Volt, the pan-European political party is shaping up their political program. I am a member of Volt and recently voted for the inclusion of the statement below.
I wouldn’t say so.
Seems like it’s just promoting more data-driven policies, and expanding economic growth to include more than just GDP.
And after we finish trasitioning to RBE, politics become incompatible, so we will delete those parties (including those advocating for transition) and replace them with computers.
I have seen the first political statement meant to autodestruct politics of the current system as we know it (gradually reduce the prevalence of current in-the-box policitics until it becomes abandoned). Normally, political statements will enforce the status quo, not advocate for holistic indicators, and promote making decisions based on preserving political power and the free market system.
That’s proposing a transition towards an RBE then, right?
I wouldn’t use those words. I think outgrow is a more correct term. I don’t think we should talk about destroying democracy. We can of course outgrow it by an open-source society, where everyone can contribute their say with the scientific method. Which is a participatory democracy.
TVP failed to get traction in part due to being too picky, they were only happy if it 100% matched their vision and because of that alienated many allies. At least, that’s what I heard from people who left TVP. And I’m not talking about crazy ideas. I also met Jacque Fresco and he presented his TVP there in nl. But before he started to do his talk, he bashed everyone that went before him for not seeing his/the bigger picture. But they all had great ideas about recycling and renewable energy, all pieces of the puzzle. But it had to be Jacque’s way.
I think we should learn from that. I agree that we shouldn’t become too easy, but we shouldn’t be too critical either. Like Volt here, they are proposing something on an EU level. TZM/TVP has never gotten to that point. We should support their journey.
1 Like
A RBE will not destroy democracy, but rather, it will make an informed participatory democracy.
Traditional political parties are often associated with opinion, and we would not use them in an RBE in the current free-market form. Rather, we will use experts before inviting the general public to vote, along with consideration notes to ensure that the public is informed about what outcomes will a decision have.
This alternate way of making decisions will result in abandonment of decision-making processes based on free markets and uninformed politics.
In Programming, it is very difficult to make all software completely match the Venus Project’s strict standards, but it should be helpful and respect basic ethical standards.
In Architecture, the building process and final result should also be determined by cultural factors, and not just design everything like Jacques’.
Being picky is not the appropriate way of change.
It is simply wrong to bash everyone before TVP for not seeing the bigger picture (Systemic change is required). Even people before Fresco have seen that the current system is problematic.
For example, G. I. Gurdjieff recognized that destructive behavior is not part of human nature (Allegory of Kundabuffer), and that decisions are often made based on opinions that are not informed enough (Allegory of Man as Machine). Those characteristics can be found in the current system, and change is required.
1 Like
No, just giving more weight to studies in this area.
It’s not a transition, just as much as a political party advocating for more social measures is not proposing communism.
Unless they are actually communist.
Weight to more studies with the goal to implement a different policy in the way we conduct economics and decision-making. You really don’t see this as a positive development? People in position of actually making a relevant change speak up and use our language. The great part about Volt is that they also have a chapter structure. So if TZM chapters connect with the local Volt chapter, they may help shape up the direction towards an RBE.
I think it’s great and if we help them to promote this direction we will actually get somewhere. Not sure what other angles we have. Of course we have the chapters promoting this train of thought in their local area. But those are not all that active anymore.
Sure, just as i consider the presence of Pirate Parties and Greens(which are, btw, part of the same group in the European Parliament, Greens/EFA) to be a positive development.
But Volt’s main goal is European federalism, not technocratic rule.
As i said earlier, it’s the error of those Marxists seeing center-left politics grow more popular from time to time, and thinking that means the proletarian revolution is coming next.
Look at this:
Entryism - Wikipedia
The only place where that has worked is in a small far-right party in Portugal.
And given the massive imbalance in members and activity between Volt and TZM, and the fact that a lot of our members are in Europe, you’d just end up uneventfully absorbed by Volt, and end up as members in milquetoast European party politics, and their battles with other, bigger parties.
If that’s something you think we should do, sure thing, but if we take that path, we should do it officially.
