Moved some of the chat here, since it’s on topic for this thread.
Which kind of socialism doesn't use the market system? Are you referring to your own RBE with socialism mix?
Because then we circle back to that point I made a few times. What does it add? Eco isms already form a stepping stone towards an RBE 
which is agnostic towards any ism flavor. Because it's mostly driven by automation localization digital_feedback open-source and strategic_access
Here is the chat continuation:
But how are those determined? Supply and demand? Because that's the market mechanism
People owning the production, isn't that communism?
Anyway 
I've spent quite some time on these discussions already. I'm taking a break, since we're in this loop. Where we end up talking about an RBE. So why don't you just focus on the RBE model and the improvement and promotion of that? ;p
I'm still puzzled why you want to focus so much on socialism 
Eco isms do already pretty well. Next step is working towards integration and efficiency, which may lead to an RBE.
What you describe with resource management is an RBE that's not something from socialism I know you created your own flavor, but that's not mainstream socialism and it's basically just an RBE model
But how? Sorry for asking these direct questions it's just that these details are not clear. The why and how. Aren't the sustainability goals set by the UN and EU already setting that stage?
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Note: In general, it is not very clear what communism refers to. But here is the definition of the reference to communism I am using (which is the technical, general definition of anarcho-communism):
Classless, moneyless and stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned, resources are distributed based on need, and where mutual cooperation is enforced.
It’s important to note that socialism does not inherently support infinite growth, and in fact, just like us, it has been criticized by socialists and not widely believed in.
It is hard to understand your essay, in its current form, so AI sectioned and summarized it into easy to understand pieces.
The Deterioration of Vision
- Political and Organizational Ineptitude: The author observes that the structures intended to support the vision—such as the not-for-profit status and the NOVUS summit—may have inadvertently obstructed its advancement.
- Dependency on External Funding: There is a critique of the organization’s reliance on investors and philanthropy, suggesting that they hoped for financial support based solely on past achievements rather than proactive efforts.
The Need for Healthy Detachment
- Reassessment of Relevance: The author emphasizes the importance of stepping back to recognize that the organization’s blueprint has become irrelevant due to its failure to foster genuine participation.
- Critical Aspects of Grassroots Movements: The essay argues that participation is essential for meaningful grassroots movements, which the current model lacks.
Limitations of the Existing Model
- Stagnation and Lack of Inertia: The author describes the current model as stagnant, entrenched in a direction that lacks momentum.
- Leadership Concerns: A critical view is taken on Roxanne and her team’s capability to carry forward the vision, suggesting a need for new leadership.
A Vision for Post-Scarcity Society
- Housing as an Inalienable Right: The essay posits that establishing housing as a fundamental right is a logical first step toward achieving a post-scarcity society.
- Cascading Social Advancements: The author argues that this foundational change could lead to significant social progress, including the elimination of forced labor for income.
Engaging Participation
- Captivating Engagement: Emphasizing participatory engagement as crucial, the essay suggests that it should be central to efforts aimed at post-scarcity outcomes.
- Alienation Through Methodology: There is concern that an overemphasis on the scientific method may alienate potential participants, making them feel unqualified or undervalued.
Now, my personal opinion is that today’s RBE moderates are very focused on technology and science, so much so, that there are no other secondary social objectives than advancing technology and science, which I found to be problematic and alienating, so I created Humanist Socialism.
I studied socialism and realized it’s not that bad as it is portrayed, and while the moderates may not agree with this idea, I believe that we should inspire from other ideologies and adopt an approach with multiple stakeholders, and create some form of democracy where it’s not only the science that gets heard, but also the people.
In an ideal world, innovation and research is not funded by philanthropy. Even if moderates view technology and research made with such types of funding as good, we need to be careful as that comes with strings attached, and ideally, eliminate the strings altogether, as those serve to distract from our vision with a lot of optimism on quick fixes.
Also, who owns the means of production is important. If we want to foster genuine participation, all the production centers, everything, must not only be automated, but owned by the people, so the means of production become accountable, and can foster participation, as people are implicated in the decision-making process.
But this can only happen after you achieved RBE, or some form of intermediary socialism which you can transition to RBE. So, right now, we must find a way to make the current framework as participatory as possible.
