Skeptic Project

I want to remain as civil as possible here. I have no personal problems with VTV and as such all I will address is a clarification. As far as I'm concerned, if the RBE movement wants to move away from Conspiracy Theories, that is perfectly reasonable. I have attacked RBE as a coherent ideology, and my critique is leveled against RBE as it stands. If it has the talented individuals to expertly recharge the ideology, I think it would be in the interest of the movement. As such, I am no enemy to the people in the RBE movement, but I am not a supporter. Indeed, I spend most of my time studying political anthropology and thus have no vested interest in the success or failure of this movement. So, with that in mind I hope that readers too will remain civil and remember that I am more an enemy of blatant CTs than I am of a particular theory. I welcome in depth analysis and theoretical approaches, so I hope that my critique will be constructive to those willing to fully abandon the CT birth of the RBE movement and start to form a defensible position. It is difficult to have a sucessful movement if there is no coherent, underlying ideology or theory.

"That's fine. The RBE premise is not in any way dependent on conspiracy theories. "

As I pointed out later in my critique, the offical statements of the RBE movement do have reference to the CT worldview. To amend this, it is necessary not to be tied to the fear of a world under the watch of nefarious bankers. What I am pressing here is a thoughful critique of the current global capitalist system (which HAS been done very well). If the RBE premise is not dependent upon this CT world view, it has no official statement declaring what its more thoughful and rational premise is. Again, I have quoted from an official source for RBE, and as such it should be clear that anyone coming to the movement and reading this statement will be colored by this statement.

"Again. Totally irrelevant. The first film was produced before Peter had even heard of the Venus Project. This is an attempt at some sort of "guilt by association" and is intended to lead the reader down a path to the non sequitur. Jacque Fresco does not endorse the first film. I have video of him stating this on my website."

Again, my statement is not guilt by association, but rather demonstrates the path by which new members will follow. New viewers of the Zeitgeist film (the first one and Addendum) are introduced to the NWO CT and when they then go to read to official statement by TVP, they find a perfectly congruent and affirming statement on the part of TVP in regards to this theory. New members are then lead from a Conspiracy Movie through to a supposedly non-CT movement. At best, this generates members with questionable motives. There can be TVP and RBE supporters who are not CTs, but the first film (and indeed the second one) in conjunction with the official statements made by TVP pollute this movement away from CTs. I am not saying RBE is wrong because it is based on CTs- in fact my own conclusion is that the movement itself is not theoretically coherent enough to be defensible.

"Incorrect. The Zeitgeist Movement itself did not even exist until after Zeitgeist Addendum, and was formed to be the activist arm of the Venus Project. To say there was a merger would imply that the Zeitgeist movement existed before, and no such entity existed."

This is a misrepresnetation of my point. Again, citing my second statement in this respone, I am noting that there is a very strong nexus between the films that endorse CTs and the movement that is increasingly claimed not to be in support of these CTs. To amend this, all it would require is a coherent and well written critique of global capitalism. And, in fact, modern marxist theorists have done this. My whole point is that RBE has much in common with basic tenants of Marxism that are not recognized. And in fact, it would benefit the RBE movement to pick up Marxist crituqes of globalization and capitalism. They have been well done and enjoy a serious discourse in academic debate. And that is the first part's critique! The ideological genealogy of RBE is in Marxist, material histiorography. I am not saying Marxism is a bad theory here (though I do think so) but am rather saying that Marxist thinkers have addressed these critiques and RBE has not. If intelligent members of RBE would look into this genealogy, they would improve their movement's position. But, to date, no official statements or such documentation has emerged. Don't try and rework this into a chronological argument- that's not what it is. Its a question of ideological pathways. Supporters of Zeitgeist 1 who read the official TVP statements support RBE for, what you would claim, are the wrong reasons. This is the merger I am discussing. If the films still generate interest in TZM and TVP, then it does so on very faulted grounds.

"Again, non sequitur. Even if Jacque was not the person who coined the phrase none of that has any bearing on it's validity or lack thereof. I also don't see any "claims" above other then to say that the world has resources and that our monetary practices are counter productive to our survival. There are an awful lot of starving people who would in fact agree with that."

Please read my statement clearly. I am saying that even though TVP and Frescoe did not actually coin RBE, I am concerning myself only WITH Frescoes brand of RBE. And it is Frescoes RBE that I am saying is not sound as it stands. Your second statement is more of a non sequitor as a result of a misreading of my statement. Resource Based Economies are not new ideas, but those ideas are not the ones in question here, but rather Frescoes. If you want to examine the whole tradition of Resource Based Economies, there are plenty of non-TVP sources to examine. Stay to the point.

"Genealogical aspects? It's a concept. It doesn't have DNA. "

I have already addressed this, and members on TZM forum were correct in my reference here. It is an ideological genealogy, which has been a very serious and effective form of philosophical and intellectual debate.

"So, in order to debunk the Resource Based Economy model, we will just debunk Marxist theory? And what Marx advocates is not the same thing as what Jacque advocates. This is a straw man. Trying to attribute things to our theory that are not part of our theory and therefore declaring victory. This is like saying I have debunked Socialism because I showed the inherent flaws in Capitalism."

