Has anyone seen this yet? What did you think? Dont think it's online yet but I went to see it at the local chapter premier. I thought Part 1 was really good except for rest the documentary because they wrongly conflated the current economic system with capitalism again, and lets build technological cities to free humanity. Also, what they're promoting is to build a computer system which controls all resources on the earth so they dont run out. Money will be abolished. Im not sure but the first thing that came to mind is the Economic Calculation problem however back in communism the problem was needs/wants werent met because the pricing mechanism didnt exist but im wondering would that be the same if our wants were put into computers?
I think it's an interesting experiment providing they dont want to grab the guns of the state but rather lead by example, and have it voluntary and not coercive. What puzzles me though is they say violence is bad and then say the free market is bad, so the big question is are they going to use coercion to take individuals property. If its voluntary well then that is free market capitalism. If their system is the "best" then, just like science, the system shouldnt be afraid of scrutiny aka competition.
They're so called anarcho-communists. They don't believe in a state but they also don't believe in private property. This means that instead of the state being allowed to take your possessions, everyone should be able to take your possessions.
So this is, in fact, much worse than any form of statism and would lead to an all-out war of everyone against everyone, and humanity would quickly die out.
Instead of realizing this, they dream up the scenario of super-abundance where noone has to work. Robots will just make everything; problem solved!!!
It's just Marxism with robots. What do you mean control all resources with computers? That is a nonsensical proposition. Even with calculation aside, it is nonsensical. Even worse than Marxism, it seems to be a cult of perpetual motion.
And I don't think it is leading by example. It seems they depend on a complete transformation of society, or people forming into a cult to have faith in it. That's why they build sci fi looking computer models. For how will they build their resource based society if every last bit of 'resource' on Earth isn't under control yet?
I don't know why they seem to hide the fact that they are just Marxists with robots. Instead, they seem to think that most of their premises are completely unheard of. Like exploitation, technology stealing jobs, religion is bad, money and usury, economics being a super structure that is the cause of all violent conflict, etc. And they say that economics cannot even fathom these revelations. You can't read economists, communist or capitalist, and find these revelations. When it seems quite a number of economists and people who wish they were economists believe these things. They're called Marxists.
"What do you mean control all resources with computers?"
Their solution is to build a centralized super-computer that will manage resources of the whole planet. A Global Management System I think they are calling it. No one is allowed to own any resources, they will be "commonly" owned and this computer will decide how much of something you are allowed to have.
Basically they don't believe in private property until you create something and then they decide to take it, claiming it as their private property.
Check out Venus Needs Some Austrians
There's also a good discussion on the blog for that article too. It outlines a lot of what's wrong with their insane theory. It's complete nonsense. I'll reproduce one of the posts from the blog. The writer is commenting on a whole audio that a Venus Project defender posted to support the whole Zeitgeist argument. (view the full thread here.)
...We then get into socialist (yes, it is socialist, no matter what they say) nonsense about needing public property rather than private property because capitalism is supposedly a “rat race” where everyone fights everyone else for resources and a few undeserving bastards grab bigger slices of pie and then bully everyone else for more. Believe it or not, this is the essence of the ideas put forth in the 1800s by Karl Marx, debunked by the work of economists of the last century and a half. And he claims that OUR ideas our outdated. He briefly mentions that most new businesses fail, which is true, and is a consequence of the fact that our economy is already very efficient within the constraints that it has upon it. He mentions some of the worst of those constraints, politically-created barriers to entry, which tend to favor large businesses over small. He then does a very pretty dance around this whole issue, claiming that Austrians are foolish for advocating a repeal of regulations and a return to sound money, irrelevantly criticize anarchism for advocating abolition of the state and never really explain how he expects the Venus Project to gain traction against the forces that he says miniarchists/anarchists will be defeated by.[...] “And what do all of these systems have in common?” VTV asks. “Money.” Ah, it’s so clear now. We who like to practice logic call this fallacy “Ignoring a Common Cause.” I could just as easily argue that the problem is human beings, since all of these systems were developed and used by humans. Brandy then weighs in on the Calcutta kid, expertly dodging any recognition of Robert Murphy’s point and, with a wave of her magic wand, actually claims that the example supports her claim, since, under RBE, the whole world could be a superabundant Costco! VTV next whips out the “U” word, “Utopian” in referring to Murphy’s claim that a high enough standard of living could make the cost of a heart surgery seem trivial. Why he should suddenly turn so conservative and cynical when he’s the one claiming that “90% of the world’s labor could be automated” essentially for free is beyond me. VTV claims that capitalism “exploits” and “encourages” greed. I like how he uses subtle twists of language here to add emotional support his point while not quite lying. Greed exists separately from and outside of capitalism. The way in which capitalism “exploits” greed is that it puts a person’s desire for material wealth to good use, by encouraging that person to participate in the market and in the production of goods and services that are valued by their buyers higher than the money that they give up to attain them, which in turn is valued by him higher than the labor and materials that he used to make them. Greed encourages people to collectively raise each other’s wealth.
