Resource Based Economy and Fascism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13867395
I posed a question in another topic that I would like to expand upon:

In your opinion would a Resource Based Economy work under fascism?
Resource Based Economy

The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
#13867515
CounterChaos wrote:...


Chaos, a couple of points with respect to the article:

The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.


This does not escape the law of diminishing returns, unfortunately. How is it practical to trust the relatively low expertise of the general population with that level of decentralised capital?

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy.


Then it is worth private investment.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.


To replace the existing form of money, the good must be divisible, transportable and of high value relative to density (these are the properties necessary for exchange). It is still money though.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.


If everybody own's everything through which organisatory board can this property be disposed of? Who controls what exactly?

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.


Does this mean to suggest that corruption will no longer be an issue under such a regime?

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.


What about the importance of division of labour with respect to technological expertise?

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.


This requires technological expertise (which requires division of labour), innovation (which requires a system that can incentivise BOTH intrinsic AND extrinsic motivation) and the co-ordination of factors of production (which requires a price mechanism).

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.


Humans seek to improve their environment; their private property constitutes the domain in which they are personally accountable for and which they can exercise control over. Private property is the environment in which humans are responsible for maintaining. In the absence of this degree of tight individual responsibility and regulation, there is lacking a system of proper organisation which will regulate and be responsible for collective property.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.


Industrial processes in a modern society are far more integrated, complex and impersonal.

Also, the notions of wealth and money are being confused here.

Also:

It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution.


Resources are always scarce.
#13867562
This 'Resource Based Economy' (when has there ever been an economy which was not resource based?) seems to be merely a form of utopian socialism which requires an authoritarian government to implement and maintain, while remaining vague on the (probably unpleasant) details of such implementation. Marx derided such utopianism back in the 1840s. Interesting to see that these dreamers are still at it more than 150 years later.... :roll:
#13867566
The only difference between Marx and the utopians is Marx treats people as resources in themselves.

The fact-value dichotomy is everything.

That said, it could be argued that historical materialism is a primitive form of game theory. Nash equilibria are defined by environmental constraints after all.

A pragmatist would take this a step further and actually believe that nash equilibiria are how we (ought to) live our lives, but then a pragmatist isn't exactly someone to believe is your friend. A pragmatist would see no problem stabbing you in the back just to achieve what's supposedly obvious.
#13867908
This 'Resource Based Economy' (when has there ever been an economy which was not resource based?) seems to be merely a form of utopian socialism which requires an authoritarian government to implement and maintain, while remaining vague on the (probably unpleasant) details of such implementation. Marx derided such utopianism back in the 1840s. Interesting to see that these dreamers are still at it more than 150 years later....


I'm not sure how this is any different from Marxist Communism, which is a utopian ideology that would require an authoritarian government to implement and maintain, with zero information about how this would be run.
#13867979
Potemkin wrote:This 'Resource Based Economy' (when has there ever been an economy which was not resource based?) ]seems to be merely a form of utopian socialism which requires an authoritarian government to implement and maintain, while remaining vague on the (probably unpleasant) details of such implementation. Marx derided such utopianism back in the 1840s. Interesting to see that these dreamers are still at it more than 150 years later.... :roll:


I agree. This is the main reason I decided to ask this question here. The Venus Project at its website defends, that this in not utopian - because it is. Marx labeled the Utopian's vulgar - utopian carries the stigma of that. Yes, this is socialism and yes, it requires an authoritarian government. In this case that government is a commuter program. The advantage of this is that a computer is "above and beyond reproach" - a possibility not realized in Marx's time. Therefore; Marx's argument of vulgar is irrelevant, an example as well of the dangers of not considering future dynamics.

@Sceptic - you have asked a good question - I want to spend some time contemplating it before I reply............ ;)

What about the importance of division of labour with respect to technological expertise?
#13867997
I'm not sure how this is any different from Marxist Communism, which is a utopian ideology that would require an authoritarian government to implement and maintain, with zero information about how this would be run.

