I don’t think any form of communism fixed the anti-economy attribute 
Technocracy comes closest to an RBE as far as I can tell.
The ultimate goal of Humanist Socialism is to create a classless, moneyless, ecological, equitable and potentially stateless society based on the principles of a Resource-Based Economy.
Is that sufficient or what other attributes we should have to create an economy, and not anti-economy, besides updated values?
The closest ideologies to RBE/HS (because there are multiple RBE variations, such as NL/RBE (TZM), Global RBE (TVP), OAE (Free World Charter)) are Libertarian Municipalism, Technocracy, Mutualism, Eco-Socialism, Social Ecology and Green Politics.
I am mostly confused why you’re not focused on the RBE model, and perhaps improve or promote that. Because these things you mention are not as strong or original as an RBE. They are somewhat similar or just mildly different and heavily RBE inspired. Or just patched version of what we already have (eco isms).
The RBE ideally, and how you implement it, should be the core priority of any RBE ideology. Those ideologies, although they have close matches, are fundamentally different from those close matches.
Minor aesthetic differences are largely unimportant, we have already agreed that not all isms are equally bad now. HS is interoperable (by being neutral on implementation and pragmatist, as an ideology and not organization), and thanks to that, we can support and implement measures that help us get to the RBE via collaboration with non-RBE parties instead of solely off-griding (boycotting, as presented in the zeitgeist documentary series).
Within a welfare state, we can create a gradually more comprehensive Universal Basic Needs program that would eliminate the need of money for basic needs and drastically reduce poverty. It needs to be ecological to reduce any environmental harm, and not rely on exploitation of other nations or people’s, and also use computers and systems theory to ensure efficiency.
With the UBN, implemented in collaboration with others thanks to interoperability, most people would agree and the importance of traditional capitalistic models will gradually decline, giving way to RBE.
A resource-based economy can tackle a lot of the social and economic challenges we have today. We can transition or become closer to this model by adjusting the welfare state to include a universal basic needs program, ecological controls, and collective ownership, which would automatically, and gradually change the default economic model.
Universal Basic Needs Program
A universal basic needs program must ensure that everyone has access to necessities such as food, water, healthcare, education, transportation, electricity, communication, and housing. By doing so, we make can reduce poverty levels and the importance of capital.
Ecological Controls
Ecological controls are important for reducing the negative impacts of resource exploitation, climate change, and the UBN itself. This involves developing policies that promote renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and responsible consumption, ultimately leading to a healthier planet.
Collective Ownership
By moving to community-oriented ownership models, we can manage resources in a way that prioritizes public welfare over profit. This shift requires collaboration among various political ideologies, particularly socialists and social democrats, to create a strategy that serves all citizens.
Conclusion
Modifying the welfare state to support a transition to a resource-based economy can be a promising path toward social equity and environmental sustainability. By establishing a universal basic needs program, integrating ecological controls, and promoting collective ownership, we can gradually diminish the influence of capital, and become closer to a classless, moneyless, ecological and equitable society.
Man, again, why do you keep trying to make us into socialists?
As i said again and again, you will never hijack socialism into implementing an RBE.
You will just be taken over by marxists, and make TZM just another tiny marxist group.
I only call myself a socialist, I am not actually a socialist by Peter Joseph’s definition, and neither is Humanist Socialism. It is called “socialism”, but it is not by your definition.
I only inspire and collaborate, I don’t fuse with anyone else. I don’t consider the word “marxism” to be an insult, but I do consider the theory behind it to be outdated.
Transitioning to a Resource-Based Economy through Welfare State Modification is only one of the many ways to transition to RBE, and in theory, it can be done smoothly, even though opposition will exist.
There are 5 economic trends that might transition us into a post scarcity economy, as highlighted in Peter’s book: automation open-source localization strategic_access and digital_feedback
These trends are agnostic to any existing economic flavor. It saves some trouble, it also keeps discussions more neutral. Because it’s not about isms then anymore. Just progress, which people can benefit from.
