The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression

by Peter Joseph

Society is broken. We can design our way to a better one.
In our interconnected world, self-interest and social-interest are rapidly becoming indistinguishable. If current negative trajectories remain, including growing climate destabilization, biodiversity loss, and economic inequality, an impending future of ecological collapse and societal destabilization will make "personal success" virtually meaningless. Yet our broken social system incentivizes behavior that will only make our problems worse. If true human rights progress is to be achieved today, it is time we dig deeper--rethinking the very foundation of our social system.
In this engaging, important work, Peter Joseph, founder of the world's largest grassroots social movement--The Zeitgeist Movement--draws from economics, history, philosophy, and modern public-health research to present a bold case for rethinking activism in the 21st century.
Arguing against the long-standing narrative of universal scarcity and other pervasive myths that defend the current state of affairs, The New Human Rights Movement illuminates the structural causes of poverty, social oppression, and the ongoing degradation of public health, and ultimately presents the case for an updated economic approach. Joseph explores the potential of this grand shift and how we can design our way to a world where the human family has become truly sustainable.
The New Human Rights Movement reveals the critical importance of a unified activism working to overcome the inherent injustice of our system. This book warns against what is in store if we continue to ignore the flaws of our socioeconomic approach, while also revealing the bright and expansive future possible if we succeed.
Will you join the movement?

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, History, Science

266 pages, Kindle Edition

Published March 21, 2017

About the author

Peter Joseph is an American independent film-maker and musician.He is the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement and on the Steering Committee of "Project Peace on Earth."
He is also a social activist best known as the man behind the Zeitgeist film trilogy.
Peter Joseph has written, directed, narrated, scored and produced three documentary films called Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007), Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008) and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011).
Joseph also wrote and produced the web series Culture in Decline and directed the June 2013 Black Sabbath music video God Is Dead?.
His films have become a counter-culture phenomenon on the internet and have had millions of views. He has not shied away from controversy and has dared to push a strong vision for the future. Eventually his audience turned into a global movement aimed at replacing capitalism with a radically new social system based on a Resource Based Economy (RBE)

Reviews

[Alexander Duncan · Rating 3 out of 5]

IS Peter Joseph just the latest in a long line of would-be revolutionaries who excel at criticizing capitalism while failing to explain how to replace the existing system without falling into authoritarianism or totalitarianism, or is he the real deal? While not a household name, Joseph is well-known in alternative and progressive circles as an avant-garde filmmaker whose Zeitgeist titles include The Movie (2007), Addendum (2008), and Moving Forward (2011), with a fourth title, InterReflections: The Future Begins, planned for 2017.

Always interesting, unlike mainline socialist ideologues, Joseph is in the alternative tradition of the Technocracy Movement, which originated with Howard Scott in 1918-1919. This movement criticized capitalist economics, claiming that the price system was inefficient, and proposed to replace private market enterprise economics based on monetary profit with a planned, resource-based, environmentally sustainable energy economy not unlike that advocated by Jacque Fresco, who was a member of the Technocracy organization for a time.

Although it achieved some popular success, by the mid-1930s popular interest in Technocracy was waning. However, the mantle was taken up again by social theorists like R. Buckminster Fuller (Nine Chains to the Moon, 1938), Paolo Soleri (the inventor of the "arcology"), Jacques Fresco (of Venus Project fame), and Joseph himself. The great strength of Technocracy is its plan to replace business and politics with humane scientific planning, but the obvious abuses of communism and fascism brought collectivism into disrepute, and the word is now virtually synonymous with a nightmarish scenario of state-sponsored scientific terrorism, popularized in the 1927 film, Metropolis.

In order for a revolutionary ideology to prove its mettle, it must do three things. First, it must demonstrate that capitalism is an irrefragably broken system that must of necessity be replaced for the general good of the planet and humanity. Reform is not possible. Second, it must describe an alternative system that is demonstrably stable and superior to the existing and any other alternative system, including a detailed and convincing explanation of how such a system would operate without falling into its own brand of dystopia. Finally, third - it must indicate how the existing system will transition to the superior system without falling into yet another brand of dystopia. In other words, the medicine can't be worse than the cure.

The second and third points are the great sticking points for all revolutionary projects. Marxists, for instance, opine that the new society will emerge out of the past by a process of historical determinism. Therefore, they refuse to discuss when or how the new society will be organized, denouncing any such talk as fascist. The future will organize itself. How this differs from libertarianism I do not know, and such Marxists as I have met seem to have many of the same failings as the establishment but in reverse. As a result of such wilful myopia, when they get into power Marxists have no model to guide their actions going forward, with the results that we have seen in the USSR and still see in China and elsewhere.

Even Noam Chomsky, who admits that he does not understand economics, has little to say on this point, vaguely referring to an anarcho-syndicalist takeover of the corporations by the working class, without addressing the problems of money and markets or overall social and economic organization or for that matter how to make the transition to such a system other than by catastrophic failure, which is more likely to generate a fascist than a progressive takeover (see below). Chomsky has even suggested that anarcho-syndicalism may not be established for several centuries. Like North Korea, it seems that the existing capitalist system is unassailable, at least for now.

Peter Joseph's book, The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression, is divided into five chapters and two appendixes. The bulk of the book, represented by chapters 1 through 4, consisting of 236 pages, consists of a critique of capitalism, largely based on sociological research, showing the pathological effects of capitalism, its dystopian character, and the illusory nature of its claims regarding human progress. Joseph ominously sums up the conclusion on page 300: "to those who do outright reject these observations and proposals for whatever reason conjured, I offer a provocative prediction: The kind of change proposed in this book one way or another is going to happen. The only question is how much suffering has to occur before it does. Returning to the prophetic words of Bayard Rustin: 'We are all one. And if we don't know it, we will find out the hard way.'"

