The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

blank

Last edited by smudge on 25 Aug 2011, 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

You ARE aware that a trait of autism is a specialist interest, right? And You ARE aware that this specialist interest takes hold firmly, right? You chastising me for talking a lot about TZM is akin to chastising ANY autistic person for saying ANYTHING more than once.



Yes you are. Re-read what you have typed and think about what you are implying and imposing. You are acting so elitist that you think that you alone carry the common consensus. A trait blaringly prevalent in those who wish to silence others.



"seems" hmmmmmmmm, is that REALLY a basis for an intellectual stance?

Well I'm sorry that all you've seen of me on here is my activism. But like I have already stated, NO-ONE is forcing you to read this, so why are you trying to enforce censorship, and attempting to demean me into a position of adherence and inferiority?

How about you just respect my freedom of speech and stop acting like this is YOUR forum?

I'm sorry if you personally don't want to hear about how we can make this world a better place, but you cannot claim to speak for all of us on WP. I never claim to hold that position of authority, so its unreasonable and overly authoritarian for you to claim it.

If you don't like it, don't read it. It really is that simple.

I'm sorry that I do what I can to spread information on how we can move out of this cancerous system into one that takes the survival of life as a whole into consideration, but I'm not gonna be silenced. I personally do no accept that what we have right now is a world that has our interests at heart, and as such I do what I can to educate others about a better way forward for humanity.

I'm not a bad bloke, and when people engage me in a civil manner I mirror that civility. However when individuals such as yourself try to shut me down out of sheer spite and the need to shut me up because I'm saying things that you don't agree with, I'm sorry, but that is a violation of basic freedom of speech, and I let them know that they do not have the authority, or the grounds to do so.

Please respect my freedom to post what I like on here, coz I'm not violating ANY forum rules.

As far as technocrats are concerned nuclear power comes and goes in fads. One day they will be telling us that all our automobiles and airplanes will be nuclear powered and we will never have to pay for fuel ever again or they tell us that cold fusion will be the infinite source of clean energy. But as soon as there is a nuclear accident the technocrats will pretend that they were always opposed to nuclear power.

Environmentalists on the otherhand have a more consistent position. To them no nukes means no nukes period. That is why environmentalists do not trust the technocrats because technocrats waffle on their positions.

As far as Technocracy, the Zeitgeist Movement, or the Venus Project they are all pretty much cut from the same cloth and their differences represent infighting more than they represent real differences in ideology.

blank

Last edited by smudge on 25 Aug 2011, 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

It may do mate, it may do. However that isn't anything to do with me. Nuclear power is a dinosaur.



Again, that isn't anything to do with me, coz you know what? I'm not a technocrat.



*yawns* And this has relevance to an RBE, how?



You DO know you're just having a soliloquy here, right?



Really? If you could prove that I would be your slave.

I should first point out that you are doing a wonderful job at soundbyting me, only quoting points that you feel you have the ability to refute or chastise me for, and IGNORING all the rest. Really. Wonderful job.

Really? You've gone from a statement of certainty about this, then to "seems", now back to certainty. I'm not really gonna rely on your integrity here.

EVEN IF it was "all I go on about", WHAT THE BIG DEAL? No-one's forcing you to read this.......... Or are they?



I HAVE talked about a variety of subjects on here. You just refuse to look for them. Coz of course, it serves your argument to IGNORE information that derails your argument.

I know this isn't a "Zietgeist" forum. But is this YOUR forum?........ Nope, I didn't think so.

IF I posted TZM material on the OTHER topics that DIDN'T deal with this subject matter, then you would have a point. If I posted my material on, say "School and College Life", or "The Haven", then yes, I would be deserving of reprimands. HOWEVER, right now I keep my material to ONE SINGLE THREAD. This one.

This may not be a "Zietgeist" forum, but guess what? This IS a "Zietgeist" thread!

Come on Smudge, is there anything CONSTRUCTIVE that you came here to say? Any contribution towards the train of thought that you can offer? Coz your efforts to berrate me for just being me is becoming severely weak.

Please, if you're gonna post here, make a good use of your time and ask me some CIVIL and PRODUCTIVE questions for my podcast show.

Same goes for you as well, androbot2084, no more about technocracy. I have already explained that it is nothing to do with this. So please, some questions.