In conclusion, we need more democracy, more multilateralism, less dependence on philanthropy, and more accountability for the people.
It’s important to note that what I wrote is my opinion, which may or may not align with the opinions of the predominating system of thought used by moderates at TZM, TVP and FWC. And it’s also important to note that my stance may change in time.
I define an RBE moderate as someone who is very invested and science and technology so much that they don’t even (or barely) consider secondary goals (as presented in HS), and may believe that eco-modernism (or eco-capitalism is a good (or neutral) thing, despite that ecology is not compatible with capitalism) is a good thing while being supposedly post-capitalist (post but not anti-capitalist).
Where do you see this? An RBE is literately applying science and technology to social concern, within the carrying capacity of the Earth.
Not all of the following 10 values are present (or clearly defined) in RBE moderatism, instead being branded under “social concern”:
- Constructivist Spirit
We believe in the fundamental principle of human agency. It is essential that we empower individuals and communities, providing them with the necessary tools, resources, and support to actively engage in the process of envisioning and creating their desired futures.
- Rehabilitative and Restorative Justice
Our justice system should fundamentally prioritize rehabilitation and restorative justice. Instead of merely imposing punitive measures, we must shift our focus toward healing and reconciliation, fostering an environment where individuals can learn from their mistakes and reintegrate into society.
- Progressive Mindset
We should be commited to social progress, evolving beyond traditional norms, coupled with responsible technological development, supporting innovations that enhance quality of life while opposing extreme transhumanist ideologies that extend beyond medical necessity.
- Cosmopolitan Outlook
We must value peace and actively strive to foster positive international relations with other nations, even if in an ideal world, the concept of nations may not exist at all. We must oppose the exploitation and domination of one nation over another in any way, and reject economic globalization that prioritize profit over people while supporting cultural globalization, should any external forces be present in the global landscape.
- Regulatory Prudence
We believe in the importance implementing thoughtful and effective regulations as a means to safeguard both the interests of the people and the integrity of our environment. While education may lead to the elimination of a lot of individual regulations, it remains imperative that we maintain a framework of oversight to address and rectify any potential flaws or imbalances that may arise within the system.
- Ecological Protection
We must be committed to safeguarding our environment for both current and future generations by prioritizing sustainable practices, actively engaging in conservation efforts, and ensuring the responsible management of our natural resources.
- Reformist Approach
Acknowledging the necessity of building broad consensus among diverse stakeholders, we must aim to ensure that our communities evolve in a thoughtful, inclusive, and equitable manner via staged reforms. However, it is crucial that these reforms are designed to catalyze significant progress, rather than merely taking incremental steps that may fail to address the underlying issues effectively.
- Science for the People
We must ground our regulatory and economic decisions under the principles of the scientific method. This approach must ensure that our actions are not only informed and effective but also genuinely beneficial to the well-being of the people we serve.
- Economic Equity
We must ensure a fair and just distribution of resources and opportunities across all segments of society. It is essential that every individual has access to the essential resources, such as quality food, water, healthcare, education, transportation, electricity, communication, and housing, to be able to contribute meaningfully to their communities.
- Healthiest, Intelligent, and Happiest People
We must cultivate a society that nurtures the healthiest, most intelligent, and happiest individuals possible. This requires a commitment to prioritizing comprehensive education, accessible healthcare, and robust social support systems. By doing so, we can ensure that every individual is afforded the opportunity to realize their full potential and lead a fulfilling life characterized by personal growth, well-being, and meaningful contributions to the community.
Instead, being largely presented as that without the complementary values that define social concern:
- Automation
In a capitalist system, automation will displace people due to the constant reliance on cheap manual labor. However, in our system, automation should be a priority, as it liberates people from drudgery and makes production lines more efficient.
- Digital Feedback
Within the RBE, we should implement computers within our distribution and production systems, which should be able to receive constant data streams from sensors. This ensures that our data is unified and easily manageable.
- Localization
Except for a few resources that can only be extracted in certain places, they should, as a priority, come from the closest places possible to a major center where that resource is used.
