Who the fuck are Zeitgeist Movement?

236 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 17 2009 18:51

I think you people are being unfair towards the Zeitgeist nutjobs. If there is a group of tinfoil hatters that are trying to clean their insanity of antisemitism, this should be supported, as part of our over-arching internationalist position. They should at least be given the benefit of the doubt.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 17 2009 20:25

I wasn't going to mention this before (because you're not supposed to judge a person on their mere name) but maybe their non-anti-semitism is due to the producer and narrator of the films being a Peter Joseph.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 17 2009 21:08

Peter Joseph doesn't sound like a Jewish name to me.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 18 2009 00:40

Oh, but they're trying so hard not to go there. You've gotta hand it to them, give them an "E" for effort.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 18 2009 04:56
tojiah wrote:
Peter Joseph doesn't sound like a Jewish name to me.

It looks as if you're right. It isn't even his real name. See here. With Peter Joseph as his first two names his family probably came from Weeler's part of the world . . .
But then I should have stuck to my original intention of not getting into this sort of name game.

AnotherYou's picture
AnotherYou
Offline
Joined: 6-08-10
Aug 6 2010 18:14
888 wrote:
mikus wrote:
dariushsokolov wrote:
No it doesn't count for much really. Blaming all the ills of capitalism on fractional reserve banking is a very old chestnut, but it's one that can sound quite convincing to people who don't know much economics. Maybe would be a good idea to write a kind of intro guide on this particular economic conspiracy theory - or does anyone know of one already?

This is a quite good idea. I don't know of any introductory dissection of this idea although I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find various arguments against that conspiracy theory.

I find an increasing need to combat the ideas of conspiracy mentals and a pamphlet covering their basic arguments on 9/11 and the various economic ideas, as well as perhaps an explanation of the psychology/attraction of conspiracy theories, and a basic summing up of the correct ecnomic explanations, would be a really good idea.

The use of the "if you knew enough about economics" arguement is thrown around a lot. You're welcome to actually say something of any substance or heuristic as to what we (yes, I'm a member of the Zeitgeist Movement) don't seem to be understanding.

Please, if you can prove it wrong then you'd be saving me a lot of wasted time.

I got involved because I was of exactly the same disposition, I began thinking "these guys clearly don't understand that it's a bit more complicated that scarcity driven by monetary incentive and compounding interest" to actual scientific and rational appraisal of the idea's, guess what one actually yeilded insight?

I hope nobody see's me coming on here as someone ready to have an arguement, but I will happily talk about the movement with anyone who has issues and disagreements. Those are definitely worth hearing.

Plastic Bag's picture
Plastic Bag
Offline
Joined: 1-08-10
Aug 7 2010 10:44
Tojiah wrote:
Peter Joseph doesn't sound like a Jewish name to me.

icantthinkofaus...
Offline
Joined: 8-08-10
Aug 8 2010 13:58

It's almost impossible to talk about conspiracies without coming off as a fucking psycho living in a homemade bomb shelter where they keep their kidnapped virgins. And, let's not forget the smarter-than-you self described Anarchists who reject anything that isn't pseudo-intellectually undecipherable economic bullshit.

What I'm trying to say is, just because some crazy Jew decides to make a film talking about how banks are mongering all the money for the rich, 9/11 was an inside job, and that there's a New World Order/Illuminati/Jew World Order (Jews prosecuting Jews?) here to rape the churches, and burn all the women.. doesn't mean that everyone who believes those things are part of some Zeitgeist group.

Last time I heard, the Zeitgeist movement were a bunch grassroots futuristic technology loving whores who want a god only knows society where everythings polished, clean, and tiled.

theAnarch's picture
theAnarch
Offline
Joined: 28-07-10
Aug 8 2010 20:43

obviously the Ron Paulian people who created this film don't understand the inter-workings of the capitalist system if they think you can have capitalism bigger than a small town and not have a central bank.

