Who the fuck are Zeitgeist Movement?

236 posts / 0 new
Last post
GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 14:39
renegado wrote:
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.

You blow my mind. Seriously.

renegado wrote:
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.

How do they wield all the power? And what power are you talking about?

Do you really think there is such a thing in a RBE?

renegado wrote:
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.

These type of responses amount to nothing but I do hope you feel better after having vent this nonsense.

So many angry people in this forum. I truely wonder why that is.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 14:45
cogar66 wrote:
I support Anarcho-Communism. Which after reading GAC's latest post I learned TZM doesn't. So fuck them.

So it's "if you're not with us you're against us". Don't we all want a better world?

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 20 2011 15:20
GAC wrote:
cogar66 wrote:
I support Anarcho-Communism. Which after reading GAC's latest post I learned TZM doesn't. So fuck them.

So it's "if you're not with us you're against us". Don't we all want a better world?

Fascists want a better world in their eyes. It doesn't mean I support Fascism.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 15:28
cogar66 wrote:
A. You want scientists to do it.

Everyone is actually a scientist, even today.

cogar66 wrote:
B. You want to control all of the means of production.

What do you mean by control? Someone or something telling you what to do?

cogar66 wrote:
C. People have no meaningful input because they're not "Specialists"

Of course not. Like my previous example, you wouldn't want a car mechanic having input on how to perform your heart or brain surgery.

cogar66 wrote:
You completely ignored my point. Most of the humans who are USING the car have no input, because they aren't scientists.

Didn't mean to ignore, I probably didn't understand what your point was or maybe you didn't understand my point because I still don't know what your question is.

cogar66 wrote:
Since scientists are the ones with the access to the means of production this means only their cars will be created.

There is no restriction of access, what are you talking about?

cogar66 wrote:
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.

Not true. Efficiency is measurable. It has nothing to do with someones opinion.

cogar66 wrote:
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.

Are you saying efficiency is subjective? Interesting.

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 15:28
cogar66 wrote:
GAC wrote:
So it's "if you're not with us you're against us". Don't we all want a better world?

Fascists want a better world in their eyes. It doesn't mean I support Fascism.

Let's say (this is a crazy example) Fascism truly wanted to get rid of disease, war and hunger. Wouldn't you find common ground for this if it really depended on you participating to actually achieve it?

GAC
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Apr 20 2011 15:29

This was an interesting experience, thank you everyone.

Goodbye and have a nice life! (I mean that!)

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 20 2011 15:31

How is efficiency objective? A tractor is efficient for a farmer but it's not efficient for a someone in a hurry. Efficiency is entirely subjective. It depends on your goals, and your goals are subjective.

"Of course not. Like my previous example, you wouldn't want a car mechanic having input on how to perform your heart or brain surgery."

People who are affected by decisions should have a say in them. How is a car mechanic affected by your surgery?

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 20 2011 15:33

"Let's say (this is a crazy example) Fascism truly wanted to get rid of disease, war and hunger. Wouldn't you find common ground for this if it really depended on you participating to actually achieve it? "

No. Because I don't believe the ends justify the means.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Apr 20 2011 17:34

I kind of feel as though this thread has devolved into various degrees of wang-waving.

The Zeitgeist movement is
a) not a scary nutty conspiracy sect
b) it is a watered down paraphrasing of Marxian thought, that has been lobotomised to have the class struggle element removed, and contains many elements of hegelianism. Hence it has no praxis (theory of practice) because it cannot identify a way to reach its resource based economy and will remain utopian because of this (however rationally it proceeds to devise it's utopia).

and
c) the resource based economy is the conclusion Marx reached in Capital, when he sought to value goods according to 'use value' rather than capitalism's 'exchange value'. the built-in obsolescence argument is also nothing new.

alb
Offline
Joined: 28-03-10
Apr 28 2011 17:45

Zeitgeist bites back here. They don't seem much like cultists to me. In fact the quality of the discussion seems higher than here.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 28 2011 19:09

I don't think that thread helps us in any way decide whether we should call them cultusts or not. Neither does the quality of discussion look particularly different to here. They are debating the relative merits of entrism (they just haven't called it that yet), so what?

Toms's picture
Toms
Offline
Joined: 16-05-10
Apr 29 2011 00:02
alb wrote:
Zeitgeist bites back here. In fact the quality of the discussion seems higher than here.

