Who the fuck are Zeitgeist Movement?

236 posts / 0 new
Last post
Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Apr 14 2011 09:16

can we as anarcho-trots all enter Zeitgeist movement, gain their trust and then launch a gigantic split and steal 80% of their members to the libertarian communist groups? pls ? black star

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 14 2011 09:27
Harrison Myers wrote:
can we as anarcho-trots all enter Zeitgeist movement, gain their trust and then launch a gigantic split and steal 80% of their members to the libertarian communist groups? pls ? black star

This is kind of my intention, that or just hijack the whole thing.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Apr 14 2011 09:29
Harrison Myers wrote:
can we as anarcho-trots all enter Zeitgeist movement, gain their trust and then launch a gigantic split and steal 80% of their members to the libertarian communist groups? pls ? black star

Depressingly think the spgb are trying that one already, its pretty embarrassing and a bit of a shame, since they always seemed a bit more sensible than that.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 14 2011 23:29

Just gonna throw this out here:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_community&view=groups&task=viewgroup&groupid=844&Itemid=704

Notice the presence of "V-RADIO" who is a spokesperson for The Venus Project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZltvqO8ZlE&feature=feedu This was made by an extremely prominent member. It's fairly obvious they advocate LibCom.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 15 2011 10:05
cantdocartwheels wrote:
ok so beyond watching the film a lot what have your ''chapter'' actually done?

Well the way you see our actions depends on your view and knowledge of the movement.

We are currently in phase I, the awareness phase. So concrete this is about the spreading of these ideas in different ways like holding events, talking to people (in Belgium we have a project of talking with politicians about economic sustainability) and searching for the most efficient way of doing this while doing it.

cantdocartwheels wrote:
For example i've been in a few organisations and local groups, and actually they pretty much all showed films* at some point, but we also got involved with various issues, some that were local (access to services), some that affected individuals in the group directly (eg individuals wages or benefits), and some on campaigning over international issues (eg the war). In all cases that involves pickets, direct action, writing and distributing literature online and off, organising demos and regular planning meetings. This has always been pretty much day to day stuff, and to me anything resembling a radical movement would function in this way, thus i'm not really sure people who watch the zeitegeist movies really qualify as a movement..

Well, the movement as it is today doesn't have these goals, but thank you for your opinion on the qualification of what a movement is and why this group of people united globally really isn't one.

cantdocartwheels wrote:
Ignoring for the moment the high number of conspiracy wingnuts associated with tzm, how do the more supposedly rational utopian elements even propose to do anything that relates to our everyday lives. (By everyday lives i mean what we have to do everyday eg go to work/get benefits or pensions, acess, pay bills, taxes and rent or a mortgage, acess services like education and healthcare and so on) what relation does tzm have to these activities?

Well, again, the movement today isn't about that.

cantdocartwheels wrote:
*not tzm obviously, more like
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3323756298621550509#
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2srlCeo7onQ
and so on

For the moment at work, going to check this later..

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 15 2011 12:35

This seems to be another problem with this 'movement'. There seems to be a certain level of ignorance/innocence. Your speaking to politicians? Centralised politicians in a capitalist state are the problem not the solution, and what do you mean 'economic sustainability'? Capitalism is inherently unstable, thats part of the problem!

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 15 2011 13:24
Arbeiten wrote:
This seems to be another problem with this 'movement'. There seems to be a certain level of ignorance/innocence. Your speaking to politicians? Centralised politicians in a capitalist state are the problem not the solution, and what do you mean 'economic sustainability'? Capitalism is inherently unstable, thats part of the problem!

Us talking to politicians actually has nothing to do with the movement, this is our own initiative, you did ask what our chapter was actively doing, right?

But you are misinterpreting me, we are not trying to fix the system (patchwork is so inefficient), we are talking to those people about a sustainable economic systems (like a resource based economy), dissolving the system from within like Jacque Fresco always talks about (I was assuming you actually researched the movement).

Economy isn't a synonym for capitalism you know, economic sustainability is actually redundant as being economic is about being sustainable (by using the most efficient systems). But it's your Zeitgeist talking, I understand smile

Same like your proposition to infiltrate "our movement" but instead of dissolving like we in Belgium do, convincing people to step out of it.