- Open-Source
Proprietary innovations and data hoarding will never benefit humanity as a whole. The only way to ensure that technology, innovation, and research will benefit everyone is to make them free and open-source.
- Strategic Access
All resources must be within the commons, with little to no privately-owned properties whatsoever. Ideally, when a resource is not used, it should be shared so that everyone else who actually needs it will use it.
But I may be wrong, as my argument may be based on a misconception of your moderate vision, TVPs centralized model, JFEN perceived purism and PJs simplistic and wrong definition of concepts like socialism.
Yeah, I think you have to read TZM Defined and rewatch some TZM stuff. Because social concern is the goal and science and technology are the methods to arrive at that goal. I get the impression you’re a bit too much focused on non-TZM stuff and that distorts a bit your view on TZM itself.
Those 5 points are transitional trends (automation open-source localization strategic_access digital_feedback), that can move us towards an RBE. Apples and oranges.
We are more aligned with scientocracy than technocracy, because when you said we are more aligned with technocracy, it created (at least for me) the illusion that we want somehow to create some form of a computerized elite which relies on science and is the controller instead of a democratic management of the means of production (as seen in socialism, which essentially means economic democracy).
Scientocracy is the use of science to ground decision making, as opposed to justifying decisions, and is present in this principle of HS: “We must ground our regulatory and economic decisions under the principles of the scientific method. This approach must ensure that our actions are not only informed and effective but also genuinely beneficial to the well-being of the people we serve.”
Context is key I was referring to that in the discussion where you said we are communists. I don’t want to repeat that discussion again, but I meant that we IMHO are more aligned to technocracy than communism. But all of that can be disregarded. An RBE is an RBE It’s a new method for organizing society.
“Communism” is a confusing term, even within socialist circles, so that’s why my model is called “Humanist Socialism” despite that it may technically achieve communism (as defined in another thread, not really relevant to any actual tried system), and is rather avoided, even by those who advocate for economic democracy within a society without classes, money or even a state.
And my socialism, may not be so different by the moderates except that it’s slightly more explicit in its values, and also opposes (and as usual, it also transcends) capitalism. It might be more of a reaction to the perceived anti-integration (opposition to collaborating with socialists despite having similar objectives, as seen in PJ) and centralism (centralization under the hands of a few computers, as opposed to more democratic and more decentralized management, as seen in JF) of some RBEs.
Again, where is this coming from? This is not said anywhere at all. Please also check the chapters guide. Because you seem to develop a total different picture of TZM as time passes. While there is no clear explanation. And because you’re a frequent poster, that does create some noise for people who are unfamiliar with these RBE concepts.
Please, also don’t take every opportunity to restart discussions about socialism or communism. It’s fine to talk about it, but you consistently now hijack topics to talk about these things There is a topic already about this, please continue in that thread. This was already requested a few times.
Maybe it’s PJ and JF who was hostile to socialism, and that maybe doesn’t necessarily mean we are all hostile to its ideas. It is officially stated, that anyone, can join regardless of ideology, and to ensure that, we must not be hostile to the ideologies that people may come with. So, we might not even need to debate or be neutral to it.
It’s not hostile to just talk about a system that clearly doesn’t work We’re a structuralist movement, so of course we’re critical of failed systems, especially if they are about infinite growth. And I know this will now go into full circle of previous discussions. Please continue in that threat you created before And please, really check what TZM is all about. Because the misconceptions are growing. Which is odd, because I think you do know what TZM is about.
And we go into full circles in part because every time a system fails, it can be changed (as seen in the democratization, ecologization, technologization, etc. of socialism). Socialism is changeable, and RBE can be integrated with it, so it becomes virtually indistinguishable from failed experiments (which creates confusion and loops because the term still creates a connotation to failed experiments), while maintaining a form of class analysis, which may be updated with new evidence.
That happens to a lot of systems which are highly complex, changing, and variable, with diverse systems of thought, which can be integrated into each other. And old systems which have failed, are just updated, because that makes sense, although we may not see the updates, and this includes.
Class Analysis, the structuralist way of analyzing power dynamics by looking at relations between classes and how structural violence works, used by a lot of socialists, has always been updated to become relevant even to this day.
True, but that also applies to capitalism Not just other isms.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.