Glad im not the only person that saw the Crypto-antisemitism. The danger behind this stuff is in the absence of real political ideas Ive known a lot of workers and students that latched on to this stuff

Quote:
Last time I heard, the Zeitgeist movement were a bunch grassroots futuristic technology loving whores who want a god only knows society where everythings polished, clean, and tiled.

God...they want us all to live in white middle class suburbs.

H2
Offline
Joined: 22-01-09
Aug 10 2010 15:11

For people speaking spanish I recomend this:

http://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/?q=node/9142

here in polish:

http://cia.bzzz.net/krytyka_teori_konspiracyjnych

In Poland we have a problem with all this conspiracy thing but fortunetly I feel that people are loosing confidence in this, but we still have to work more against it and educate more the people.

Personally, I see Zeitgeist more like a religious sect than a "movement" that they pretend to be. And if you are bored and want to do something at a cloudy evening, if you give a closer look to this "ideology" you can say its even dangerous, coz the authoritarian-centralist things that it contains. But as I say, its just if you are bored. For me there is no sense exept of fun to investigate this thing.

Salud!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Nyarlathotep
Offline
Joined: 26-04-10
Aug 15 2010 01:41
Parker wrote:
Zeitgeist come across as anti-capitalist, but a lot of the films' ideas on the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking.

Just to play the devil's advocate, how can you be anti-capitalist without criticizing either of those things?

Ed wrote:
For those that don't know, their argument is that the story of Jesus the miracle performer, his death and resurrection pre-dates the Bible and goes back even to ancient Egyptians [...] Is there any truth in this?

Nah, I'm pretty sure it was mostly the fabrication of Theosophists.

Parker wrote:
there's no explicit anti-semitism, but the sources of these old canards are blatantly anti-semitic. "International bankers" is a well-known shorthand for "Jews", for instance

Regardless, this sort of mystical exceptionalism in regards to finance capital (usually coupled with an implicit endorsement of productive capital) is textbook Proudhonism which is heinous enough regardless of whether or not it's explicitly anti-Semitic.

-----

Anyway, these Zeitgeist people are nothing new, special, or even insidious...mostly just sad, boring, and irrelevant. Are you going to have an online jerk-off session poking easy fun at them, or are you going to develop a viable strategy to recruit them? Are you actually interested in spreading communism, or are you just trying to form an exclusive clique of intellectual elites? Besides,their banal techno-fantasies are no more boring than those frequently spouted on this very message board.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Aug 15 2010 09:24
Nyarlathotep wrote:
Regardless, this sort of mystical exceptionalism in regards to finance capital (usually coupled with an implicit endorsement of productive capital) is textbook Proudhonism which is heinous enough regardless of whether or not it's explicitly anti-Semitic.

Get em!

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 21 2010 06:23

They advocate "Technocracy" and are fucking idiots. They think capitalism will just go away and during it's decline they can build "Technates" to compete with capitalism within the capitalist system. They oppose democracy and advocate all decisions be made by "engineers".

I wouldn't say their as harmful as fascists but....they do seem to be confusing a hell of a lot of people as to what it will take to end capitalism. I put them in the same camp as reformists but their 'dictatorship of engineers' also puts me off.

They're a bunch of petty bourgeois "engineers" with a fantasy of controlling the means of production (and hence society itself).

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 21 2010 06:33
CRUD wrote:
When dealing with them I'm always reminded of Lenin and his reasoning for going after the engineers in Russia. They ended up being the ones controlling the means of production instead of the communist party. Problem with Lenin was the communist party wanted control in lieu of giving control to the workers/masses. Be weary of anyone who wants control of the means of production unless it's a worker democracy. Obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ6t5JA7OBA

Then some of them claim they advocate workers democracy....if that's the case then it's simply anarchism. These people are quacks and most of them aren't even engineers just as Howard Scott (founder of technocracy) wasn't even an engineer, just as the founder of the Venus Project (Zeitgeist) has no fucking engineering credentials. Quacks.

jacobian
Offline
Joined: 18-03-09
Aug 21 2010 11:38
Nyarlathotep wrote:
Nah, I'm pretty sure it was mostly the fabrication of Theosophists.