Actually, Marxism broke away from the utopianism which characterised all forms of socialist before his time, by insisting that the breakdown of the existing capitalist relations and the emergence of new socialist relations of production would be caused by the immanent dynamics of the existing system itself, rather than arising through an attempt to achieve such a transformation through an act of sheer will, detached from any material reality. This is why Marx and Engels claimed that their brand of socialism was 'scientific' rather than 'utopian' - through the objective analysis of existing material reality, human beings would be able to gain conscious control over human society, just as we have gained it, to a great extent, over the physical world through objective scientific enquiry. These sorts of utopian visions are castles in the air, hobbyhorses of one crackpot dreamer or another, and can only be implemented either in small communes (rather as Richard Owen did), which are doomed to fail, being isolated islands surrounded by the sea of capitalism, or in some handsomely-bound book, complete with pen drawings of the 'ideal' society. Marx outlined the mechanisms which would lead to the breakdown of the existing mode of production, and identified the agency which could bring about that transformation. The dreamer of this 'Resource Based Economy' has done neither of these things, nor is there any danger that he will ever do so.
#13868038
Potemkin wrote:Actually, Marxism broke away from the utopianism which characterised all forms of socialist before his time, by insisting that the breakdown of the existing capitalist relations and the emergence of new socialist relations of production would be caused by the immanent dynamics of the existing system itself, rather than arising through an attempt to achieve such a transformation through an act of sheer will, detached from any material reality. This is why Marx and Engels claimed that their brand of socialism was 'scientific' rather than 'utopian' - through the objective analysis of existing material reality, human beings would be able to gain conscious control over human society, just as we have gained it, to a great extent, over the physical world through objective scientific enquiry. These sorts of utopian visions are castles in the air, hobbyhorses of one crackpot dreamer or another, and can only be implemented either in small communes (rather as Richard Owen did), which are doomed to fail, being isolated islands surrounded by the sea of capitalism, or in some handsomely-bound book, complete with pen drawings of the 'ideal' society. Marx outlined the mechanisms which would lead to the breakdown of the existing mode of production, and identified the agency which could bring about that transformation. The dreamer of this 'Resource Based Economy' has done neither of these things, nor is there any danger that he will ever do so.


So was the ideology back in the 1840s Potemkin - this is 2012 - wake up. This is what bugs me about Marxists - they think that all of Marx ideology is still relevant today.......... :roll:

Some of it is, some is not. To continue holding on to everything in his bible unrelenting - is dangerous for positive change indeed. You keep treating Marx like it is a religion - you will turn into a fanatic................... ;) If your only argument is an ideology of 1840 - then you have nothing on me.
#13868045
Actually, Marxism broke away from the utopianism which characterised all forms of socialist before his time...


With more utopianism.

Marx outlined the mechanisms which would lead to the breakdown of the existing mode of production, and identified the agency which could bring about that transformation.


And 170 years later, his predictions have yet to happen (except for in states most Communists say weren't Communist) and the revolution appears further away then ever.

So Potemkin, when's the revolution expect anyways? :lol:
#13868065
An authoritarian computer program by default of its neutrality - would be benevolent. Lack of benevolence is always the downfall of authoritarian rule.

This would work....... ;)
#13868158
This 'Resource Based Economy' (when has there ever been an economy which was not resource based?) seems to be merely a form of utopian socialism which requires an authoritarian government to implement and maintain, while remaining vague on the (probably unpleasant) details of such implementation. Marx derided such utopianism back in the 1840s. Interesting to see that these dreamers are still at it more than 150 years later....


I tend to strongly agree, but to another pressing matter - Why are you frequenting the Fascist sub-forum, Potemkin?
#13868189
Far-Right Sage wrote:Why are you frequenting the Fascist sub-forum, Potemkin?


Thank you FRS, I truly want to get the opinions of those that frequent this sub-forum about this. What I would ask is that the fascists here try as hard as they can to view this computer program as the authoritarian leader and base the society on a resource based economy in your minds eye. Look at everything else within the hierarchy to remain the same. The question is - can it be made to work?

I am glad I at least asked one good question in my post.


Actually, IMO - your question "What about the importance of division of labour with respect to technological expertise?" is the only one that could not be answered by a thorough reading of the Venus Project link.

The easiest answer to your question is just by education and testing to find an individuals expertise. The whole point of the Venus Project is to use technology to its maximum such as robotics etc.

How is it practical to trust the relatively low expertise of the general population with that level of decentralised capital?


The military is in charge of distribution, until civilian infrastructure can be set in place - if that is even desired.
#13868285
I tend to strongly agree, but to another pressing matter - Why are you frequenting the Fascist sub-forum, Potemkin?

Hey, I'm only here for the free beer and peanuts. ;)

I don't care who I have to fight. White people wh[…]

America gives disproportionate power to 20% of th[…]

World War II Day by Day

Yes, we can thank this period in Britain--and Orw[…]

This is a story about a woman who was denied adequ[…]