SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Brian,I agree, it is an odd statement for TZM to make: "In a resource based economy everyone would live better than the wealthiest of today." Perhaps the key is in the reference to "human potential" ? Or if you think about it, what capitalism does to our environment, in causing so much toxic pollution and potential climate change, todays wealthy would, even if they did not realise it, be better off.But without stating that, it does seem as you say, to imply a leveling up of wealth or access to the equivalent of todays luxuries etc.
Hi ALB,I was well aware of the reference TZM have in their mission statement about transitional reform techniques.The key word in my bit is "solution", perhaps I should have said ultimate end solution or something similar.But I have the same concerns about TZM that most others here have. Their reference to the use of reforms to somehow, (unspecified) achieve what they refer to as a global resource based economy. We all know if unchecked those reform techniques can quickly become end goals in themselves. And that would be at odds with the end goal of the movement.The following comes from the FAQ number 4 How does TZM view the solutions to our major social problems today?http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq4It appears that most solutions offered in the world today are framed within the current social order and its practices.For example, there are over 1 billion people starving in the world and the most common solutions sought tend to utilize money in some fashion to enable the resources needed.TZM takes a very different view. Rather than take each problem on a per case basis and work to solve that problem within the confines of the custom accepted system – a system that might, in fact, be creating the problem itself – TZM steps back to consider the inherent logic of the issues themselves and how they relate to the emerging Scientific Benchmark (with respect to The Scientific Method), absent respect for social tradition and custom.In the case of 1 Billion people starving, the solution does not rest with the need for more donations, more governmental subsides or even legislation to limit possible causal abuse and exploitation of such regions (as those are not direct solutions since they do not relate to the mechanics of survival). Rather they relate and intermediate with current social customs. It is easy to pick and choose quotes as I am doing, but my point is TZM are offering a solution so similar to ours, that ultimately goes way beyond reform.I would like to extend an invitation to TZM members to join us on this forum to discuss ideas.
The following is taken from the FAQ section found in the TZM site (link provided by Brian). Spot the similarities? 5 What are some of the central characteristics of the solution proposed (RBEM)?No Money or Market SystemAutomation of LaborTechnological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach.Access over Property.Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.Science as the Methodology for Governance If the speakers earlier referred to from TZM UK are advocating monetary reforms as a solution then they are at odds with the movement goals, (Perhaps as socialists the radical aims of TZM are easy for us to grasp).
Hi ALB,Much appreciated thanks for putting me right.I would hate to think TZM were seen as enemies. I know you have expressed a positive interest in them. Sorry everyone!
Hi ALB,Good work dude.Yep, it is important the party maintain a presence, there are some at these events that actually listen.The bit you mention about them coming out with the same tired rubbish about what we advocate being tried in China etc.I imagine it was waving a red rag to a bull. Were you able to get in a rebuttal or was it a case of their platform, their last word etc?
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?
A little extract from the Occupy letter in the above link provided by Alan. Our objective is to bring that experience to bear on the central question of how to make finance work for the 99%, If they want to make finance work, they could start by giving me a few million quid, lol..Looks like the Occupy lot are turning into a lobbying group. I suppose they gotta make a crust or two somehow. They could call themselves, OccuLob Inc.In a few years who knows what they could achieve/acquire, a nice pension package with share options, a nice big house, several flash cars, private yacht.
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?
Hi Alan,Got a little confused at the end of my last post, or more accurately, got ahead of myself without fully digesting your statement.Sorry for that.I see what you mean. Try to get those such as Occupy to challenge our ideas.I think both non confrontational probing of others ideas, as well as what you suggest could be a good combo. The trick is, as always, in bringing them into play.
