The Zeitgeist Movement Challenge
- This topic has 18 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Zeitgeist movement are issuing a challenge to anyone who can debunk their case…
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/uploads/upload/file/24/tzmchallenge.pdf
Perhaps BrianJ or another comrade with closer acquaintance with ZTM could submit an essay concentrating on the lack of political/class content of its arguments which makes it unachievable and therefore idealistic and utopian in the Marxian sense…as it lacks the Marxist/socialist argument of the working class being the motor for the requisite change. 3 months to write it (closing date 31/7 so i'll bookmark it and who knows, perhaps i might get around to doing something. But as i often stated , i'm not an original creative writer, simply a cut and paste plagiarist so i will check out suitable bits and pieces from our discussion lists to r-edit into the socialist challenge. But the concept of this challenge is a good one. I would suggest we use it in conjuction to our essay competition i keep suggesting.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps BrianJ or another comrade with closer acquaintance with ZTM could submit an essay concentrating on the lack of political/class content of its arguments which makes it unachievable and therefore idealistic and utopian in the Marxian sense…as it lacks the Marxist/socialist argument of the working class being the motor for the requisite change.TZM have outlined a number of 'get-out clauses' which may render a particular submission "unsuccessful". One of these could be a focus by the essayist "on peripheral issues such as the difficulty in formulating a transition plan to a NLRBE rather than the viability of a NLRBE itself".Those of us who have regular discussions with 'members' of TZM know only too well that this so-called "peripheral" issue is one of the major sticking points which never actually gets addressed…
"The best essay(s) will achieve either of the following: a) It will succeed in falsifying part of TZM’s central thesis. If so, TZM will publicly announce a shift in its advocacy, or (more unlikely) will concede that its entire thesis is invalid and will cease to exist (at least as it does now). b) It will not succeed in falsifying part of TZM’s central thesis, but it will provide a decent counterargument to or at least helpful reframing of one (or many) of TZM’s core advocacy points. This will allow TZM the opportunity to expand on or clarify any potential shortcomings or ambiguities in the way it has thus far presented such points." I don't know how serious this is but it could be a prime opportunity for opening up serious debate with TZM. When you read the PDF you can see that issues of political action or class consciousness are not even on the TZM radar. They are terrified of being branded "Socialists" and in order to avoid alienating potential members they have just airbrushed out the entire concept of political organisation and class self awareness thus throwing the baby out with the bath water. A few years ago I wrote this stupid thing on the (then) TZM global forum detailing in 10 points how I thought TZM might fail. It was poorly thought out and it might have prejudiced TZM against the WSM because the tone was a bit wanky. It was even posted on the SOYMB blog but I asked for it to be taken down. I still stand by the points I made though. I just hope the judges won't completely ignore a submission from a Socialist because of what I wrote. I guess such an essay wouldn't exactly be a "debunking" but more a process of fine tuning the argument for the establishment of an RBE and I can think of no other organisation on earth other than the WSM who can get right to the bottom of why TZM are languishing in atrophy. Of course the SPGB hasn't exactly got anywhere in the past 110 years either but that's a different matter and not the fault of the party. When I think of all the great minds in the SPGB I am confident someone can come up with a written challenge which might illustrate that without democratic, conscious and political organisation, TZM will get nowhere.
I'm not sure we should take up this challenge as a party. After all, Zeitgeist have reached more or less the same conclusion as us (that the framework within which to solve the world's problems is a moneyless world society where the Earth's resources have become the common heritage of all), even if on the basis of some faulty analysis (eg about banks) and they have no clear idea of how to get there, i.e our argument with them is about tactics not the goal (which we don't want to refute and which we, like them, claim, as we used to say in our pamphlets, is "backed by incontrovertible facts and logical argument").Let's reserve our arguments to refute the supporters of capitalism, including state capitalism, who don't share our goal.
ALB wrote:Let's reserve our arguments to refute the supporters of capitalism, including state capitalism, who don't share our goal.Unfortunately many, perhaps most, of those who claim to be Zeitgeist adherents support a whole variety of so-called solutions other than those espoused by Peter Joseph and his lieutenants. Some have close associations with reformist outfits including 'One World, One People'; 'Positive Money' and Beppe Grillo's 'MoVimento Cinque Stelle'. Visit the TZM forums and see for yourselves.This is what comes of having an 'open door' policy.
gnome wrote:This is what comes of having an 'open door' policy.Precisely.Incidentally here's someone (who has just contacted us) who puts over the case for a moneyless "resource-based economy" in a much simpler way than Peter Joseph, i.e without any impressive-sounding scientific jargon:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xef5na_on-the-edge-no35-duane-mullin_shortfilms
Here's an example of what we and TZM are up against. Posted less than hour ago on TZM facebook group page:https://www.facebook.com/groups/147039565328926/765078153525061/
Quote:I believe everyone is welcome to join TZM UK regardless of ideology or party membership, we must welcome all from both left & right equally, we must learn to co-operate with each other, as all humans have to learn to co-operate with each other. However Dave Chesham this movement should not be used to promote any individual ideology or party other than its own. As per my OP, I propose that we design and implement a new transitional political party structure for members ‘based’ on the below e-forum design pattern that I made a few years ago. This is designed to prevent collusion between individuals or groups by using autonomous layers and is a form of Direct Democracy that seeks to ‘arrive at decisions’There can be no individual leaders because in this Paradigm we are all weak, as we are all the product of this Environment! We must design a brand new way of doing things.We must become the change that we seek…..This would represent our first stepWe would seek approval from all TZM UK Co-Ordinators but we would not require it, we would ALWAYS seek guidance and assistance from TZM to ensure we do not stray (too far) from the path during transition, but we would not require it.I see no other way to promote the RBE Ideology and tackle the elephant in the room, which is, How do we govern ourselves.Has anyone got a better idea?If we get enough Likes on this comment then we will proceed, if not, then……. I guess we won’t(my bold)
i would suggest that if WSM members do take up the challenge but they do so as individuals and not as official party spokes-persons as Adam's message cautions us against. Membership of WSM can be mentioned indirectly in a variety of obique references but does not have to be made the main issue. The idea that we cannot engage in discussion and disagree as comrades, i think is an odd one. It is just a matter of choice of language and a sympathetic attitude. Our intent is not to detract from Zeitgeist's object which we can fully endorse and support( which can be made clear in the challenge) but to improve TZM's effectiveness by suggesting a better approach of achieving their aim and highlighting a fatal flaw. No matter how admirable the goal, if there is not a viable way of reaching it, then it fails to be anything other than utopian. This criticism can be expressed in a way that need not be adversorial.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The idea that we cannot engage in discussion and disagree as comrades, i think is an odd oneIt is, but I wasn't suggesting that we didn't discuss with them, just that we shouldn't take up their challenge to try to refute their core position. I think in fact that we might be able to convince some of them of the need for political action (rather than charity work or lifestyle change) to bring about their goal. Even Gnome's sparring partner seems to accept this, albeit in a reformist form
I am seriously thinking of taking up this challenge, albeit after the euro elections are out of the way – and obviously as an individual socialist.. Ever since my involvement with them I've always pointed out that TZM as a social movement do not represent an organised political challenge for the transformation of capitalism. Yes Its full of complaining, absolutely bursting with criticism and their condemnation of capitalism is relentless, and very encouraging. But unfortunately when it comes to actually challenging capitalism it fails miserably. And that's its fault line and inevitable cul de sac. I'll never forget on my occasional foray's on the outdoor platform with Harry Young he always used to say before I mounted the steps ' Its not what they say its what they do which determines a working class party'.However, in all honesty I never thought TZM would last this long but since PJ has taken a step back from being the focal point of the movement it seems its on auto-drive by fulfilling an educational function which we are unable to tap into. Which despite the jargon of PJ is continuing to gain momentum, going by the numbers it attracting to facebook.When I have time I'll dig out my polemics and other research I have on them.
But they have specifically said that they do not want essays in this challenge related to how to achieve their goals. They are asking people to refute that a resource based economy can actually work.It would be like us issueing a challenege to people to put forward an argument for "why socialism could not work" and recieving a response saying that socialism would work but using the electoral system is impossible. The response is irrelevant to the hypothetical question.So by all means write to them you don't need a challenge for that, but don't enter it in to this specific competition. It will be a waste of your time and theirs, they've made that clear.
Ed wrote:But they have specifically said that they do not want essays in this challenge related to how to achieve their goals. They are asking people to refute that a resource based economy can actually work.It would be like us issueing a challenege to people to put forward an argument for "why socialism could not work" and recieving a response saying that socialism would work but using the electoral system is impossible. The response is irrelevant to the hypothetical question.So by all means write to them you don't need a challenge for that, but don't enter it in to this specific competition. It will be a waste of your time and theirs, they've made that clear.You are correct Ed. Thats what I get for jumping to conclusions. Thanks for that and also for pointing out its an opportunity to keep the dialogue going by not entering the challenge but writting directly to the Lecture team to gain a response on the question of a political challenge.Hopefully, their response will at the very least confirm and clarify the reasons why they have decided that this particular revolutionary process remains undetermined.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.