But thank you for calling me (or "us") ignorant on that subject.. on the other hand you're right in the sense that I am probably ignorant on many, many subjects..

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 15 2011 14:19
Quote:
But it's your Zeitgeist talking, I understand

It is exactly that kind of sarky comment that my ex-friend in the Zeitgeist movement kept making.

It is not worth engaging with these people, seriously. They want simplistic answers to complex questions.

A lot of them are young bourgeois who have totally identified with liberal humanitarian ideology but can't escape the obvious fact that it has not led to a reduction in human suffering on a global level.

They want to retain the values of capitalist society but think that some super rationalisation, probably top down, can fix it. Hence all the talk of 'sustainable economic systems' and blind faith in scientific progress. Most of the language these guys use is taken directly out of the NGO handbook or a sociology class they took at school or university. It is a cybernetic fantasy that seems to have little to say that Stalinist bureaucrats didn't invent in the last century.

Even when I have confronted a member with this critique, even when I explained some of the basics of class struggle and invited him to read some books on the subject, he dismissed it as 'politics'; claiming, and it was totally taken from some dismissive comment about politics in the film, that 'the Zeitgeist movement doesn't do politics'.

What the Zeitgeist movement has created is an attractive propaganda film that touched on real issues and therefore got people's attention. But so do all sorts of crazy groups from terrorists to Christian cults. People really are alienated and want answers, they are just given pseudo-answers.

All the popularity of this movement tells us is that there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the inability of Oxfam to eradicate poverty and that there are obscurantists out there quite happy to aggrandize themselves through making films.

i.e. I personally would not consider any one who agrees with this movement as a comrade.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 15 2011 14:53
Malva wrote:
It is exactly that kind of sarky comment that my ex-friend in the Zeitgeist movement kept making.

I'm sorry but I'm not a native English speaker, is sarky = sarcastic?

If it does, I'm not sure what sarcasm has to do with my post. He assumed I was talking about capitalism when I mentioned economic sustainability, but it's not so it is his Zeitgeist speaking and I understand that.

And your doing the same thing.. again I understand and acknowledge your view on this.

Malva wrote:
It is not worth engaging with these people, seriously. They want simplistic answers to complex questions.

I don't understand why you think that complex questions can't have simplistic answers.
And why wouldn't you want a simplistic answer? If it helps you better understand things, why not?

It does take effort to simplify complex things.

Malva wrote:
A lot of them are young bourgeois who have totally identified with liberal humanitarian ideology but can't escape the obvious fact that it has not led to a reduction in human suffering on a global level.

Are you being serious?

Malva wrote:
They want to retain the values of capitalist society but think that some super rationalisation, probably top down, can fix it. Hence all the talk of 'sustainable economic systems' and blind faith in scientific progress. Most of the language these guys use is taken directly out of the NGO handbook or a sociology class they took at school or university. It is a cybernetic fantasy that seems to have little to say that Stalinist bureaucrats didn't invent in the last century.

Malva, yes there are points that touch upon the capitalistic system, but there are many other points that touch upon other systems, let's take the best of everything we know and make things better. (=scientific method)

Malva wrote:
Even when I have confronted a member with this critique, even when I explained some of the basics of class struggle and invited him to read some books on the subject, he dismissed it as 'politics'; claiming, and it was totally taken from some dismissive comment about politics in the film, that 'the Zeitgeist movement doesn't do politics'.

All I can say is that it is too bad but you're generalizing his behavior as if everyone in the movement is like that..

A movement member should be open to "critique" (I wasn't there, one side of the story is not enough) and should be open to research (this is actually what the movement is about).

But let's assume you're side is the objective side, him dismissing it as "politics" is an easy out as it is true that the movement doesn't do politics.

Malva wrote:
What the Zeitgeist movement has created is an attractive propaganda film that touched on real issues and therefore got people's attention. But so do all sorts of crazy groups from terrorists to Christian cults. People really are alienated and want answers, they are just given pseudo-answers.

People are encouraged to research because we never claim to have the answer, so that is incorrect.