To me didn't seem that good and they seemed to attack anyone that didn't agree with them as one that doesn't know what anarchism is

(Edited because my initial response seemed harsh after rereading)

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 28 2011 23:51

I can't argue with the last post on there. they (libcom) want to empower the working class, we want to eliminate them with robots.

technocratic utopia 1, libcom 0

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 29 2011 00:00

Hmmm, so TZM are the ones that will create Skynet?

alb
Offline
Joined: 28-03-10
Apr 29 2011 04:08
Arbeiten wrote:
I can't argue with the last post on there. they (libcom) want to empower the working class, we want to eliminate them with robots.

technocratic utopia 1, libcom 0

Does the winner get to play those who want the working class to abolish itself?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 29 2011 04:37

What the technocratic utopia lot fail to realize, regardless of plenty of science fiction literature to the contrary, is that robots sufficiently advanced to replace human labor will have no need for humans, and will end up overthrowing them.

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 29 2011 05:34

I think the reason that the word "cult" was applied to the Zeitgeist movement was due to the fetishism of technology, an uncritical belief in the power of scientific rationalism and the closed mindedness of its adherents. These things are a disturbing devotional practice by a small zealous group and that is why the derogatory term was used. Even Marx refers to the fetishism of the commodity as 'occult' so I don't see why it is unreasonable to draw a similar analogy here.

Cult: Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. (OED)

Technology being the divine being here.

alb
Offline
Joined: 28-03-10
Apr 29 2011 08:32
Malva wrote:
I think the reason that the word "cult" was applied to the Zeitgeist movement was due to the fetishism of technology, an uncritical belief in the power of scientific rationalism and the closed mindedness of its adherents. These things are a disturbing devotional practice by a small zealous group and that is why the derogatory term was used. Even Marx refers to the fetishism of the commodity as 'occult' so I don't see why it is unreasonable to draw a similar analogy here.

Cult: Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. (OED)

Technology being the divine being here.

That's a tendentious definition of a cult which would cover a lot more groups than you might have in mind. For instance substitute "proletariat" for "technology" and see what that gives.

I thought a feature of a cult was precisely that it didn't believe in the power of scientific rationalism (critically or unctitically) but a group made up of zealous believers in some religious or spiritual mumbo-jumbo propounded by a guru.

Personally I'm all for scientific rationalism. I hope everyone else here is too. Otherwise they are probably cultists.

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Apr 29 2011 09:48
Quote:
For instance substitute "proletariat" for "technology" and see what that gives.

It probably gives you the USSR. I'm pretty sure that fetishizing the working-class is not a libertarian communist form of praxis. A fetish is about imagining that an inanimate object has some form of divine power. So unless you consider the proletariat to be objects for you to control and direct as under state-capitalism I'm not sure how your comment is a criticism. Wasn't there a "cult" of the proletariat in these totalitarian societies? Last time I checked libertarian communists think that proletarians are not inanimate objects but human beings and therefore agents capable of abolishing capitalism.

Quote:
Personally I'm all for scientific rationalism. I hope everyone else here is too. Otherwise they are probably cultists.

Again, I think I said an "uncritical belief in the power of scientific rationalism". Of course I am not arguing that we shouldn't be "for" science, rather that, like technology, science is a tool and taking an uncritical approach to its use and who is using it is not going to get you anywhere. These Zietgeist guys have no sense that workers might use science to realise their aims. Their vision is technocratic, they make it the basis of their decisions that things be 'rational'; not revolutionary:

Quote:
According to the movement, there will be no decision-making process regarding greater social issues by human beings, those decisions are arrived at by using the scientific method, based on the carrying capacity of the Earth, rather than human opinions. The replacement of human decision making by artificial intelligence is termed 'Social Cybernation'.

(Wiki)

I actually find it scary that people are defending them. I joined this forum in the first place because I had encountered people from the Zeitgeist movement recently and they really really freaked me out. I stumbled on libcom.org because people in threads like this had actually critiqued them and I was interested in contributing.

As for the guruism there is definetely an element of that with their major figures.

So yeah, they are a cult.

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Apr 29 2011 11:21
Tojiah wrote:
What the technocratic utopia lot fail to realize, regardless of plenty of science fiction literature to the contrary, is that robots sufficiently advanced to replace human labor will have no need for humans, and will end up overthrowing them.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 29 2011 16:33

Cogar66: have you heard of this phenomenon called" jokes" wink

cogar66's picture
cogar66
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
May 2 2011 11:17

I've actually heard that argument used before. Poe's Law.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
May 2 2011 16:15
Tojiah wrote:
What the technocratic utopia lot fail to realize, regardless of plenty of science fiction literature to the contrary, is that robots sufficiently advanced to replace human labor will have no need for humans, and will end up overthrowing them.

