I still am a proponent of a resource based economy, but I have realized that it really is left wing and socialist in nature and that democratic socialism is pretty much right on the same wavelength.

Absolutely. The ideas of both Fresco and Joseph are unequivocally Marxist, but America has been saturated in anti-Marxist propaganda for literally decades, so it is difficult for them to come right out and say it. I assure you that they both know the origins of their ideas. In fact, perhaps the best evidence for the negative impact words like "socialism" and "Marxist" have on general public opinion is in your own past disdain for anybody associated with these labels, even though you clearly agree with the ideas which comprise them.

@Daegonius

100 Days ago:

@FactMachine.

xMathFanx: I don't understand, Anarcho-Communism has alot in common with the Venus Project, why do you hate him (Nomenclature) for that specific idea so much. I have not seen/read Nomenclature's views on Communism, is he more in line with the Lenninist Communist Party Structure/violent revolution scheme (e.i. Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ect.) and this is what you are objecting to strongly? Or do you think that I am really just missing the boat? If so, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the topic or just direct me to a thread where you have already laid it out.

Perhaps this wasn't the best thread to bring this up on since you have been banned

98 Days ago:

@FactMachine

xMathFanx: Marx did think that his views had a scientific basis specifically in his theory of Historical Materialism. Marx took the view that the evolution of human society/social development is bound by physical laws in a very similar way to the laws of physics (thus the term "materialism", e.i. there is nothing "in the air" about it, human social development is governed by laws just like biology and physics, and if you locate the relevant variables one can predict the future of human social development much like we can predict the trajectory of throwing a baseball on Earth with Newton's Laws). Now, if you recall from the Communist Manifesto, Marx speaks very "matter-of-factly" about his views on the evolution of human societies and makes his prediction of what will happen in the future (due to him believing he is laying out a 'scientific' argument/theory). Here is an excerpt of an article discussing this topic that sums this view up well:

"Why should we accept that the entire universe, from the smallest particles to the most distant galaxies are determined, and the processes that determine the evolution of all species, are governed by laws, and yet, for some strange reason, our own history is not. The Marxist method analyses the hidden mainsprings that underpin the development of human society from the earliest tribal societies up to the modern day. The way in which Marxism traces this winding road is called the materialist conception of history.

Those who deny the existence of any laws governing human social development invariably approach history from a subjective and moralistic standpoint. But above and beyond the isolated facts, it is necessary to discern broad tendencies, the transitions from one social system to another, and to work out the fundamental motor forces that determine these transitions.

Before Marx and Engels history was seen by most people as a series of unconnected events or, to use a philosophical term, "accidents". There was no general explanation of this, history had no inner lawfulness. By establishing the fact that, at bottom, all human development depends on the development of productive forces Marx and Engels for the first time placed the study of history on a scientific basis.

This scientific method enables us to understand history, not as a series of unconnected and unforeseen incidents, but rather as part of a clearly understood and interrelated process. It is a series of actions and reactions which cover politics, economics and the whole spectrum of social development. To lay bare the complex dialectical relationship between all these phenomena is the task of historical materialism. Humankind constantly changes nature through labour, and in so doing, changes itself."

Although Marx was a critic of Capitalism, he saw many good aspects to the system as well (which is why it comes in later on in the chain of history). Now, Marx was not under the persuasion that Capitalism had already necessarily outlived its usefulness in the era for which he lived. As a social-economic theorist working inside the framework of his Historical Materialism model, he simply predicted the inevitable breakdown of capitalism when the system had outlived its usefulness to give way to a Socialist society, and then eventually to Communism. Marx was not taking the stance that this had to happen now (his time period). Rather, Capitalism may still of had usefulness for 20, 50, 100, or 200+ years from his present day. This is why Marx almost exclusively wrote about Capitalism rather than other models (because the other models were off at some uncertain point in the future).