Hey peeps, just recently uploaded my latest podcast so I thought I'd post it up for you. Below is a link to my talkshoe page where you can listen to and download the full 60 minute podcasts for free in mp3 format:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=91995&cmd=tc

And just in case you prefer to listen in bitesize 15 minute videos, here's the youtube videos of it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkUkincQ1yM[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1-4iwf5ak[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX_99iCoRho[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_3_JJCrNNQ[/youtube]

I hope you enjoy it.

Hey guys, just to give you all an update, my latest podcast, the second part of my interview with Ben McLeish is up and available:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=91995&cmd=tc

And for those of you who prefer to view it in bitesize 15 minute chunks, the youtube vids are as follows:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnamoEHwat4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFlWh9T1aaw[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM5O6vwNN8M[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1GKKB2Sqfc[/youtube]

I hope you enjoy it.

Hey guys, sorry I havn't posted lately, I completely forgot about last month, but here are both the podcasts I've uploaded since at the following link:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=91995&cmd=tc

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxOcPOW6_g[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnTQjrh0RhU[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kewiekk95lI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75MBCB13fQ[/youtube]

And the latest one:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfa4ttJ1-ps[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSS35ob462Q[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGUE0-6zRZY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UexYXqA9y_w[/youtube]

I hope you enjoy.

hmm...


there is an interesting discussion on this very topic here:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/histori ... a-03052011

That certainly is an interesting, albeit largely negative discussion on TZM. Personally I can understand the compulsion to lump TZM in some "wing" category, or at least lump it in as the "same" as any previously existing or previously proposed system that carries similar traits. But saying an RBE is the same as communism,marxism/maoism/pop potism, or all the other isms that have been attempted to be attatched to an RBE is like saying a Picasso painting is the same as a Rembrant painting simply because they both used some similar colours to paint with.

Its a feeble prima facie association because then if you lump something in the same category as something similar, it makes it FAR easier to dismiss, disprove or in a weird way understand. We as a culture cannot BEAR to know of something we cannot quickly and easily categorise and hense pigeon-hole, coz we are ill at ease with something that defies established and rigid categorisation.

That is one of the main reasons why the left/right wing paradigm, as fallacious as it is, exists. We feel we have to marginalise things into separate sectionsso we feel more comfortable in our ability to then categorise ourselves when we state our alliegence with one of them. But the truth is, right wing, left wing, capitalist or communist, stateist or anarchist it doesn't matter. Its still the same business of monetary systems.

An RBE doesn't prescribe to those constraints and unsuistainable practises. Its nothing like anything that has ever existed.

it is generally negative, since the general consensus among people with an interest in the far left/anarchism/communism when discussing the zeitgeist movement is negative. i am of course, generalising a bit, and i know a member of the zeitgeist movement who also has a big interest in marxism, although this may be something of an anomaly.

the thread, or at least the original post, isn't really aligning the zeitgeist movement with left or right. he is onviously critical of tzm though.

the general criticism among such circles is that tzm lacks any notion of class or social critique whatsoever. if you will excuse my making a crude analogy (as crude as it may be i think it will elucidate my point) it could be considered similar to a variant of marxism where the entire middle section (the bit where the proletariat revolt against the ruling class and society progresses through socialism and towards comunism) has been removed.

i.e. regardless of the feasibility or otherwise of a resource based economy, there appears to be no strategy whatsoever in terms of bringing this economy about.

would you have any comments on this?






rather a moot point since the thread linked does not actually position the zm on the left or right.

you also betray a general lack of understanding of communism, in that communism has nothing whatsoever to do with any monetary system. but don't worry, it's a common misconception brought about by accepting the general mid to late twentieth century notion of communism and failing to research the topic further.





since your previous point about monetary systems has been refuted in terms of socialism and communism, this brings me back to my original point (that the zm appears to be some over simplified variant on marxism with the substance extracted).

Someone can have an interest in TZM and marxism at the same time. I wouldn't say its a crime.



I recognise that. However the insertion of TZM is such a heavily weighted discussion about the left/right wings is like talking about caffene while having a discussion heavily about heroin and cocaine. It simply doesn't fit. But it does fit with my assertion that people feel bound to categorise things into the left or right wing. That is why there are no other "wings" being discussed. Because the false dichotomy is extremely divisive.



TZM does not recognise notions such as class because they only serve to separate humanity. I don't understand what you meant by social critique in this context.