Unlike previous revolutionary thinkers, and in striking contrast to the avant-garde tone of his films, Joseph's prose style is even, measured, intellectual, even stilted, supported by extensive and convincing research into the sociological literature in 59 pages of endnotes. Joseph is also very familiar with economics, but less so with science and technology. Unfortunately, the book lacks both a bibliography and an index.

The last chapter of the book is entitled "Designing Out: Where We Go from Here," supported by two appendixes, "Post-scarcity Potentials" and "Economic Calculation and Broad System Conception." This section of the book, consisting of only 104 pages, in length represents about a quarter of the entire book, yet it is the most important part, since it purports to explain how the new system may be organized to achieve the goal of a better, more humane, and more truly productive society, as distinct from the pseudo-productivity of consumer capitalism, which is becoming more and more deluded and disassociated from reality. Following the lead of his hero, R. Buckminster Fuller, and, to a lesser extent, Jacques Fresco, this section addresses how a centrally planned global economy based on scientific research and development and the application of high technology, systems theory, and efficient supercomputers can effectively solve the fundamental problems of scarcity, food production, water, energy, and sustainability.

Joseph's grasp of these issues is at best general, but his arguments are convincing, at least on a purely theoretical level. However, the great weakness of the book lies in its relative failure to address the third point referred to above: the problem of how to get there from here. As Noam Chomsky noted ruefully in a recent YouTube interview, when he was asked about Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist movement and Jacque Fresco's Venus Project, he said that these movements describe all sorts of very nice things but they fail to address the fundamental issue of democracy.

This problem applies especially to Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. According to a chapter on the Venus Project by Jacque Fresco, sent to the author by Roxanne Meadows, Fresco seems to advocate a dictatorship of machines, where all social planning decisions will be made automatically, presumably by various levels of artificial intelligences. He has also referred to this on video. This perspective echoes the arrogant refusal of the original Technocracy movement to involve itself in politics, because of which it had precisely zero influence on the power structure. If you exclude people from the equation then you are a fascist or a nihilist or perhaps both.

Joseph himself seems to recognize that his book is only a prolegomenon. In the trailer to his forthcoming film, InterReflections: The Future Begins, he addresses the issue of getting there from here by proposing, perhaps speculatively, or perhaps actually advocating, a global anti-capitalist uprising, triggered by the increasing crisis of climate change, in which the existing governmental power structures are undermined and destroyed by a vanguard conspiracy of computer hackers of the type associated with Anonymous, for example, including undermining and destroying the cybernetic infrastructure that enables the military-industrial complex.

Clearly, in view of the pathological character of the elites that control society, who are apparently willing to sacrifice the planet rather than surrender their vast power and privilege, something like this would have to occur for the goals of the Zeitgeist or the Venus Project to succeed. With respect to the latter, for example, Fresco's proposal to build a high-tech, super-efficient, self-sufficient city from scratch, while technically feasible (whole cities are now being constructed in Asia and the Middle East), will never be achieved because the existing monetary system based on profit will not permit it. Capitalists will not be willing to build systems that would undermine their own privilege and authority any more than J.P. Morgan was willing to finance the research of Nikola Tesla into free energy. Governments, as we know, are in the pockets of the corporations. Who, then, will finance it? Answer: No one. As soon as the cost of anything approaches zero in a capitalist economy there is no incentive to manufacture it, and its supply will disappear, thus reestablishing its value. Therefore, in a post-abundance world, capitalism itself is enforcing scarcity!

I agree with Joseph that the existing system is bankrupt to the core and that the political, financial, and economic systems of society are essentially self-destructive in many convergent ways and therefore they will have to be comprehensively replaced or we will perish on earth as a civilized species. Joseph's first practical proposal in the book is for the nationalization of the banking system. This and the reform of the monetary system are also advocated by the former Minister of National Defence of Canada, Paul Hellyer, in his book, The Money Mafia. Therefore, rationally we should seek to transition to the new system as quickly and efficiently as possible, while respecting fundamental human rights, and in a way that is fundamentally democratic.

But this praxis is explicitly seditious. It openly advocates the replacement of the existing power structure with another structure that is inimical to the existing structure by means of what amounts to terrorism. Therefore, the existing power structure will do anything to obstruct the real or potential rise of any threat to its power. The more successful the latter becomes, the more fascistic society will become, as we see today.

Therefore, when the system collapses, the transition will be violent, chaotic, and self-destructive, followed by a long recovery period of decades or generations. I hope that this is not the case and that somehow the Zeitgeist, Venus Project, Occupy Movement, Anonymous, Buckminster Fuller Institute, Arcosanti, democratic socialists, and other human rights and democratic groups worldwide will forge an integrated global movement with such overwhelming popular support that it actually overwhelms the forces of darkness, because nothing less will be successful, and the sooner the better. R. Buckminster Fuller said that we are facing humanity's final exam before graduating into cosmic beings, and that the alternatives are "utopia or oblivion." I hope for the best, but I fear the worst, despite Peter Joseph's worthy effort in the right direction.