Now, you can see how this quickly creates a strong divide between people who are hopeful for this quasi-utopian type society some distant point in the future. That is, some people think/thought that it is best to wait and allow Capitalism to play out while it still has usefulness and would eventually give way to the model that supersedes it (much more true to Marx’s model) and others thought, “No, this sh’t needs to end now”. This is where the different camps of Revolutionary Socialism and Evolutionary Socialism took root. Lenin is the most salient of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. He constructed/argued for the need for a Vanguard Party (strict internal hierarchical structure in order to bring about the Revolution now, and then later (ostensibly) the people in charge will willingly concede some of their power during the transitionary phase toward Communism, and then ultimately they are supposed to concede all of their power in order to bring about a Communist society with the fundamental tenets beings as I stated in my OP : In the stateless, classless, society of communism, the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs . This is how the hierarchy, authoritarianism, violent, ect. attributes that are typically ascribed as inextricably bound to Communism real starts to take hold (although this is not intrinsic to Communism, though it is valid to say that this was a direct product from people who legitimately considered themselves Communist (and the sheep that followed the role of those in charge) because they had in principle a goal of bringing about a Communist society and this was their Revolutionary means to speed up the process). Subsequently, it is easy to see how this could get “hijacked” by malevolent, power hungry opportunists such as Stalin because if he controlled the Vanguard Party then all he would have to do is never relinquish power and claim that this is the one true form of Marxism (and thus Stalinism is completely disconnected from (true) Communism because in principle they have zero intention on bringing about a Communist society). Now, I completely agree with you that the people who were “on board” with Lennin’s ideas are “absolutely retarted” and that this is such a horrible, self-contradictory, idea/movement that to a reasonable person it is HIGHLY predictable that this was an unjustified structure from the start and was going to end up very badly (in a Dystopian society rather than quasi-Utopian). So, people who subscribe to this form of the label Communism (Marxism-Lenninism) do share a high burden of responsibility for the ills/crimes typically associated with Communism (and there are many self-professed Communists that still believe in this type of scheme). As for the Stalinist philosophy, there are people who are self-professed Communists that still align with similar forms of social structure to Stalin’s even though it has essentially no recognizable elements to Marx’s Communism and in many ways is the complete opposite (the people who support this are either: A. Dumb as f’ck B. Moral Monsters).

Now, the reason I went into more depth about this is to illustrate a point about what is fundamental to Communism. So, when you hear people talk about China, USSR, North Korea, Cuba, ect. as “Communist countries”, you know they don’t have a f’cking clue what they are talking about. That is, they are claiming that a square circle exists (e.i. two mutually incompatible definitions are somehow compatible). Again, a Communist society (as it was originally conceived) is a stateless, classless, society where the means of production would be held in common (by the community), work would be carried out due to social motives rather than for wages, and consumer goods would be available to all according to their needs. For example, that would be like pointing to a modern society and claiming that it is an RBE because they call themselves or others call them an RBE even though it is functioning on a monetary system. Now, what one could argue, is that said societies above are claiming to be transitioning toward a Communist society by means of a Vanguard Party or otherwise, just as one could potentially make such a claim by pointing to another society and say it is transitioning toward an RBE. But, to say that it is at this moment, given the fundamental definitions and facts of reality, is completely non-sensical. This is why the term “Anarchist Communism” is useful because they are simply stating that they are in favor of a (true) Communist society without the Lenninism, Marxism-Lenninism, Stalinism, ect. Now, why they would be tempted to adopt the label “Communist” and particularly the Hammer and Sickle logo at this point (given what it is commonly associated with) is beyond me and seems dangerously idiotic (potentially genocidal stupidity).

"FactMachine: RBE bypasses this because there is no notion of authority or decision making at all. Instead of having any form of human authority or mob rule logic itself would be the absolute authority. Instead of any individual "making a decision" about how things should be done when it pertains to decisions that effect other people or the environment on a significant level we would determine the most objectively logical course of action with the intent of producing the most favorable result relative to the inherently logical goals and values such as:

1)Increasing quality of life

2)Maintaining the environment

3)Accumulating intelligence about the universe

Etc.

Communism lacks the scientific basis for arriving at decisions and instead either ends up with mob rule or totalitarianism. That's why communism is just as fundamentally deficient as every other system other than an RBE."

xMathFanx: In a Communist society, there is no centralized authorities/state, that does not preclude there being systems of organizations with de-centralized structures/worker management/counsels/ ect. with limited domains of authority. How exactly this would work is a matter highly debated internal issue amongst Communists/Anarcho-Communists. That is to say, the decision making process of REB/Venus Project is not inconsistent with Communism, it just is not a staple either (it is on the table as one option amongst others that would have to be consented to).

Numbers 1) and 2) are intrinsic to the Communist design. Number 3) is not, although it is by no means precluded. It would have to be agreed upon/consented to whether this is a main goal of society, if it is peripheral, or if they want to “cut off” at a certain level of technology (which would inevitably squelch scientific progress after a certain point).

This is why I say that there are many strong similarities/overlapping parts to “anarcho-communism”/(true) communism and the Venus Project/RBE. The Venus project is more specific in many of its visions while communism is broader in its potentialities/applicability (Socialism is an even broader term still than Communism) that could potentially end up looking something quite similar to the Venus project or if they choose to organize decision making processes in profoundly different ways and/or remain at a lower level of technological advancement, then the end result would be nearly entirely different than the Venus project.