He briefly mentions that most new businesses fail, which is true, and is a consequence of the fact that our economy is already very efficient within the constraints that it has upon it. He mentions some of the worst of those constraints, politically-created barriers to entry, which tend to favor large businesses over small. He then does a very pretty dance around this whole issue, claiming that Austrians are foolish for advocating a repeal of regulations and a return to sound money, irrelevantly criticize anarchism for advocating abolition of the state and never really explain how he expects the Venus Project to gain traction against the forces that he says miniarchists/anarchists will be defeated by.[...]
“And what do all of these systems have in common?” VTV asks. “Money.” Ah, it’s so clear now. We who like to practice logic call this fallacy “Ignoring a Common Cause.” I could just as easily argue that the problem is human beings, since all of these systems were developed and used by humans. Brandy then weighs in on the Calcutta kid, expertly dodging any recognition of Robert Murphy’s point and, with a wave of her magic wand, actually claims that the example supports her claim, since, under RBE, the whole world could be a superabundant Costco!
VTV next whips out the “U” word, “Utopian” in referring to Murphy’s claim that a high enough standard of living could make the cost of a heart surgery seem trivial. Why he should suddenly turn so conservative and cynical when he’s the one claiming that “90% of the world’s labor could be automated” essentially for free is beyond me.
VTV claims that capitalism “exploits” and “encourages” greed. I like how he uses subtle twists of language here to add emotional support his point while not quite lying. Greed exists separately from and outside of capitalism. The way in which capitalism “exploits” greed is that it puts a person’s desire for material wealth to good use, by encouraging that person to participate in the market and in the production of goods and services that are valued by their buyers higher than the money that they give up to attain them, which in turn is valued by him higher than the labor and materials that he used to make them. Greed encourages people to collectively raise each other’s wealth.
Don't demean anarchocommunists please, the Zeitgeist is a lot worse.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
The Venus Project reminds me a lot of intellectuals such as Keynes and Marx who believed that worlds of post-scarcity are possible. It's just that the Venus Project is probably the least realistic of those I mention! They don't see capitalism as a transition. Rather, they see it as an institution which needs to be replaced by central planning, on the grounds that only through central planning can scarcity be eliminated. They just don't recognize the fundamental scarcity of human labor, and the limitless demand for wealth. Not to sell my own stuff here, but I think my recent article is a pretty good indirect criticism. Knowing that we live in a world of scarcity today, how does the Venus Project plan to coordinate resources without money?
There are several major problems with the Venus Project:
1. Centralism. TVP worships at the altar of centralized power, not realizing that centralized power thwarts human growth, achievement and happiness.
2. Scientism. TVP wants Marx-style "scientific" planning and makes "the scientific method" into some sort of god that has nothing to do with actual science.
3. Knee-jerk anti-marketism. TVP sees the market as the source of oppression, instead of the profoundly liberating social mechanism it is.
However, there are also a few problems (though not as serious) with the criticisms I hear here:
1. Equating markets with capitalism. Capitalism is a specific set of social relationships based around wage labor and social caste distinctions, perpetuated through the State and undermined by the market. To equate capitalism and the market is a profoundly erroneous way of thinking.
2. Property fundamentalism. Nielso's criticism of non-propertarian economic systems is suspiciously similar to criticisms levelled by statists against anarchy, and viciously strawmans the actual beliefs of non-propertarians. Brian's criticisms fall into the same errors.