Actually this isn't just theosophy. Heroes in the Mediteranian, the Middle East and beyond have some very old "signifiers" for being miraculous.

Virgin Birth: Vapassi Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Mithras
Abandoned and later found: Moses, Heracles, Gilgamesh, Taliesin
Resurrection: Taliesin, Jesus
Dragon Slaying: Ninurta, St. George, Heracles

You can make a big list and Jesus scores pretty high on attributions, but so does Heracles. Clearly these signifiers were important at the time for lending legitimacy to your new profit/hero.

AnotherYou's picture
AnotherYou
Offline
Joined: 6-08-10
Aug 24 2010 12:45

I can't help but smile here guys. I'm here, I'm a member of the movement, I'd be completely happy to answer any questions of concepts you have of what the movement is to save you the necessity of strawmanning the idea. Yet there you are talking complete nonsense amongst yourselves.

My post is 9 above, anyone who has any questions or serious refutations I would love to hear them. As I said, I'm here to try and find the best answer.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Aug 24 2010 13:33
AnotherYou wrote:
I'm a member of the movement, I'd be completely happy to answer any questions

Do you or do you not believe there is a NWO in the form of a "secret elite" which controls the world economy and/or mass media?

jackiewilson's picture
jackiewilson
Offline
Joined: 20-04-07
Aug 24 2010 13:54

I used to go on a graf forum, one of their members were posting on it. Geezer was a grade A nutjob who insisted on their being a ruling illuminarty, rapist lizard men etc. I hate it wents tits like these post on the net, as they inadvertedly discredit the greatest thinker of our times... David Icke.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 26 2010 22:00
AnotherYou wrote:
888 wrote:
mikus wrote:
dariushsokolov wrote:
No it doesn't count for much really. Blaming all the ills of capitalism on fractional reserve banking is a very old chestnut, but it's one that can sound quite convincing to people who don't know much economics. Maybe would be a good idea to write a kind of intro guide on this particular economic conspiracy theory - or does anyone know of one already?

This is a quite good idea. I don't know of any introductory dissection of this idea although I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find various arguments against that conspiracy theory.

I find an increasing need to combat the ideas of conspiracy mentals and a pamphlet covering their basic arguments on 9/11 and the various economic ideas, as well as perhaps an explanation of the psychology/attraction of conspiracy theories, and a basic summing up of the correct ecnomic explanations, would be a really good idea.

The use of the "if you knew enough about economics" arguement is thrown around a lot. You're welcome to actually say something of any substance or heuristic as to what we (yes, I'm a member of the Zeitgeist Movement) don't seem to be understanding.

Please, if you can prove it wrong then you'd be saving me a lot of wasted time.

I got involved because I was of exactly the same disposition, I began thinking "these guys clearly don't understand that it's a bit more complicated that scarcity driven by monetary incentive and compounding interest" to actual scientific and rational appraisal of the idea's, guess what one actually yeilded insight?

I hope nobody see's me coming on here as someone ready to have an arguement, but I will happily talk about the movement with anyone who has issues and disagreements. Those are definitely worth hearing.

I'll bite. I'm off work for a couple weeks so I have time to lame around online.

Lets start with your lack of class analysis and means of facilitating revolution. Capitalism cannot be overthrown by "technates" build within/competing with capitalism. It will take a revolution.

Energy accounting? It's pseudo science.

Blaming the exploitative/corrosive effects of capitalism on the federal reserve and or a "price system" completely ignores the realities of capitalism. Also, the NWO one world government thing is simply capitalism expanding across the globe. No two nations with a McDonald's will ever go to war. Foreign 'markets' need to be opened up and capitalist friendly governments must be installed. It's no "bankers" conspiracy.

Most of the info surrounding the federal reserve came from a book written by a man named G Edward Griffin who is a right wing conservative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin#The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island

The zeitgeist people are regurgitating right wing conspiracy theories which state Rothschild was building a global fascist/communist government.