[Nemo ☠️ (pagesandprozac) · Rating 4 out of 5]

it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to review a non-fiction book that exists primarily to persuade people towards a certain ideology. it is inevitable that some people will disagree with it, and some will agree. basically, it's almost entirely subjective and based on opinion. so one has to bear that in mind when reading this, and other, reviews of the book. consequently, i'll focus more on the style of writing and suchlike rather than the ideology, although of course i'll have to talk about that as well.

this was a very well-structured book, and it is clear that Joseph has done mountains of research before writing. he puts ideas forward backed up by facts (most of the time). the writing was clear and engaging, although in the first half i did notice the words "myth" and "mythology" about one thousand times, but that's only a minor quibble.

i am a socialist, so of course i agreed with a lot of the things Joseph was saying. however, if you are not a socialist, or at least are floating around the general left-wing area, it's unlikely that you'll be persuaded by Joseph's overall view that we should scrap capitalism. however, you still might learn something about institutional racism and the root causes of poverty, which were two very interesting and well-researched sociological aspects of the book.

i will admit this: economics truly bores me. "well, why did you pick up a book that says 'reinventing the economy' in it, then!!" i hear you cry. simply because maybe i thought economies bores me because i didn't know much about it, so if i read about it i might like it more. but nope. still boring. so that's why i had to knock off a star, because i simply wasn't interested by the in-depth descriptions of the history of various economic systems, and i thought it was a bit tangential from the rest of the book. but i'm sure somebody interested in economics will like those parts a lot, so.

in conclusion, pretty much any views on this book will be subjective (except perhaps the fact that it is well-researched, which is clear and evident to anyone), so... you should probably read it and decide for yourself if you're interested in politics/economics/sociology.

[Neil Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

The New Human Rights Movement looks at the root causes to our social and environmental problems. It does an impressive job of shedding light on the structural nature of these issues, cutting through what is usually seen as disconnected failures or political corruption. One of the main problems we face as activists or simply as people trying to make sense of our world is that we tend to focus on symptoms and face a never ending, futile fight of trying to combat injustice. Luckily there is a more radical and effective way to view things. Strangely enough as it may seem, this more effective perspective comes in the form of science rather than morality, public opinion or heartfelt good intentions. Science has been making observations and conclusions based on research and empirical evidence for some time now as to root causes and systemic flaws in our social and economic system.... but change is slow due to what can be called culture lag as well as the retarding effects of capitalist interests. Peter Joseph shows us these important informational findings of science in a relevant and eye opening way. He also lays out a refreshingly rational vision for our future both in general and in detail which is hopeful and yet based on what I see to be solid logic. I honestly wish that everyone could read this book!

[Neto Zires · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book opens up with a disclaimer: Peter Joseph does not have credentials, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take him seriously. Fair enough, but this author who has started a "movement" is unwilling to provide even a last name. It's indicative of his noncommittal nature, reluctance to face any kind of scrutiny, and his deflection of any criticism. He is verbose to present his ideas, which all come from a point of undeniable empirical knowledge. He fails to provide cogent, substantial arguments, or even simple metaphors. Most of what he says is cleverly-disguised conjecture.

The book blames everything on structural problems, and personal agency is lost in the fray. He tells a personal anecdote of a black person beating him up and stealing his bike, and manages to make the issue entirely about how the system has failed his attacker. There are compelling components to his argument, and certainly the system does fail youth, but at the point you care more about structural "violence" than actual violence, you've lost the attention of the rational world. I don't agree with his critics placing his ideas under the blanket label of communism, but ironically, he does sway that way more than any other way, failing to comprehend how destructive those ideologies have been.

Peter is a good filmmaker. After his initial luck, he made two good documentaries by instinctively surrounding himself with interesting interview subjects. He also framed other people's ideas in an interesting and mainstream way. Now that he's trying to pass off working ideas as empirical knowledge, his arguments carry less weight. To evidence this, just watch the trailer for his Interreflections film. It's a propaganda piece for his hypothetical resource-based economy social world, but it appears more a propaganda piece for magical thinking.

I would recommend avoiding this and going straight to the sources his ideas come from, such as the books of Robert Sapolsky, etc.

[ALICIA MOGOLLON · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book aloud to my sweetheart and my son. I found it extremely engaging and riveting and didn't want to put it down. We read it over the course of a few months and upon several occasions, i read until my voice threatened to leave me. Peter Joseph as usual minces no words but rather leads with an extensively studied facts and honest educated assessments.. He dives right to the very root structural causes to the social and economic problems that plague society today. He presents detailed, clear and concise solutions. Exploring real science and rational critical thinking he is bold, forthright yet compassionate. I call this book a must read for everyone especially any of us working towards social justice and real change. THIS is truly radical out of the box thinking. We just might have to look at things in ways we've never been taught to. We just might have to get a little or a lot uncomfortable.

[Staci · Rating 4 out of 5]

"[R]acism, bigotry, and xenophobia, including resulting consequences such as minority-targeted police brutality, are ultimately linked to mechanisms of economic inequality and its consequences. Until economic inequality and its causes are reduced or stopped, bigotry and social justice on many levels will continue as a systemic result". Peter Joseph himself admits that just removing economic inequality is "not a complete solution" but it is the main focus of this book, which should be pretty obvious, given that the subtitle is Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression. "In other words, if there were no scarcity pressure, no core survival stress or status-shaming inequality, crime would drop drastically compared with what we endure today." Frankly, a fully economically equal society is quite hard to imagine since that wasn't even the case in communistic societies but, considering the reverse, I don't think it would be possible to get a society where people were equal in all other aspects but still very much unequal economically.

