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

Activism Reports
21

In part, the socialist projects US wanted to destroy (the ones that improved quality of life, such as Chile), unions and workers demanding better conditions (collectivism and worker focus), sustainable development and climate resilience (things included in eco-socialism).

One problem with TZM (based on what I see) is that it’s hard to define socialism and at the same time deny it. Even if you say you are against socialism, you cannot outright be against socialism, because first, a lot of the solutions we propose are at the level of theory, and some (or a lot) of our solutions are also present in some forms of modern socialist though (automation, human concern, ecological protection, radical approach, systematic restructuring, democracy…)

It’s very important to make the distinction between socialism and communism. When I refer to socialism, I do not refer to communism.

This problem might be justified, because socialism is usually defined within TZM (or I think) using red scare propaganda (red scare propaganda usually defines as the system where the state instead of private corporations control resources and profits off people). This definition is wrong, but despite that it’s wrong, its use is justified for people who are in the US to gain acceptance.

A resource-based economy is close to “from each according to their ability (or the machines) to each according to their need”, which means that based on the available resources and production, we distribute resources according to need, via complex systems this time.

Second Thought argues that people might be socialist, or “leftist”, without knowing or implicitly:

It’s complicated.

Whether to accept or deny socialism, or only accept in part, depends on your priority. To attract people, you don’t need to be “correct”. The opposition to all isms without actually “learning” about them, how complex they are, and how many variations they are might be a deliberate decision to try attaining acceptance from all groups possible, and not an intellectual error or misunderstanding.

22

I think the exchange we had on this forum doesn’t represent the movement. I’m not denying socialism. I just don’t see why it’s any better in practice. In theory capitalism is also amazing on paper. But if it doesn’t respect the earth and its regenerative properties, then it’s not a true economy.

Socialism is not unique in this. In fact, it’s modern and free capitalist countries that lead in these things you list here. But that’s due to science and technology. Which of course was made possible by the financial wealth. There are no socialist countries (that I know of) that lead in these things.

I’ll move this conversation to the other thread. Since it’s again about socialism like in our previous thread :wink: But as I already mentioned there, I basically had my say about socialism.

23

Maybe I became incompatible with the movement despite that we have the same goals, and I am in favor for a resource-based economy. It’s because of conflicts on how to define certain systems that have adapted and are so complex.

Maybe socialism isn’t unique, but a system which can be embedded to others to some extent.

Maybe I have some misconception and/or the movement is very diverse but we don’t see it.

24

For me it’s not a definition issue. It’s about the output. I see capitalist countries performing better at the things you like about (modern/custom) socialism. But in the end it’s science and technology making these things happen. So I just focus on that aspect. If these countries were running any other ism, then I would still not see that as a better system, if it still doesn’t recognize the earth directly as part of the decisions. I don’t see socialism as the next best thing compared to what’s already in place. I think it would only delay things, time we don’t have.

25

And another essential thing is pressure. You can try an ism to reduce the need for pressure since that ism promotes the values you want (which is desirable when you want a government that accomplishes your vision with less obstacles), but a lot of change (because it’s hard or impossible to change the ism to reduce obstacles) in capitalist countries have been driven by the people pressuring the government to change. Because if they didn’t have pressure, they would remain worse than the modern forms of socialism I presented, to the fundamental, unaltered level.

Also, consider that practically, we also don’t see why RBE might be better, because we have not tried it, just like socialism, which we also didn’t try in modern forms. We can only hope or predict what will be their effects.

26

But socialism has been tried many times in the last century. It didn’t really work out. Maybe it isn’t practical? And that’s why it didn’t work?

An RBE is radically different on basically all levels. Such as the way to arrive at decisions is very different and also the way the economy is linked to the real world. We may use something like that on the Moon and Mars colonies in this century. But my opinion on socialism is quite clear now I think :slight_smile: Maybe someone else can share their thoughts on this subject?

It’s a very interesting discussion. We need that on this forum.

1 Like
27

I didn’t really expect that. And it’s confusing, like socialism “adapts” despite that it didn’t work and thinkers come up with new solutions and priorities, which we often don’t expect in capitalism or other older systems.

28

I think it would really help your case if you provide real world examples when you compare socialism and capitalism with each other. Again, I’m not rooting for either of these. It’s just, when I look at the real world I see these qualities you talk about only in European capitalist economies. I just want to be factual.

1 Like
29

It’s hard to give an example besides some measures, mobilization of certain groups and some past projects. Since it’s too hard, despite that it has its merits, I will let the argument fall apart and hand the conclusion to TZM despite that it has merits and could be more common sense than capitalism. It’s just too hard to define and isolate the examples from other systems which are interconnected.

30

Remember, you’re only talking to me :wink: That doesn’t represent the movement, no one single-handedly represents the movement. But it would be nice to have something to back your claims, that’s of course true for any subject.

31

Which is of course hard for such topics, where such systems could both work and not work at the same time, depending on circumstances and interpretation.

32

The same goes for capitalism :wink: On paper it works pretty well.

On the TZM NL website we keep a list of easy to do things that we can do within the current system to move more towards an RBE. You can use your favorite translator for this Dutch text:

I personally think that’s more strategic than doing a major economic transition twice. While the first transition isn’t that much different from what was before.

1 Like
33

We can try, there are a lot of ways we can get to the RBE. And I do support the actions on the TZM website, but I was talking at a larger scale, where getting to a global resource-based economy cannot be done directly or is very hard to do, and how a modern ism might help. I also had talking points, which it seems, were either misinterpreted, misinformed (especially those about denying socialism) or too complicated to explain using messages.