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 that matches for a transitional path towards an RBE. I’ve put some more examples below, this is from their Electoral Moonshot Programme where members can now vote for to make it official. It really matters who has the political control. We will really notice it. In TZM it’s often minimized, but Brexit and Trump are 2 great examples of how things can go down the drain. We shouldn’t discard the policical arena. Sure, it moves slow and is bureaucratic. But TZM isn’t really effective either and especially in recent years, lacks real Activism.
They hit the right spots regarding: localization, strategic_access, open-source, digital_feedback and automation. In no particular order:
2 Likes
Then bring it up in the TZM meetings, and if there’s a broad majority, let’s merge into Volt.
Please don’t read this as a negative rant 
I know it’s a sensitive subject (for some). I’ll just summarize my point here briefly. 
Those Discord meetings tend to be very long, unstructured and to me personally it seems like the energy spend in those meetings is lost once the meeting is over. Things that have been discussed are documented superficially in Nextcloud (details are missing), of which the links are only posted in a Discord thread which are out of sight and out of mind once people talk about different subjects. The whole directory structure in Nextcloud is also not visible or indexed by search engines. People cannot interact with it afterwards, unless they know where to look. And since people are not telepathic… 
That way of working doesn’t build up a momentum, there is also no follow up on the talking points most of the time, which is also hard in such a work environment. Also, if you’re not in the meeting right there and then, then you don’t count, which is not an inclusive design. Momentum has to be rebuild every time as well. The same accounts for the chat. All the energy spent in there is lost once it’s out of sight.
I have limited time to spend on TZM and I prefer to spend it in such a way that a momentum can be build up and people can join in whenever they want and can. Which can also be a year from now in this thread. And not all chapters are in that Discord, which also seems to create a false understanding of the movement’s activities. It’s of course hard to get everyone onboard on a single platform. Therefore federation is important, by using open standards and open source software. That’s the attempt of this forum, with an automated central view of a decentralized movement in Reports and the chapters map. There is more, as documented in the quick start.
This thread for example can be found in search engines, exposing our reach and effect (it’s also automatically spread on socials). This is not the case with Discord. It’s a black hole and once people stop spending energy on it, it will be lost in time. Which is a terrible waste and method of working in my opinion.
Anyway, I already tried to make this point a few years ago in Discord and people didn’t agree. Which is fine of course, people should enjoy the method they work with. I’m just underscoring why I won’t participate in those methods.
So if people want to build up this momentum with Volt, then chapters can do so independently by meeting with their local Volt chapter. A merge is not necessary, we can just work together on the things we agree on. This thread already contains all the points of making such a move. So spending time and energy on that again is just not efficient. If people have questions or feedback, then it’s best to keep that discussion here. If we fragment that over a chat or voice meeting that’s out of sight and out of mind in no time and that’s not great either for consistency and focusing the energy and attention.
Anyway, I hope you understand this point of view. Again, this is not an attack. Just my evaluation of how Discord is used in TZM and how I think we could do better. But I’m afraid it will be seen as some kind of personal attack (as it has been in the past), so I’ll apologize in advance if that’s the case
1 Like
Why not make a thread on this forum explicitly presenting an official plan on behalf of TZM Netherlands, as a way for TZM to hitch onto Volt’s activity, and continue it’s activism?
That plan has already set in motion, but it’s nothing more than monitor our emails (since we’re Volt members) and attend the local meetings when our schedule allows it. The meetings from Volt are pretty local. Our goal will be to tune in on their goals and see if we can poke in some more systemic thinking. But I guess we will learn more from them at this point 
Volt activity is high at the moment because we will have elections soon in nl. But for sure we will share our progress and experience in Reports as soon as we have some developments to share 
I changed my view on this topic after making an investigation on various topics and radicalization by certain radical collectivist perspectives.
When you combine ecology and capitalism (social liberalism + a new growth paradigm), you get eco-capitalism, which is far from what we need, and is contradictory (in this system, you bring ecology to a system which is not ecological). That’s because, the very logic of capitalism is to profit as much as possible via intensive resource extraction.
