Who the fuck are Zeitgeist Movement?

236 posts / 0 new
Last post
tigersiskillers
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 18 2011 14:07
Arbeiten wrote:
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.

This x 100. The problem is that the Zeitgeist movement has no class analysis, and barely any structural analysis of capitalism at all as far as I can see unless it falls back on the dodgy conspiratorial stuff in the films.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 18 2011 19:52

I actually agree. My biggest problem with the movement is our lack of: A. Class analysis and B. Lack of a revolutionary transition plan. I'm positive they'd be open to Anarcho-Syndicalism, most just don't know about it. The idea is to use technology to solve problems like hunger. We are well aware of Planned Obsolecence it is one of Zeitgeist Moving Forward's major critiques of Capitalism. I strongly suggest people watch ZMF as it is the only Zeitgeist that lays out our position.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 18 2011 20:37

You are not the first person to waste their time proselytizing for a "real movement" which just needs to be maneuvered in the right directions. You get this from left liberals, from Trots, from all kinds of doomed organizations of that sort. Ultimately it is a waste of time. I hope you will realize this and join a group akin to Solfed and AF in the UK or NEFAC and WSA in the US, which doesn't need to be "saved", but in fact has sound politics. It is utterly futile to join a group with little potential with the hopes of changing it.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 18 2011 20:35

This Movement is 3 years old and has seen massive changes. Not to mention TVP has split off from TZM. I also don't want to change their minds, I just want to educate them about things they don't know about, like Anarcho-Syndicalism, The core tenants of the movement: Non-coercion, non-market decentralized economy, science, etc. Have nothing against LibCom.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 05:32
Arbeiten wrote:
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!

Ok so what you're saying is because some guy used the term Zeitgeist as a name for his movie, people should now avoid using that term because there is an association?

Your Marxist analogy doesn't make sense. Marxism is all about Marx. The Zeitgeist Movement is not all about the Zeitgeist Movies, heck, the movement doesn't even want to be associated with the movies at all, only some bits and pieces are used as tools to propagate the message.

Zeitgeist is a term. That's it, it is your problem if you are unable to understand the nuances of those who use the term and why they use it.

I already explained, many others have also explained it, if it still not understood, so be it, ignorance prevails like it always does.

Or should I also explain that "Google Zeitgeist" has nothing to do with the Zeitgeist movies or the The Zeitgeist Movement.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 05:50
Arbeiten wrote:
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.

Science can be useful to grow things in environments that otherwise wouldn't be able to sustain it.
Science can be useful to create abundance and by using automation almost no labor is required and also growing things locally reduces any other poisonous emissions otherwise needed for transportation all the while having higher quality.

Technology is more than just computers. Technology is a spoon, eyeglasses, a stick.

Arbeiten wrote:
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.

If we actually lived in a Resource Based Economy, resources would be allocated to remove any manual labor that can be automated.

It's not about perfecting technology because the technology already exists.

Arbeiten wrote:
The very idea of further technological development IS an ethical question. Planned obsolescence, we are on iPad two already!

Planned obsolescence has nothing to do with technological development, on the contrary.

Arbeiten wrote:
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?

The profit motive forces cyclical consumption and that is one of the most negative, most damaging aspects of the monetary system.

Arbeiten wrote:
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!

A good reason to get rid of money altogether. Check out the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie, it talks about this.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 05:57
Arbeiten wrote:
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.

No, like I mentioned earlier, these are technological problem. Politicians don't know anything about sustainable farming or the technology used for it.

Organizational problems don't exist because we arrive at decisions.

If there are let's say 5 "best" (with the knowledge available at that time) ways to handle a certain situation then it doesn't matter which one you choose.

All problems are technical, there is no way around it.

MT
Offline
Joined: 29-03-07
Apr 19 2011 06:01
GAC wrote:
If there are let's say 5 "best" (with the knowledge available at that time) ways to handle a certain situation then it doesn't matter which one you choose.

"You" being who? In what system? (or possibly how do we get "there"?)

