More waffle from Peter Joseph…
- This topic has 69 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Have just watched this latest interview with PJ on Russia Today. He has had quite a few opportunities to appear on TV…opportunites the WSM would NEVER have, yet I have never heard this guy state on TV that he advocates a world without Capitalism, money, governments etc etc. He never ever comes out with it. Your average worker watching this would not have a clue what he is talking about…it is just so much waffle. And this fucks me off.
Perhaps some members from London can bring this issue up at this meeting organised by the London TZM chapter?
PUBLIC EVENT: Creating A World Of Plenty – can it be done?
When? Tue, 13 November, 19:00 – 22:00Where? Elixir Bar 162 Eversholt Street, Euston, NW1 1BL, London (edit map) about 5 mins walk from Euston stn & about 3 minutes from Mornington Cresent tube stn (map)Description-
Free Entry: There will be a science and sustainability EXHIBITION as well as a Q&A. WOULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE IN THE WORLD WHERE: – We updated the design of society, using today's science and technology to enable a high quality of life for every human on Earth. – The well-being of all of humanity and a sustainable planet are our primary concerns. – High technology and automation free us up from boring and repetitive jobs. – People don’t need to work more then few hours a day to actually sustain a much higher standard of living.
HiJust watched the interview and I think I can see why he doesn't mention revolution and ending capitalism overtly.He and TZM get a lot of shit from those who support the system. I have checked them out and find they advocate a society with no money, no trade, global democracy and sustainable development. It's out there. He probably sees his role is to promote the movement, the movement speaks for itself.Perhaps he realises speaking in overtly confrontational revolutionary language gets you shut down. But when you know what they are about, the interview makes sense. And he is easy on the eye, comes across as intelligent, non confrontational, professional, genuine. Basically a good front man.I suspect he and others in TZM think and hope the idea will grow "organically" into the future society.Lets face it, you say "revolution" to most people and they will run a mile, thinking you to be a "commie" or something similar. Maybe he realises this fact and is trying not to scare people, to entice us into thinking of the possibilities and to join in.Who are we to say it will fail? Maybe this is the future of what we call socialism happening before our very eyes? It is so easy to stand back and criticise, to not get involved and then when it doesn't work, to turn around and say "I told you so". How often do we say that to people who scoff at our ideas? The self fulfilling prophecy!What do we want? Do we want a society based on common ownership and global democracy? An end to the increasing horrors of capitalism? Is it important who's ideas, philosophy or even personality, brings this about?Just some thoughts.
Ozymandias wrote:Have just watched this latest interview with PJ on Russia Today. He has had quite a few opportunities to appear on TV…opportunites the WSM would NEVER have, yet I have never heard this guy state on TV that he advocates a world without Capitalism, money, governments etc etc. He never ever comes out with it.This is just not true. On a number of occasions Peter Joseph has explicitly argued for a world without money. For instance in this interview with RT:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr7-Qbbrwywand in this one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYH57Cw644kThere's also this hour-long demolition of the so-called "Economic Calculation Argument" against a moneyless economy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTwNor would I describe the video you criticise as "waffle" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOyEil_o38&feature=relmfu)It's actually quite a good explanation why voting within what he calls "the market monetary system" never gets anywhere and the "Global Redesign Institute" he mentions at the end sounds as if it will be doing the work of our Production for Use Committee for us.OK, he doesn't use the same language as us but much of the time he is saying the same as we do.
SocialistPunk wrote:Perhaps he realises speaking in overtly confrontational revolutionary language gets you shut down. But when you know what they are about, the interview makes sense. And he is easy on the eye, comes across as intelligent, non confrontational, professional, genuine. Basically a good front man.A member of my branch (K&SRB) is a tree surgeon and regularly gives talks on trees and the environment generally. He never mentions socialism by name but always manages to put forward the socialist case. Only the other evening he gave a talk to around 100 people in Sevenoaks on 'caring for trees'. Hardly an inspiring or revolutionary subject one might have thought but nevertheless he had people coming up to him afterwards saying that they had been thinking along similar lines – i.e. about a society which doesn't depend on profit and money (paraphrasing his words). One person even suggested he should stand as an MP in the area!
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Perhaps he realises speaking in overtly confrontational revolutionary language gets you shut down. But when you know what they are about, the interview makes sense. And he is easy on the eye, comes across as intelligent, non confrontational, professional, genuine. Basically a good front man.A member of my branch (K&SRB) is a tree surgeon and regularly gives talks on trees and the environment generally. He never mentions socialism by name but always manages to put forward the socialist case. Only the other evening he gave a talk to around 100 people in Sevenoaks on 'caring for trees'. Hardly an inspiring or revolutionary subject one might have thought but nevertheless he had people coming up to him afterwards saying that they had been thinking along similar lines – i.e. about a society which doesn't depend on profit and money (paraphrasing his words). One person even suggested he should stand as an MP in the area!