They need to watch all 4 seasons of Battlestar Galactica in one sitting. That would set them straight.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 3 2011 03:54
Harrison Myers wrote:
Tojiah wrote:
What the technocratic utopia lot fail to realize, regardless of plenty of science fiction literature to the contrary, is that robots sufficiently advanced to replace human labor will have no need for humans, and will end up overthrowing them.

They need to watch all 4 seasons of Battlestar Galactica in one sitting. That would set them straight.

They'd just think they can become the Cylons. There's no reasoning with these people. They never realize that it is they who will be expunged first.

NoRefunds's picture
NoRefunds
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
May 3 2011 12:43

I think a lot of people on this thread were too aggressive. I'm not a Zeitgiester (or whatever you woul call it) but I don't think the anarchist position should be to relentlessly critique and reject this movement / group. Rather I think the zeitgiest movement has a lot to teach anarchists about propoganda, they have a very devote and substancial member base and have made some pretty captivating films from the common man standpoint. The right is generally far better than this at we are, and it is necessary for us to become more and more media oriented if the left is going to have any impact.

Yes, the opinions they often have are "wrong", but in all honesty the positions of TZM are really not that far off from anarchism, aside from the centralization (albeit that's a rather important part of anarchism). I think anarchists or other libertarians should not ignore this, as there is a great oppertunity for us to discuss these issues and introduce more libertarian elements into the movement. In a sence I think we should try to make anarchist positions interesting to these people, because frankly we're just comming off as ass holes, and that is not beneficial to either party.

AdrienD
Offline
Joined: 26-07-11
Aug 1 2011 21:49

I like your rational and sound approach, NoRefunds.

We should not be trying to create divisions based on small to bigger differences in ideas. In fact, division in the working class is exactly what the capitalist class wants!
Let's try and find the common ground here and see where we can work together. It seems like they're against the capitalist system (the rule of the capitalist class) and are interested in overthrowing it.
I believe that is reason enough to try to share information and ideas on how we can achieve this common goal.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 1 2011 22:16

^ Efficacy! Technique! ^

Besides the "scientific" managing of society you people advocate (reminiscent of Fredrick Taylor and Aleksei Gastev) ^ I don't usually agree with Stalin on anything (video above) but there was a reason he "purged" the engineers- It's quite simple really- a point all of you technocrats ignore. As Marx said whomever has control over the means of production also has control over society at large. Technocracy doesn't put the means of production under worker control it puts it in an engineer calss' hands. Stalin purged the engineers because (as in your system) they had control over the means of production, not the workers and not the communist party. Obviously Stalin wanted the party in control of the means of production and hence Russian society (when it should have been the workers).

The point of anarchism/advanced communism is to utilize technology/industry for workers sake not for the sake of some engineer class. This is why your system is bunkum and if you want to call it "anarcho" technocracy to veil the hierarchical nature of your system then so be it but I put you in the same light as "anarcho" capitalists.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 1 2011 22:04
AdrienD wrote:
I like your rational and sound approach, NoRefunds.

We should not be trying to create divisions based on small to bigger differences in ideas. In fact, division in the working class is exactly what the capitalist class wants!

A hierarchical society where engineers control the means of production is what you want. The perpetuation of class society has nothing to do with our goals.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Aug 2 2011 00:20

Without engineers there will be no overproduction, and communism will be a house of cards which will fall down as soon as a machine breaks.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Aug 2 2011 00:50
Tojiah wrote:
Without engineers there will be no overproduction, and communism will be a house of cards which will fall down as soon as a machine breaks.

And without sanitation workers cities will be plagued with disease and millions will die. Engineers are no more important than anyone else and deserve no more control over the means of production/distribution than any other worker. This is basic anarchism/Marxism. Whoever is in control of production/distribution/surplus is in control of the society at large- the point is to put workers in control not some party, not some engineer class or any minority class.

Yes Stalin purged the engineers but replaced them with engineers loyal to his silly party- of course an advanced industrial communist society needs engineers but they need not be separate from the working class in any way shape or form. This is my point. The point of technocracy is to put a technocratic class in control of industry/distribution/surplus and so it is antithetical to the goals of anarchism.

It's not that hard to understand- if I'm wrong then "Technocrats" should just lose their silly ideology and call themselves anarchists.

Some people (technocrats) need to understand more about our reality before they go proposing ways to change it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism