Skeptic Project

So there is no way for the public to influence the choice of leaders?

Also, is RBOSE just a place for people to talk shit about TZM or are these people interested in RBE?

So at this point there is no answer as to how the public would influence leadership in a Resource Based Economy.

How the hell do Merola and Fresco have so many people buying into this bullshit?

At some point I'll write a blog critiquing RBE. I'd just need better sources for the "official" RBE theory, or focus on TZM and TVP specific brand of it.

Okay well I have been checking out this RBEF thing, and honestly I can't really tell a difference between them and TZM.

http://www.rbefoundation.com/grouptopic.php?f=11&t=813

It appears the only real difference is cosmetic.

"Communism had a system that worked. The people didn't enjoy it but mathematicly its fine."

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Bill,

to your points regarding the historocity of the African case, I think the example is far more complex, and not particularly pertinent to critiquing RBE though.

"well ok one person may argue from TZM who believes in a resource based economy "Well Bill Africa doesn't have the technology like we do now". If you're going to mention anything about technology it was actually what drew the demise of Africa and it's stability. Technology back in the 1700's or so (unsure) was introduced by Americans such as the gun and the tractor to Africa. America would give guns, tractors etc... To Africans for slaves or killing off other tribes/entire kingdoms and then eventually America among other countries would step in to occupy Africa. I suppose the love police guy is correct as to he would want to go back in time before their was technology he'd be perfectly happy."

I think this is a very difficult argument to make. Technological progress did not lead to the collapse of African society, and the current problems in Africa cannot be attributed to some technological differential in power or progress. The factors that lead to Africa’s subjugation were primarily political, and it was because Africa was rich in resources but weak in its military technology that European colonization was so able to partition off the continent and allow for what would amount to an utter destruction of the social order in Africa. We can see colonial legacies everywhere, as in the Sudan, where arbitrary boarders drawn by colonial powers essentially lead to a destructive political situation. The same can be said of the Middle East where many groups who would have ordinarily separated themselves politically were drawn into the same borders. It is also important to note, for the sake of historical accuracy, that Africa was never formerly occupied by the United States, nor were there American colonies in Africa.
It is also dangerous to claim that Africa was dominated by a RBE type of system. Indeed, when we look to the Maghreb (Egypt on to Morocco) we find that there were religious caliphates and complex, monetary systems in place. The interior of the continent was furthermore populated with remarkably different socio-cultural structures. The trade in resources, or even the ownership of resources, did not have the same position as it does in European-Western culture. Consider Marcel Mauss’ work “The Gift” which showed how material goods did not really work within an “economy” as we see it, but rather within the complex structure of the power complex or potlatch. Karl Polanyi demonstrated further how other groups in the Pacific operated without a formal economy, and that resources again only had power importance, not economic. I am only critiquing you here because I don’t think your points were particularly correct anthropologically nor historically. We would need a very in depth analysis of the wildly different groups that existed in Africa prior to colonization in order to make any claims about what sort of role resources had in society. However, to call it an RBE is a bit of a misnomer.
The RBE is a specifically ill-developed theory, certainly, but I think the historical critique you were looking for is elsewhere.

@Falkner not sure I'm understanding what your trying to say to be honest. I think you get a bit off track from the point of this topic which I'm not trying to convince Matt RBE is any better but basically RBE is no better than monetary system at that the monetary system isn't bad at all but isn't perfect.

"Technological progress did not lead to the collapse of African society, and the current problems in Africa cannot be attributed to some technological differential in power or progress."

I think you missed my point entirely and I'll make it a bit clearer it's my bad for not making it as clear and short as possible. Money pre-colonial times in most of Africa was not around (could be wrong on this if anybody cares enough to check, the material I read suggest their wasn't for the majority of African states) and.... They still committed horrible atrocities (but at a lesser extent as colonial or post-colonial times proportionally based statistics at least). Now when technology and no money comes around, meaning guns were given to them to kill their enemies, and they didn't recognize money as of any value, it can be said that advance technology killed pre-colonial Africa at least advanced weapons technology it helped for the colony era to come forth as they wiped each other out and all by doing this without money. What is a resource based economy going to do really, just looks different but still the same shit.