Which reminds me to mention that TZM UK have an educational team who are providing lectures to sixth formers in England. Eventually, its hoped this activity will also be taken up their supporters in the rest of the UK. All of the material used by their Educational Team is available on the internet, and I know it covers a broad range of subjects. By not presenting themselves as a direct political challenge to the status quo it appears TZM UK are exploiting a chink in the battle of ideas and promoting their own train of thought in regards to social change being brought into existence by a social movement rather than by a social class. They offer a few posiibilities on how it may occur but on how social change will actually come about is left open for the individual to decide. Which in my estimate says that TZM have little understanding of social evolution. And if this is the case this very limited train of thought might also prove to be their downfall for it ignores that the revolutionary process consists of three separate struggles: political, economic and social. Eventually these separate struggles will merge into one united class struggle. Thankfully, socialists are not fixated purely on the social struggle and understand the social relationships embedded within the political and economic structure of capitalists society. This might seem like a disadvantage presently, in that by being open about our political credentials and never hesitating to denounce the inequality of class society, this leaves us open to misrepresentation and continual disinformation. However, in the long term its the only sensible course to take.
I was wondering where the party stood as regards TZM, in relation to the below principle from the SPGB Declaration of Principles?7 That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.I ask this because hostility has been shown to TZM, as mentioned before on this forum.Anyone?
TZM could not in any shape or form be described as a political party. They are a social movement attempting to spread awareness around the fact that capitalism has outlived its sell by date. Despite their proposals for a Global Resource Based Economy based on common ownership, classless, free access, moneyless society they have no intention in mounting a political challenge to effectively bring this about. Although the broad similarities between socialism and a RBE are plain to see they disassociate themselves from any "ism".Obviously, any organisation which springs into existence – virtually overnight – out of the visual experiences of a couple of films will have some major weaknesses in respect of its structure and organisation and more importantly in its understanding of social evolution and in particular its role in the class struggle. However, its early days and many of its supporters – in reality they have no membership – are eager to find their feet in the political arena so they can effectively combat the supporters of capitalism in the battle of ideas.Finally, I suspect you are mistaking analysis for hostility. Indeed, if we were 'hostile' to TZM how do you account for the fact that since their inception several discussions and meetings have taken place around the subject of a commonality in our object? Their supporters are to all intents and purposes on a learning curve. And I for one will encourage them to continue this process by explaining the socialist case and by projecting the need to understand historical materialism whenever the opportunity arises.And may it stay that way!
What was the result of the party referendums on whether Zeitgeist was a political organisation and whether membership was compatable with party membership?Spintcom is currently down because of Yahoo stuff so i cannot double check but i am sure what you say, Brian, is economical with the truth, in regard to party attitude to Zeitgeist.I'm not being hostile just that a question was asked and deserves a full frank answer. There as indeed debate and difference within the party concerning Zeitgeist. But party attitudes are often in the process of evolution.
The whole question of our attitude to Zeitgeist was discussed at our Annual Conference in 2011. The result of the votes were:
Quote:"This conference rules that the Zeitgeist Movement is a political organisation within the meaning of Rule 6". Carried. For 49. Against 47.Quote:"This Conference considers that active support for the Zeitgeist Movement is incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party". Carried. For 69. Against 30.Draw what conclusion you will from the closeness of the first vote: that we are half-heartedly opposed to Zeitgeist?Actually, in view of what Rule 6 says ("A member shall not belong to any other political organisation") both resolutions mean the same and amount to a rejection of dual membership and "entryism".
I am not being economical with the truth in relation to the hostility clause which the question from Socialist Punk related too. Indeed it could be argued that the votes in 2011 have no bearing on expressing any kind of party hostility to TZM and that the vote carried 49 to 47 is in recognition that TZM are fellow participants in the class struggle (albeit, as a "political organisation" and not as a political party).That said this particular resolution need not had been placed on the agenda for it goes without saying by adopting a broad brush approach – which we do – to political affairs and discourse all working class organisations are 'political'.
Hi Brian,I am in agreement with you about TZM, in no way can they be described as a political party, I am sure they would be in agreement.They are political, as in the broad sense of the issues they address, as we all know politics is everywhere.I had a hunch about the party attitude and TZM and I merely seek an answer. I hope to be proved wrong.As for my mistaking analysis for hostility. It has been discussed on this forum about the poor behaviour of members at the recent meeting with TZM. Check out the thread "The reason the party is so small".Now as ALB has pointed out the SPGB have voted in favour of TZM being seen as a political party, a small majority in favour, suggesting a split in opinion.
ALB wrote:Draw what conclusion you will from the closeness of the first vote: that we are half-heartedly opposed to Zeitgeist?When you take principle number 7 from the DoP and put it with the vote for seeing Zeitgeist as a political party. This does suggest that the official party line is opposition to TZM.If this is the case, I find it a little hard to grasp that the SPGB would deliberately consider another group, who advocate so closely the goal of what we call socialism, as an enemy.I seem to recall on another thread, a few members saying WSM would likely be a small player among many other groups/movements in the push towards a socialist society.What is going on here? Please tell me I am mistaken?
SocialistPunk wrote:Now as ALB has pointed out the SPGB have voted in favour of TZM being seen as a political partyThat's not what I pointed out or what the resolution said. It said that Zeitgeist was to be regarded as "a political organisation within the meaning of rule 6". It does not say that Zeitgeist is a political party and nobody has claimed that it is. You yourself accept that there is a difference between a "political party" and an organisation that can broadly be considered to be political. What I said was that the resolution(s) meant that no one can be a member of both the SPGB and Zeitgeist. This was in fact the context in which the debate took place. Whether or not Zeitgeist is a "political party" is a different debate which didn't take place, maybe because nobody could reasonably argue that it is. So, yes, you are mistaken or rather have got the wrong end of the stick.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.