Since there is nothing I can do other than posting news, and I don’t believe in the original cybernetic principles of the RBE (not a fan of centralized computer control or partial democracies), I declare my intention to leave TZM in favor for economic democracy assisted by computers, while retaining the same transitionary, social justice goals, and RBE core. And I didn’t actually read TZM defined.
The challenges of the 21st century must be addressed via a more balanced methodology that does not employ things which could be considered as technocratic elitism. The definition that TZM uses on socialism is not accepted by socialist circles like the DSA definition.
I think if you do, even if it’s just the first 20 pages, you’ll find TZM is probably more to your liking than you think. Because you seem to puzzle with multiple initiatives, that are basically about an RBE.
This for example is not an RBE
I really suggest to start with a clean sheet and go through the information with a fresh mind. Because you’ve made a personal version of RBE that’s false and then try to fix the shortcomings with your personal version of socialism.
I’m sorry to see you go though, you’re always welcome to come back. All the basic docs and info is listed in the welcome thread by the way.
I do agree with the core philosophy of TZM Defined to some extent, but I do not agree with the proposed implementation of RBEs, the sentiments expressed by Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph, how the Z Documentaries 2 and 3 presented the RBE, the proposed pseudo-democratic models (along with the lack of support for economic democracy) commonly advocated under the label of RBE, the wrong definition of socialism being used, the huge emphasis on technology to the point where some believe it will everything or most things… and I leave TZM because it’s hard to debunk those things within the movement, and I would also want to distance myself from technocratic RBEs.
I once advocated for the Automatic World Management Module, but I decided to do a big red x and say that it’s too centralized and is similar to the benevolent dictator (except that it’s a computer) to actually be a accountable and useful for the people. I no longer believe in unbalanced techno-solutionism.
I think this is the problem as well. The clear definition socialism lacks. I suppose that’s why you created your personal version to make it more concrete. But yeah, then there is another version. And on your webpage you also use a lot of TZM material, sometimes also in the wrong context, such as the 5 economic transition trends. With or without a clear definition, a system has inputs and outputs. And both socialism and capitalism haven’t resulted in a steady growth system, in balance with the planet’s carrying capacity. Which is critical for a stable and healthy society in the long run. We should see the Earth as a spaceship with a life support system, we need to be in sync with that. And as a result of such a steady state system, there will be less waste and more strategic_access. But yeah, that’s all theory And deserves a more lengthy explanation. But yes, participatory democracy is in effect, through open-source. And yes, computers make some decisions automatically, such as keeping crops in a healthy state. There is no reason to vote for that, because it’s not based on opinion, it’s based on research and empiric evidence. That research is brought about by people, in an open-source society, assisted by computers.
IMHO the root problem here is that you digressed from what defines TZM and an RBE. Because I see many statements in your comments, where I have no idea where they’re coming from. You may also expected an audience here to talk about socialism. And yes, you can talk about socialism here. You have started several extensive threads about this. But you’re disappointed by some of the critique you got from me and I suppose @CyberHerald. We’re just 2 people, on a not so active forum. That’s not the whole of TZM. I think @SteveTess likes your posts, but doesn’t comment that much. Don’t take that interaction personal. We’re just all trying to make sense of what system might work better here.
In any case TZM Defined is a master piece IMHO. Give it some time, if you can. And otherwise, I hope you from time to time drop by on this forum. You can by the way do way more than just post news, as is highlighted in the chapters guide
No specific movement is fully compatible with the HS, but I believe we can work with the red-greens to achieve the vision. I posted about DiEM 25, which I believe it’s more compatible than Volt at achieving at least, a better society.
An example of a pseudo-democratic model is TZM Czech’s Direct Scientific Economic Democracy, which may limit participation to those who may be useful but may not be deemed as having the necessary skills or project to even be taken into consideration at the final stage (operates under an elimination systems that progressively reduces the number of projects and proposals for a common problem instead of considering all of the good things from all the proposals), and Fresco’s centralized model, as we see within the TVP being a centralized organization which has compromised its original values.
I deleted the website.
And by socialism, you refer to those state capitalist experiments, not those steady-state democratic eco-socialist models proposed right now.
You don’t vote for crops, the people are already satisfied with the efficiency that computers offer in this domain, you vote for decisions which have direct impact on the people, like the lot placement of that new housing example, where the wrong placement can lead to gentrification or difficulties in accessing various services, which long-term residents may not like due to a possible decline in quality of life and displacement (housing is not just modeled in a 3D CAD Software, but also placed somewhere, and this public good can change the dynamics of the city because of influxes of new residents and things like that which could either have positive or negative effects that need to be accounted, but may not be easily measurable by a computer).
Here, you use the key word assisted, and that shouldn’t mean controlled by computers with little to no checks and balances other than the computers themselves, the system which TVP advocates may want.
And I am also bad at debating and formulating clear ideas in this case.
I have no idea what that is. So I cannot really comment on that in detail. From the 10+ experience in TZM I’ve seen people come up with new twists to ideas, often because they wanted to do something. Change is always part of life, but often these changes are not improvements. Recently I also saw the German chapter working on a 12 point summary of TZM. They were not familiar with the already existing 4 pillars of the train of thought and the associated simple to understand paragraphs (nature, science, technology and sustainability). I’m not saying that it’s the same case as with this thing you mention here, I’m saying there is a chance. So I cannot really comment on that cz thingy.
