Zeitgeist Movement?

[DRGonzo]

I'm just wondering how the ideas that the Zeitgeist Movement advocate are different from the modern day communism that people on this forum support. Reading through the threads I see a lot of similarities between the two.

[The Idler]

Zeitgeist movement doesn't believe in democracy. Lefties do.
The longest thread on the Zeitgeist movement on revleft is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=122701&highlight=zeitgeist).

[DRGonzo]

After reading and asking about the movement I’ve found that they support a system of direct democracy and most of their principles are flexible to discussion and change by the members. I don’t mean to be bringing up things that have already been discussed on this forum but I feel like there are inconsistencies between what they advocate and what people say they advocate and I’m generally finding it hard to see any major flaws in what they are suggesting. They also have around 400k members and after discussing aspects of the movement with them I don’t really think they are conspiracy nut-jobs...if anything I think they are leftists who haven’t really read on the subject much.

[Proletarian Ultra]

The movement suggests that nations, governments, races, religions, creeds, and social classes are false distinctions, and instead promotes unity among people through a common conception of nature.

"Class peace." That's basically fascism in my book.

I like some of their ideas about urban/industrial design, but then again I also like the Italian Futurists and most of them were open Mussolini fellators.

[GPDP]

"Class peace." That's basically fascism in my book.

I like some of their ideas about urban/industrial design, but then again I also like the Italian Futurists and most of them were open Mussolini fellators.

Denying class struggle does not a fascist make.

What it DOES make them is Utopian Socialists with a Technocratic streak. They propose a lot of good ideas, but unfortunately, their strategy involves little more than "spreading the word," so to speak. As such, they are little more than starry-eyed idealists who are blind to the realities of class oppression and the role that class plays in both maintaining and changing the status quo.

[Ismail]

I wouldn't call the Zeitgeist movement fascist, just populist (and generally impotent since it is an internet movement). Populist movements can easily grow into fascist-like ones, though. Because in the end, fascism is reactionary views coupled with a belief that the State is the supreme force of life. Idealistic, petty-bourgeois "socialism" can easily transform into fascism, as examples like Giovanni Gentile and Nicola Bombacci show.

In The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini, he notes that: "No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism... which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State."

So "class peace" and harmonization and such is an important part of fascist doctrine (the whole "neither capitalism nor socialism" rhetoric), it doesn't necessarily make a fascist. After all, mid-century social-democrats stressed "class peace" too.

[DRGonzo]

They do understand the severity of class struggle and they state that both monetary and social disparity must be eliminated in order to have a peaceful and crime free society.
They also propose a more open approach to education and suggest that if economic mobility is more flexible then so will social mobility – thus eliminating the notion of classes.
I do have to agree with GPDP – the structure of the movement is a bit too disorganized and Peter Joseph seems to be reluctant to start on any transition plans. Having said that I have found that there are many offshoot organizations that have a more objective approach.
zeitgeistresources. com

thenzp. com/2_3.aspx

[The Idler]

Don't Zeitgeist also lay the blame for capitalist crisis on the financial sector rather than capitalism in general?

[maskerade]

After seeing the zeitgeist movies, like Addendum or whatever it's called, I just thought they were a bunch of conspiracy theorists. They said something along the lines of that every "ism" is just slavery under monetarism or something, which is a ridiculous misunderstanding. They make some good criticism about our financial system, but the conclusions they make are naive, in my opinion.

[chegitz guevara]

TZM is a front for the Venus Project, which is a cult.

[DRGonzo]

The films do heavily emphasise the role of the fed in the problem of capitalism but I think if this were their only problem with the capitalist system they would be more inclined to support Ron Paul’s reform policies rather than leftist or technocratic ideas. In the orientation video on the website’s main page (which is far better than the films – I think Peter Joseph has also stated that he no longer believes nor cares about the conspiracy and religion parts of the films) they go into more of the inherent problems of a capitalist system (one nice observation they make is that from the Neolithic to the industrial revolution society has only progressed because the management of resources has become more efficient - and they generally manage to tie in historical trends with leftist ideas very effectively).
I’m under the impression that conspiracy theorists are akin to religious fanatics in medieval times who would say that any natural phenomenon is attributed to god. In the same way I think people believe in conspiracy theories because they don’t understand that we live in a system where such problems arise naturally due to the parameters of the system. I think people who join the movement as conspiracy nuts gradually become educated about the root problems and in many cases on their forum I have seen these kinds of people get negative reactions from older members.
I would recommend watching the orientation video – it talks about the problems of capitalism in a much more rational way.