Hi Alan,You said the following in response to my observations about the combo' of party members age and the use of outdated language:
alanjjohnstone wrote:i have to admit we are seen as a party of "old" men talking in "old" language about "old" ideas. But what age is Noam Chomsky. What are the ages of the economists and anthropologists and writers that inspire Occupy. What is so different about their language (plenty of academics usually involved) they use from our own? Not very much! So i think it is a bit easy to put it down to a generational thing. The fact of the matter is that our ideas, in the way we express them do not relate to Occupy and they are not receptive to them.However I do not recall saying it was simply down to a generational gap. Not with regards to the actual age of members anyway. I said, "But there is probably also a generation gap."My whole point is the language the party is steeped in is perceived to be old fashioned and therefore makes ageing members seem more like fossils than they actually are. I am aware of Chomsky and his style or anti-style approach. The thing about his stuff and other accepted critics of capitalism is they do not actually call for a revolutionary overthrow of the system.If the SPGB and companion groups simply criticised, I am sure many members would be honoured speakers of the intellectual left. Revolution is the danger word to most.Now with the following bit, you are on to something. In the battle to win hearts and minds, attacking peoples views is a non starter.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Instead of challenging Occupy's manifesto, forcing them into being defensive, we must somehow get them to start questioning our positions, demanding we explain and justify them.I agree with Alan that the best tactic, I am sure most socialists know, is to get people to actually think about and explain the ideas they support and how those ideas will lead to the improvements they claim will happen.
Hi JS
J Surman wrote:A separate point now regarding the recent posts above and how we communicate – We can each only do what we know best, and there is surely plenty of variety in that. Let's have discussion on it, but not too much soul-searching which may be a distraction.I attempted to bring attention to this very area on another thread not so long ago and got savaged for it.Caution is advised.
I remember shortly before the US presidential election when Obama got elected president. I was having a second round of physiotherapy for a ruptured achilles tendon (two years earlier). My physiotherapist seemed quite exited at the prospect of a African American US president being elected. So exited in fact, he intended to stay up and watch it.When I enquired as to why he should be so exited, given the fact that the presidents skin colour would make no difference to the running of the american establishment and so be of little use to the average american, he was unable to explain. Yet still he maintained a high degree of excitement at the looming historical event.I wonder if he is still as exited now?
ALB wrote:The criticism we made of a self-managed market economy of worker-controlled workplaces put forward by such groups as Solidarity in the 60s and 70s applies to them, but our problem is how do we get across the need for some degree of centralisation and for political action. Another drawback is that, unlike those we argued with at that time, modern anti-capitalists are not using the same language that we are used to (socialism, working class,class struggle, Marx, etc). But at least we've haven't got the baggage of vanguardism and insurrection that the SWP and other Trotskyists have.I seem to recall saying something similar not that long ago. But I found I was critiscised heavily by many, even quite aggressively at times.But at least the reality is starting to sink in.During the late eighties and early nineties I came across a new breed of "punks" into very similar music, except they didn't like the term "punk". They had new words to describe their music and fashion.My point is, new generations want their own identity. They are not concerned and do not like it when it is shown their ideas, fashion, music and even politics have been around before them.I hate to bring this up, because it shouldn't really be important, but unfortunately it is so often in modern society. But there is probably also a generation gap. I imagine most of the SPGB members are over a certain age, probably forties onwards?I would love to be wrong. But if I am not, then we have ageing members using what is often perceived to be outdated language. Not quite a recipe for success in todays youth orientated consumer society.What to do about it. That is the big issue. I don't think Botox or mud masks would do much good and neither will pretending we are younger, by adopting modern fashions, and music tastes. That just leaves the obvious. Now I am not suggesting adapting language will work any magic, but it may stop the party slipping into irrelevant oblivion.
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.
Hi ALB,It would be a case of "moral outrage" being co-opted by the system if the wankers, I mean bankers, in the city were able to do something to "fix" the cause of the "moral outrage".In other words if they, advocated a complete change in the fundamental nature of capitalism that would ensure profits were not put before human need, then they would have the moral high ground. But alas those poor misunderstood, bankers and city investors can not and do not want such a change. So they try every tactic available to distract their critics from the business as usual agenda.We on the other hand do have a carefully worked out solution on offer. We just need to take a leaf out of our opponents book and use every tactic available to us to expose their lies and hypocrisy. If that means we find a way to own morality, to take it from them and imbue it with real meaning, then what is wrong with that? Unless you are of the opinion we lack the ability to do so?
stevecolborn wrote:Can you imagine, Socialism and MORALITY, in one package? Can you not imagine the impact? If it were done in, OUR WAY?