Malva wrote:
All the popularity of this movement tells us is that there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the inability of Oxfam to eradicate poverty and that there are obscurantists out there quite happy to aggrandize themselves through making films.

Are you being serious?

Malva wrote:
i.e. I personally would not consider any one who agrees with this movement as a comrade.

Does that mean you wouldn't consider them as equal?

Because to me everyone is equal and you don't need to be part of whatever club for me to be your friend.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 15 2011 15:20

oh dear GAC, not only was the first time you accused someone of 'speaking the Zeitgeist' patronising, but then you do it again! It just further entrenches our prejudice that you guys are a cult who think you have somehow seen the light and can speak/see outside of our current Zeitgeist.

I had assumed you were talking about capitalism because you said you were talking to politicians about economic sustainability. incase you hadn't noticed, every politician in Europe is speaking about economic sustainability, capitalist sustainability. I don't think I'm stuck in some magic 'Zeitgeist' bubble (that only you guys can see) when i say that, I think its because you did not make yourself clear.

I'm just not convinced that speaking to politicians is the way to go in building a mass movement. Sounds more like your trying to get in to bed with a power elite.

I don't want to infiltrate your movement, I'm not an entrist. In any case I don't think I could sit there and listen to you guys talk about the technological rapture prophesied your high-priest Fresco. We have seen this sort of techno-utopia stuff since at least the 17th century. Ever read Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. Exactly this sort of stuff. Its easier to engage in the simplicity of utopia than it is the complexity politics though right....

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 15 2011 15:42

I'm going to stay in contact with my friends in the movement, but I won't be directly supporting them.

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 15 2011 16:17
Quote:
I'm sorry but I'm not a native English speaker, is sarky = sarcastic?

Yes it does.

Quote:
He assumed I was talking about capitalism when I mentioned economic sustainability, but it's not so it is his Zeitgeist speaking and I understand that.

And your doing the same thing.. again I understand and acknowledge your view on this.

You are using a trick of language to equate a highly developed, thought out and well informed set of political principles with your own set of conspiracy theories and nihilistic fantasies.

Quote:
I don't understand why you think that complex questions can't have simplistic answers.
And why wouldn't you want a simplistic answer? If it helps you better understand things, why not?

It does take effort to simplify complex things.

There is a great difference between 'simplistic' (simplet) and 'simplified' (simplifié) (assuming that you are French speaking but I am sure the idea exists in Flemish too). The first suggests that the ideas of the Zeitgeist movement are ill-informed, reactionary, not considered or well thought-out (hence the well documented content of conspiracy and anti-semitism in the Zeitgeist movement). The second suggests a clear explanation of a complex answer, something that Zeitgeist does not do.

Quote:
Are you being serious?

Yes I am being serious. I don't care what background someone comes from, I myself come from a middle-class family, but my use of the term bourgeois here suggests someone whose position in contemporary society makes it unlikely they will side with workers and are probably at best consumed by liberal guilt. So rather than engage in class struggle they waste their time propagating falsehoods that hurt the interests of the proletariat.

Quote:
Malva, yes there are points that touch upon the capitalistic system, but there are many other points that touch upon other systems, let's take the best of everything we know and make things better. (=scientific method)

Interesting definition of the scientific method! You also fail to see the extent to which scientific research is defined today by the interests of business. Technology is never going to set you free because in our society it works for capitalists, not for workers.

Quote:
But let's assume you're side is the objective side, him dismissing it as "politics" is an easy out as it is true that the movement doesn't do politics.

How can we take a movement seriously that claims it doesn't do politics. What else is there? (And the guy I spoke to was referring to extra-parliamentary politics as much as representative democracy).

Quote:
Are you being serious?

Yes.

Quote:
Does that mean you wouldn't consider them as equal?

Because to me everyone is equal and you don't need to be part of whatever club for me to be your friend.

I do not consider members of the Zeitgeist movement as comrades because I think that they propagate obscurantism that works against the interests of the proletariat. Moreover, it is particularly their simplistic and reactionary take on things that worries me. As I said above, there is a documented prevalence in the Zeitgeist movement for conspiracy theories and anti-semitism.