In general everyone is encouraged to contribute in an RBE. The research centers, inside the city centers, are there to facilitate that. Does that mean I’m missing out when people work on things I’m not interested in or goes beyond my skillset? No, of course not. Especially since me contributing to those fields won’t do anything except adding noise. But I can benefit from their work, because of strategic_access and open-source.
An RBE is also not centralized. It’s a decentral system working together, using localization. Much like how the Internet works, which are smaller networks linked. Data is shared, the more data, the better. And based on that data you make decisions that benefits everyone.
Then we go back into circles again, because they I’ll ask you, why create a soft RBE and label it socialism, while it’s not actual socialism? It seems a bit strange. But of course, you’re free to do that.
City design is also a technical exercise, which is open-source in an RBE. At the moment circular cities are the ones promoted, because they make the center at equal distance for anywhere in the city. Thus you save resources and make travel distance efficient. In the residential belt there is room for nature and housing. That piece of land is up to you to arrange. But the placement is on purpose in such a way that due to trees and lakes you don’t really see other people. So in a sense, you live in nature, but with the benefits of the city infrastructure. Is that for everyone? No of course not, but different cities can be built. We could even built cities like Amsterdam. If people like the atmosphere of chaotic small and busy streets where it takes a long time to get anywhere
But yeah, I’m getting more confident for saying that the concept of an RBE you have has faded away over time.
No. Again, you have made your own definition of an RBE. Technology is to improve our lives. It shouldn’t dictate our lives. Of course the only dictator is nature, we should respect those limits, which technology helps to achieve. Of course technology is there to assist, as I also explain in my example.
Volt is a social liberal party, and their proposals do not seem to challenge the system enough. In fact, the pursuit for economic growth (they talk about economic renaissance and consideration of multiple parameters, but not really about stopping income growh) might lead the reformed system look more green be as unsustainable as the previous one, only buying us time.
DiEM25 more profoundly challenges the current system and proposes a more cooperative economy, which could make it easier to challenge infinite growth.
And it has faded over time because I probably researched socialist though and look at how the socialist youtubers (obviously not the MLs, mostly Second Thought and Our Changing Climate) use sources to explain well-researched complex topics, and I liked how they explain things, and how they present the theory (they changed socialism to be more relevant to the challenges of the 21st century, and also talk about science and technology, and how to use it in the benefit of the people).
Volt doesn’t attack the system in their political goals. That would also shift the attention away from change and it would become a total different discussion and makes it harder to attract masses.
The above goals certainly make it possible to outgrow our current system.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
– Buckminster Fuller
DiEM25 has a big title with:
Europe will be democratised, once the oligarchy is overthrown!
You can bet that this will create noise and the real talking points are then not getting the attention. It’s an “us against them” strategy, which may get some traction, but the focus might get lost due to that slogan. But if they are able to attract the masses and apply true change, then of course that would be great! A quick skim through their website seems indicate they are pretty much in line with Volt. It will be a nice addition to the European Parlement.
Please take that into account when you write certain comments. If you know that certain conclusions are based on a personal hunch, then maybe phrase those comments as questions, rather than as facts. Because you then use that “fact” to advocate for your personal flavor of socialism.
This forum is public and wrong summaries and conclusions make our educational mission harder
It depends on urgency and material condition, as seen in historical movements, such as the labor movement, which often did not use reformist rhetoric, but rather revolutionary rhetoric to attract more people, especially the marginalized.
But when we already outgrown the system in theory, then how do you deal with the fact that it is not implemented yet when we do nothing but let the time run without any intervention?
Reformism has its limits, and it’s good for more privileged positions, but not that justifiable when it’s urgent, or very hard to do so.
Like, if you are in Europe, reformist initiatives might work best, but if you are in poorer Global South countries, revolution might work better as you can’t really do significant change with reform within a corrupt government.
Or so I believe, based on a few historical observations.
Capitalism is known for having self-preservation mechanisms which prevent it from being dismantled, even if it’s outdated, and even if we outgrown it in theory. Your perspective is a reformist one, and it’s still, an opinion, just like mine, and not a fact when applied globally, because the ways you do change everywhere differs, again, according to urgency and material condition.
There is again a lot of context missing in your comment. But I think everything has been said already in the many, many exchanges we had over time. I thank you for your time here on the forum and I hope to see you again!
I do like some of his posts and comments. Yours too Kees. I wish I could comment more but it takes me time to think about my answers, it’s not fluid for me to write in English, know what I mean? Because these are massive topics to discuss, so I like to be understandable.
I’d say, in a full implemented global RBE system, people wouldn’t give a shit about the placement. They would have cities all over the world with housing taken care of. Of course the stages of construction of the cities would have a democratic system through informed decision-making.
No specific movement is fully compatible with the HS, but I believe we can work with the red-greens to achieve the vision. I posted about DiEM 25, which I believe it’s more compatible than Volt at achieving at least, a better society.
Except there is nothing RBE-like in DiEM 25.
And if you are pissed that TZM has been basically stagnating for the past 10 years, and has constantly been bleeding members and chapters, DiEM is basically in the same situation, and has a minuscule influence on ANY legislative level.
Again, seems to me like you went down the socialist rabbithole, tried converting and merging TZM/RBE into the marxist sphere, and when no one wanted it, abandoned any sort of pretense of integrating RBE into it, and just joining an organization(which isn’t even active in Romania) that wants marxist communism.