"[I]t is estimated that the annual income of the richest 100 people is enough to end extreme global poverty four times over". Oh. My. GOD. It is things like that that really call into question the societal assumption that there are poor and suffering people because there just aren't enough resources in the world. Just 100 people is enough to end extreme global poverty FOUR TIMES OVER; I feel a bit sick to my stomach reading that. Thousands of people die everyday due to lack of resources that people in more fortunate situations take for granted: adequate food, water, clean air, shelter and health care -- in the 1970s, it was estimated to be 18 million a year; the number is most likely higher now. And yet we (as a planet) evidently have enough resources to end all poverty and then some, it's just being stocked away out of reach due to selfishness and greed and the general shittiness that can be human beings. "In less than six years, capitalism's inequality arguably kills as many people as communism is claimed to have killed during the entire twentieth century". Yet it is interesting that Joseph states that he does not "see the rise of modern capitalism and neoliberalism as some evil that could have been prevented. Rather, we are dealing with a natural progression of social evolution and at a certain point in time market capitalism was indeed the best method we had. Yet, as can occur with any socially perpetuated phenomenon, we are now stuck in a feedback loop that perversely restricts our ability to take the next evolutionary stop as an intelligent species".

Joseph is pretty clear and very thoroughly researched throughout most of the book, however it was a bit confusing reading the sections on Social Dominance Theory and Social Dominance Orientation; Joseph talks so much about it, at length and with quotes by notable authors of the theory, that at times it seems that he agrees with it. I THINK, though, that he actually finds the theory to be incorrect and, given how egalitarian and giving hunter-gatherer societies supposedly are, the Adam Smithian belief that human beings are naturally selfish also seems to be incorrect. I think.

Furthermore, I feel that Joseph's beliefs and conclusions about how to change the current socioeconomic system are flawed, in some cases too idealistic, in others they don't go far enough, seeming more like a tweaking of the current system that a true change (the Universal Basic Income and the wage/wealth caps are two such "tweaks"). Hence why this is a four, not five, star review: there are five chapters in this book, the first four of which detail the situation, how we got here and why things are currently sustained as they are -- these chapters are all quite well done. The fifth chapter, the one that details how change might actually be implanted, is not as well done but of course, that would be the real problem, to figure out how to successfully and in the best manner possible change a bad situation. Joseph doesn't quite manage it so I can't give him a star for that, but overall, a good exploration of the problems of the current socioeconomic system.

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Byron · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you are considering reading this work, simply start in Chapter 5 and realize that the previous four chapters are a catalog of woes. Don't expect the fifth chapter to provide much in the way of real ideas other than to tear everything down and start over with a benevolent dictator of design. The problems cited are real. The solutions are not.

For those choosing the audio version, don't. The narration by the author leaves much to be desired.

[Jonathon Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

I knew going into reading this that it would be full of profound and sagacious ideas for changing the world for the better. I planned to highlight passages that I could ruminate on later. I ended up going through two highlighters. Every page has plausible actuality that could be discussed in perpetuity.

This is such a "must read" for everyone in my subjective opinion. The problem is that could be an Overton window for most people.

I called several bookstores and ordered this book. I called all the libraries in the tri-county area and ordered this book.

[Youssef Almkari · Rating 5 out of 5]

A true holistic perspective of the current times. Scientifically inspired, this book develops a train of thought most efficient to achieving a sustainable society. It has become so obvious that the current outdated trends do nothing but push forth a destructive profit incentive, ignoring the overall good of the world itself.

Though this book might never hit the mainstream of awareness in my lifetime, it will be looked back upon as a pivotal moment in accurate human understanding of our synergistic natural existence. Change or die.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's all very optimistic but the author doesn't really propose any ways of solving the age old problems which are exemplified by the tragedy of the commons, prisoners dilemma and others. It's all just utopia without a plan. I have a lot of sympathy for him as he appears to be an honest guy with good intentions but somewhat deluded in his unwavering belief in humankind.

[Jason von Meding · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that I wish everyone would read. Peter Joseph covers all sorts of angles in this wide ranging work, based on the central argument that we cannot address the global problems we are facing within the existing economic paradigm. He made a great start to a discussion of practical solutions within the proposed new “model”, but I would have liked more specific detail. So good though, overall.

[Sami Eerola · Rating 3 out of 5]

In itself this book has nothing wrong, but also it has nothing original to say, therefore three stars. This is just a collection of current leftist believes pretending to be some kind of revolutionary manifesto. If you are a leftist, there is nothing new in this book.

Maybe there are some better formations of some arguments, but in essence it is pretty basic. So i agree 100% with this book, but because of that it was so boring to read. Maybe i am becoming too old. (I am 30 years old) I miss the early days of my teens and twenties when every book that i read about history and society was mind opening and exiting. It seems that those days are behind me. Or Joseph is just a extremely unoriginal thinker.

This book is maybe good for a person not familiar with current leftist thought or a very young person.

[dr_set · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Founder of the Zeitgeist movement proposes in this book a new perspective on the problems our societies have today, using and holistic approach borrowed form Systems Theory.

Following this systemic view, he links current problems of violence and health to our current socio-economic system that’s based on scarcity and competition. He cites numerous studies to prove that there is a direct link between unemployment and suicide. That prejudices like racism are not innate to humans but that it has been fostered by dominant groups to divide and rule the poor to exploit them for economic reasons.