I bothered to take the time to answer in the hope that you would see the error of your ways. That is not patronising because I am not trying to claim I am better than you, or that we are not 'equal', but because it genuinely makes me sad to see how capitalism is able to take the genuine feelings of alienation that you no doubt feel and then use them against you.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Apr 16 2011 10:53

@Malva
lols, i agree with most of what you are saying, but you use a counterfire (trot sect that split from SWP) link to back up the anti-semitism claims?

i think i might write up for the libcom library a full critique of Zeitgeist (of their more recent less conspiracy-theory based stuff), and try to show their very major flaws.

they seem to be rather overtly Hegelian in their thought; their 'Zeitgeist' is synonymous with Hegelian spirit that moves history. And they are not utopian in terms of the society they want to create (on the contrary, like the pre-marxian utopian socialists they have it worked out with scientific precision). the problem is that they are utopian in the sense that they ignore the actual struggles that will be able to achieve their society. and the fact they have no understanding of the forms of false consciousness used to maintain capitalism, that can only be broken by struggle, not solely the propagation of ideas.

essentially a strange hegelian anti-capitalism. the biggest problem of course is no class analysis.

i think re-visiting some early marx writings from the time he broke with Hegel should really help in creating a proper critique.

MT
Offline
Joined: 29-03-07
Apr 16 2011 11:19
Harrison Myers wrote:
i think i might write up for the libcom library a full critique of Zeitgeist (of their more recent less conspiracy-theory based stuff), and try to show their very major flaws.

that would be cool wink

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 16 2011 12:31
Quote:
you use a counterfire (trot sect that split from SWP) link to back up the anti-semitism claims?

To be honest I didn't know it was a trot site, I was more interested in the way the author showed the similarities between Zeitgeist and the Protocols of Zion nonsense. I'm as far from Trotsky as it gets.

I think a detailed critique of Zeitgeist for libcom would be great and I am happy to offer my thoughts!

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 16 2011 14:04

@GAC I was kidding about infiltrating the Movement. Lighten up.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 16 2011 17:53

Harrison I like what your proposing there, but its worth a mention, they don't really seem to be Hegelian. From what I can tell there is no dialectics there, if there was then these guys would just be another Marxist group. I don't think Hegel would have ever said to an interlocutor, 'thats your Zeitgeist talking'.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Apr 16 2011 20:58

absolutely, they have 0 appreciation of dialectics.
but ...
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/hegel_philosophy_history.html :

Hegel basically wrote:
History was best seen as directed by a zeitgeist, or Spirit of the Age, and traces of the zeitgest could be seen by looking backward.

tbh i convinced peter joseph or whoever the main zeitgeist ideologues are re-packaging odd bits and bobs of hegelianism and marxism, but cutting out the main merits of marx (class analysis).

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 16 2011 21:06

Yeah I know that Hegel had a certain notion of a Zeitgeist in his philosophy of history (though he wasn't the only German author at the time doing so). My point was rather, just because somebody uses the term Zeitgeist, we shouldn't assume they are Hegelian. It is a small point I know, but if your in to Hegel, I think you would be pretty offended by the way these guys use the term.

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 16 2011 22:47

I am not sure the Zeitgeist term was meant to evoke any more than that the film was touching on major contemporary issues in general. After that it is simply a nice distinct sounding name for people to group around; an identifier, not a theory.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 17 2011 12:40

I'm not sure why the first film was named Zeitgeist, but the Movement is called TZM because Zeitgeist = Spirit of the Age and Movement = Change. This is the first time I've seen a member use it like that. Don't think that the word Zeitgeist means anything special to them.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 18 2011 05:46
Arbeiten wrote:
oh dear GAC, not only was the first time you accused someone of 'speaking the Zeitgeist' patronising, but then you do it again! It just further entrenches our prejudice that you guys are a cult who think you have somehow seen the light and can speak/see outside of our current Zeitgeist.

Well if I explain it to you and you still force your view of what I meant in what I said, then so be it. The "oh dear GAC,.." might be meant patronizingly and I think I understand now why you are reacting that way to me, it's because you're doing it yourself.