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 06:04
tigersiskillers wrote:
The problem is that the Zeitgeist movement has no class analysis, and barely any structural analysis of capitalism at all as far as I can see unless it falls back on the dodgy conspiratorial stuff in the films.

In a Resource Based Economy there is no such thing as class. It's clear that class division will always lead to problems. And how does class come about? Money.

Again, the movement has nothing to do with conspiracy stuff represented in the movies. We are the activist arm of The Venus Project which propagates a Resource Based Economy. The movement uses whatever info is available 'out there' that is relevant to this cause.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 06:18
cogar66 wrote:
I actually agree. My biggest problem with the movement is our lack of: A. Class analysis and B. Lack of a revolutionary transition plan. I'm positive they'd be open to Anarcho-Syndicalism, most just don't know about it. The idea is to use technology to solve problems like hunger. We are well aware of Planned Obsolecence it is one of Zeitgeist Moving Forward's major critiques of Capitalism. I strongly suggest people watch ZMF as it is the only Zeitgeist that lays out our position.

You are right about point B. There is not revolutionary transition plan. Such a thing will never exist. Thinking it will is a fantasy.

Cogar66, you are the perfect discussion partner, you have researched the material, make valid statements and you keep an open mind, not forcing your view or projecting.

From what I read on wikipedia, Anarcho-Syndicalism (correct me if I'm wrong) is still about labor and democracy.

There is no democracy in a Resource Based Economy. Decisions are arrived at (when it becomes self-evident) and the point is to remove labor by using automation to free people. Labor is for machines. Opinions of the many (mob-rule) or uneducated are irrelevant. You wouldn't want a car-technician making a decision on how to perform your heart surgery.

Some other things do touch upon what a Resource Based Economy is about (or the other way around) but not all of it.

Also, there is no money in a RBE.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 06:20
MT wrote:
"You" being who? In what system? (or possibly how do we get "there"?)

You being you, or anybody and in whatever system. It's just an example..

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 06:28
cogar66 wrote:
Not to mention TVP has split off from TZM.

No really, let me quote you a nice post made by someone in the movement:

Quote:
So, Peter, burnt out a little from his intense efforts to get out the
ideas of the ZM and VP is withdrawing a little. So What? The movement
is not him and Jacque, it is all the people in it. Imagine my surprise
when I read on the Camelot Forum that Peter was quiting the Zeitgeist
Movement and it would all fall apart. LOL

It shows how many in the Movement think in the old paradigm of
'leaders and followers', and thinks the ZM is an 'organization',
rather than what it is. Peter is not the 'leader' of the ZM, he is
simply the guy who was in the right place at the right time with the
communication skills to become the focus of a new paradigm spreading
over the planet. It is remarkable that he put out the intense effort
to make it spread, following the dynamics of a paradigm shift of this
magnitude. He needs a break, without a doubt. And that's OK!

Jacque is the brilliant mind that saw this necessity 50+ years ago and
took on the task to figure out the technical designs that might work.
It was not the time or the effort that created the supersaturated
solution in the world that the ZM and VP are seed crystals to... That
supersaturated social solution was created by the advances in science
and technology that allowed the creation of the Internet, among other
major tech. I knew that the paradigm shift could not happen until the
Internet became global, because I started putting out the same goals
at least 40 years ago, long before the internet and lived on a large
1500 member commune, which was a RBE without the tech, at that time.
Without the Internet, which did not exist and everyone said was
impossible, and without the tech, which was known in a primitive state
since R. Buckminster Fuller's work, along with Jacque's, the global
RBE and the social understanding that was so obvious once you stepped
outside the social conditioning of the overall society, could not
exist yet. The ZM is the social component of the Venus Project, like
two components in the same equation. Both will change as new tech and
new understandings emerge, and everyone involved in the effort should
realize that. There are not two different groups struggling here...
there is only one global paradigm shift, and both are part of that.

