Can a resource-based economy work 1

How is the resource-based economy of the Venus Project different from communism?

Com-unism means "to unite" that all people on the planet must be brothers rather than seeing each other as rivals and tools to create wealth. [...]

Is it right to see communism as such a broad category? (not only as a dogmatic Marxsim?)

No. Dictionary definitions are not suitable theoretical categories in the social sciences.

Engels discusses Robert Owen's social thinking as "communism" in detail at the end of Part I of Socialism, utopianism and science. The definition given by Engels at the end of the book is useful to identify some of the high points of the most widely used definition of communism: society, which results from society's shared democratic ownership of the industrially productive tools of society .

In this sense, communism requires:

  • Advanced productivity. Discussions about utopian farming communities in the United States or about post-Anabaptist community economic aspirations are not really appropriate.
  • Joint ownership of productive property. It doesn't matter to be part of an orchard and vegetable garden where someone makes sure everyone gets half a head of cauliflower from the weekly purchase. Common property in a nursery is.
  • This property is democratically controlled: the common property must essentially not only be formally common. I am a member of many mutuals under capitalism. But I cannot effectively control these mutuals with others for various reasons. A corrupt Rochester cooperative is not worth considering.
  • That this type of economic relationship is society-wide. It is not sensible to regard as communism a society in which, for example, the manufacture of shoes is common. However, media belong to capital.

How can you tell whether movement falls into the category of communism or not?

Any movement that advocates a progressive productivity society in which property is shared should be viewed as a communist movement.

Unfortunately, this means that many, if not most, of the "communist" parties were in fact non-communist movements.

Personally, I look at them immediacy achieving communism in an organization's behavior as an important part of whether an organization is communist or not. The Fabian Society, for example, viewed the possibility of achieving communism as a possible cause. (I'm too selfish to deal with the "eventual" rather than the "actual".) If someone believes in something and is committed to it but pretends it doesn't happen, it doesn't seem like belief or Intercede for me.

Likewise, I do not trust organizations with pure and utopian plans for a universal reorganization of society along the lines that our glorious leader discovered (see also Engels, Socialism, utopia and science here). My experience and reading of "model molds", moments when communist behavior appeared in my life or in historical records, strongly shows that there is more genius in the entire working class than in any particular worker. I don't trust utopians with big plans. However, this is because I am a historical materialist.

How is Zeitgest different from communism? (could be the anarchist branch of it)

No, the anarchist branch of communism is anarchism. You may want to start with Proudhon, Bakunin (whose conflicts with Marx in the First International were fraught with problems), Kropotkin, Makhno and Malatesta. I would George Woodcocks anarchism recommend : A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements.

If we can view this document: as a reasonable discussion of Zeitgeist's beliefs, in the "The Prima Facie" Error section you will find that this particular branch of Zeitgeist is directly responsible for a argues for technocratic and anti-democratic control over production; in contrast to the humanism that the collective author claims to see in Marxist communism.

To be honest, Zeitgeist claims and seems to me to be a legacy of the technocratic movement. It is not communist because it does not stand up for a society in which the common good is the common good: Zeitgeist stands up for a technocratic class society.

Why can't we say that J. Fresco is a communist and promotes communism?

Because J. Fresco doesn't want goods or production to be held together. He seems to want production and distribution to be controlled by "science". (See the FAQ cited earlier). My understanding of criticism of technocratic "new classes" is that this type of class society was and was an inhuman monstrosity as in all previous class societies (in the "Soviet style" societies) in which a class claimed control over the social product or the socially productive forces.

Engels praises Robert Owen for overcoming his technocratic impulse:

From 1800 to 1829 [Robert Owen] ran the large cotton mill in New Lanark, Scotland as a managing partner in the same direction, but with greater freedom of action and with a success that made him a European reputation. A population that originally consisted of the most diverse and largely very demoralized elements, a population that gradually grew to 2,500, turned into a model colony in which drunkenness, police, judges, lawsuits, bad laws, charity were unknown. And all of this simply by placing people in humane conditions and, above all, carefully educating the up-and-coming generation. He was the founder of infant schools and first introduced them in New Lanark. At the age of two, the children came to school, where they enjoyed themselves so much that they could hardly come home. While his competitors worked their people thirteen or fourteen hours a day, the workday in New Lanark was only ten and a half hours. When a cotton crisis stopped work for four months, his workers continued to receive their full wages. And with all that, the value of the business has more than doubled, bringing huge profits to its owners to the last.

Even so, Owen was not satisfied. In his eyes, the existence that he secured his workers was still far from being human. "People were slaves to my mercy." The relatively favorable conditions under which he had placed them were still far from permitting a rational development of character and intellect in all directions, let alone the free exercise of all their faculties. [Quoted in Engels as from "The Revolution in Mind and Practice", p. 21]

Owen knew that directing someone else's job means making them your slave. I don't see any difference when the director is "science" or rather "scientist".


Aside from Makhno's listing (whom anyone born in the USSR, left or right, generally considers an evil butcher-warlord as opposed to a libertarian-anarchist thinker), an excellent answer.

Samuel Russell

I would like to think that we should hold all evil butcher warlords accountable, regardless of their policies; and scrutinize people who pretend to be anarchists or libertarians for evil tendencies from butcher warlords, much like we should investigate all alleged politicians for the same tendencies.

Samuel Russell

The principle of hanging the last boss with the courage of the last bureaucrat is not "not aggressive". Feelings that go back to the beginnings of libertarianism. "Non-aggression" is a limited conception within libertarianism in general, although it seems very, very popular with contemporary US activists inspired by the Manchester School of Liberalism.


Exactly. I went to school in the Soviet Union and we learned to deal with natural resources: the teacher explained why it is important to conserve resources and why we place power plants and factories in an educated manner close to the raw material / energy sources, and this was largely planned by technocracy rather than "workers". Liberals got Soviet society because of them. However, megalomania (efficient infrastructure) and technocracy are encouraged in the zeitgeist. Could be that my association with SU makes me mistakenly think that this is a communism that should look like.


But I also see that this is communism that enables people to specialize. When you compete with everyone, you have to be self-sufficient and do everything yourself, so you don't have time to specialize. You do not trust other people and others do not trust you because you are rivals and want to betray each other. In communism, on the other hand, you trust others, including experts, and can rely on their decisions. Imagine a life organism (cells in the body and bees in hues are literally brothers). But this is this communism of cells that allows them to focus on and support the brain (technocracy).