[INVALID] An Open Letter to the Zeitgeist Movement: Embrace Your Progressive Socialist Roots

[miculpionier]

Update: The Letter shall be deemed Invalid

Reason: Poor Definition and Interpretation

Argument:
Maybe I am not referring to any mainstream system branch. We are talking about a benchmark that I call humanist socialism, but it might not be socialism according to TZM. When you search on the internet for humanist socialism, you don’t find any results, because it’s probably just a benchmark I created for myself that I call it as some form of socialism.

It may add upon existing systems like democratic socialism, but it’s changed so significantly that the purpose of this system moves away from profits, infinite growth, and securing of labor (traditional socialism and capitalism), and becomes conductive to science and technology improving human well-being.

You can run a community with RBE principles and is not socialist by traditional means and call your community a humanist socialist system.

So, we don’t even know what we are talking about, after doing a thorough revision of our previous replies.

For these reasons, the Letter shall be invalidated.

It’s time to rethink your stance on socialism. The global political landscape has shifted, and your ideals - a resource-based economy, the end of money, and fair resource distribution - align more with modern socialist movements.

While you rightly reject traditional Marxism, there are many forms of socialism today that fit your vision for a sustainable, post-scarcity world. These progressive socialists share your focus on science, technology, and automation to solve global challenges.

Understandably, the “Red Scare” legacy might make you hesitant to identify as socialist. But it’s time to move past outdated divisions and proclaim your ideological roots.

So, Zeitgeist Movement, reconsider. Embrace your progressive socialist origins and show the world your movement’s true, equitable, sustainable, and technologically-advanced nature.

---

Notes: I define socialism as the movement which advocates for equity and the common ownership of resources, and I define progressivism as the movement that advocates for the improvement of the human conditions via technological and social progress.

[Kees]

I’ve moved your topic to Reports because it suits it better, but also because Lounge is really for off-topic things and auto-closes topics. This topic you started here is perfectly on topic and a very interesting subject. Thanks for that.

The strength and weakness of TZM is that we’re a grassroots movement. So there is no central committee telling you what you should think. Of course we’re also not a free format movement, our Train of thought and general structure is clearly defined to at least have some guidance. But to be clear, there is no one telling you or others what to think. TZM is about thinking for yourself. So if you think this direction may be successful, then absolutely explore that

With that said, I think the general consensus in the movement is that any ism (socialism, communism, capitalism, etc.) are not supporting our modern day society. These systems worked fine when we didn’t have the current large population and advanced technology to affect the environment we depend on. All these isms demand infinite growth, which is not feasible on a planet that does not have infinite resources. These economic systems are making decisions based on money first. Resources and human well-being (and thus nature as well) are secondary concerns that are guided by man-made laws (not natural laws), that can be bend or broken by those who have that influence or capital. I think such economies will always lack qualities that we need to preserve our well-being on this planet.

Does that mean all these economic flavors are equally bad? No. Some are arguably worse for man and nature than others. I personally would argue that capitalist countries with a solid democratic rule and social programs are the best stepping stones towards an RBE. Why? Well, because they are statistically performing the best in terms of innovation, social well-being, standards of living and leading the way towards a more automated and sustainable economy. I’m not saying they’re perfect, I’m saying they seem to be most likely to experiment with RBE-like solutions, as we already see today.

But as we see, democracies are fragile. Especially with the fake news spreading division and mistrust, often orchestrated by foreign entities. That’s why I support political parties and organizations that try to preserve these free societies and general progressive direction. Why? Because those are the places movements like us can grow. In many other countries they would be banned and people prosecuted. And as I already mentioned, culturally, these capitalist countries with strong democracies and social programs are more aligned towards an RBE. Not completely, obviously, but just more.

That’s just my point of view of course.

[miculpionier]

@Kees

With that said, I think the general consensus in the movement is that any ism (socialism, communism, capitalism, etc.) are not supporting our modern day society. These systems worked fine when we didn’t have the current large population and advanced technology to affect the environment we depend on. All these isms demand infinite growth, which is not feasible on a planet that does not have infinite resources.

