Skeptic Project

Sounds metaphysically genius to me.

It wouldn't be metaphysically genius if it did.

Metaphysics = stupidity.

@Cyborg,

What attracted you to it in the first place?

> I can buy that traffic for a few grand

Where do you buy traffic ?

Here is, what I think, the proximity of RBE and Marxism is. Anyone is welcome to challenge me on my interpretation, given that I am not an avid reader of Marx. My familiarity comes from only having read the Marx Engles Reader in my first two years here at Chicago.

1) Human Beings are a productive creature- Marx lays out a basic argument for the fundamental character of humans. His argument is essentially that human beings are defined by their ability to labor and to create. And indeed, his entire historical materialism is based upon the means and ends of labor. So, the fundamental problem is that capitalism removes that which makes a human a human from the individual. By forcing people to sell their labor, they are essentially forcing people to sell their humanity. We see a similar, though far less explicit, trend in TZM and in TVP. The basic premise is that all people who labor have been enslaved, and that this makes us somehow less than human as is demonstrated by the coining of terms like "sheeple." While the RBE proponents in TZM and TVP are far less eloquent and convincing in their groundwork, they still work under this vague framework. It is also for this reason that RBE is far less respectable than Marxist theory (I said respectable, not right).

2) Class consciousness- Marx founded his system off of the notion that a class consciousness was required in order to bring the dialectic between Capital and Labor to a head. This meant that proletarian identity had to be solidified and recognized in direct opposition to bourgeois identity. We see this repeatedly throughout Marx's work and famously in the last line of his work "Workers of the world, unite!" RBE advocates too look for a similar "class consciousness" in order to encite the revolution, and indeed there is a recognition of a "master class" in the current system in the banking cartels and elites. Again, where RBE differs from Marxism is only in their ability to articulate as much. The line in Zeitgeist "it's time to wake up" rings of the familiar Marxist tune, but without so much as a shred of theoretical or fundamental basis.

3) The relationship between state and Labor- Now here is where there is a substantive difference between the two theories (here I am being quite generous calling RBE a theory). In Marxist doctrine, the state as a nationalist, bourgeoise entity is eliminated in favor of a proletarian state, or a state owned by the workers. Marx's entire system for the post-revolutionary world rests on centralization of goods and labor around a commonly held state as opposed to a state run by the old bourgeoise regime. Indeed, applications of Marxist theory attempted centralization but under the guise of a "temproary state" in the case of the Soviet Union. Marx sought to abolish a kind of state but not all states. It is a mistake to see Marxism as a specific kind of anarchism because there was still a role for political order. Now RBE has no such structure and no such vision for political activity, as far as I can see. Their "system" appears to be based solely upon an economic structure as if economic and political structures can be separated. This is potentially one of the weakest points in any such theory, and why RBE cannot be taken seriously.

So why is RBE different than Marxism? Simple. Marx actually had a background and complete theory, even if we want to argue his theories as being incorrect. RBE has no such respectable quality, and indeed seems to only play off of emotional arguments to forward its agenda. This is patently different than the historical materialist argument forwarded Marx. RBE is different from Marxism in that it is far less articulate and eloquent, and even seems to ignore the need for a complete understanding of economic-political systems.

I think anarchism fits the bill because it is true libertarian socialism (not the same libertardianism you refer to, Matt). I'd like to hear what Edward thinks.

Redundancy department

Is TZM against private property?

lol

Anarchism is against private property and capitalism, which is true libertarianism and socialism.

State socialists are anarchists who like private property.

Ron Paul's libertarianism is anarchy with capitalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no doubt in my mind that TZM would have to have a ruling class made up of the smartest scientists. They would ultimately make the decisions on technology and how to use it.

Therefore, it's possible they are a form of state socialism, which is exactly what the likes of Beck think Obama is pushing us toward.

Maybe they should kick back, enjoy their welfare checks, and watch it unfold.

Does health care fall under acceptable regulation in neoliberalism?

That's what I thought.

While you avoid answering questions.

The health care bill that passed is not what Obama, the neoliberal (according to you) in this discussion, wanted to pass.

Does Obama's original health care bill fall under acceptable regulation in neoliberalism?