[k101]

The list of theoretical flaws in the venus-zeitgeist movement is long. Here's one for starters: the fetish for machines. This has 2 sides that are both mired in bourgeois ideology. 1. They see work as totally alienating in a universal sense. It's not that work is alienating because in a capitalist society work is subsumed by the production of surplus value, that the labor process is taken out of the control of the worker and given over to blind market forces. They see work as being a universal evil to transcend, to be replaced by machines. I think this essentially an anti-human position. Our social labor is how we create our social reality. It is what gives our social and personal life meaning. The fact that work is currently alienating does not mean that it has to be for all societies. 2. Just as capitalism celebrates the labor-saving machine as liberatory (though it's only liberatory for the individual capitalist trying to increase their surplus value) so does Zeitgiest celebrate the machine as liberatory. All of the difficult questions of social organization are just answered by "the machines can do it for us."

[Dimentio]

TZM is a front for the Venus Project, which is a cult.

It is hardly a cult, since it only has about two members - Jacque and Roxanne. While there are certain signs that a personality cult of Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph is growing on the Zeitgeist forums, its hardly on the same level as in all hese surnameist movements which are around here.

The only thing which TVP could be accused of is for being too idealistic and having no plans at all for transition.

EOS have cooperated with TVP since before TZM arrived on the scene.

[Dimentio]

The list of theoretical flaws in the venus-zeitgeist movement is long. Here's one for starters: the fetish for machines. This has 2 sides that are both mired in bourgeois ideology. 1. They see work as totally alienating in a universal sense. It's not that work is alienating because in a capitalist society work is subsumed by the production of surplus value, that the labor process is taken out of the control of the worker and given over to blind market forces. They see work as being a universal evil to transcend, to be replaced by machines. I think this essentially an anti-human position. Our social labor is how we create our social reality. It is what gives our social and personal life meaning. The fact that work is currently alienating does not mean that it has to be for all societies. 2. Just as capitalism celebrates the labor-saving machine as liberatory (though it's only liberatory for the individual capitalist trying to increase their surplus value) so does Zeitgiest celebrate the machine as liberatory. All of the difficult questions of social organization are just answered by "the machines can do it for us."

After capitalism is abolished, I believe humanity should progress towards a state of being where all manual labour is done by machines and humanity in general is living as an aristocracy which is living to create, have fun and do whatever they want. The machines are liberatory.

[Tifosi]

All that shit about 9/11 put me off, bull crap movie.

[Dimentio]

All that shit about 9/11 put me off, bull crap movie.

Depends on. Peter Joseph himself have moved away from conspiratism between Zeitgeist the Movie and Zeitgeist Addendum. The Zeitgeist movement is based on Zeitgeist Addendum, though there is a faction within the movement which is denouncing Zeitgeist Addendum and upholding Zeitgeist the Movie.

I don't really understand what is making a lot of left-wing progressives so very aggressive when it comes to TZM. That movement, all its flaws - including idealism, no transition plan at all, ideological confusion and geographical disallocation - has managed to grow from zero to hundreds of thousands of sympathisers in just a year, under the banner of abolishing the monetary system and replacing it with a non-marxist communist system proposed by The Venus Project. And that movement is especially strong in the United States itself, where leftist movements in general are insulated in campuses or in very local areas.

No matter your opinion of TZM, its successes need to be studied. How come the post-68 left and the anti-globalisation movement has failed to move the discourse to the left, while TZM - a movement largely composed of happy amateurs - has succeeded in bringing a sizeable chunk of people not previously ingrained in any form of progressive thought or activist experience into a programme which is more radical than probably any progressive movement has dared to formulate in the last 150 years?

[DRGonzo]

K101 – I’m unsure of your position – are you saying we shouldn’t use machines for production? And I think they mean to eliminate repetitive and dehumanizing labour – parts of the service sector that rely on creativity would still exist, doctors would also still exist and so would all research professions – if anything I think these forms of labour are the most fulfilling and “pro-human” if you will.

[guybob1000]

I find the Venus Project very interesting. It is by far the most concise vision of a possible future I have ever seen. Anyone seen those "The World of Tomorrow" sort of films and media from the 50's/60's? There would be some guy with a model of a city of the future, yet it was all really just a bunch of flash and neat looking buildings. The Venus Project shows you the world and then actually explained WHY it should be like jacque fresco says it should. And his explanations of the way the world is and how it should be dont raise dozens of critiques.