3. Accusations of Marxism. Marxism is a very specific ideological system, based on a dialectical approach, materialism and a prescriptive application of the labor theory of value, all of which are absent from TVP.
4. The ridiculous belief that Keynes advocated post-scarcity. Seriously, dude. What the fuck?
So, there you go. 3 major, pretty much insurmountable problems with TVP and 4 errors I see from other posters.
This seems similar to those left-libertarian arguments which suggest that "capitalism" really represents the private-public corporate structure of the modern economy. These arguments are based on complete nonsense, and on the notion that this is what the enemies of capitalism were referring to when they coined the term. The enemies of capitalism (Proudhon, Marx, et cetera) always believed that the existing structure of the economy was the natural byproduct of the type of division-of-labor, free society envisioned by older classical economists such as Adam Smith. They thought that the nature of free-markets was exploitative. It is not a semantical debate. Ludwig von Mises gives a great defense of capitalism in Human Action, pp. 264-270.
The great majority of modern civilization is based on private property. Indeed, all major civilizations were based on private property. What non-propertarian economic systems exist and work?
You obviously have never read The General Theory nor Keynes' essay "Economic Possibilities for our Grand Children".
>> Capitalism is a specific set of social relationships based around wage labor and social caste distinctions, perpetuated through the State and >>undermined by the market.
Capitalism is that to some people, and is not that to others. we are others. pleased to meet you.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Capitalism is a specific set of social relationships based around wage labor and social caste distinctions, perpetuated through the State and undermined by the market.
That is an idiosyncratic definition. In economics, capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production (capital) are privately owned.
Property fundamentalism. Nielso's criticism of non-propertarian economic systems is suspiciously similar to criticisms levelled by statists against anarchy, and viciously strawmans the actual beliefs of non-propertarians. Brian's criticisms fall into the same errors.
Similar in what way? You merely asserted the presence of a fallacy, but have not pointed one out. The burden of proof is now on you to provide an argument for your assertion.
Accusations of Marxism. Marxism is a very specific ideological system, based on a dialectical approach, materialism and a prescriptive application of the labor theory of value, all of which are absent from TVP.
Correct.
The ridiculous belief that Keynes advocated post-scarcity. Seriously, dude. What the fuck?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Jon,
1. I am a left-lib.
2. Tucker identified as a socialist, and supported a free market.
3. Capitalism. Capital-ism. An economy run by capitalists, i.e. capital-holders, as a separate social caste from laborers.
2. Proudhon was a mutualist. He advocated a free market. Someone did not do the research.
3. All major civilizations other than the Indus Valley civilization, ancient Iceland and maybe a couple others also had states. Does that justify statism?
4. Possible non-propertarian systems include occupancy and use/posession, voluntary geoism, and voluntary collectivization. Sorta in between strict propertarianism and non-propertarianism is proviso Lockeanism.
5. I thought The General Theory was about the nature of the boom and bust cycle and the state's role in a depression, of course giving a very statist solution. I never thought of it as prescribing a future post-scarcity society. However, I did look up "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" and it does sound quite post-scarcity.
Got invited to a premiere in my city... called it technocratic marxism.
Someone then proceeded to give me a definiton for straw man. I replied with this being tried in the past, and it not working then either.
They (zeitgeisters) REALLY hate the VP being compared to a socialistic and/or communistic society, but thats all I can really see, personally.
I guess I'd have to say 'pffffffffffffffffffttttttt' about it all, generally...
BONG TIME!
vaguelyhumanoid ,
if you really believe your number 3, take a read. its not too long..
http://mises.org/daily/4062
Sonik, I'm not a Marxist. I see the "class division" of worker and capitalist as a symptom of the political class' domination. My class theory is based on Konkin and Carson, not Marx and Engels.
"I see the "class division" of worker and capitalist as a symptom of the political class' domination."
I don't quite understand that, could you elaborate please?
The point of that article I posted was to show that the class of 'capital owners', for the most part, are our neighbors and others in the community.
Am I just not getting your point? Are you merely associating 'capitalist' with images of greedy, fat corporationists, or 'worker' with the average joe?