There are not two groups here, there is one, with the illusion of two.
There are not two leaders arguing here, there are no leaders in this
paradigm. There are the realizations, the epiphanies, of individuals
as they try to understand the world's situation, and the thought they
put out to solve that suicidal situation. The ZM and VP is generated
by self-educated, self-motivated, courageous individuals,
Interdependent Cooperators who understand that while we each learn
constantly and modify our understandings, the need is that everyone go
through that process and realize not only the need to think
differently but spread that need to think differently, basing our
efforts on science, social sanity, ecology, and technology, or
humanity will not survive it's own ignorance. Egos have nothing to do
with our failure or success as a group, and our failure or success has
nothing to do with the global paradigm shift. The ZM and VP are only
one part of the global shift in consciousness, there are a great many
efforts happening all the time, all over the planet. The old paradigm,
which has generated this suicidal social dynamic that is destroying
the ecology, cannot prevail, it is not possible. Everyone who is
thinking in the old paradigm, using those concepts to judge the
progression of the new paradigm, will change their minds over time. It
is a process that is as natural as a child becoming an adult. Can any
of you stop a child from becoming an adult without killing that child?
NO, obviously. And there is only one child, Humanity, so the emergence
into adulthood will occur unless we destroy ourselves. And that is the
only way to stop it. Does anyone reading this want to see Humanity
destroy itself?

redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Apr 19 2011 08:01
GAC wrote:
In a Resource Based Economy there is no such thing as class. It's clear that class division will always lead to problems.

In a communist society there would be no such thing as class either. In fact, the goal of the communist movement is the self-abolition of the working class, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's important, is that right now there are classes and that class dynamics vitally affect not only how society functions now, but how social change can happen.

Simply, there is a whole level of society who owns almost all property (the owning class) and it is in their interest to make sure that society continues in a way that allows them to keep their property and continue to gain more property. The vast majority of people (the working class) own next to nothing and must work for someone who does in order to survive, the labor that they accomplish is generally used by the owning class to make a profit, not for their own self-fulfillment or the benefit of society as a whole. A society in which property is held in common (communism or a resource based economy, as far as I understand it) is in the material interest of the working class as a whole, but against the material interest of the owning class. The state, including it's police and military, functions in the interest of the owning class and will violent suppress threats to their interests (even peaceful ones). Any project that seeks to radically change society and doesn't understand how this class dynamic works is, in my opinion, doomed to failure.

GAC wrote:
And how does class come about? Money.

I would say that property is how class comes about. It's very easy to conceptualize a class-society that doesn't use money. In fact plenty of such societies have existed in the past. I would also point out that, as far as I can tell, your proposed society has social classes: a minority class of technocrats who control society and a majority class of the rest of society who have no control over their lives.

GAC wrote:
the point is to remove labor by using automation to free people. Labor is for machines

I don't necessarily oppose this (in a non-capitalist society), but why do you think that this is more likely to happen under your society than in our current society. Capitalism has been working extremely hard to replace human labor with automated labor. Human labor is fallible and (much more importantly imo) has the ability to think and act in its own self-interest. I think that folks like yourself tend to underestimate the difficulty of replacing human labor with machine labor.

GAC wrote:
Opinions of the many (mob-rule) or uneducated are irrelevant. You wouldn't want a car-technician making a decision on how to perform your heart surgery.

This is where I really begin to find The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project to be almost sinister. The idea that a minority of people can have a better understanding of what an entire society wants and needs better than the people who comprise that society do is elitist and has failed miserably in the past. This also a false caricature of how anarcho-syndicalism works. The idea is not that the entire community weighs in on every decision, rather that people weigh in on decisions that directly effect them. In matters of building a car, the people who build cars decide how the car is built. In matters of neighborhood safety, the people in the neighborhood decide what happens. Again, the idea that a special technician can run a neighborhood or workplace better than those that live or work their, in my opinion, is both wrong and will eventually create conflict between the people who live and work in a place and the technocrats (or computers) who run them, as their interests are unlikely to be the same.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 19 2011 08:20

I know technology is spoons glasses and sticks, that is my point, there is already enough technological development, it is a matter of organization and politics, not technological development. We don't need any innovations or 'groups of scientists' to figure out that the spoons glasses and sticks are not being distributed properly. Planned obsolescence is very much connected to technological development, don't say 'on the contrary' then offer no proof of the contrary! I think what you meant to say is, 'its not connected to YOUR notion of technological development'. Now this is fine, but state it. However, your still being flat out utopian, the technology does not exist for the complete abolition of labour!

