPGB, when he says there are those in the movement who are advocating reforms of capitalism and may contest elections on that ticket.
stuartw2112 wrote:Thanks for the reply ALB. One more question, have you, or anyone else, read Steve Keen’s book, Debunking Economics? Is it worth reading?I’ve had a copy on my bookshelf for a few years but have only really flicked through it. I guess the more mainstream economics you know the more worthwhile it will be reading it. There’s a chapter about Marx and the ‘transformation problem’. Not sure what has changed in the second edition.At the same time as I bought this I also got (and read!) ‘The Death of Economics’ by Paul Omerod an interesting book in that the first half of the book could have been written as a critique of the second, well worth reading (at least the first half).You don’t have to subscribe to Marxian economics to see through the assumptions that neo-classical economics is based upon.
Hi, that’s an interesting observation from Clifford and rather supports my previous comment that, given their understanding of capitalism, TZM could easily go down the reformist route. But for now, that’s not the view expressed on their website, nor the general view of TZMers I have spoken to. At the meeting I also recall several of their members speaking out against the reformist approach – whatever Francesco said. TZM is a very loosely knit movement with little if anything in the way of formal rules, so I don’t think we should assume that Francesco feels strictly bound to represent any ‘official’ line in the way a SPGBer would or should.
Whether the movement does or doesn’t eventually turn into a banking reform pressure group, for now they are committed to a ‘resource-based economy’ not a reform of capitalism. And that seems to me a good basis on which to build a dialogue. We don’t know what will come of it, but it would be an opportunity lost if we failed to take it.
It’s very easy for the SPGB to assess other organisations as having little potential for socialism. It’s even easier, once that assessment is made, to assume a hostile attitude to them. This seems to me the pinnacle of black-and-white thinking. It treats members of the working class as though they all belonged either to a socialist in-group or a capitalist out-group. Frankly, the working class are all our in-group, whatever stage of consciousness they are at, and it is our task to encourage a socialist consciousness in them. Taking a hostile stand because this or that group doesn’t fully and absolutely agree with us strikes me as so self-defeating that we might as well all go home and watch the latest episode of East Enders.
I think it’s perfectly fair to offer rational criticism of reformist or currency creation ideas, but SPGBers often go a lot further, making derogatory and dismissive remarks about the people who hold such ideas – as though they ‘ought to know better’ or as though they harboured some malevolent, exploitative or authoritarian agenda. Sometime, perhaps, they do. That’s a genuine assessment which has to be made. But I don’t hear any of that from TZMers. For the most part I think they are a lot of idealistic, well-meaning and perhaps frustrated people who understand that there is a lot wrong with the world we live in and belive that a fundamental change is both necessary and possible. Why should we be hostile? Anyone who is seriously prepared to consider the possibility of a moneyless, stateless, post-capitalist society as the solution to our problems is worth talking to in my book – whatever else they might think.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.