To be closer to an RBE, you actually need to reduce the role capitalism until you dismantle it, alongside prioritizing ecology. This includes:
- Automation and people owning the means of production (it’s called democratic management if you don’t like “socialist” terminology). When the people own the means of production, they have a say in how the production process works. This means that we can vote on things like switching to regenerative agriculture instead of monocultures. In addition, we use automation to reduce labor needs as much as possible and also reduce exploitation. Volt doesn’t advocate for this.
- Fundamentally modifying our goals to align with human well-being (ecological protection is a necessity to human well-being) and getting rid of neoliberal goals altogether, which Volt doesn’t.
- Integrating ecological protection not over the current neoliberal system, but into the foundations of a new system, which again, Volt doesn’t.
I align with the narrative of “capitalism bad”, because it is. I believe that not only science, technology and those initiatives matter, but also the system under which it is implemented. When you want to implement ideals, like sustainability, in a system which fundamentally doesn’t, don’t expect a lot of success.
I know that systems other than social democracy (red centrism) are the only ones some of you place trust the most right now, but I believe that there are other systems, not yet implemented, that could work better than social democracy.
I am now skeptical about approaches to environmental sustainability, and generally human well-being, in systems which are based on incompatible values, like capitalism, and various authoritarian ideologies both collective and individualist.
1 Like
True, it’s just a new direction towards something better. It’s not the end goal. Socialism and any other ism are also not what we want, we already established that. But capitalism is what we have now. Voting for political parties that advocate a new direction that may move us towards an RBE is important. Because it softens the radical change towards a steady state economy.
You kind of make me the devil’s advocate again here 
But you do have the choice where to work. You can also start your own business. Businesses often have a workers council which you can join (if you get elected) to influence decisions. For some companies you can also buy stocks to gain influence. This already exists. And yes, it’s used also that way.
In the company where I work the workers council is pushing for sustainability. We now have Fairphones as an option next to Samsung and iPhone devices. We are experimenting with Framework laptops as an extra option next to MacBooks and Dell laptops. We don’t replace these devices anymore, unless they are really broken and cannot be repaired. We monitor our energy usage more and implement energy storage (solar and heat storage). We do more things, such as implementing open-source as much as possible and by default serve vegetarian lunches, but they are less special I suppose. A new direction is shaping up everywhere.
It can also mean people vote for a total different direction. Voting only works if people are well informed and take into account the greater good. This is also why TZM is an educational movement and not a political party. Democracy is key in a free and open society, and full democratic rights may help. But I personally wouldn’t spend time and energy on making companies fully democratic. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t
One of the things I noticed in TZM is that we sometimes see positive change, but then disregard it because it’s not in the most purist form we desire. What Volt is proposing is a new direction that aligns us more with an RBE. Are we really going to just ignore them and keep on dreaming that there will be a perfect transition? Volt is a decentralized movement on a continental scale, proposing a transition into the right direction. Almost every EU country has a Volt chapter. TZM chapters can just ride that wave. It’s not about working hard, but working smart
I said that in the context of people framing capitalism for problems, while it’s actually the infinite growth paradigm. Which is present in all isms. So blaming capitalism is in my opinion not a correct conclusion. Because by blaming one ism, you open the path to promote the next ism, which will not solve the core underlying issue. I find the anti-capitalist posts on social-media a bit cringe because of that. Let’s just define it a more precise way and blame the whole market system for being a cancer that wants to grow until the host dies 
I don’t know why you say this. I’ve put a disclaimer on many of my posts. I don’t root for capitalism. It just happens to be the infinite growth flavor in the countries with the most wealth, highest standards of living, technology, science and sustainability practices. These countries also have free press, speech and democracy. They are also not practicing religion that much. These things are essential to promote an RBE. We cannot have a TZM in Russia, China or North Korea. Also not in the Middle East. And other countries are either too poor or autocratic to talk about these things. So in my opinion, the best countries that act as a staging ground for an RBE, are capitalist countries that have these positive triads (mostly Western European countries). Not because these are the best, but simply because there is nothing better at the moment (IMHO).
It’s a transition. It’s not the final stop. If you switch trains halfway your destination, it doesn’t mean you’re there yet. But you’re getting closer. Implementing the things that Volt proposed are not too radical, and not impractical. I think that’s a very important formula. It needs to be practical and acceptable. Once we get there to what Volt is proposing, we can focus on the next step. And of course, Volt can update their direction based on that.