As for your comment on the abolition of money, re-read the part of my post that you quote, now re-read it again, carefully. The cost of workers that I speak of has nothing to do with money, I'm talking about health and psychological costs, now thats YOUR Zeitgeist speaking! Then after all of this, these long posts, implying i am an example of the prevalence of ignorance, using pedantic examples of 'Google Zeitgeist', what do you suggest i do? WATCH THE ZEITGEIST MOVIE! DON'T READ MARX, DON'T READ KROPOTKIN, WATCH THE ZEITGEIST MOVIE! You, sir, are unbelievable, I'm astonished thats the best you can offer me to understand your movement. 'We don't like the movie, its not what we are about, but to understand us, watch the movie'.

On your big quote from one of your movement buddies. I'm confused about his/her use of the term paradigm. If you are talking about technological development and progress, it's hardly new, its called Modernity.

'it is a process that is natural as a child becoming an adult' - that my friend, is technological determinism and a blind faith in progress.

Also I like this crazy thing going on where it seems (from this post, I'm not sure about the exact situation) that a group wants to split from the main body and your not allowing it. There difference of opinion is illusory. Their is something slightly scary about that attitude, dare I say, slightly dictatorial?

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 19 2011 11:31

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=3&id=333535&Itemid=100114

Against Democracy?

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 19 2011 11:50

Arbiten, we are talking about the first/second Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist Moving Forward has a very good section about a Resource Based Economy. That said, it's not the movement. Watch/read the orientation guide, watch the lectures, read the best that money can't buy<---THOSE ARE THE MOVEMENT! The movies were made by a MEMBER who happens to have a good idea about what TVP is about. BUT we don't hold ALL of his opinions.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 11:53
redsdisease wrote:
Any project that seeks to radically change society and doesn't understand how this class dynamic works is, in my opinion, doomed to failure.

I understand what you are saying but this is where critical mass comes into play, if the owning class can't enforce (they can't do it themselves, they still needs police/soldiers) then that's the end of it.

Though that might change soon, I've seen a documentary recently about robot soldiers/ standalone swarms of flying robots that make decisions on their own, astonishing but terrifying stuff. Still, they need people to make those things [for the moment]. You can laugh at me all you want about terminator fantasy and I didn't want to mention this here because I might come over as a nutcase but this is the reality and you would only be laughing at your own ignorance.

redsdisease wrote:
I would say that property is how class comes about. It's very easy to conceptualize a class-society that doesn't use money. In fact plenty of such societies have existed in the past. I would also point out that, as far as I can tell, your proposed society has social classes: a minority class of technocrats who control society and a majority class of the rest of society who have no control over their lives.

It's true that property makes part of how class comes about but property can generally not be attained without currency.

But you are wrong about the social classes in a Resource Based Economy, such a thing doesn't exist. Nobody controls anything and at the same time everybody controls everything. Seeing people will have more opportunities to better educate themselves (to avoid the sterile argument: yes art forms will still exist, nobody is inhibiting anything as there are no leaders and thus nobody to do so) and those with the relevant education can become involved in whatever they are education to do, if they so choose.

But maybe you should first explain to me what kind of control you are talking about, if you're talking about the control of the pressurization of your home or how water and electricity is delivered to your current location in that system, this can get ridiculous. What do you control today? And why the 'need' for control (I'm curious)?

Life necessities are available to anyone and everyone. There's nobody telling you what to do (did you mean this by control?)..

redsdisease wrote:
I don't necessarily oppose this (in a non-capitalist society), but why do you think that this is more likely to happen under your society than in our current society. Capitalism has been working extremely hard to replace human labor with automated labor. Human labor is fallible and (much more importantly imo) has the ability to think and act in its own self-interest. I think that folks like yourself tend to underestimate the difficulty of replacing human labor with machine labor.