So for now I remain hopefully skeptical I guess.

[Raúl Duke]

Denying class struggle does not a fascist make.

What it DOES make them is Utopian Socialists with a Technocratic streak. They propose a lot of good ideas, but unfortunately, their strategy involves little more than "spreading the word," so to speak. As such, they are little more than starry-eyed idealists who are blind to the realities of class oppression and the role that class plays in both maintaining and changing the status quo.

I agree with this, this sounds about accurate.


I wouldn't call the Zeitgeist movement fascist, just populist (and generally impotent since it is an internet movement). Populist movements can easily grow into fascist-like ones, though. Because in the end, fascism is reactionary views coupled with a belief that the State is the supreme force of life. Idealistic, petty-bourgeois "socialism" can easily transform into fascism, as examples like Giovanni Gentile and Nicola Bombacci showMaybe or maybe not... I just don't believe in the populist claim.
Because in reality, there's no Zeitgeist "movement," or at least I never seen any. The tea party is more of a movement, and even than they're allegedly smaller than the anti-war movement was.

The kind of people interested in the Zeitgeist stuff, from what I've seen in real-life (which ain't much), are mostly idealist liberal types. In fact, some treat the idea proposed in Zeitgeist the same as communism saying the old "it good in theory, but it will never happen!" In the end of the day, they will go vote Democrat or maybe Green; but, turning fascists? I doubt that, more likely the tea party will be fascist and even than I think it's not accurate to claim that this organization is fascist per se (although it is very reactionary and far-right in a sense).

I do agree with Dimentio that there's no need for the aggressiveness towards the "movement" yet...


No matter your opinion of TZM, its successes need to be studied. How come the post-68 left and the anti-globalisation movement has failed to move the discourse to the left, while TZM - a movement largely composed of happy amateurs - has succeeded in bringing a sizeable chunk of people not previously ingrained in any form of progressive thought or activist experience into a programme which is more radical than probably any progressive movement has dared to formulate in the last 150 years? I doubt that, at least not in Florida; I have not seen much successes. Source? Even if they did have some large amount of people, what has their organization done? Do they even hold conferences on further developing their nascent theory/"movement?"

Also, the few people I've meet who were interested in seeing Zeitgeist Addendum, etc are/were liberal activist types. This was like a year or 2 back, now they've probably forgotten about the whole thing.

[Dimentio]

Jacque Fresco is a great man, though I am not sure of the Zeitgeist Movement. A quick scroll through their forums reveal a movement which is full of people with their own personal agendas stretching from "personal enlightenment" to conspiratism to new age to promotion of pyramid games and obscure parties.

It seems to be like a great hodgepock of People Genuinly Enticed By The Vision of Jacque Fresco + Paultards + Conspiratists + New age nutters + Disillusioned left liberals, like a delicious sallad filled with grapes, bananas, herring, Russian caviar, old worn-out socks, ketchup, elephant trunks, bicycle tires, toilet paper and broken videogames.

[Raúl Duke]

like a delicious sallad filled with grapes, bananas, herring, Russian caviar, old worn-out socks, ketchup, elephant trunks, bicycle tires, toilet paper and broken videogames.

LoL
When you put it that way it's quite amusing.

Although, a forum doesn't really say much about the numbers/state of a movement, per se.

[ChrisK]

LoL
When you put it that way it's quite amusing.

Although, a forum doesn't really say much about the numbers/state of a movement, per se.

I can't say about the state of the movement, but here is their total number of members
411,447

The website breaks it down by country.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?Itemid=50

[A Revolutionary Tool]

After reading and asking about the movement I’ve found that they support a system of direct democracy and most of their principles are flexible to discussion and change by the members. I don’t mean to be bringing up things that have already been discussed on this forum but I feel like there are inconsistencies between what they advocate and what people say they advocate and I’m generally finding it hard to see any major flaws in what they are suggesting. They also have around 400k members and after discussing aspects of the movement with them I don’t really think they are conspiracy nut-jobs...if anything I think they are leftists who haven’t really read on the subject much.
Actually they support a system where computers decide because humans are not always right or something. Can't really articulate anything right now I'm tired but if you read their FAQ at the venus project's website they'll tell you something like that. Good night.