The goal shouldn’t be to destroy capitalism, we need to outgrow it. Having a hostile approach against a system will not get you the momentum to change things. Use what’s already here and amplify it towards a new direction until the original state of that system becomes obsolete. Otherwise you’ll get resistance and things will not materialize.
1 Like
Maybe, despite that their actions are contradictory with more extreme forms of capitalism, they can help.
I mostly looked at the US. But if we have worker councils here in the EU, then that’s good news.
This is why we might be able to start from here, The European Union Countries.
The speed of change is certainly important, and I prioritize faster changes. But if the changes that volt (and all the others) is making to get closer to an RBE is fast enough to avert an ecological crisis in the next few decades, then it’s okay.
Maybe change is exponential. Initially, you see no intent to RBE, and then if they make more and more change, we might be able to see their intent.
But how do you outgrow the capitalist system? What is the difference between outgrowing and destroying?
Because we do know that there is hope, but how to make the change fast enough, so our system is not implemented too late in the worst-case scenario?
I do support the ban on all new coal oil and gas projects.
I have high hopes for the US, but I don’t see them as a stepping stone towards an RBE. Not in their current two party political spectrum and where they make each other’s lives difficult. The country is too divided and the economy is quite harsh. If you fail, you fail hard in that country.
I think that ship has sailed already. But to get meaningful change, we need to have a lot of people on board. That will be a slow and long journey. We should’ve started in the 70s. But here we are, we just have to work with what’s possible and practical. The next few decades are going to be tough. There is no magic quick fix for that anymore. We can only soften the blow and set the course for a new direction.
It’s the attitude and strategy. If you start a political party that’s out to destroy the current system, then you’re stuck in this narrative of fighting against the system and everyone who thinks that’s wrong.
If you are like Volt and proposing these changes and show how it benefits society, then there is less friction and distraction. You can just focus on the positive sides of the change. Outgrowing the current system is just an extra bonus in that case and not a focus point.
“Just stop oil” 
?
We cannot just ban things without filing up the gap. Being against something is super easy, but what’s the viable alternative without collapsing society?
So, even if ecology may contradict capitalism, the system may slowly change, so it becomes less of a contradiction.
No, we can’t do it in a single step, because I believe in “reformism to revolution”, where we modify our system step by step to reach a goal (instead of aiming to “destroy” a certain system directly, we make reforms which automatically lead to a desired system, that will eventually outpace the older one). Here is a long-term roadmap:
I signed this open letter:
Maybe this is the right strategy for a lot progressives regardless of ideology, and is used frequently, probably more than the destruction method I may unintentionally advocate for for being too simplistic.
Why do you keep mentioning capitalism? All isms do not respect the planet This is not a capitalism problem.
That roadmap looks better, but it’s too simplistic. For example, in nl we ran into a bottleneck. There is no shortage of wind and solar energy. There is in fact too much. The energy grid is overloaded. Also because of electric vehicles causing an extra load. I don’t see things like a localized energy grid or super grid in those 10 steps.
These 10 steps are what you and I can think of on a beer napkin That’s why I appreciate the Volt proposals, they are written because they seem to understand the technical and societal challenges. So I wouldn’t push for “ban this and that” but in this context I would say, localize the energy grid. Switch to renewables, one neighborhood at a time. And some industries might not be able to use renewables, so a full ban might not be practical.
Greenpeace also doesn’t want nuclear or GMOs. They also want to ban other agricultural things without providing a practical alternative. I personally don’t find Greenpeace that amazing.
Because the roadmap was meant to be simplified (or oversimplified). The grid localization is part of Step 2. It is a guideline that can be adapted to what work best. You can use green hydrogen for some things which cannot be renewable.
And yes, I agree that volt’s writing is better and have a greater understanding of the challenges we have than some other parties, despite that they might not be as radical as I might want it to be.
And instead of monocultures and monsanto seeds we can use vertical farming, polycultures and regenerative agriculture, and increase environmental the benefit of eating more plants.