Competition leads also to “Conspicuous consumption”, an aberrant behavior that leads people to try to fit in or to match others status symbols by acquiring material goods. Failure to achieve this leads to exclusion, disrespect and an overall social-class hierarchy that produces negative effects like violence, mental illness, crime, hearth disease, etc.

Another negative result is the so called “the Hedonic treadmill”, a term that defines the perpetual in-satisfaction that keeps us chasing material wealth, working jobs that we hate, to buy things that we don’t need to impress people we don’t like.

The feelings of frustration that this system produces leads to “Displaced violence” that occurs when a person experiencing frustration with his situation in life, the treatment he gets with his boss or any other form of violence, discharges his frustration violently in a third party he holds some form of power over, like an underling a wife or a child or a low status member of society like a minority group.

Under the prevailing climax of repressed violence and exploitation, the elites see as a moral imperative to control the population to maintain stability using propaganda and external enemies encouraging a Us vs Them mentally.

A number of theories is used to rationalize the Statu Quo, among them Social dominance Theory. SDO postulates that competition, violence and a dominance hierarchy are biologically imprinted in all humans, thus validating aberrant behavior such as abuse and discrimination. The author refutes this view by citing a number of academic’s sources that view this approach as reductionist and the behavior that defends as not prior to but following from social structure.

These structural problems are the result of a “Malthusian trap” that limited the growth of population for millennia due to the lack of resources creating a situation of scarcity that bread violence and competition. The industrial revolution and the technological progress that followed ended with the scarcity allowing humanity to scape the Malthusian trap, but the institutions and the frame of mind (“root socioeconomic orientation”) formed under it for centuries still prevails and needs to be replaced.

The author disputes the idea of survival of the fittest as a justification for ruthless competition arguing that this narrow interpretation is a bastardization of the notion, that doesn’t take into account that “fittest” actually refers to what best suits the environment. This could be a range of behaviors including collaboration, tolerance, patience and so forth.

According to “Social Dominance theory” the most powerful people that benefitted form this system have a vested interest in it and exert a “cultural hegemony” (Gramsci) that influences the thoughts, behavior and expectations of general society, conditioning them to support the world view of the ruling class that actually oppresses them.

He argues against the “free market system” using “the paradox of free trade”: in a really free market everything would be up for sale including government policy to stifle competition and thus free trade.

There is a section that discuses morality in general and moral objectivism in particular. He quotes philosopher of science Michael Ruse who argues that humans evolved to think of morality as objective to motivate us to act, yet moral objectivism has serious flaws such as conflicting moral dilemmas, “the continuum fallacy” and the problem of isolated or localized assumptions. What may seem like moral behavior in one instance can very well create a systemic chain reaction that leads to immoral outcomes. He explains that moral objectivism, as religious moral codes, falls under the umbrella of philosophical “foundationalism”, the idea that all knowledge ultimately rest on a foundation that requires no further justification and it deemed as fact (eg. God). This idea is flawed and suffers from the “infinite regress” problem (eg Who created God?).

An opposing view of foundationalism is “epistemological coherentism” that states that for a belief to be consistent it must be consistent with other beliefs forming a beliefs system.
He analyses the concept of negative externalities to further argue against the capitalist system. No industry in the world could be considered profitable if all externalities were considered (eg. pollution, mental health, etc.).

All the previous points lead to the conclusion that violence is a public health problem rather than a legal or moral one and they challenge the concept of free-will considering the degree to which a person is a victim of its environment (“structural violence”).

All human conflict at an interpersonal or group level (war) can be seen as a product of this unhealthy environment. This causes irreparable damage to people and to the ecosystem.
In the last part of the book a number of possible solutions to these structural problems are presented, based in an efficient use of resources by leveraging on existing technologies and by moving away from the market system and the consumption and competition system to a cooperative and sharing localized economy.

[Sebastian Barrymore · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a loyal follower of the Zeitgeist documentaries I was bursting with anticipation to get my literary teeth into this book.

It’s been 10 years since first watching ’Zeitgeist The Movie’ and being introduced to the concept of a Resource Based Economy. It was a personal paradigm shift for me, which introduced me to the utopian notion that we could live in a world that wasn’t run by greed, inequality and ultimately money. My world view has never been the same, and I thoroughly enjoyed Peter Joseph’s follow ups ‘Addendum’ and ‘Moving Forward’, which moved away from the ‘Conspiracy Theory’ genre in pursuit of a more tangible and malleable approach.

I’ve been an anti-capitalist ever since. Not one who shuns away from working and society but one who works within the system, but secretly, deep down, believes and desires a better world for everyone.

I remember feeling emboldened by my new found knowledge and also an explicit responsibility to spread the gospel of the Resource Based Economy. Countless conversations and heated debates (sometimes to no avail) were had, but fundamentally my resolve and resolution remained steadfast.

Over the years I’ve followed Peter’s activism and in recent years he seemed to have almost disappeared from the public spotlight and scrutinising gaze. As my contempt for capitalism persisted, albeit sometimes surreptitiously, my thoughts for Mr Joseph, the thorn in capitalism’s toe, became concerned. Where had he gone? Had he given up? Did he merely just do his bit for the next ‘thorn’ to take up his assault?

You can imagine my joy upon hearing of the publishing of this book and I am glad to say it didn’t let me down.

The New Human Rights Movement is the first economics book I’ve ever read. While being true to the jargon of industry speak I didn’t find the concepts and themes too difficult to grasp. It’s definitely not a book written for the layman but if you already have a basic understanding of capitalism’s immorality and dark side you shouldn’t get too bogged down.