IT'S JUST CAPITALISM.

We already have scientific critiques of the system. It's called Marxism and anarchism. The only thing technocrats do is separate workers from class consciousness while veering us off the road to revolution with reformist bullshit. Like Fabian socialists but without the socialism.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Aug 27 2010 07:42
CRUD wrote:
Quote:
I'll bite. I'm off work for a couple weeks so I have time to lame around online.
Lets start with your lack of class analysis and means of facilitating revolution. Capitalism cannot be overthrown by "technates" build within/competing with capitalism. It will take a revolution.
Energy accounting? It's pseudo science.

I think you're confusing Zeitgeist with the Technocracy movement of the 1930s with which Fresco was once associated and some of whose baggage he still carries, particularly his opposition to democracy as a decision-making process. Nowadays he has abandoned "energy units" and advocates the abolition of money. I think he's abandoned "technates" too but his "Venus Project" for establishing circular cities seems to be a modernised version of the Technocrats "urbanates".

Actually Fresco's non-democratic vision of a future moneyless world has much in common with that of the ultra-Leninist Bordiga (who's popular enough here to have his own page) who also execrated democratic decision-making (dismissing it as a mere "counting of noses") and saw communism being run by spontaneously emerging technical experts. Like Fresco Bordiga was some sort of engineer. Maybe it's an occupational hazard.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 27 2010 19:35
capricorn wrote:
CRUD wrote:
Quote:
I'll bite. I'm off work for a couple weeks so I have time to lame around online.
Lets start with your lack of class analysis and means of facilitating revolution. Capitalism cannot be overthrown by "technates" build within/competing with capitalism. It will take a revolution.
Energy accounting? It's pseudo science.

I think you're confusing Zeitgeist with the Technocracy movement of the 1930s with which Fresco was once associated and some of whose baggage he still carries, particularly his opposition to democracy as a decision-making process. Nowadays he has abandoned "energy units" and advocates the abolition of money. I think he's abandoned "technates" too but his "Venus Project" for establishing circular cities seems to be a modernised version of the Technocrats "urbanates".

Actually Fresco's non-democratic vision of a future moneyless world has much in common with that of the ultra-Leninist Bordiga (who's popular enough here to have his own page) who also execrated democratic decision-making (dismissing it as a mere "counting of noses") and saw communism being run by spontaneously emerging technical experts. Like Fresco Bordiga was some sort of engineer. Maybe it's an occupational hazard.

No, the Venus project is basically technocracy. The "energy accounting" (they swear) isn't money. Fresco, just like Howard Scott, makes a false claim to being an engineer...it's all silly and hierarchical.

I guess seeing that they oppose capitalism they're not "reactionary" but they also oppose revolution and their critique of capitalism only serves to confuse people.

Capitalism isn't a conspiracy theory and it cannot be destroyed by building "urbanates" to compete with capitalism.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Aug 28 2010 07:22
CRUD wrote:
The "energy accounting" (they swear) isn't money.

I agree that their analysis of capitalism is flawed (focused on banking and markets rather than production) and that there are elements of technocracy, but I've not found any reference to "energy accounting" in Zeitgeist literature. Have you got some examples?

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Aug 28 2010 18:01
Quote:
Technocracy movement — Jacque Fresco was a member of Technocracy Incorporated for a number of years. There are major differences between Jacque's ideas and that of Technocracy Incorporated, though.

Jacque is not in favour of the concept of energy accounting, for example, and he does not consider himself a "technocrat".

http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Jacque_Fresco

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Aug 29 2010 10:47

A member of the SPGB posted this critical analysis of Zeitgeist on their forum - The full article can be read at the SPGB BLOG

I first came into contact with the Zeitgeist Movement after reading a short article about it at the Socialism Or Your Money Back blog and to be honest I was enthralled, that was until I went down to London for the Fresco/Meadows lecture event. By that time I realised that there were various flaws ideologically inherent within the movement itself. As far as I can see these are...