Oh, wait, there are actually multiple conflicting views on how to do things or the merits of certain systems. Maybe I’m not that incompatible with the movement, and that such discourse is inevitable in a progressive, leaderless and diverse movements, with just one goal, and so many ways.

34

I don’t see this as a realistic goal. Globally there are many countries that will not be compatible with an RBE society due to strong religious believes, closed societies due to a dictatorship or simply don’t have the financial means to implement such a major change.

I think the transition will be as the system itself will be; decentralized. Meaning, local energy grids using renewable power. Local sharing of goods and services. Using open-source for collaborative development. Setting up (community) resource and (public) health monitoring and motivating change based on that data. In other words, the 5 things Peter described in his book: automation, digital_feedback, localization, open-source, and strategic_access. Eventually these systems might link, when needed. And together such a transition (agnostic of the economic flavor) might slowly move towards an RBE. Which we already see organically happen.

1 Like
35

We also see that via movements that are more “socialist”, and may not be related, such as unions and pressure on government to implement green policies.

There is the possibility that we might also move towards more socialized economic systems and then RBE

1 Like
36

True, but it’s based on science and technology. They can’t make the case without that information, so what’s the true factor influencing the change? :wink:

And as mentioned, socialism doesn’t take into account the planetary resources either. There are maybe some ideas on paper about it, but not in practice. In practice I see capitalist countries doing that :slight_smile: So that’s why I’m a bit puzzled why socialism can make a difference. A world-wide centralized transition to a single system isn’t feasible, I think. And transitioning to socialism won’t stop the infinite growth economy.

We already do, indeed. But that’s not due to socialism :slight_smile: That’s on science and technology. So I wouldn’t call it a “socialized economic system”, but a more modern implementation of the market economy. Where decisions are more real-world, due to a sensor network with a digital feedback acting on that. Making sure sustainability is something that’s implemented, not something on paper. With the assistance of automation. And using science as a tool to make collaborative decisions in an open-source culture.

37

Maybe some of us believe that ideology and what methodology we use, both intermediary and finally, guides how we use science and technology. Do we use automation and automation to benefit the people or the business owners? Do we make our science open or leave it to private companies or the state?

Because often we see that capitalist countries such as the US don’t take into account the planetary resources and/or the well-being of the people, as the self-proclaimed eco-socialist channel Our Changing Climate.

Yes, you can’t make a world-wide centralized transition, I do not believe in any vanguards. You can make it only nation or community-wide, and that will eventually spread, step-by-step.

It depends on definition and methodology and not really how you call it, but how does the branch of socialism that is used work. Under the same name you can a lot of very different systems, including the RBE. At least, that’s what I think. And you can choose to avoid using the name “socialism” if you want to avoid creating fear within more conservative groups at first.

You need a system which does better at sustainability. It can be eco or humanist socialism. Capitalism does not incentivize sustainability, even if you can implement it in theory or at small scale. Also see the repression of environmental and social justice activists being used to block action within a capitalist system.

1 Like
38

That question also applies to socialism, right? Unless of course we take the theory. But in practice things are different. In theory capitalism would work a whole lot better as well.

The US is kind of the worst performing developed capitalist country. I don’t think it’s fair to use them as a benchmark to what capitalism has done in recent times.

But the most sustainable countries in the world are capitalist :slight_smile: We could of course label it “socialist” because they do things that fit on the leftist political spectrum. But again, it’s science and technology doing the heavy lifting.

My concern is not the conservatives. My concern is the Train of Thought we advocate in TZM. Socialism is just another way of handling an infinite growth economy. The degree of which the government is involved is just different. And with that, corruption is just on another level. Of course you can implement laws, which we also do in capitalism.

And don’t forget local changes. Those things mentioned on the TZM NL website are not necessarily based on national borders. The limits are more based on financial budgets and technological implementation.

Another disclaimer, I do not root for either systems. I just play the devil’s advocate here to keep the critical thought going.

1 Like
39

There are 5 countries with a socialist type of economy. In these countries, as it should, the focus of labor is to provide for human needs not maximizing the profits. The countries are Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPR Korea and China. Yes China has billionaires and big corporations, an obvious capitalistic characteristic, but they have to follow the rules determined by the political power which is not pro-capital. The way I see it, unless I’m proved wrong, in short, they are parasitizing the capitalist section of their economy in order to consolidate their socialist project.
Of course, unlike China, the other countries have small, weak and easy sabotable economies. Sabotage, embargo, propaganda and ideology are the tactics to jeopardize any project that challenges the hegemony of the current system.

2 Likes
40

And this includes trying modern branches of socialism, which now are very hard to put them in the first place as individuals or collectives, no matter our goals, or whether is a final or transitional state.

Which means, that by this definition, humanist socialism and eco-socialism, which do not encourage infinite growth, isn’t inside socialism, but rather, different non-aligned systems (they are not part of any group), which is wrong. Resource Redistribution IS NOT a form of Infinite Growth. Resource Redistribution is defined as the act of distributing existing resources to people based on needs instead of obtaining new resources to fuel growth.

Infinite Growth is usually presented in neoliberal economic models, not socialism (if we exclude free market socialism that a lot of people won’t use). The “efficiency” of the economy is not measured by GDP, but rather, the well-being of the people.

What countries we claim are “socialist” are in fact, more like capitalist republics or authoritarian regimes that have violated the principles of communism and socialism, so they are not reliable examples to prove that the modern forms of socialism, which have not even been used in the first place, don’t work.

Humanist socialism (as defined in the 16th reply) might compatible with the TZM vision, but not the more anarchist apolitical views of some members.