But I don't care, this isn't the point of this topic (I think).

Arbeiten wrote:
I had assumed you were talking about capitalism because you said you were talking to politicians about economic sustainability. incase you hadn't noticed, every politician in Europe is speaking about economic sustainability, capitalist sustainability. I don't think I'm stuck in some magic 'Zeitgeist' bubble (that only you guys can see) when i say that, I think its because you did not make yourself clear.

Well you should know better seeing you should know where we are coming from, why else participate in a conversation if you don't understand the subject discussed (the subject being the movement).

Arbeiten wrote:
I'm just not convinced that speaking to politicians is the way to go in building a mass movement. Sounds more like your trying to get in to bed with a power elite.

Take it as you wish. If you think the movement is a conspiracy for NWO-blahblah, then so be it, I don't need to convince anyone who forces his/her/their view on someone. Technically speaking I am actually doing it right now, I know, but that's not the point.

Arbeiten wrote:
I don't want to infiltrate your movement, I'm not an entrist. In any case I don't think I could sit there and listen to you guys talk about the technological rapture prophesied your high-priest Fresco. We have seen this sort of techno-utopia stuff since at least the 17th century. Ever read Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. Exactly this sort of stuff. Its easier to engage in the simplicity of utopia than it is the complexity politics though right....

If you make that comparison it is clear to me that you have no clear understand of what we are about.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 18 2011 06:51
Malva wrote:
You are using a trick of language to equate a highly developed, thought out and well informed set of political principles with your own set of conspiracy theories and nihilistic fantasies.

You're forcing your view on things and act like they are the ultimate truth.

I don't know how I can make this clear, but let me try again.

The Zeitgeist Movement is not about conspiracy theories. They are considered a waste of time.

If you consider the "we are not even specks of dust in an infinitely vast universe so why spend our lives trying to kill each other over things that were here long before us and are going to be here long after we are gone" a nihilistic fantasy, then let that idea tickle you in a funny way as you seem to enjoy it. I on the other hand am not able to find joy in war, death, disease, hunger and homelessness. Sorry about making it look like you enjoy war and death, I'm sure you don't, but do you see how pointless it is to try and label people without knowing a thing about them?

Malva wrote:
There is a great difference between 'simplistic' (simplet) and 'simplified' (simplifié) (assuming that you are French speaking but I am sure the idea exists in Flemish too). The first suggests that the ideas of the Zeitgeist movement are ill-informed, reactionary, not considered or well thought-out (hence the well documented content of conspiracy and anti-semitism in the Zeitgeist movement). The second suggests a clear explanation of a complex answer, something that Zeitgeist does not do.

Well I am Flemish but most of us here are trilingual in Belgium.
I understand the difference, I was wrong. I don't agree with simplistic views as well.

Malva wrote:
I don't care what background someone comes from, I myself come from a middle-class family, but my use of the term bourgeois here suggests someone whose position in contemporary society makes it unlikely they will side with workers and are probably at best consumed by liberal guilt. So rather than engage in class struggle they waste their time propagating falsehoods that hurt the interests of the proletariat.

It is important to understand how class struggle comes about and if you do, or the way I do at least, it seems pointless to invest any more energy in it as it is an inevitability in a capitalistic system or any other monetary system.

Malva wrote:
Interesting definition of the scientific method! You also fail to see the extent to which scientific research is defined today by the interests of business. Technology is never going to set you free because in our society it works for capitalists, not for workers.

Interesting definition? I'm not sure the scientific method has multiple definitions other than the testing (and constant retesting) of a theory/hypothesis as to have an objective view on things so (hence the use of this method) we can arrive at decisions. I'm interested in how you define this though.

If you understand that technology is considered the "enemy" in a capitalistic system then (to those who might fall in unemployment because of it), do you understand why that wouldn't be so in a Resource Based Economy?

Malva wrote:
How can we take a movement seriously that claims it doesn't do politics. What else is there? (And the guy I spoke to was referring to extra-parliamentary politics as much as representative democracy).

Seeing all problems are technical of nature, what has politics to do with anything? Politics and politicians are obsolete.

