aliccam
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