1. GRADUALISM v REVOLUTION. What I mean by this is Jacques Fresco's plan to construct and establish a gigantic Venus Project style proto-city somewhere in the South American jungle with the hope that this will act as the spark of a colossal social domino effect that will gradually bring a world socialist society into existence all over the world. This plan is doomed from the very outset...
2. THE "COLLAPSE" OF CAPITALISM. The false belief (prevalent since the 19th Century) that capitalism will collapse of its own accord leading to the rather lazy and dangerous theory that we need not bother about the certain opposition of the owning class in the future because the entire system will implode anyway. Capitalism will not collapse!
3. ZEITGEIST AS A 'GRASSROOTS' MOVEMENT. The insistence of Fresco/Meadows/Joseph that the ZG movement is and should remain "non-political". If anything the social upheavals that face us today and the material conditions which have given rise to the emergence of ZG are the most urgently political issues in the entire history of our species.
4. CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS. A lack of "class consciousness" or self awareness about the role of the current international working class both in terms of our place in history and the worldwide revolutionary role we must inhabit in order to bring about a Resource Based Economy (or World Socialism). There are only two classes in society - employers and salary earners. Us and them!
5. THE TERROR OF EVER MENTIONING SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM. What seems like deliberate obfuscation and fudging of the true definitions of socialism/communism by the ZG spokespeople in terms of the regimes that existed and continue to exist in Russia, Cuba, Eastern Europe, China etc. These were left wing fascist regimes actually known as state capitalism. Socialism is perhaps the most misunderstood and bastardised term in recent history!
6. THE STATE. No clear plan of how we are to deal with the certain opposition of the worldwide owning class, who although comprised of only a few thousand individuals have in their power the most devastating arsenal of monstrous weaponry in the entire history of humanity as well as the armed forces, government, police and penal/judiciary systems. The state exists and operates in their interests. We must capture it! How do we organise this?
7. MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. The assertion by Peter Joseph that once the dissemination of ZG ideas has captured the public imagination, the working class should then engage in protests such as the non payment of rent, tax, bills etc. This could be misguided futile romance and is wasteful of energy and time.
8. SOME ABSENCE OF HISTORICAL REFERENCE. One could be forgiven for thinking that the very idea of a global moneyless/stateless society was actually invented by Jacques Fresco if the cult of personality that surrounds him is anything to go by. This I believe is because there appears to be very little historical reference within the main ZG argument.
9. CONSPIRACY AS IDEOLOGICAL BASIS. Peter Joseph is already trying to distance himself from the conspiratorial material in the first ZG movie. Nevertheless the tag of the ZG movement as a bunch of conspiracy theorists still tends to stick.
10. FALSE ECONOMIC THEORIES. As a basis for the mistaken idea that capitalism will soon collapse, it appears that the misinterpetation of one single 1970's economic pamphlet ("Modern Money Mechanics") underpins much of the ZG position on economics and is utilised as proof that we are all headed for economic and social armaggedon. These debt theories are muddled and untrue.
11. MEMBERSHIP. There is no effective means of assessing membership other than a counter on the global website which records how many anonymous people have registered by simply leaving their email address. This is no way of accurately measuring strength. In real terms ZG has no members at all if this is anything to go by. Could it even be said the ZG movement is a glorified fanclub of the online movies?
12. CYBERNATION. Jacques Fresco believes ultimately that once world socialism is established, humans can give up thinking for themselves and leave most if not all of the important decisions to vast computers. He also asserts that in the first stages of world socialist society the world would be run with the help of an elite crew of technological experts...about 5% of the population. Sounds familiar? What worries me however is how humanity could prevent this technocracy from becoming corrupt in terms of maintaining power.

ire
Offline
Joined: 11-04-09
Aug 29 2010 11:10
AnotherYou wrote:
My post is 9 above, anyone who has any questions or serious refutations I would love to hear them. As I said, I'm here to try and find the best answer.

