Brushing up on your Zeitgeist
- This topic has 53 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Stuart
Yes it is well worth reading, at least it was for someone like me who had only the haziest notion of conventional economic theory. He makes a strong case for the irrationality of conventional economics and grounds that in the way that it is taught. A good part of the book is devoted to exploding various essential notions. To give an example of his approach, he demonstrates that though you can mathematically derive an individual demand curve from a few conventional economic assumptions about human behaviour, you can’t generalise it to society (though A level students are told that you can). If you try to generalise it, one other variable fails to disappear – a variable for the distribution of wealth. Give that different values and your social demand curve goes up, down or every which-way, destroying the very foundation of conventional economic thinking. He then points out that the reason economists are able to ignore this is that the mathematics is very complex, and only thosevery few who go on to post-graduate economis studhy ever encounter the problem. By that time they are so steeped in the theory that they can dismiss it by making a few vague assumptions ‘to take account of it.’
You have to allow of that Keen’s attack is upon neo-classical economics as he himself is, of course, a Keynsian. In the latter part of the book he uses the Sraffian approach to critique neo-classical economists and Marx also, demolishing, as he believe,s Marx’s solution to the average rate of profit theory.
Worth a read.
Cheersgnome wrote: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.Having attended many TZM UK Chapter meetings on TS3 I can second Cliff Begley on this. But given the diverse nature of the “membership” of TZM this comes has no surprise. However, what needs to be taken into consideration is this diversity is also their biggest barrier for any involvement with political activity. So whilst TZM Chapters are unlikely to become involved in reformist activity individual members on the other hand can be and are involved in reformist activity. However, the reformists are in the minority thankfully. Which given the bigger picture of social evolution is not a bad thing imo.Again we need to understand the underlying message of the ‘TZM Mission Statement’ is for each individual to apply critical thinking to the structure of capitalism and consequently condemn the outcomes for the inherent failure to address human needs. However, the TZM hang up with an economic collapse theory is also a sad reflection on their lack of understanding on the revolutionary process and its division into political, economic, social and cultural components. TZM are fixated on the social component to the exclusion of all others.Although TZM do not represent a challenge to capitalism for us they do represent an opportunity to to get the socialist case across – and especially so in respect of promoting a greater understanding on the revolutionary process.
As to whether or not Zeitgeist is “reformist”, I think they are in a similar position to the pre-WWI Social Democratic movement with its supporters agreed on the aim (a world-wide moneyfree resource-based economy) but not in agreement on to how to get there; in fact accommodating people who have differing views on this (gradualism, community action, lifestyle change, etc).Zeitgeist doesn’t rule out reforms (but, then, neither do we; we just don’t advocate them). However, in their mission statement they do give a special place to Monetary Reform:
Quote:The range of The Movement’s Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication. The long term view, which is the transition into a Resource-Based Economic Model, is a constant pursuit and expression, as stated before. However, in the path to get there, The Movement also recognizes the need for transitional Reform techniques, along with direct Community Support. For instance, while “Monetary Reform” itself is not an end solution proposed by The Movement, the merit of such legislative approaches are still considered valid in the context of transition and temporal integrity.The trouble is they don’t seem to agree on which particular monetary reform would be “valid” (and what is “temporal integrity”?).To return to the comparison with the pre-WWI Social Democratic movement, what would be good would be an “impossiblist revolt” within Zeitgeist insisting that they only pursue their stated goal and nothing else. They dropped the circular city in the Amazon jungle stuff when they broke with Jacque Fresco. The next thing for them to drop is monetary reform.
Someone has brought up Canadian currency crank Paul Grignon on another thread (the one about banking). As Francesco recommended his crap video Money as Debt at the Hammersmith meeting, I think it worth recording what Gringon thinks of a moneyfree society. Here’s what he wrote in an email to us dated 15 October 2009:
Quote:In a socialist system in which there is no money how does one get what one needs or wants? Are we allowed to have “wants”? To me it seems that it must mean saying goodbye to the ultimate freedom that matters to people, the freedom to EARN what we desire. Am I correct? If there ‘s no money, there’s no measuring of energy exchanges. Therefore there’s no way to EARN more than your fellow by working harder or having more initiative than he does. If I am correct, then everything has to be assigned to us. How and by whom?This is the exact same question I ask the Zeitgeist Addendum/Venus Project followers who also insist that we need to do away with money completely. So in that respect you are on the same team with Zeitgeist against me.I think such ideas are escapist nonsense at best and a deliberate attack on real monetary reform at worst. Why? Because it will NEVER HAPPEN. So it is a completely safe “utopian” vision to sell people on and DISTRACT THEM away from understanding and demanding real substantive reform to the actual system we are currently enslaved to, the one that IS HAPPENING IN REAL LIFE.So he sees a moneyless society as a distraction from monetary reform! Pity not all Zeitgeisters see that it’s the other way round.
Have you contacted Francesco on this to find out why he recommended this currency cranks book? Why not give him a link to the banking thread?It appears Peter Joseph has been persuaded to abandon making lengthy movies and concentrate his efforts on 20 to 30 minutes videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2kBesides being a bit condescending towards the end he fails to suggest an alternative form of a democractic structure. But nevertheless its more or less what we have been saying in a more prolonged form.
Have you contacted Francesco on this to find out why he recommended this currency cranks book? Why not give him a link to the banking thread?It appears Peter Joseph has been persuaded to abandon making lengthy movies and concentrate his efforts on 20 to 30 minutes videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2kBesides being a bit condescending towards the end he fails to suggest an alternative form of a democractic structure. But nevertheless its more or less what we have been saying in a more prolonged form.
Brian wrote:Have you contacted Francesco on this to find out why he recommended this currency cranks book? Why not give him a link to the banking thread?I’m not sure that would do much to further the debate frankly. I don’t think we are engaging with some of the more recent arguments to come out of the money creationist stable. I think what we write tends to establish an alternative point of view, without actually challenging many of the notions that the creationists are advancing. That’s partly because the same set of data is consistent with both views. The creationists, of course, are very slick with their presentations. They are well funded and have the people to research and present their ideas. Books like the NEF’s ‘Where does money come from’, which Francesco also promotes skates very slickly over a number of issues, presents several specious arguments and is still persuasive even though it fails to mount a solid case.
Brian wrote:It appears Peter Joseph has been persuaded to abandon making lengthy movies and concentrate his efforts on 20 to 30 minutes videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2k
Besides being a bit condescending towards the end he fails to suggest an alternative form of a democractic structure. But nevertheless its more or less what we have been saying in a more prolonged form.It’s a well-made film. And yes, he summarises much of what we have been arguing – except of course where it comes to his obsession with the finance and banking sector and the monetary theories he has spun out of it. My heart sinks whenever I hear them being promoted because these kinds of analysis of capitalism open the floodgates for reformist thinking: reform the banking sector, and all will be well! These ideas are also very attractive to those wanting ‘new’ understandings and ‘new’ solutions to social problems. PJ denies the reformist argument, of course, but I’ve never heard him give a good account of why reformism will not work.(Perhaps he has, but if so, not very loudly, I think.)
Zeitgeist is back in the news, at least in the New York Times of 26 May (as a sympathiser has drawn to our attention). Here's a description of a discussion in a vaping bar in a small town in North Carolina:
Quote:One Friday afternoon someone brought a pair of virtual reality goggles hooked up to a laptop to the shop. Mr. Foster exhaled a cloud that smelled like a Popsicle. He said he had been reading up on the idea, explored in the “Zeitgeist” movie, of a “resource-based economy” — a system in which, he said, “There’s no money and everything is controlled by computers and resources are equally distributed and there’s no ownership or anything like that.”“The system we have now is going to collapse,” he said. “And technology, the automation process, is going to keep taking over and over.”That, he said, would free up people to do what they wanted.Chris Lentz, 36, a worker for a utility company in a pair of mud-caked boots, frowned and asked, “If people were just given everything they ever needed, then what’s the point of going to work?”Good to know that these sort of ideas are being discussed in the obscurest of places.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.