You refer primarily to the older flavors of those systems. Today, a lot of systems no longer support infinite growth. most of the time, only capitalism supports infinite growth.

Republic of Fluid Constitution - Here I made a fictional republic that is mostly in line with my ideals (at least from a transitional level, within a reformed traditional system), based on a nation-wide resource-based economy.

Article 3, Section 1:
The Resource-Based Economy (RBE) shall be the default economic model of the Nation, which prioritizes the effective and sustainable utilization of natural resources, leveraging technological advancements and scientific principles to cater to the necessities of every individual. The management of resources in the RBE must adhere to rigorous scientific standards aimed at enhancing efficiency while reducing wastage. It should incorporate sophisticated technologies like automation and artificial intelligence to streamline production and distribution channels.

Ecological Protection is important:

Article 1, Section 6
We are committed to protecting our environment for current and future generations by prioritizing sustainable practices, conservation, and the responsible management of natural resources.

This is the ultimate goal:

Article 1, Section 10:
We aim to create a society that fosters the healthiest, most intelligent, and happiest people possible. We prioritize education, healthcare, and social support systems to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to reach their full potential and live a fulfilling life.

I believe in human well-being above all else. Human well-being depends a lot of nature’s well-being. I call it Humanist Socialism within the traditional system.

[miculpionier]

@Kees

That’s why I support political parties and organizations that try to preserve these free societies and general progressive direction.

And considering that the brain is neuroplastic, we must educate people, so that the response to fear is measured actions, not reactionary actions. So, for example, if we have a migrant wave, we must educate the people to react with accommodations rather than deportation.

[Kees]

@miculpionier

You refer primarily to the older flavors of those systems. Today, a lot of systems no longer support infinite growth. most of the time, only capitalism supports infinite growth.

Can you support that? I think all systems are equally neglecting the environment. The only factors that have a positive effect is advanced technology that makes everything efficient, so you can do more with less. Capitalist countries have that advantage, not due to the economic structure, but because of the accumulated wealth so they can develop and buy the best tech to support society.

The second factor is a strong democratic process, where the people can punish mismanaging governments by voting them out of power. The opposite can also happen of course. But the countries I was talking about, the capitalist countries with strong democracies and social programs are e.g. the Nordic countries. They score high at every level. Again, mostly because of their wealth. It maybe could also be possible in a communist/socialist country, if they had the money. Although those countries are often more oppressive, I don’t know if that is a consequence of such an economic system, where the government mostly is in control of the market.

A third factor may be the free press which is also very important, to criticize the government and inform the public so they can make informed decisions when they have to vote or protest (which should be allowed).

For example the Soviet Union was a very rich country, but performed poorly in terms of human well-being. The current Russian Federation is capitalist, but very oppressive. They also sit on a mountain of valuable resources, but still, their population is (still) very poor. Why? Because there are no checks and balances, no democratic process and social programs to distribute the wealth. So just as it was in the Soviet Union, only a few enjoy the wealth.

Socialist countries are not so much different than capitalist countries. The main difference is that the government is more in control of the market. But in both systems profit is the goal. And to maximize profits, you need returning customers. So that means you need to offer products and services that are good, so that people want it, but not too good, because then people won’t need it constantly and thus you won’t be able to make money. For example a product that lasts forever is not a profitable market. People need to buy a product or service on a regular basis to support a business. And that has an infinite growth economy as an effect.

Do you also have practical examples of socialist countries being more sustainable and working closer towards an RBE?

[miculpionier]

@Kees

Do you also have practical examples of socialist countries being more sustainable and working closer towards an RBE?

Europe has a progressive base (including Volt) that works closer to an RBE. Also some countries in Africa and South America had significantly improved the quality of life under socialism, but we don’t hear about them often. I currently don’t have an example of a specific socialist country, but Scandinavian countries are probably close to being socialist, but are officially social democracies.

When I say old flavors, I primarily refer to marxism-leninism, marxism, authoritarian socialism and some other “socialist” systems that today don’t work for human well-being and/or are for profits.