[ChrisK]

Actually they support a system where computers decide because humans are not always right or something. Can't really articulate anything right now I'm tired but if you read their FAQ at the venus project's website they'll tell you something like that. Good night.

Here is part of it:



The delegation of decision making to computers is the next step.
The utilitarian roles that humans assume in society today are fundamentally technical by nature. This
seems obvious in regard to physical labor , for we have already seen machines replace the role of
humans in areas such as factories and construction. However, unrecognized by most, our mental
labor is now being delegated to computers as well. If this sounds foreign to you, please note that if
you have ever used a calculator , you have delegated your decision making to a machine.
We must remember that logical reasoning , which is our cognitive ability to think out solutions to
problems from a cause and effect standpoint, is entirely a technical process, based on the amount of
information we have at any one time. For example, if we have a problem with our car, we would go
to a mechanic and he would use his pattern recognition abilities and associative memory to consider
the possibilities that might have caused the problem, along with the possibilities for solving the
problem, based on reasoning. It is an objective, technical process.
However, a mechanic’s human brain is only capable of a certain amount of memory and intellectual
56
processing power. A modern, programmed machine on the other hand, can store tremendously more
data than a human, and can consistently and rapidly process information without getting tired or
lazy. For instance, let’s assume we have programmed a computer with the data set consisting of the
car in question. A computer has been programmed to know every component, every screw and every
electronic pathway, etc., of that vehicle. It has also been programmed with the application of physics
so it can relate to the actual cause and effect functionality and operation of the machine, not just its
parts. When the car is taken in for repair, the mechanic recognizes the physical properties as best he
can, and then he goes over to this computer, selects the model of the car and inputs a description of
the problem. He might input, “left headlight not working”. The computer would then immediately
present a list of all relevant issues related to the headlight, and then present a series of framed
questions to the mechanic that most logically attempt to locate the cause. The computer might say:
“Check the connection of cable 15b”, and then show a diagram of where that component is located in
the car. If the mechanic finds that isn’t the problem, he inputs that new information into the
computer and the computer goes to the next logical possibility. The computer is really making the
decisions… the mechanic is just orienting its focus.
The bottom line here is that there really is no area of human operation that cannot be highly
perfected by delegating decision-making processes to computer intelligence. In fact, the only thing
that now separates us from machines on a cognitive, utilitarian level is our ability to create complex
associations in our mind. No computer today has yet to respond effectively to being “asked a complex
question” in the English language. It requires that the language be transformed into one that it is
programmed to understand, such as mathematics.
However, new fields, such as ‘Artificial Intelligence’, (AI) are beginning to grow with incredible
possibilities for this kind of “awareness”. In time, computers will be able to achieve complex thought
processes that were formerly only attributed to humans. There is no evidence to support the contrary.