And those isms we don’t like have somehow adapted in time, incorporating more automation, open-source, localization, strategic access and digital feedback. And since we believed isms don’t adapt, it created confusion.
Humanist Socialism (which only gives you the value framework, technical framework is left to RBE) indirectly agrees to all of those 5 economic trends, since that would satisfy this core goal: maximizing human well-being.
*To any economic system put in practice, excluding theoretical isms and variants of socialism that do adopt such trends.
But to appease everyone, we’ll just say, “we don’t know”.
Let’s try this communal agreement:
- We collectively don’t know what works and what doesn’t exactly. We leave it to the judgement of others.
- We are neutral to systems, judging from case-by-case basis.
- Some systems, despite that they are all theory, are better than others.
- Regardless of what system we use, we strive for the same goal: maximizing the quality of life of all humans.
To be exact in the wording, an ism that acts like an anti-economy is not an economy 
It’s not really about liking. Something works or doesn’t work.
I don’t think this was said, at least not by me. I said that there are developments, which we then named eco isms. But at the core they are still infinite growth and not designed as an operating system for the earth that manages the resources efficiently.
Can you define this a bit more detailed? Because I’m not sure what you mean here.
True. And that’s why I’m confused why you want to go for either an RBE overlay system or an RBE-lite version 
True. But capitalism also aims to do this
In any case, I’ve spent quite a lot of time on this now 
Can you please stick it to one topic thread? And be as concrete as possible? And maybe also check the TZM books about this. Because it feels a bit as if you’re just thinking out loud and exploring/improving your point along the way.
I refer to people over profits. Capitalism does not prioritize people over profits.
RBE is not a single system. There are multiple variations of it. TVP, PJ, FWC… RBE itself is an economy, and economy needs a framework or set of values to operate on.
For example, when I believe that we should gradually transform the welfare state into an RBE, but you believe it’s better to go off-grid, the general consensus shall be “we don’t know”.
Based on the contract, we say, we don’t know, because not all systems are based on infinite growth or at least what I think
The problem is that you have socialism that has been tried, and new forms / upgraded socialism that have never been tested to actually see if they work or not. Per the contract, we say we don’t know.
We say “we don’t know” because it’s very hard or impossible to make a compromise between multiple thoughts which have different logic.
The only way to mitigate “we don’t know” is to test all systems, and use universal definitions set by everyone within every discourse.
I think we’re still in a recursive loop I’ll try harder to leave this topic at rest Others are free to step in of course 
But please keep the discussion in one thread, let’s use this one. Otherwise it will hijack the topic overview. That’s not nice for the diverse topics being posted. Thanks!
It seems that the topic is very hard to settle and make everyone agree. This collective contract is meant to close the loop by giving neutral weight. In fact, this thread is composed of multiple topics, which makes it even harder to settle, as you have to settle every single topic.
So, what do we do is to say, to all of those topics, that we don’t have a conclusion and everyone is free to go in that direction. You can go with Peter Joseph’s platform, Fresco’s platform, my own platform, anything, but we will not establish ground for those platforms to conflict.
The contact is:
- We collectively don’t know what works and what doesn’t exactly, besides what has been tested. We leave it to the judgement of others.
- We are neutral to systems, judging from case-by-case basis. Systems which are not eligible for case-by-case basis evaluation are broad generalizations like socialism and communism.
- Some systems, despite that they are all theory, are better than others.
- Regardless of what system we use, we strive for the same goal: maximizing the quality of life of all humans.
- Capitalism prioritizes profits over people, no question. As for other systems, we refer to the case-by-case evaluation.
Here is a clarification of what socialism is (it’s more complicated than systems which have never worked or have equal logical conclusions):
1 Like
If the topic is fluid, you can also use the Lounge chat You can export chats into a topic later, if needed. It will prevent the creation many topics that are a train of thought in development. That’s why we also have chat
Except what you are saying has been tried.
A more participation, referendum based, automated, eco-friendly socialism is the theoretical base of socialism of the 21st century:
You know who tried it?
Venezuela and other south american movements.
How did that work out for them?
Why not try updating pirate politics, or as Kees has done, interacted with Volt people, instead?