[Kees]

@miculpionier

including Volt

No, Volt is a social liberal political party. In short, that’s about a mixed economy, mainly capitalism, with social programs

@miculpionier

Scandinavian countries are probably closest to being socialist

No, these are mainly capitalist countries, with social programs, just like The Netherlands.

[miculpionier]

Maybe my definition of socialism and progressivism is different from the mainstream definition. In my conception, when you have a strong welfare and a collectivist culture, your state can be considered closer to socialism. Progressiveness in my conception refers to the desire for social and technical progress, mainly to improve well-being.

When I said that TZM is a progressive socialist, I referred that it’s primarily progressive and collectivist, which might be slightly different from the mainstream, less clearer definition of socialism and progressiveness.

In my conception, a decentralized economy based on decentralized computers can be socialist, at it excludes the criterion that the economy has to be centrally planned.

---

Socialism has a lot of contradictory definitions, which makes it hard to oppose it entirely. It both works and doesn’t work, and there are a lot of flavors and nuances. Political self-tests show that I might be anywhere between 21st Century Socialism and Modern Communism. There are some labels I might not agree with, but in general, this is the labels I am assigned.

Socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of systems, and depending on your definition, and you can place a RBE under socialism if you define it as the collective ownership and distribution of resources.

TZM might oppose some forms of socialism and support others without even knowing. Not all forms of socialism are based on infinite growth, not all forms are based on money. And generally, progressives are so diverse that there is a lot of infighting on what things are right and what are wrong.

So, for the same word or words, you get multiple definitions, which makes it impossible to say things such as “I oppose socialism outright”.

Socialism 101 explains more about socialism in general:

The Basics of Socialism — Socialism101.com

[Kees]

@miculpionier

Not all forms of socialism are based on infinite growth, not all forms are based on money.

But none are used in practice, right? As far as I know there are no stable socialist countries, in any flavor.

[miculpionier]

Yes, because they are new and require significant changes to the current system, and a lot of friction. Labor movements and supporting an RBE or similar economic system (or just any economic system better than infinite growth capitalism) is one step closer to a form of socialism, depending on interpretation.

[SteveTess (João Pedro)]

I’m a hardcore advocate of RBE and TZM’s train of thought and I consider myself a Marxist. With that said I should mention that my benchmark for what’s socialism is of course the Marxist definition.
Socialism is the transitional phase towards Communism. That is why in Socialist countries you still have to deal with most of the problems that came with the Capitalist/Market system.
I really think that TZM and Jacque Fresco did distance themselves from Socialism because of decades of US propaganda against a threat to Capitalism’s hegemony, so at first glance I understand the rejection to all “isms” but I definitely don’t buy the argument that all “isms” are the same and bad.
I don’t see any type of capitalist countries having any tendency to experiment RBE-like models because in the capitalist paradigm you have a ruling class that owns the means of production and they will never let go of that privilege, I mean I don’t see how would they. Also because they have such economic power, they use it for political power to keep things as they please. This happens even in the “nicest” capitalist countries but because the wealth is more distributed the 1% of these countries don’t have to be worried of the people advocating for crazy ideas like “let’s make all the factories and resources common goods of all citizens”. I’m sure if people started to get these ideas they’d do everything to uphold their ruling status. Fascism enters the scene if needed be.

[Kees]

@miculpionier

they are new and require significant changes to the current system

But why not focus on the RBE model entirely? That’s a true new direction.

@miculpionier

any economic system better than infinite growth capitalism

How’s infinite growth socialism any better? None of the mainstream economic flavors uses the planetary resources as their true economy and utilizes modern technology to monitor its usage and regeneration properties. Or uses science as the means to arrive at decisions. All the isms are quite similar to each other if you ask me. The difference is just the degree in which the government controls the market.

@SteveTess

I don’t see any type of capitalist countries having any tendency to experiment RBE-like models

I see an increase of RBE-like solutions getting mainstream. Mainly in capitalist countries. Again, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I’m not saying that’s a capitalist trait. These countries simply have the financial means and buffer to take on these projects and risk. Combined with the pillars that create a modern free society such as free press, strong laws against corruption, independent justice system, freedom of speech and a strong and active democracy.