One could even incorporate other things such a quinine which helped aid outside countries to form colonial colonies in Africa being able to fend off the malaria disease mostly passed by mosquitoes is vital. Steam boats which helped colonies go through rivers faster and more efficiently.

" It is also dangerous to claim that Africa was dominated by a RBE type of system."

I don't think this is dangerous unless someone threatens your life or starts a movement based on this but please give me resources so that I can check up on this. Can you prove that Africa had any sort of monetary system pre-colonial, also I think I meant this to be close to a RBE system or at that a barter system but the books I have read up on this have been from years back I'm thinking my middle school years (although I had a inestest in Africa this was never taught at my public school, so my studies on it was brief and a outside school activity.)

"when we look to the Maghreb (Egypt on to Morocco) we find that there were religious caliphates and complex, monetary systems in place."

true I agreed I also excluded south Africa and a few northern African states such as Egypt and a few others as the few exceptions. I give it a over simplistic view because most African states exhibit the same behavior which is capturing resources or the state to get the goodies or the perks for their people but through physical force. I won't even get in to why Eygpt as it's an exception

" that Africa was never formerly occupied by the United States, nor were there American colonies in Africa."

Ok good to note and i'd like to mention incase anybody thinks I said this, I never said that the U.S. ever colonized Africa. I may have said occupied but not colonized and for the sake of education, here is a map of who colonized what in the colonial-era.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Colonial-Africa.png</p>

"And in the Sudan, we find a slightly different kind of conflict driven more by racial-power antagonism than from a need to sell resources."

At that, keep in mind I said most African states excluding south Africa, and a few northern African states. I believe Sudan is North Africa.

"Faulkner said: Also remember that what you described as the conflict for resources in Africa does not pertain to all nations on the continent, and that such conflicts are done for monetary gain. These conflicts are embedded within a global monetary system and thus not true RBEs. Furthermore, the example of the Congo is not transmitted to places like Sierra Leon where there is no such cultural belief in the power over life. There the struggle is political, and the cultural factors are greatly different."

I'll keep this very short I did answer this in my huge wall of text above please reread.

"We would need a very in depth analysis of the wildly different groups that existed in Africa prior to colonization in order to make any claims about what sort of role resources had in society."

I would agree but I do not care enough to do so. If you'd like to provide references and things of that nature I can take a look at that be great.

"However, to call it an RBE is a bit of a misnomer."

How do you know? references again please... A good critisms is to provide references of each err state within Africa that work without money precolonial or whenever, and to see how their economies were doing that be highly interesting. I do not see a problem with money, and I admit the uses of people and how they use their money can be a problem from hoarding but how is a RBE going to help solve these problem. I see RBE as again switching from one thing to another but basically are the same concept, in many ways I feel the system we have now is the best that's their and to switch to a RBE is just going to make it worse.

"Consider Marcel Mauss’ work “The Gift” which showed how material goods did not really work within an “economy” as we see it, but rather within the complex structure of the power complex or potlatch. Karl Polanyi demonstrated further how other groups in the Pacific operated without a formal economy, and that resources again only had power importance, not economic."

thank you and I will checkup on this asap. Sounds very interesting :D

I suppose a great book also a movie that actually supports that technology is the reason is one called "guns, germs, and steel" by Jared Diamond. essentially explaining very affectively why guns, germs, and steel came about and why some parts of the world seems to be a bit unfair than to other parts. I really suggest you read or watch it if you haven't already. I don't believe it says anything about money being good or bad in this film but does hit upon technology aka guns/steel and diseases as being the main culprits of this world.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280# <-- gun's, steel, germs movie.