My reservations about the Zeitgeist Movement are manifold. But, rather than trying to answer the question "Why wouldn't an anarchist be enthusiastic about the ZM?", the more pertinent question seems to be Why on earth would they?
The reservations that individuals may disclose here are all secondary to the overriding fact that it isn't anarchy.
Do you think that a shared desire for "moneylessness" constitutes a sufficient degree of commonality or something? It doesn't.

Despite the generic reassurances that it isn't another version of state socialism [1] - so people need not worry about the dark spectre of "communism" - nowhere in the increasing volume of literature and propaganda that emanates from ZM HQ do I perceive any recognition of the need to build a free society.

Your answer to the socialist calculation problem is a global centralised database to monitor the world's resources:

Quote:
When computers eventually have sensors extended into all areas of the physical and social complex, we will be able to achieve centralization of decision-making. In a global resource-based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.
This centralized system could be connected to research labs and universities, with all data monitored and updated constantly.[2]

I mean ... if that isn't a command economy, then what is?
I get the impression you might even beat the Bolsheviks at their own game, if given the chance.

Another glaring anomaly is the tacit support for strong A.I. and the delegation of practically all decisions to computers.
This is strongly related to the obvious trend towards Scientism.

These are discussed on the Infoshop Wiki.

[1] The Venus Project FAQ - 'How does this differ from Communism?'
[2] The Venus Project FAQ - 52. 'What is the role of Cybernation as decision-makers?'

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Aug 29 2010 14:30

I too like Alan have my reservations about the Zeitgeist movement for pretty much the same reasons.

Although some members of the SPGB are interested in them mainly because they appear to be putting forward a Kropotkinist vision of society in as much as they appear to be proposing a moneyless society of free access.

For the Zeitgeist movement that idea is clearly not original to themselves and was an integral part of the Communist and Anarchist movement (if you insist on differentiating them) even just as an ideal or objective.

I provided a ‘survey’ of that on revleft recently for the benefit of Leninist who were still muddled about what communism was at post 148;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-capitalist-theories-t133820/index.html?p=1760340

Including as well as Kropotkin and Engels some real rogues thus;

Frederick Engels Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence;

Written: in mid-October 1844

V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New
1920

Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3, Socialism and the State
1936

Karl Kautsky The Labour Revolution

III. The Economic Revolution X. MONEY
1924

Henry Mayers Hyndman The Record of an Adventurous Life

Chapter XV Start of Social Democracy
1911

Peter Kropotkin 1920
The Wage System

And last but not ‘least’

J. V. Stalin ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM? 1906

The idea of a special elite (whatever the justification) organising society for the greater good of the whole is one that is common to fascism, Leninism and is even a justification used by the capitalist class.

For the non elite it would appear that they have to choose between those who understand ourselves better than we do and the ‘historical processes as a whole’ ie the Leninist vanguard to organise society rationally.

Or the scientific technocrats and computer programmers (God help us).

It might be unfair to accuse the Zeitgeist movement of scientific elitism and technocracy but given that it has clearly emerged from those obnoxious ideas a clear and categorical refutation of them would be useful.

The idea is as old as Rousseau and all you have to do is substitute master and mistress for the technocratic administrators of society.

Ideal Household of the Wolmar's in `La Nouvelle Heloise', Letter X-to Lord Bomston;

Quote:
`There is never either sullenness or discontent in obedience because there is neither haughtiness nor capriciousness in the command. Because nothing is demanded which is not reasonable or expedient, and because the technocratic administrators sufficiently respect the dignity of man, even though he is a servant, so as to employ him only with things that do not debase him."

"the servants know well that their most assured fortune is attached to that of their technocratic administrators and that they will never want for anything as long as the Venus Project is seen to prosper. In serving it, therefore, they are taking care of their own patrimony and increasing it by making their service agreeable; this is to their greatest self interest."

For those of us who are unlikely to be the technocratic managers of society we can be forgiven I hope for having grown cynical by experience.