What do you mean exactly? Jobs that can't be automated? Or people that wouldn't want to give up their jobs (sewage cleaner?)?

redsdisease wrote:
This is where I really begin to find The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project to be almost sinister. The idea that a minority of people can have a better understanding of what an entire society wants and needs better than the people who comprise that society do is elitist and has failed miserably in the past.

It's not a minority if everyone has the opportunity "to have a say". But really there is no such thing [in a RBE], nobody has a say, decisions are arrived at.

redsdisease wrote:
This also a false caricature of how anarcho-syndicalism works. The idea is not that the entire community weighs in on every decision, rather that people weigh in on decisions that directly effect them.
In matters of building a car, the people who build cars decide how the car is built.

Hmm I don't think that is the best option. Building a car (we are talking about the technical aspects, not the aesthetics of it), the best car, is a technical thing. Let's say you invent a car that is even more economic (in the sense that it uses less resources to produce, use and recycle) why would you build anything less from then on?

Aesthetics would be the choice of the user (though in a RBE the idea is that nobody really owns anything, it is the access to it that is important) and printed on demand.
But it could go a step further of course, what if the exterior is part of the technical design (like a certain shape for least wind resistance or photo-voltaic paint and "currently only available in black" smile

redsdisease wrote:
In matters of neighborhood safety, the people in the neighborhood decide what happens.

Same thing here, safety is a technical issue and the best methods should be used, not what someone or a group of people decide or vote on what is best within their limited knowledge.

Because alle decisions you make directly or indirectly affect the people around you.

redsdisease wrote:
Again, the idea that a special technician can run a neighborhood or workplace better than those that live or work their, in my opinion, is both wrong and will eventually create conflict between the people who live and work in a place and the technocrats (or computers) who run them, as their interests are unlikely to be the same.

That's not the point of a RBE. Nobody is running anything. Just like nobody is running the thermostat in your house, you might get the most efficient/flexible thermostat available without having a say on how it works but in the end it is still you that decides how warm/cool it should regulate your house, the execution (regulation of temperature) is done by a computer, like it is today.

I just gotta say redsdisease, you too are a pleasure to talk with, thank you. (please don't misinterpret my words as sarcastic or ironic like previously happened in this topic, I've always been genuine here)

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 12:13
Arbeiten wrote:
Planned obsolescence is very much connected to technological development, don't say 'on the contrary' then offer no proof of the contrary!

If technology is about being efficient and minimizing/eliminating wastefulness then any technological improvement should be easily incorporated (whilst the obsolete material easily recycled). This is the contrary of how it is today.

Arbeiten wrote:
I think what you meant to say is, 'its not connected to YOUR notion of technological development'. Now this is fine, but state it.

I should have given that example but I got lazy and thought that it was self-evident enough. But indeed, you are right, sorry.

Arbeiten wrote:
However, your still being flat out utopian, the technology does not exist for the complete abolition of labour!

Quote me on that. I've never said complete abolition of labor. I've also never mentioned numbers, what % can or can't be automated. Either way that % of what can't be automated will only decrease with time, that is a certainty.

Arbeiten wrote:
As for your comment on the abolition of money, re-read the part of my post that you quote, now re-read it again, carefully. The cost of workers that I speak of has nothing to do with money, I'm talking about health and psychological costs, now thats YOUR Zeitgeist speaking!

I didn't know exactly what you meant but thank you for laying it out but I still don't understand. How is this related to a RBE?

Arbeiten wrote:
Then after all of this, these long posts, implying i am an example of the prevalence of ignorance, using pedantic examples of 'Google Zeitgeist', what do you suggest i do? WATCH THE ZEITGEIST MOVIE! DON'T READ MARX, DON'T READ KROPOTKIN, WATCH THE ZEITGEIST MOVIE! You, sir, are unbelievable, I'm astonished thats the best you can offer me to understand your movement. 'We don't like the movie, its not what we are about, but to understand us, watch the movie'.

Please quote me on that. I've never ever said to anyone, don't read this, don't read that. I can only suggest you things I have experience myself.