Broad common ground, without the tainted heritage.
Or, you know, as Kees said, going to these events, and converting compatible socialists(or pirates, or volters) into your brand of RBE, within the TZM community, instead of making us some brand of socialism?
Given how inactive TZM is at times, if you managed to merge a couple of these groups into TZM, your flavour of RBE would become dominant.
I don’t refer to this version of socialism. I refer to a ton of socialist systems we are not even going to talk about.
I will also refrain from talking about Venezuela, as that is not accurately representative of what I’m talking about.
We shall agree to this contract to resolve all the topics:
- We collectively don’t know what works and what doesn’t exactly, besides what has been tested. We leave it to the judgement of others.
- We are neutral to systems, judging from case-by-case basis. Systems which are not eligible for case-by-case basis evaluation are broad generalizations like socialism and communism.
- Some systems, despite that they are all theory, are better than others.
- Regardless of what system we use, we strive for the same goal: maximizing the quality of life of all humans.
- Capitalism prioritizes profits over people, no question. As for other systems, we refer to the case-by-case evaluation.
It is unlikely to become dominant, just like the other flavors of RBE. But updated forms of socialism are slowly on the rise.
HS technically satisfies all the checklists we have to be a valid RBE system. Technological goals are the same as we have, the values are similar to what attitudes we have…
Any discussion on socialism shall be closed with full neutrality on any system. I may identify in part as socialist, you may not. Regardless, we shall be neutral over any system if we want to resolve all the topics at the same time, with a few exceptions, such as capitalism. Because, there is no compromise which can be made at the time.
So, we don’t continue to comment on the merits of any form of (or in general) socialism or my very own system. The topic is simply closed.
Well, if the purely theoretical system ends up with Venezuela IRL, what use is it?
Well, it will at least become dominant in this community.
And always plateau at single digits percentages of votes.
The RBE itself is also a theoretical system. We can only try and test. It can either fail because of a flaw we didn’t know it exists, outside intervention (such as western imperialists interfering in our experiment in some way or another, if we don’t do it gradually, globally or bottom-up), something better coming up in the future (if RBE were to last), or other causes.
Favorable views of capitalism are on the decline in the younger generation. I would prefer to not measure trends by votes because FPTP and a lot of systems we use today favor tactical, not genuine voting.
But as I said, we assume full neutrality and close this topic. Technically, the values we have in all of us are updated and opposition to socialism or any system other than capitalism, feudalism, and others we should obviously oppose with no doubt, creates unnecessary confusion.
It is, but we test it properly, not just throw our weight behind whatever tinpot dictator proclaims more modern-sounding buzzwords to his iteration of Marx.
I swear, every time you speak, you sound more and more like your stereotypical internet communist, because you are going down your Youtube Breadtube rabbithole.
This is proving to the letter what i’m talking about.
Mingling with that crowd dont convert them to our cause, we will just end up thinking and sounding exactly the same as them.
You wanna go that route?
Cool, join your local leftist group, and do your thing there.
There is discontent, but those parties are still fringe.
We should still see a decent chunk of support, and electoral results.
Of course we will not use a dictator.
That response does not represent my views.
Assume full neutrality! We will never agree on all the topics at once! Do not continue the topic anymore!
The contact is:
- We collectively don’t know what works and what doesn’t exactly, besides what has been tested. We leave it to the judgement of others.
- We are neutral to systems, judging from case-by-case basis. Systems which are not eligible for case-by-case basis evaluation are broad generalizations like socialism and communism.
- Some systems, despite that they are all theory, are better than others.
- Regardless of what system we use, we strive for the same goal: maximizing the quality of life of all humans.
- Capitalism prioritizes profits over people, no question. As for other systems, we refer to the case-by-case evaluation.
We technically have the same social and technological goals in mind, and the differences we have are largely irrelevant!
Socialism also includes non-market systems, which is why we should be neutral to it.
A Global RBE is the best system possible, in theory, HS on a national scale (another form of RBE) is second-best, and can be used as a stepping stone to global RBE, after we used eco-isms as stepping stones.