Burhman the ex Leninist and Trot theoretician understood his subject, and perhaps himself, well enough I think;

Quote:
"Both communism (Leninism) and fascism claim, as do all the great social ideologies to speak for the people as a whole for the future of mankind. However it is interesting to notice that both provide even in their public words for an elite or vanguard. The elite is of course the managers and their political associates the rulers of the new society.

Naturally the ideologies do not put it this way. As they say it the elite represents, stands for, the people as a whole and their interests. Fascism is more blunt about the need for the elite, for `leadership'. Leninism worked out a more elaborate rationalisation. The masses according to Leninism are unable to become sufficiently educated and trained under capitalism to carry in their own immediate persons the burdens of socialism

The mases are unable to understand in full what their interests are. Consequently, the transition to socialism will have to be supervised by an enlightened vanguard which `understands the historic process as a whole' and can ably and correctly act for the interests of the masses as a whole; like as Lenin puts it, the general staff of an army.

Through this notion of an elite or vanguard, these ideologies thus serve at once the two fold need of justifying the existence of a ruling class and at the same time providing the masses with an attitude making easy the acceptance of its rule.

This device is similar to that used by the capitalist ideologies when they argued that capitalist were necessary in order to carry on business and that profits for capitalists were identical with prosperity for the people as a whole…………….The communist and fascist doctrine is a device, and an effective one, for enlisting the support of the masses for the interests of the new elite through an apparent identification of those interests with the interests of the masses themselves."

Managerial Revolution,Chapter 13. 1941

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Sep 8 2010 22:52
Quote:
Hardy - Can Banks Create Credit (1971)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/creatingcredit.htm

Adam Buick - Banks, Money and Thin Air (2009)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/jan09/page12.html

I've read both these links and IMO in no way do they disprove the suggestion that banks create money from nothing.

This system of money creation even has a fancy economic term - the multiplier effect.

Phrases like the multiplier effect (banks ability to create money from nothing), quantitative easing (printing money) and credit crunch (debt crisis) are used by those in power to hide the truth from the masses.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Sep 8 2010 22:53

double post

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Sep 9 2010 00:03

leigionaire , there was a lengthy debate on another thread concerning credit creation and the FED thats well worth reading
http://libcom.org/forums/news/economic-crisis-18122007?page=13

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Sep 9 2010 01:43

Dave B-

Quote:
The idea of a special elite (whatever the justification) organising society for the greater good of the whole is one that is common to fascism, Leninism and is even a justification used by the capitalist class.

Another book and ideology that can be added to that list is 'Syndicalism' by William Z Foster & Earl C Ford.

From said book:

Quote:
Suppose steel costs $10.00 per ton to produce and a new process is invented, by which steel can be produced for $8.00 per ton. The question of the adoption of this new process- surely one affecting all society- is merely a question of whether or not it will pay interest on the cost of its installation. IT IS PURELY A MATTER OF FIGURES AND IS SETTLED IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY ALONE. SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS NOT CONSULTED. THE STEEL INDUSTRY DICTATES TO THE REST OF SOCIETY IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE STEEL INDUSTRY. And this is perfectly logical, even from an idealist standpoint, as it is manifest that the workers in the steel industry are the most competent of all society to decide on matters relating to the steel industry.

There is nothing democratic in this procedure; but it is that of modern industry. And it has been so successful in the development of the industries under capitalism that it is very unlikely it will be changed in the future society. And why should it be? Suppose, for instance, the scientifically organized medical fraternity, from experience and figures at hand, decided that a certain hygenic measure, such, for example, as vaccination, to be necessary for society's welfare, would it be logical for a rational society to submit to proposition to a referendum vote of a lot of shoemakers, steel workers, farmers, etc., who know nothing about it, or to a government of their representatives equally ignorant? Such a procedure would be ridiculous.

-Syndicalism, p.7

It is very similar to the corporatism at the heart of fascism that the technocrats run society in as efficient and inexpensive a manner as possible. This text in particular is very reminiscent of the National Syndicalism of Franco.