Why are you riding me so hard anyway? Did I offend you in some way? Maybe I'm breathing too loud. Also, please stop yelling.

Arbeiten wrote:
..

My responses only enrage you, why are you so mad?

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 19 2011 12:16
cogar66 wrote:
Arbiten, we are talking about the first/second Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist Moving Forward has a very good section about a Resource Based Economy. That said, it's not the movement. Watch/read the orientation guide, watch the lectures, read the best that money can't buy<---THOSE ARE THE MOVEMENT! The movies were made by a MEMBER who happens to have a good idea about what TVP is about. BUT we don't hold ALL of his opinions.

Exactly.

ps: I'll check your link in your previous post tomorrow.. but for now I'm going to say, the movement isn't anti-anything. It's pro social change.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 19 2011 15:25

"Hmm I don't think that is the best option. Building a car (we are talking about the technical aspects, not the aesthetics of it), the best car, is a technical thing. Let's say you invent a car that is even more economic (in the sense that it uses less resources to produce, use and recycle) why would you build anything less from then on"

The "best" is subjective. If you plan to create the "best" of everything with NO human input you will fail. Why wouldn't I build that car? Because maybe that isn't the "best" car in whatever situation I'm in.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 19 2011 16:37

Zeitgeist proponents: I suggest all of you read Jaques Ellul's The Technological Society. The technocratic society you lot are proposing seem to be all about technique; running everything according to rationality and efficiency to find the one best way, effectively turning everything into a machine. RBE is just technocracy 2.0.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 19 2011 19:01

As a side note: If TZM advocates a technocracy I'm no longer a supporter. I could be wrong about what it advocates but I'm almost positive they don't advocate a technocracy. If they do disregard everything I've said, they're assholes.

renegado's picture
renegado
Offline
Joined: 29-10-08
Apr 20 2011 07:36

TZM are obviously and evidently technocrats; their hyper-rationality is blatant even in how they term their "resource-based economy". Capitalism is a resource-based economy, dumbass; it's whole premise is that everything in life must be converted into a resource in order to be exploited for profit by being commodified through the application of labor-power. Communism would be a classless society in which ability determines production, need determines distribution, and human communication (as opposed to market forces) mediates between the two. TZM clearly describes a society in which a class possessing the technical knowledge of how to make everything more efficient wield all of the power. This is an extension of the typical bourgeois fetish for specialization and technology; hence it is is called TECHNOCRACY, and is a crypto-fascist capitalist myth, and has been for all of a modernity.

But that's not why you're an asshole, cogar. You're an asshole for appropriating the RAAN sickle-A after coming to the RAAN forums with your technofascist bullshit, being banned from the forums for your bullshit, and yet still presenting yourself as being affiliated with RAAN on these forums here. Quit the deception. Start thinking critically. And if not, go fuck yourself.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Apr 20 2011 08:32

Oh god i really just don't care about an arguement between RAAN and technocracy, we had that crap before, keep your weird internet mix and match ideologies to revleft please.

GAC wrote:
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.

Most people on here would see electoralism as a dead end, and talking to politicians even if said politicians are in the liberal-left is a waste of time. The society you describe is one that can only be made with involvement by everyone from the bottom up, so talking to politicians who operate a top down model is pretty futile. Just look at what has happened to say the green party in germany, or the USSR for that matter. Plenty of technological utopians in both those governments originally. but no technological utopia.
'Awareness raising' to me translates into internet chit chat and showing the movies. So what other future action does your chapter advocate, how are you going to confront the current oligarchical, repressive status quo? I mean i assume you dont think that if you show the video enough then everyones going to agree with you.

Quote:
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.

Well quite, it has no relation to peoples day to day lives.

renegado's picture
renegado
Offline
Joined: 29-10-08
Apr 20 2011 08:51
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Oh god i really just don't care about an arguement between RAAN and technocracy, we had that crap before, keep your weird internet mix and match ideologies to revleft please.

We didn't so much argue as we b&. And don't hate on the post-left sexiness just 'cuz you don't get it.

And people still post on revleft? What year is it?