That being said I did get bogged down for the first half of the book myself as I’m already accustomed to the ills of capitalism, and going over these points with a fine tooth comb certainly makes for a depressing read. But this didn’t deter me from persevering.

After addressing the problems and sleight of hand that the System subjects us all to, it was inevitable that, in true Zeitgeist fashion, the solutions would come charging in. And that’s where the book really gets interesting.

Structural violence in all its forms is probably the main theme of this expose. Joseph does a great job in breaking down each and every one of them with an honest, methodical and detailed manner, without forgetting to back up his claims with expert opinions, statistics and citations.

Joseph alludes to structural violence in all aspects of society and suggests that most of the problems we face in the 21st century can be attributed to it. Whether we are talking about the pharmaceutical industry’s “profit over ethics” policy - which leaves millions of people in need of lifesaving drugs to die in 3rd world countries because the drugs have been out-priced beyond that country's means - or we are talking about economic sanctions that have been imposed on countries who don’t play ball with western policy - plunging communities into the risks of malnutrition, starvation and ultimately desperation - Joseph does a great job systematically dissecting the system that we all adhere to.

It feels like Joseph has made a concerted effort to move away from the Venus Project and the Resource Based Economy system in this book and I think he has realised that trying to propose an alternative system to capitalism, or what critics would call a utopian ideal, is always going to be a tough sell. By focusing on capitalism’s drawbacks to ourselves and the environment this book can hopefully start to change the mindset of individuals who have become indoctrinated to a system that is literally making them ill.

As a global population we have become immune to this reality and we certainly aren’t going to hear about these injustices on the 10 o’clock news. Joseph states that we have become complacent to the fact that poverty and uncontrollable inequality are just part and parcel of everyday life. The free market (another lie that we have been sold) creates winners and losers based on the environment you were born into and that will always be the case in this system. The sooner this message starts to resonate with people the sooner we can, through activism in all its forms, start to mobilise against an unsustainable system that has no long term prospect for our species, and every species for that matter.

I really hope this book is read by the people who are unaware of these problems we all face. It’s not easy to get people without prior interest in economics and social sciences to pick up and read a big chunky book. That being said, it’s certainly given me a treasure trove of facts and figures to add to my arsenal for future debates, but hey, Mr Joseph was preaching to the converted.

[Winter Haydn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been listening to the audiobook format over and over, always picking up new insights and focusing my own perspectives.

This book is simply the most vital analysis of modern life yet published .... we need to be discussing these matters openly in every venue possible. The historic trends illustrated by Peter Joseph make the overall picture crystal clear. What we call "society" has generally been nothing more than the self-serving machinery of a relative few, once born out of tradition and seeming necessity, now only an imagined framework trapping in our collective social growth. Not only that, but the arrival of technological capabilities --which should otherwise unleash enourmous possiblities and freedoms-- are only making things worse, as they are mainly used to drive profitability, through vanity / materialism. Now that true productiveness is being supplemented with financial holograms, the machine is running out of exlpoitative life to feed on and overloading itself with ever-increasing debt, which results in nothing more than the sucking of further human and environmental health/potential.

Disaster is a mathematical certainty if we don't change course. Are you paying attention?

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really in depth read stating the academic and intellectual foundations as to why Capitalism and our monetary system creates most of humanity's problems which are really features of capitalism and not bugs. It is a very dense read filled with studies, citations, and facts to back it all up. All very well done.

Even though it is a large book, there are only 6 "chapters" which are heavily segmented by various topical headers. The first 4 "chapters" deal with Capitalism's issues. The last 2 "chapters" talk about a Resource Based Economy, which is not done as well, in my opinion, but still very useful. The book is almost worth it just for the first appendix on renewable energy systems.

[Michael Iverson · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who has increasingly become politically and socially active in recent years, this book has been a huge breath of fresh air and acts as a way to "recalibrate" the goal of a world without money or markets, but through a 21st century lens. Peter Joseph helps show through material means with given technology how we are able to make a post scarcity world and that such a world is very realistic through ephemeralization. Now more than ever we have the actual means to create an incredible world where no one is left hungry and all human needs can be met.

[Rick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the most important book I've read this year and I can't recommend this book too strongly. Anyone caring about people and the planet we occupy simply must read this book. I can fully support the review listed below from the book's back cover.

"This book is a fascinating read, and a vitally important one for anyone who is tired of the status quo, seeks to understand why it is so entrenched, and wants to do something about it."
- New York Journal of Books -

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic and incredibly important read. Much discussion is needed to re-fuckulate this world we live in, but I believe, Peters rationalised perspective on the matter is a well thought out, mature, and very grounded place to start (and perhaps venture). Thanks Peter, you give me a refreshing hope in humanity.

[Koke Helmes · Rating 5 out of 5]

THIS IS REALLY GOOD. Rereading immediately. It is convincingly laid bare that the socioeconomic track we are currently on finds most of its problems due to the market-economy. First principles thinking to facilitate a real economy is needed. There is more than enough to go around, abundance is possible. This is the time to start thinking about our transition to a techno utopia.

[Sophie Rayton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well researched and argued book. It is quite long though and the chapters especially are very long. I hope this material is taught all over the world and we're all able to move forward with this New Human Rights Movement.

[Savio Sebastian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very insightful and compelling but also depressing. It paints a gloomy picture if things continue - but it does give hope for a better future. But it will take a lot of work and guts to make it happen.