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

My point was that pre-colonial Africa was neither a monolith nor a true RBE. Consider that you already have to exempt not only the north and south, but also the Kingdom of Ethiopia, which did have a monetary system in place. I use the term dangerous in the academic sense in that your generalizations could lead you into so real problems upon examination. Consider that you are excepting "the North" but you include Sudan in this exception, despite the fact that it extends into central Africa. The Maghreb encompasses the entire north, the Coastal countries in Africa- like Sierra Leon- experience different forms of conflict than do the interior nations.

Now as for your generalization that money did not exist in pre-colonial Africa, we already have to except the entire north, but also the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Matamba<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Prehistory<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Ashanti#Economy<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu#Permanent_Settlements</p>

My point is only that RBE did not really historically exist the way we think of them today. As I mentioned, Mauss and Polanyi show how differently non-monetary systems worked, and that it was not resources but rather the extra-material aspects of them that took precedence.

"Now when technology and no money comes around, meaning guns were given to them to kill their enemies, and they didn't recognize money as of any value,"

As you'll see in the above articles, gold and silver was actually traded for salt (specifically you can see this in the article on Timbuktu). I think your statement here is a gross over-generalization, and I'm not saying that SOME african groups had no concept of monetary systems, but you have too many exceptions for this to be a convincing argument. There were many kingdoms, caliphates, and so on in Africa that did use monetary systems. I think you'd do best if you could show some of the groups that did not use a monetary system, and then explore their relationship to the material.

I don't think your sentiment is incorrect. You want to prove that violence and atrocities have occurred without the existence of money, and I think that's fairly accurate. All you need is a little bit of evidence of tribal violence within the Amazon or in Polynesia to do so. However, your statements about Africa are way too broad to be useful. You'd really benefit from find a single case study as opposed to trying to talk about the entire middle of a continent-- especially given that we dont have complete historical records for interior groups.

As for the RBE being a misnomer:

"A major theme of Fresco's is the concept of a resource-based economy that replaces the need for the current monetary economy, which is "scarcity-oriented" or "scarcity-based". Fresco argues that the world is rich in natural resources and energy and that — with modern technology and judicious efficiency — the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing the current limitations of what is deemed possible due to notions of economic viability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_based_economy#Resource_Based_Economy</p>

scarcity did exist, and actually continues to exist, in Africa. There were no "massive amounts" of resources in these groups, even when they did have an economic system. Again, we'd have to have examples of cultures that not only had distinct economic spheres, but that these spheres were entirely dependent upon the abundance of resources.

My criticism isn't about your overall point, but rather that your history is too broad to be useful.

However if the barter system was based around resources then by definition, is this not a form of an RBE?

Its way more complicated than that. We have to also consider that the idea of "economies" did not emerge until the 17th century with the French Physiocrats.

For example, in Polynesian groups that Polanyi examined, the giving and trading of goods had nothing to do with any idea of meeting needs specifically or gaining, but was rather a form of power consolidation. The Potlatch, which Mauss describes, was a the giving of goods to demonstrate the power one individual had over another. Its a very subtle difference, but it is very profound and difficult for us to really understand (I don't even think we do totally understand these societies).

Also, no Frescoe's RBE has no place for bartering (which is asinine) because he does not believe scarcity would exist and thus there would be no need to trade (again, asinine).

Question:

Would anyone actually want to live in any of these supposed existing RBE communities?

Here is one of the potlatches that Mauss described. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch</p>

You'll notice that the trade of goods (and even money) was actually a way to display wealth and power, not to fulfill others' needs or wants. It was not an economic system, they didn't conceive of it as such, and it did not operate as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

Circle Cities are the only ones that matter.

What exactly do they think they've been based on?

"Resource based" seems to be linked to the WWII-story, USA not having money but building planes anyway, because they had the resources (AND printed money to pay the workers with).

It doesn't really make much sense, but they seem to use that as an argument against money. Like "we have food, but people can't afford it".

Seriously?