That sounds like an arbitrary play on words. You could also say 'capital-ism': An economy run by by the consumer, directed by capital-holders and entrepreneurs (whether they borrow or own the capital). At the time, capitalism was used to critisize the notion of the market as it existed, under the false assumption that this was somehow an extension of the institution of markets (like many believe modern corporatism is today).
Proudhon advocated 'free-markets' under certain assumptions on how participants act. Proudhon's versions of free-markets, I don't think, are congruent with those of Mises or Rothbard, and I think this is most visible in the theoretical differences between mutualists and Misesians. So, it's disingenious to say that Proudhon's free-market beliefs are of the same ilk as those of Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard.
I'm not sure what statism has anything to do with anything. Most states did have property right regimes, even if they were not as developed as we have come to know them in the West. Nevertheless, even primitive societies, it has been shown, had abstract concepts of property, because it was the most efficient method of rationing/economizing resources. Property rights don't require complex legitimization and rights to titleship, et cetera. There is a progression in the property rights regime as society progresses in general.
There are different degrees of property rights, but it's all property rights. In any case, as someone with some experience with cooperatives, I have never seen a "voluntary collectivization" that really does not make use of property rights (except maybe monestaries and similar organizations?). But, these types of "collectivizations" would be more of the exception than the rule, because you just can't put together advanced societies without a concept of property rights. Property rights underlies the calculation argument.
5. I thought The General Theory was about the nature of the boom and bust cycle and the state's role in a depression, of course giving a very statist solution. I never thought of it as prescribing a future post-scarcity society.
The General Theory also describes the deficiencies Keynes sees in capitalism, and his supposed solutions. It argues for long-term institutional reform, not just counter-cyclical policy. He says counter-cyclical policy is just a short-term method of re-establishing stability in the economy, but it doesn't guarantee long-term stability.
Sonik, I'm not saying that all capitalists are oppressin teh workerz!!!!11!1!, I'm saying that the capitalist/worker distinction is enforced through state intervention in the economy.
1. Where are entrepeneurs suggested in the word "capitalism"? The conflation of capitalist and entrepeneur I often see implied, if not outright stated, on the Mises forums can be rather annoying. Being an entrepeneur involves innovation, holding capital does not.
2. I claimed that Proudhon advocated a free market. I didn't claim he advocated the same type of free-market society as Rothbard, Mises or Hayek.
3. I concede about property that mutualist occupancy and use could be considered a form of property. Maybe I should start saying I support mutualist or posession-based property rights, instead of talking about non-property-based economies and confusing everyone.
4. Do Keynes' solutions in The General Theory involve post-scarcity?
VaguelyHumanoid:Where are entrepeneurs suggested in the word "capitalism"?
At least at mises.org, the entrepreneur is the one directing the investment and or employment of capital. There is no capital expansion, business or economic growth, in the absence of entrepreneurs. They are an inherent necessary part of the capitalistic model.
VaguelyHumanoid: capitalist/worker distinction is enforced through state intervention
How exactly?
What about parties who fit in both categories, which is a big chunk of the middle-class?
Tucker identified as a socialist, and supported a free market.
Supposedly, socialism meant something different back then. I am guessing it was then just a generic word which could have different meanings for different people.
The socialism of Marx was supposedly "scientific socialism", but even that kind of socialism is not the one spoken of today. Daniel Kuehn explained to me on his blog that people in the 1900s identified themselves as socialists then who would not do so now.
I get what you mean.
Why do 'entrepreneurs' have to be represented in the word 'capitalism'? I said that capitalism comes down to the private ownership of capital (the owner of capital being a capitalist), and the concept that (accumulated) capital is ultimately what allows for economic growth. My overall point is that you can do a lot of play on words, so trying to define 'capitalism' by making some non-sequitor based on 'capital' is ingenious.
There aren't multiple types of free markets. Proudhon was a poor defender of the free market, just like the mutualists.
Why not concede that most people prefer to own their own property, that's why most advanced societies are property-based?
He suggests institutional reform that will lead to that world.
For those interested in having their brains literally ooze out of their ear canals, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is now available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w .
Two hours and forty-one minutes of...who knows.
Blueline976: For those interested in having their brains literally ooze out of their ear canals, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is now available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w . Two hours and forty-one minutes of...who knows.
Hopped through it:
Dear god, how much bull-shit can these guys come up with?