[Pirouz Lotfi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just like all of Peter Joseph’s work, this book should be mandatory reading for everyone. We as a species need to be thinking about the issues and asking the questions that Peter discusses in this book... now more than ever.

[Tiffany · Rating 2 out of 5]

theory-okay. just putting forth ideas from others-okay. once again "having a solution" but no actual plan presented to achieve the goal-no surprise.

[Долгион · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok where do I start? Of all the books I've read and recommended, if I had to bring it down to a single one, it would be this. Is it as enjoyable as The Lord of the Rings? No. Is it as educational as The Gene? Arguable. But this is, on the whole, the most important, relevant book for our time that I've read.

Why is that? This is gonna be a big fucking statement but it's true: this book concisely and coherently explains what is wrong with our world. It actually does. The root of the problem, whatever societal problem you are probably thinking about - be it racism, climate change or celebrity worship - is addressed in this book, unclouded by biases of religion or ideology except the basic belief that all people should be able to live in dignity and peace. And it doesn't come to some cheap and cheeky conclusion such as "We were wrong to come down from the trees in the first place". The book even provides a framework for how to begin to fix the deep-seated problems in our society.

At first, Peter Joseph establishes the need for holistic, structural or systemic analysis of the issues we face. While every chapter in this book is important to think about, it makes sense that the first is the most important, as it sets the groundwork for what is to come. We humans, with our basic biases and inability to naturally critically think about more than 2 or 3 steps into the chain of causality have built our social structures in such ineffective ways that we now can't see the forest for the trees.

Take the example of petty crime. The existence of crime justifies the existence of policing and punitive punishment. But zooming out, we should look into the larger context. The reason for a theft could be the poverty of the thief. Okay, so now we are looking at a problem of material poverty. Zoom out a bit further and we might learn that the thief lost their job because of an economic downturn in the area. Now the problem has a larger scale economic aspect. Possibly we are looking at many more people in similar situations in that particular area. Put on top of this that the person could not or did not see the need to get a higher education, therefore not having had a more secure job during this economic downturn. Maybe (probably) they're also dealing with health issues due to the stresses of having to survive on minimal income and malnutrition. Maybe they've an addiction. The list goes on and on.

The real problem is not with any one thing. The war on drugs or social welfare programs or indeed the criminal justice system are only attempts to combat the direct consequences of our deeply dysfunctional and unjust socio-economic system. I'm not even talking about capitalism, but the entire paradigm of market economy.

Peter Joseph lucidly dissects how the logical implications of the market economical system cause our current power structures and the many problems we are constantly struggling against as a society at large. This isn't about some conspiracy of the 1%, but something much more deep-seated: something systemic about it all. And because it is systemic, it can be explained with the information we have which is exactly what this book does.

It could go on and on and I still have lots to think about myself of course, but the take away of this review should be that you should read this book. In all my time reading and trying to come to some actual understanding of our societal problems, this is the only work that utterly convinces, with simple logic and reason. And unlike many books that end up being breezy reads with not much substance to actually convey to the reader (seriously, how many nicely readable but ultimately daft non-fiction books written by journalists have you read recently?), Peter Joseph has been studying these fields extensively as the references in this book will show. He pulls from big thinkers like Martin Luther King Jr. or Buckminster Fuller but also from the latest insights in sociology and social psychology. This is a book based on solid understanding and that can make it feel like an academic read at times, but it never gets bogged down in the details either.

Anyway, there's no further praise I can put on this book that would add to what I've already written. Just read it.

[Luciana Nasser · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall I liked the book and I agree with most of the autor's ideas. When I first read the book's description, his proposals and reflexions sounded very much in tune with my own thoughts, which was the main reason why I was interested in the publication and decided to buy it.

*****IF YOU DON'T WISH FOR SPOILERS, STOP READING NOW*******

A big issue I have with this book though is that the author can't seem to control his huge grudge against the Capitalism system and that affects his rational judgement sometimes, and a lot of his criticism is based on distorted arguments, and seems forced and incredibly bias due to that posture. I do agree that a lot of the wrongs of the modern world are offspring of untamed capitalist selfishness and greed. But in the author's vision, clouded by frustration and antipathy, EVERYTHING that is bad in the world is "all fault of the market capitalism", even things that are not the slightest related to it. For instance, in one of the chapters he says that xenofobia is a consequence of market inequality that generates competition and fear, which I strongly agree with (although he leaves the cultural and religious imposition spectrums of this competition aside, but we can forgive him for that). But following his train of thought in the very same paragraph (and that is what really bothered me), he insists in saying that sexism and racism are also generated by the capitalist market inequality (which I agree in some parts, but not entirely), and than, he absurdly tries to convince you that homofobia happens for the same reasons as well, which is so not true. He doesn't even try to justify this, he simply throws it out in the wind, hopping you'll buy it because you kind of agreed with his previous topics (xenofobia, racism and sexism) and will not ask for further justification. This is completely distorted and forced! And he does that a lot throughout the book regarding many other topics.