It depends on how you personally perceive anything, or in this instance "marxism" when the constituant parts are absent. To make a few counter-analogies:

I would certainly consider a marquee tent with an absense of support rods, not a real marquee at all. But rather a big piece of canvas.

I would consider a religion without the object of worship, or "God" not a real religion, but rather a group of people.

And I would consider a restaurant without food preparation technology to not be a real restaurant, but rather a building.

In otherwords, the whole is the sum of its parts. So take away "the bit where the proletariat revolt against the ruling class" as you put it and are you still left with marxism? I'm not personally sure. So your assertion that TZM (Which by the way is just a social movement, I do believe it is the resource-based economic model that we advocate that you are referring to. Maybe your understanding isn't that complete), is marxism with certain pieces of marxism removed sounds rather desperate to me. Yes, yes, I know you justify the assertion by using the words "similar to a varient of", but how does that imply any correlation? There next step on from "similar to a variant of" is "nothing like it". So isn't that just the same as saying "it is vaguely similar to my perception, but I can't prove it ACTUALLY is"?

Also, why is it do you think that the proletariat revolution part is abscent? Because the "proletariat" in an RBE don't bother to revolt? Or because there is no proletariat and rulling class because the entire human population are the ruling class?



If you were familiar with TZM's materials, or even listened to my podcasts you would know why that is.









Moot point or not, I felt the need to express it, for reasons I have already explained.



So let me get this straight; Only early twentieth century and before, communist theory is the true communist doctrine? That's like saying the catholic church of 200 years ago and before that was the only true form and politics of the catholic church, and anything about what it is now is completely false. You seem to forget that things change and evolve. Even capitalism is not now what it was to begin with. Does that mean we have to shift all of our methods and values back several centuries? No. We move with the times. And communism is now what it is now. It does not matter what it was 200 years ago.

And what did these doctrines imply in the abscense of monetary systems? Was it anything like what a Resource-Based Economic Model would be?



I refer you to my previous statement.

Overall you seem to be confusing yourself with what you want to assert what an RBE is/is similar to/is a variant of/seems to be/appears to be. (you change your language depending on how confident you feel about each assertion, however that does invalidate all of them since you can't decide on one).

of course not, neither would i. i'm not sure if it would be altogether common hence why i suggested that perhaps it's an anomaly.



not really. it does actually fit, since the thread was discussing the attraction of the zm and what seems to draw people to it, in comparison with the general lack of political consciousness of any variety. i would propose that the lack of substance in the ideas of the zm might be part of the reason.




it would certainly be convenient if this was a prudent thing to do, but unfortunately, whether you like it or not, class does actually exist. it is one of the driving forces of modern consumer capitalism. you can't simply choose to ignore it, and hope that it will disappear by itself.

by social critique i simply mean a critical analysis of the society in which we live. if you have problems with the society in which you live, it is a good idea to have an understanding of how it works and how it might be changed. much the same as class, which is an integral part of society in itself, it's not just going to go away or change by itself.



i think that you actually do understand the nonsensical nature of this argument you have presented. perhaps variant wasn't the best choice of words.

however, let's say i took, for instance, orwell's 1984. i keep the first few and last few chapters intact, but remove a substantial portion from the middle. anyone reading this who had previously read 1984 would know that, in fact, it is nothing more than a truncated and less substantial version of orwell's book.




then why don't you just state it here? i've read a fair bit about the zm since my acquaintance brought up being a member, but still haven't got to the bottom of this point. i don't have time to listen to your podcasts, so can you not simply explain it here in a concise way for me?




you appear to be contradicting yourself. just above you were comparing a truncated version of marxism to a marquee without sticks. but now you are claiming that the contemporary bastardised notion of communism is actually communism. you'd be best served in trying to be consistent with your line of reasoning.


the point here is that the majority of people who would self-consciously refer to themselves as communists would be people with an interest in communism as described by marx, i.e. the notion of a society lacking any form of authoritarian state or monetary system and where ownership of capital assets is communal.




if a resource based economy is an economy based upon need where the means of production are owned communally and there is no monetary system, then yes, there are a few similarities.



you are saying that my points are invalidated because i varied the choice of comparative words i used to describe them over the post. it's not really a robust argument, is it? i don't think you've done much at all to refute anything i said.