Just a few examples:

Insta-thought (show the positive changes you come across)

Local wind-park, one of many around my hometown [IMG_0927] Go-Sharing is a service where you can just grab electric bikes/scooters/cars and use them for transportation. Without the burden of owning it. This reduces waste and uses less parking space. And of course, by using electric vehicles, you will contribute less to global warming. If of course the power is generated with renewable power. Which is the case here [IMG_20220418_142551] The picture above is by the way shot wi…

Central resource information system for The Netherlands

The Netherlands wants a circular economy by 2050. They recognized that in order to achieve this they need a central overview of their resources to see what’s used so that recycling won’t be an afterthought. First steps of an RBE? Albeit within the borders of The Netherlands, but with the EU these ideas and methods (NL is not the only one) could become continent-wide in our lifetime. The following article provides more details, but it’s in Dutch. The Netherlands aims to have a circular econom…

Volt proposing a (transition towards a) resource based economy?

I appreciate your view, you seem to be also following these developments, but just evaluates them differently I guess. There is no reason to make it official. We’re a grassroots movement. Chapters are independent, there is no central control. In TZM NL we have 2 active Volt members. It’s very interesting to have this connection and to see how they overlap with our train of thought. We’re not a political party, but they are and can explore that angle. I see Volt as the only political party tha…

There are more things like this posted on this forum. But let me be clear, I’m not rooting here for capitalism. I just bring up these examples because I think we should ride the wave that’s bringing us the fastest towards an RBE. When I look at all the nations in the world, I would say the Western and Nordic European countries are the most likely places where people will experiment with RBE-like solutions. I don’t think we should get distracted with other economic flavors. They have been tried in the previous century and didn’t turn out to be a success. We don’t have much time left. The next decade decides if we make or break our planet, basically.

I see us moving towards the right track. I would say, let’s focus on our local area and see what opportunities there are to spread our Train of Thought.

This guide may help:

TZM chapters guide TL;DR

Introduction This guide is part of the community maintained wikis on this forum and is therefore independently developed and unofficial. In general it’s based on the 68 page long TZM chapters guide 2.0 made in 2012 and the experience gained by activists over time. This TL;DR[1] version of the 2.0 guide is written to be short and concise, for more elaborate information the 2.0 version is still recommended. Starting Activism for The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) can be overwhelming. Wher…

[miculpionier]

@Kees

But why not focus on the RBE model entirely? That’s a true new direction.

Because you need collectivist, progressive, non-capitalist […] ideas to gain acceptance (as in shifting the overton window to “the radical left”) before you can actually focus focus your attention on making a RBE in any form.

@Kees

They have been tried in the previous century and didn’t turn out to be a success. We don’t have much time left. The next decade decides if we make or break our planet, basically.

Yes, but those models that didn’t work in the past have adapted. Today, you are more likely to agree with a modern marxist even if you are not (see Second Thought), and the definitions have become more complicated (and competing), and you have 21st century variants that are more democratic, use modern technology, focus on ecological protection, human well-being, and so on. It goes beyond the collective ownership of the economy and labor profits.

@Kees

I see us moving towards the right track. I would say, let’s focus on our local area and see what opportunities there are to spread our Train of Thought.

We have a lot of technological opportunity. But to make use of it adequately, we need the acceptance for an alternate system, any system that is better than capitalism, even if it’s never tried but could work.

@Kees

How’s infinite growth socialism any better?

I don’t think infinite growth socialism is better than capitalism. Consider that infinite growth has been largely contained to capitalism after a lot of people have agreed that infinite growth is impossible (or unsustainable).

[miculpionier]

@SteveTess

Socialism is the transitional phase towards Communism

And what if we could use Humanist Socialism as the transitional phase between Capitalism and Global RBE?

And then you have forms of socialism that are not meant to be a transition to a specific system.

@SteveTess

I definitely don’t buy the argument that all “isms” are the same and bad.