Also his solutions and ideas for a "new future" appear to be naive, to say the least. Throughout the whole book he keeps stating that we should see things in an universal/holistic way, and not analyze things separately, but rather as a whole. But when it comes to present solutions he doesn't follow the same philosophy (and, again, I believe that this is a deliberate behavior, in order to make you believe in his ideas without presenting any plausible argument or justification). For instance, he insists in the idea that humanity should migrate to a vegetarian diet (according to him, it is more productive and eco-friendly), and seems to forget the whole physiological consequences of such a shift in a millennially omnivorous species. Another "naivety" of his (if one assumes that he really forgot to think thoroughly about the subject) is that he talks a lot about manipulation of, well, LIFE basically, by the "richest 1% elite of the world". One of the solutions for wage gap he presents is the proposition that we should all exterminate the idea of payed jobs (which sounds interesting and logical) and he proposes that we should automize everything in our lives so these jobs don't need to exist. He also proposes opened sourced digital platforms and collaborative initiatives for every instance of life to the whole of the Earth's population, including food and water stocks supplies' databases and the very control of theses automatic machines. So, to sum it all up, he basically proposes for us to deliver our entire lives and survival dependence to MACHINES (that are becoming increasingly smarter, independent and self-concious). And not only that, machines that can be manipulated and reprogrammed by anyone, anywhere in the world, at anytime, by any whim. If he was trying to avoid "the manipulation of lives", I believe his idea will fail miserably. Wasn't it Stephen Hawkins himself, simply one of the most brilliant souls to ever inhabit this planet til day, that said it was extremely dangerous to mankind's survival as a species to entrust our whole lives to machines and A. I., and that they can't be trusted for they have already shown the potential of surpassing our own intelligence and have a tendency to take over control (AKA "manipulation")? If the author's "magical solution" is not naive thought, I don't know what else can be.

But if I could point out the thing that bothered me THE MOST in this book is the whole environmental contradiction presented in it. The author rightly thinks that we should start taking real sustainable and eco-friendly measures if we wish to assure our survival as a species. The way the planet is being greedily devastated is completely unacceptable and dangerous, and at the pace decisions are being made, the planet won't last long. Real changes (and not dissimulated ones, like many of them are today) are NOT happening fast enough, and we are having a harder and harder time seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. On that I couldn't agree more with him. But the thing I call a "contradiction" is that Peter Joseph talks about the survival of the planet but in all his arguments he seems to be concerned solely with the human species survival IN the planet, rather than planet Earth itself. He even keeps stating that we should do something about the planet because, "according to statistics and studies, by 2050, the Earth's population will be of 10 Billion people, and we need to do something about it to accommodate these many people with dignity and in the most humane way possible". Even though I agree with the "treatment of people in the most humane way possible", most specialists say that most (if not all) of the problems we face today can be resumed to one thing: we simply have too many people in the world. And even though Peter Joseph tries to justify that this is not true, that this is mere speculation of "market driven scientists with hidden agendas to keep the status-quo" and that a future with 10 Billion people is possible "if we use our resources wisely and in an eco-friendly manner, there will always be plenty for everyone", he won't convince me. Capitalism or no capitalism, greed or no greed, waste or no waste. We SHARE a planet with billions of minerals, plants, bacterias, funguses, animals, viruses and whatever else hides on this beautiful Earth. We SHARE, from the verb "to share". We shouldn't think about human survival if everything else is to die in return, or at least is to be cornered or genetically modify to attend to our "needs"(I read "greeds"). GREED is not restricted to money. And no matter what arguments he uses, no matter how many numbers and statistics he throws up in the air, no matter how eco-friendly and green and resourceful we become, there simply isn't enough PHYSICAL space to accommodate these many people while peacefully co-existing with everything else in the planet. That is a sad bottomline but that is the truth. In the book of Apocalypse depicted in the Bible, there is a description of a "grasshopper plague/overpopulation" that will consume all the planet. Well, I believe it served as a metaphor for us humans. WE are the grasshoppers. No matter how efficient, scientific and technological we become: 10 Billion human beings is simply an unsustainable number for a planet such as Earth, and there are simply no arguments that will convince me otherwise. In Natural Science, "overpopulation" is always a sign of an unbalanced chain and if we wish to preserve planet Earth, balance is needed. Trust me, Nature always works towards finding its balance, and whether it is done the easy or the hard way, it always gets to its goal. Mass extinctions are not a thing of science fiction. We shouldn't toy with such a force and arrogantly believe we can control nature because "we are so special, so scientific, so technological, and so important". Yes, human lives matter, but so all other lives.

Anyway, as stated before, the book has a lot of merit and some truly great reflections but it can be a little overwhelming, resentful and contradictory at times.

[Ondřej Plachý · Rating 5 out of 5]

When you see poverty, illness, violence or racism, Peter Joseph sees structure that enables, facilitates or blocks specific behavior. When you blame someone, Peter Joseph blames the system - the biggest racism is not located in far right groups, but rather in state institutions. The most shocking violence does not happen in cartel wars or military campaigns, but it is a mere externality of the current capitalist system.

The current structure is in a complete value disorder and challenges to our survival keep mounting. What are we going to do? Do we still believe that the very same trajectory that brought us here is the same one that can save us? Or do we need a more substantial and systemic change? Well, Peter Joseph tries to convince you of the latter. Apart from the structuralist critique of capitalism, he also tries to offer some solutions to the current crisis - which is a weaker part of his tesis, I'm afraid.

Nevermind the book is a very important read and anyone and everyone should read it.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

A case for inequality (power and resource disparity) being the primary cause of suffering in the world.

[uosɯɐS · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Highly recommend!

Could've used a slightly more engaging narrator.

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

A list of systemic problems facing humanity and how to solve them. A bit tiring to read, because while staring down insurmountable problems I have no power over is something I do for a living, it's not very relaxing to read about. The final chapter was more encouraging, and gives activists multiple paths moving forward.