Not at all. I am not "debunking" RBE because it is not a Conspiracy Theory. It has links to a Conspiracy Theory movie, and has a CT premise for the understanding of world economics, but this is not a denunking. It is a critique of the RBE logic. And you will notice that I do not claim that refuting Marxism leads to a refutation of RBE in totality. Rather I am pretty blatantly stating that those ideas which emerge from the same genealogy are prone to refutation and thus mandate either ejection or revision. Either defend those points or surrender them. This point itself is a diversion from what I am critiquing.

"Another strawman. You took a quote out of context. There is a serious difference between the kind of work one would be doing in an RBE and what they were doing in Marxist Communism. We recognize that there are jobs that people will not be satisfied or fulfilled by. That is why for any such society to function we must automate these jobs. The reason this becomes even more needed is that in Capitalism these jobs are being automated anyway to maximize profits with very little concern about the damage to to the overall economy. Automation is going to happen. The question is will it be serving mankind as a whole? Or will we find ourselves trying to find ways to be useful to the elite who own the automated production so that we can survive?"

I did not take this quote out of context. I quoted it completely and addressed it as it stands If you think there is a difference between what is said and what is intended, then this needs to be expanded on. However, you cannot escape the linkages in the ideological framework between RBE and Marxism here. It has the same, underlying understanding of labor. People will do voluntary work because people are satisfied by their work. marx makes the same argument in Das Kapital. This is embedded within RBE thought. This is exactly the framework I am following and critiquing. The question of Automation is a question for engineers and technicians. My concern is the ideological framework. You are weclome to explain why this idea of voluntary labor is different than the idea that people are satisfied by their labor, but to take this into the realm of automation ignores the point.

"As for fulfillment through emotional connections, I assume you mean things like "sentimentality" which are basically manufactured by one's culture."

Most certainly to a point. There is psychological work done to show that forms of symapthy are in fact genetic and not totally learned. The specifics of emotion are learned, the instinctual predisposition towards having emotion is not.

"This is an example of someone throwing their "theory" as fact and expecting the reader to accept it."

This is me expected the reader to look at my claim, that RBE ideology has a great deal in common with Marxist thinking, and then going and reading the very extensive literature on their own. Readers should read Das Kapital and challenge my claims based on what they find there. My overall point, as stated in the conclusion, is to start a rational and well grounded discussion about RBE and its problems. Where are the philosophical discussions of RBE that tie into existing discourses? I am not claiming to be an authority or an expert, I am forwarding a critique with no claim about its total authoritative nature. You are being invited to debate how RBE tenants are either defensible or indefensible. And those that are indefensible require a well researched and official response.

"Basically what we have here is that his entire argument is built on a foundation of stating that the RBE was founded on Marxism. Then declaring victory when he doesn't really understand the difference between the two systems."

I have addressed this extensively here. I have not declared that RBE is completely thrown out on these grounds. I am saying that that which it has in common with Marxism is not adequately addressed. You claim the system is different, and that's true- I argued this very point with a poster on CS. I do not think Marxism and RBE are the same thing, but rather that there IS a fundamental overlap. What you claim is different, furthermore, is really easily interpreted as an attempt to overcome the fundamental flaw IN marxism- that is that there are jobs that must be done which will not be done if people freely own their own labor. You need something much more substantially different here to be fully understood as different from Marxism. RBE is based on the idea that people will do voluntary work that makes them satisfied, and that our current system does not make this possible. Of course, one could go through extensive schooling, sacrifice, and so on to make sure they get a job they are happy with, but your own position is that this is not adequate or not the case at all (in which case you have to account for the people who did get a job that they enjoy and do so happily). You have not recognized what I am arguing here, and instead caricatured my argument. Again, I am not saying RBE is Marxism, but that much of its implicit understanding about labor and its relation to the human is the same. And this then is where the debate is open. If people are not made happy by their jobs- if people are not satisfied through labor- then the whole RBE logic falls apart. And thats not to say that this position HASN'T been defended before, but rather that no official TVP or RBE literature I have seen has researched the defense to this statement.

Yeah, but its hard for me sometimes. I really don't like getting tangled up in things that quickly devolve into personal attacks. And given that I have a history with anxiety, I really do have this fundamental need to reaffirm that my own position is not one of vindictiveness or personal attack. I don't think RBE is a good theory, and that's all I'm trying to convey. I may have to take a break after this debate- I put way too much stock in what people think of me.

You don't get honesty from VTV. No one ever has.

You get spin.

The mistake TZM/TVP/RBE proponents make is trying to shield themselves behind science and politics. If they'd be honest about it being an ideological organization based on magical thinking, they'd have no problems. I wouldn't spend any of my time on them if that were the case any more than I would spend my time trying to refute Christianity or Islam.

They are hellbent on making their magical thinking not sound like magical thinking. I don't really understand why. What they want isn't even a horrible thing to want. Misguided, sure. Naive, sure. Silly, sure. But it isn't particularly menacing. Why all the dishonesty?

VTV is an ideology hopper. RBE is his current ideology and he's going to defend it come hell or high water until he hops to something new. I hope the guy someday finds what he's looking for when it comes to a belief system, but until he can be honest with both himself and other people he's going to have a real hard time finding it.