The differences today between the modern forms of 20th century isms (those that have adapted in time) are foundational and the degree of complexity. It’s no longer how much the state controls the market, but also, what social values should we have in general, how technologies and sciences should be used, how resources should be distributed, what are the actions we should focus on, and so on…

Humanist Socialism (the name of the ideology I believe if it were to be a ism) believes that human well-being should be above all else, that technology and science should always be used to improve the human condition, that the environment that humans depend on should be protected, that the quality of life should be at the highest standards possible… and it can be used together with an RBE, since it relies on the collective ownership of resources and the distribution of resources to each according to their need, from each according to their ability (or the machines, since the role of individual ability in an automated world is reduced), and it’s a system which further contributes to these goals.

Things which are not part of any ism, will in time, become a part of a ism. RBE used to be a nebulous idea, now it can be part of socialism, so you can no longer cannot all forms of socialism outright.

---

And there are a lot of political self-tests who tell I’m a socialist in some form or another:

[Kees]

@miculpionier

And what we could use Humanist Socialism as the transitional phase

We could of course, but I don’t really know how to define that and then relate that to the practical world. If you really mean Nordic countries as you mentioned before, then that’s capitalism with social programs It feels a bit wrong to put a different label on it. I know it might not align with the general narrative of “capitalism bad” within the movement. But the countries performing the best today in terms of happiness, innovation, sustainability, equality, health and education are capitalist countries. I think we shouldn’t deny that. That doesn’t mean we are supporting that economic model. But we could as I said, ride the wave these countries are creating. They do push RBE-like solutions.

And if something is not really materialized and almost at the same level of theory as an RBE, then I would say, let’s not spend time on that. Those were just my final thoughts on this matter. I respect your view on this of course and we don’t have to agree or disagree. Sharing ideas and insights are at the core of this forum and the movement

[miculpionier]

Because the general consensus always changes, thanks to the decentralized nature of our movement, but we might not know what is the general consensus, because today, the movement is not very active. But we can see that change that we want does not happen directly through our movement, but rather, other movements and actions that we identify as “socialist” or “liberal”, while we share ideas.

@Kees

If you really mean Nordic countries as you mentioned before, then that’s capitalism with social programs

No, it’s not a nordic model.

Humanist Socialism is a framework that emphasizes collective ownership and automation of the means of production, prioritizing human well-being and environmental sustainability above all else. It is characterized by the following key tenets:

• Collective Ownership and Automation: The means of production are primarily owned collectively or automated.
• Human-Centric Goals: The ultimate aim is to enhance human well-being through the application of science, technology, regulation, social reform, among others.
• Environmental Protection: The protection of the environment is an integral component of human welfare.
• Human Rights: International law and basic human rights must be respected at all costs.

Distinctions from Other Models:

• Non-Profit Focus: Unlike traditional forms of socialism that may prioritize worker profits, Humanist Socialism does not emphasize profit as a primary goal.
• Flexibility in Approach: It remains neutral regarding the methods of achieving its objectives, whether through political parties, unions, or other means, allowing for a diverse range of strategies.
• Rejection of Capitalism: Humanist Socialism fundamentally rejects capitalism and privatization, distinguishing it from social democracy and Nordic models, which may incorporate elements like social programs.

[miculpionier]

And you also have the problem where being against oppression of any kind is perceived as a form of radical socialism, which according to conservatives, “it’s bad”, when the act of being against oppression is common-sense.

Should we increase the minimum wage? According to studies, yes, we should, because workers are more satisfied and it’s good for company, and it’s also common sense. But a lot of capitalist oppose it, and the opposition is not based on studies or any intellectual reasoning but rather, the status quo.

Anti-intellectualism is somehow related to anti-common sense. We are divided based on notions which are not scientifically valid and morally correct to the affected and those that are.

[Kees]

@miculpionier

But a lot of capitalist oppose it

I think in all isms it’s about reducing the cost of labor. Because in essence they all use the same logic of maximizing the profits. But minimum wage has gone up in most countries. Actually all wages have gone up due to inflation. In the US it’s a different story, that’s true.

[miculpionier]

@Kees

I think in all isms it’s about reducing the cost of labor. Because in essence they all use the same logic of maximizing the profits.

Not really. Some forms of what we might call socialism are not focused on securing or maximizing profits from labor. Instead, it might be ecology or protecting human rights.

[Kees]

In practice? Which socialist countries are these?