Malva wrote:
I do not consider members of the Zeitgeist movement as comrades because I think that they propagate obscurantism that works against the interests of the proletariat. Moreover, it is particularly their simplistic and reactionary take on things that worries me. As I said above, there is a documented prevalence in the Zeitgeist movement for conspiracy theories and anti-semitism.

On the contrary, the movement promotes education and uses the lack there of as a reason why many things are the way they are.

You can't seem to separate the movement from the movies. But as far as I know, the first movie isn't about antisemitism, these guys are just pushing their paranoid views on things. I'm not at all surprised about such articles, I've seen many pass by over the years.

Malva wrote:
I bothered to take the time to answer in the hope that you would see the error of your ways. That is not patronising because I am not trying to claim I am better than you, or that we are not 'equal', but because it genuinely makes me sad to see how capitalism is able to take the genuine feelings of alienation that you no doubt feel and then use them against you.

Thank you for your effort and I believe your sincerity.

But it seems you're not doing such a great job seeing you didn't convince me to see how wrong this is. I still believe in the ultimate goal of the movement, reaching a Resource Based Economy, even though it probably will not happen in my lifetime.

On the other hand it seems difficult (almost to the point of the impossible) to me to help you see things from another perspective.
You did make a mistakes about the subject though.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 18 2011 06:56
cogar66 wrote:
@GAC I was kidding about infiltrating the Movement. Lighten up.

Sure, but by all means.. smile

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 18 2011 07:10
cogar66 wrote:
I'm not sure why the first film was named Zeitgeist, but the Movement is called TZM because Zeitgeist = Spirit of the Age and Movement = Change. This is the first time I've seen a member use it like that. Don't think that the word Zeitgeist means anything special to them.

Zeitgeist is "tijdsgeest" in Dutch/Flemish. German and Dutch/Flemish are actually very similar. And the way I understand, the movement is using it properly, like you just explained the term.

The movies are called Zeitgeist because Peter Joseph considers art (if it is true, like quoted in the latest movie) as a representation of the spirit of that time.

He couldn't have picked a better name in my opinion, which could be biased.

But I'm curious what that other special meaning is you just suggested there is..

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 18 2011 08:45
Quote:
You're forcing your view on things and act like they are the ultimate truth.

Hardly, my whole problem with your vision of solving problems of human existence as if it was a question of solving a maths equation is that it does exactly that.

Quote:
If you consider the "we are not even specks of dust in an infinitely vast universe so why spend our lives trying to kill each other over things that were here long before us and are going to be here long after we are gone" a nihilistic fantasy, then let that idea tickle you in a funny way as you seem to enjoy it. I on the other hand am not able to find joy in war, death, disease, hunger and homelessness. Sorry about making it look like you enjoy war and death, I'm sure you don't, but do you see how pointless it is to try and label people without knowing a thing about them?

This is just slanderous. You accuse me of enjoying war, death etc. and then try to mitigate that statement by then saying that you are not sure that I actually do. This is "I have already lost the argument" tactics 101. Moreover you claim that I know nothing about the movement. How can we take you seriously if we are not even allowed to criticise your propaganda, the words of your members and your own words? That is all that I am engaging with!

Then you say that I am labeling your movement as nihilistic because I don't know anything about it. So I will explain why I use that label.

I think that your movement is nihilistic because it is technocratic. The utopia that you present to us looks like a futuristic shopping centre or a mass production plant where everything will be made out of plastic. It is based on the blind worship of technology and of technocrats as the saviours of humankind. There is no sense in which this society is the product of mass human endeavour. Indeed, it seems to want to see the death of human beings as passionate, desirous, historical beings in favour of a still, deathly paradise where all human problems have been solved like a sum or a cure for cancer. This is why I referred to Stalinist bureaucrats, it is the same vision. You don't think they thought they were going to end human suffering too? The problem is that they seemed to have no idea of what a human being is (evidenced by the fact that they want to dictate to them in the first place) so the best way was to remove the human from everything. In the end, cults like the Zeitgeist movement end up finding human beings to be the problem. So when they get into power (and power is what they want more than anything) they start killing humans who don't fit their well laid plans (none of whom ultimately do). That is why I think that the Zeitgeist movement is both dangerous and nihilistic. It is all quantity and no quality.