Zeitgeist entirely relies upon fallacious and moronic comments designed to make them look 'socially aware'. For instance, the old man at the start of the video says "I watched whilst precious finite resources were destroyed in the name of profit and the free market." It is utter bullshit statements like these that keep Zeitgeist going, because people believe it without questioning: who profits from destroying finite resources? If finite resources are destroyed, they cannot be maximised and sold for profit. Therefore, Zeitgeist are wrong.
It's ironic that it's called "Moving Forward" since their prognosis seems to be 'abandon money and don't work; profit is bad!' which will inevitably be a great leap back in terms of human civilisation.
Hah, Friedman, Hayek, and Mises all get mentioned in this movie for being, well, more or less evil money-grubbers. What an absolute joke.
"Money is evil rah rah rah."
The guy who posted the video blocked me from commenting because I said it was a cult.
Worth it. I feel like, just by telling them that it's a cult, you moved everyone's cult level down by 3 energon cubes
Molyneux just posted his review of this movie:
vaguelyhumanoid:Sonik, I'm not saying that all capitalists are oppressin teh workerz!!!!11!1!, I'm saying that the capitalist/worker distinction is enforced through state intervention in the economy.
vaguelyhumanoid:Jon, 1. Where are entrepeneurs suggested in the word "capitalism"? The conflation of capitalist and entrepeneur I often see implied, if not outright stated, on the Mises forums can be rather annoying. Being an entrepeneur involves innovation, holding capital does not.
Being an entrepeneur involves innovation, holding capital does not.
It sounds like you're saying it's fine to invest capital but not hold it. So you're against savings?
Brian Anderson: Being an entrepeneur involves innovation, holding capital does not. It sounds like you're saying it's fine to invest capital but not hold it. So you're against savings?
An inventor doesn`t necessary invest capital, he/she just comes up with an idea. Anybody can produce a surplus, i.e. capital.
Are you against the hoarding of resources that the hoarder doesn`t have any use for, except for keeping it from others?
What strikes me about the zeitgeist movement - Frescoism would probably be a better term - is how it's essentially a further development of Marxism, in that it attempts to resolve the flaws that were left in Marxist-Leninist theory. (And maybe contributions by later Marxist thinkers, I'm no expert on Marxism.) Marxism, as it stands today, has certain flaws, which lessen it's appeal. Although the zeitgeist people swear up and down that they aren't Marxists, their theories are all clever rephrasings of Marxist clichés. And what they added addresses flaws in Marxist theory. For example Marxism proposed that central planning - scientific socialism - would eliminate scarcity. That assumption allowed for all sorts of wacky conclusions because it avoided the very problem of economics: that you have to make trade-offs between different goods. Without scarcity there is no need to make trade-offs or worry about efficient production or economic coordination. With the assumption of superabundance all that goes away, and you can freely spin theories about utopia. The Marxists just never really explained how exactly this superabundance would come about. Frescoism proposes a solution... robots! How will central planning be more efficient than free enterprise? We automate everything! It's obviously a nonsensical solution to anyone with a minimum of economic education, but rhetorically it resolves that flaw. Now the theorists can come up with all sorts of explanations for why centrally planned automation will be more efficient than free enterprise. And scientific socialism is revived for another attempt.
Peter Joseph is an absolute Marxist.
He responds to Stefan:
Just listen to the first few minutes and that will be clear.
You gotta see this too:
Quite interesting to see how much he hates the 'normal' things about life (working, selling, etc).
Basically I would recommend these people to Thus Spoke Zarathustra's chapter "On the Tarantulas." I've never seen a bunch of more spiteful, jealous people in my life.
Apparently there's an easy way to end scarcity, that millions of economists just somehow overlooked. Luckily some internet kids figured it out.
It's because the kids on the Internet have the best interest of humanity in mind, whereas economists are academic shills bought and paid for by the powerful elite.
Jesus christ that guy is so patronizing, and ignorant at the same time. I mean, Stefan is pretty intense sometimes, but it never seems so patronizing or sarcastic. Every other sentence is huffing and puffing. He's so worked up into his emotion and hatred of money that he misses key concepts.
His whole arguement is "Hey, lets just do it!" Great, I'd like to fly if I flap my arms enough too.