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 10:06

Hmm this topic seems trolled and leads to other trolled topics. (Half-way through your link and at the third page of the link within the topic you linked with relevant info (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=8&id=327555&Itemid=100114))

But from what I gather this confirms what I have been saying, you have to "earn the right" to participate in a discussion of whatever decision is arrived at. You earn that right by learning about the subject and bring yourself at least at the same level required to understand what it is, how it works, what it does, what the requirements are, what the impact of "it" is, what the impact of the requirements are, etc.. In short, becoming a "pro" on the subject. It becomes self-evident for you and your community who would participate.

So there is no democracy, decisions are arrived at through participation of knowledgeable people on that specific subject supported by a knowledge database (this is the "supercomputer running the show" most people erroneously think it is) which constantly inputs new data to help arriving at that decision.
This suggests that the "group" will constantly change, every subject has its group of "pros". This coupled with interdisciplinary teams to make sure the most amount of possibilities/what it affects are taken into consideration.

It's not about being against anything, it's about finding the best methods to reach a decision and taking the best decision possible at that time (at another time a different decision might become self evident as more or less data is available).

Of course those discussions are open for anyone to attend (and all data openly available), so there is an opportunity for people to learn or be informed on how the decision was arrived at. transparency is very important.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 20 2011 10:30
renegado wrote:

But that's not why you're an asshole, cogar. You're an asshole for appropriating the RAAN sickle-A after coming to the RAAN forums with your technofascist bullshit, being banned from the forums for your bullshit, and yet still presenting yourself as being affiliated with RAAN on these forums here. Quit the deception. Start thinking critically. And if not, go fuck yourself.

Yeah, except I never claimed to be from RAAN. I support Anarcho-Communism. Which after reading GAC's latest post I learned TZM doesn't. So fuck them. I was unaware RAAN "owned" the A/Communist symbol, if they do I'll switch to something else.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 11:25
cogar66 wrote:
The "best" is subjective. If you plan to create the "best" of everything with NO human input you will fail.

What do you mean human input? Computers don't design cars by themselves.. it is still the humans doing it and they are doing it in a way that is the most efficient and create a product that in itself is the most efficient at that time. This would be the best car available.

Best is actually quite objective from an efficiency point of view. The most, the best, with what you have of knowledge at that time.

There is no ultimate, nobody is suggesting this, this would mean that it couldn't be improved, that's utopian and we don't advocate that. But I'm not saying you suggested we were, this is a problem of semantics (and possible lost in translation stuff) I think.

cogar66 wrote:
Why wouldn't I build that car? Because maybe that isn't the "best" car in whatever situation I'm in.

By all means, do build a car smile But would you purposefully create something that is less efficient? That wouldn't be the mindset of people living in a RBE, if that is the whole point of such a system.

So it would be self evident to you to build a car using the latest knowledge on how to achieve that efficiency or even surpass it. And with this discovery you will not only benefit yourself but everyone as well.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 20 2011 11:32

"What do you mean human input? Computers don't design cars by themselves.. it is still the humans doing it and they are doing it in a way that is the most efficient and create a product that in itself is the most efficient at that time."

A. You want scientists to do it.
B. You want to control all of the means of production.
C. People have no meaningful input because they're not "Specialists"

You completely ignored my point. Most of the humans who are USING the car have no input, because they aren't scientists. Since scientists are the ones with the access to the means of production this means only their cars will be created. So you can't even monitor use to find out what people want, because they have no options. What is most "efficient" depends on the person using it. Since you have no input from most of the population you have no idea what efficiency is to most people. This is why you will fail and it'll be a centrally planned hell.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 14:26
Khawaga wrote:
Zeitgeist proponents: I suggest all of you read Jaques Ellul's The Technological Society. The technocratic society you lot are proposing seem to be all about technique; running everything according to rationality and efficiency to find the one best way, effectively turning everything into a machine. RBE is just technocracy 2.0.

Added to my reading list just out of curiousity but RBE is not technocracy 2.0.
Like many other systems that have come and gone there are similarities yes but the fact that there are similarities says nothing about what it is. RBE is RBE.