Quote:
I don't agree with simplistic views as well.

Clearly you do agree with simplistic views because the views of your movement are simplistic, which was my original point.

Quote:
Interesting definition? I'm not sure the scientific method has multiple definitions other than the testing (and constant retesting) of a theory/hypothesis as to have an objective view on things so (hence the use of this method) we can arrive at decisions. I'm interested in how you define this though.

All you did was give a new more accurate definition of the scientific method that was different to the one you gave before. Further, you underline what I said about being technocratic.

Quote:
If you understand that technology is considered the "enemy" in a capitalistic system then (to those who might fall in unemployment because of it), do you understand why that wouldn't be so in a Resource Based Economy?

I think I understand it much better than you do actually because I can see how we can get to a society where technology does help society but you actually seem to think that technology can somehow get us to that point as well.

Quote:
Seeing all problems are technical of nature, what has politics to do with anything? Politics and politicians are obsolete.

'All problems are of a technical nature' wow, again more confirmation of the technocracy and nihilism. Also, I think I was quite clear that I said 'extra-parliamentary' politics as well. I don't think there is anyone on here who doesn't think that 'representative democracy' is a waste of time. But 'politics' in its essence is the struggle between factions for power; hence the notion of class struggle.

Quote:
On the contrary, the movement promotes education and uses the lack there of as a reason why many things are the way they are.

In point of fact, people are more 'educated' now than at any other point in human history. Indeed, from my experiences of the Zeitgeist movement's members they are the ultimate products of this kind of education. Uncritical, unaware of historical movements against power and having only a very bourgeois notion of what 'communism' and 'class struggle' means. In their place at best the Zetigeisters give us the sort of arguments and language more suitable to the 'society' section of a centre left newspaper. At worst it is "all hail homo scientificus technocraticus laborem"!

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 18 2011 11:40

GAC I don't think it is our problem that we can't split the films from 'the movement', I think its your problem, and its a very serious problem indeed. Why would you name a movement after a movie then say that you need to disassociate the two? It's like a Marxist telling you not to read Marx to understand them!

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 18 2011 11:53

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k9rhW2zWMI Good video about the "Movies aren't the Movement". "Why would you name a movement after a movie then say that you need to disassociate the two? It's like a Marxist telling you not to read Marx to understand them! " Actually, the Movement is based off of Jacque Fresco's books and lectures.

It's not a technocratic organization. The idea is to have volunteers reach conclusions using the scientific method. Basically goals are set by society and they are met by people who volunteer to solve them using the Scientific Method, if possible. I don't see anything wrong with this. "We want fast computers!" "Scientific studies have shown that..." makes sense to me. All moral decisions will be made with opinions of course, as well as aesthetic decisions.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 18 2011 12:25

Cogar, I'm still not convinced, if you don't want to be associated with the movies, change the name of the movement! Call yourselves Frescoistas or something. The Fresco Movement (I actually like this one, sounds like Tesco movement).

I don't understand this stress on science? Apart from say, medicine and energy, I don't see how much more technologically advanced we need to be? the point isn't more technological advancement, 'faster computers', 'we' have nano-technology, nuclear technology, quantum technology, super computers, but there are people that still can't afford a good diet. There is still an international division of labour, where people in factories are making clothes for the people in the West, for under a friggin' dollar a day! Technological perfection is waaaaaaay down the list of things humanity needs to sort out right now. The very idea of further technological development IS an ethical question. Planned obsolescence, we are on iPad two already! most people haven't even got iPad one! let alone the iPhones, what are we on, iPhone 5 or something? What are the environmental costs of this sort of development for developments sake? let alone the cost to workers. We have all heard recently about the suicidal workers in China making iPhones. About the ones that have been poisoned because of the chemicals that go into making iPhones, and these guys are the ones we would consider 'better-off' on the global division of labour food chain. What about the people making flip-flops for Primark!

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 18 2011 12:26

Also its worth pointing out that these are political and organizational problems, not techonlogical ones. It would require very little technology to get food into peoples bellys, to get workers to have real control over their lives.