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.
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.)
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:
Centralism. TVP worships at the altar of centralized power, not realizing that centralized power thwarts human growth, achievement and happiness.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The ridiculous belief that Keynes advocated post-scarcity. Seriously, dude. What the fuck?
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.
That is an idiosyncratic definition. In economics, capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production (capital) are privately owned.
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.
Tucker identified as a socialist, and supported a free market.
Capitalism. Capital-ism. An economy run by capitalists, i.e. capital-holders, as a separate social caste from laborers.
Proudhon was a mutualist. He advocated a free market. Someone did not do the research.
All major civilizations other than the Indus Valley civilization, ancient Iceland and maybe a couple others also had states. Does that justify statism?
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.
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.
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?
Capitalism. Capital-ism. An economy run by capitalists, i.e. capital-holders, as a separate social caste from laborers.
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 was a mutualist. He advocated a free market. Someone did not do the research.
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.
All major civilizations other than the Indus Valley civilization, ancient Iceland and maybe a couple others also had states. Does that justify statism?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jon,
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.
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.
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.
Do Keynes’ solutions in The General Theory involve post-scarcity?
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.
How exactly?
What about parties who fit in both categories, which is a big chunk of the middle-class?