Also here is the new government




Government and the concept of the “State” will eventually be outgrown entirely and replaced by an
objective system of global resource management and technological organization. In a system of
abundance, the “State”, as we know it, has no basis to exist. Government also becomes a Cybernated
System , which is combined with Industry and thus responsible for the production and distribution of
goods, along with resource and environmental management. The structural basis for this
“government” system is idealized as follows:
1) A central database containing catalogs of every known material and technical understanding for
problem solving and invention. As noted previously, computers have the ability to catalog
information and logically compute it on a scale much larger than a human can. Only computers will
be able to handle the integration of all known knowledge and come up with decisions that will be
logically based on the full known range of data. As stated before, the most efficient decisions are
decisions that have been arrived at by taking into account all relevant variables. It is now within our
grasp today to begin the development of a Central Computer Database that contains all known
knowledge, ranging from the properties, combinations and applications of every element on the
periodic table, to the complete known history of technological invention. Once the associative system
emerges, which will allow computers to contextually cross-relate all the known disciplines, we will
have in our grasp a tool of immeasurable proportions . The limitations of our physical and cognitive
abilities will no longer be a problem, for the new method of problem solving and invention will be an
interaction with this database program. It could even come in the form of a simple website on the
Internet, in fact. You would pose a problem or question to the database program and it will give the
best feedback that is possible based on the current state of knowledge at that period in time.
Again, this process of inquiry and interaction is no different than interfacing with a calculator, but
this new “calculator” has a powerful associative system and an extensive database of knowledge that
can not just understand and compute math, it can integrate physics, biology, astronomy and every
scientific field into one concentrated awareness.
Most likely, the US Military already has similar database reference and decision making programs
that it uses to strategize for war.
Regardless, in order for this system to be effective, it must also have real-time feedback input from
the planet, in order to understand what resources we have and what we don’t . This requires a
worldwide sensory system. In other words:
2) An earth wide autonomic nervous system, with environmental sensors in all relevant areas of the
planet, generating “Industrial Electronic Feedback” regarding resources, operations and other
environmental issues. This nervous system is connected directly to the Central Database Program
noted above. This holistic system keeps track of all the resources on the planet, while also monitoring
the earth for environmental disturbances which humanity should be alerted to, such as earthquakes
and other natural phenomenon. This database would include a survey of available resources,
production plants, scientific and technical personnel, transportation, research labs, medical facilities,
schools, etc. This will not happen overnight, but if we began by constructing regional systems and
overtime interlink all of them globally, it could be created sooner than we think.
This integration can inform the Central Database Program of what is available and what is scarce,
while the Database will in turn constantly adjust industrial methods based around the dynamic
equilibrium of the planet. Of course, full international cooperation is the only way to accomplish
such a system. This issue will be discussed in Chapter 9.
3) Interdisciplinary Teams of technicians oversee the system and orient research projects to continue
growth, efficiency and social evolution. In an optimized version of this system, no more than 5% of
the population would likely be needed to run the show. The more optimized and powerful our
technology and methods become, the more that number decreases.
Of course, many people often ask, what about democracy ? Is this system a democracy? How do I
participate in the system? Do we elect the Interdisciplinary teams?
In a Resource-Based, Global Economy, where “industry” and “government” are combined into a
Cybernated System that incorporates advanced problem solving database computers, coupled with
vast planetary wide observation sensors, the traditional concepts of politics , elections and the like
have no relevance or basis. While this notion scares a lot of traditionally minded people, it must be
reiterated that our problems in life are technical, and nothing more.
Democracy in today’s world is an illusion. It always was. People think they have “choice” in our
current system because they can press a button on a voting machine and put some pre-selected
person into power. Once that person is in power, the public then has no power. Did you vote for the
space program? Did you vote for the cabinet of the new president? Did you vote for the tax cut? Did
you vote for where highways or power grids go? Did you vote for the war in Iraq? No, you didn’t.
The traditional concept of a “participatory democracy” is a cruel joke. The game has been used to
give the public the illusion of control for countless generations, while the distorted monetary powers
at the top continue to do whatever they please.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf

Basically they support a system that is run by computers that is "watched" by 5% of the population. The whole idea seems fishy to me.

[Dimentio]

When they talk about government, they don't mean a government with authority over people, but a government with authority over the technological base. The idea is that machines should do all the labour and humans would have all the fun. Is it utopian? Yes! Is it feasible? Maybe in one hundred years. It is an amazing vision and a vision worth striving for, as long as there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure that the system doesn't start to administrate human beings.

[Dimentio]

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=233&id=189666

Apparently, they are planning a world revolution in 2012 :lol:

[Yazman]

I think they are a movement with progressive goals. When it comes to theory I'm not so sure I can say the same thing. I think Dimentio is essentially correct here. Jacques Fresco however is a great man.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, Jacque Fresco is a great man. Though, he's a bit confused on the monetary differences between socialism & communism. He essentially compares the monetary usage within a Socialist society, & then puts it in regards of Communism, which is where he comes up with his theory that no matter what system you advocate, you're still advocating the monetary system, which isn't true. Though, Fresco's ideas are absolutely brilliant & hope this movement & him can do certain projects together in the future. Anyone read his book "The Best That Money Can't Buy"?

[Dimentio]

Yes, Jacque Fresco is a great man. Though, he's a bit confused on the monetary differences between socialism & communism. He essentially compares the monetary usage within a Socialist society, & then puts it in regards of Communism, which is where he comes up with his theory that no matter what system you advocate, you're still advocating the monetary system, which isn't true. Though, Fresco's ideas are absolutely brilliant & hope this movement & him can do certain projects together in the future. Anyone read his book "The Best That Money Can't Buy"?

I've read it. We in EOS are actually guilty as charged that it appeared on the local university library.

I think he's using the layman definition of communism, where any society run by a party with the name "communist" in it is a communist society. It is anti-intellectual I know, but Fresco is hardly an academic. Rather, he has reached his conclusions at a lot independently of most established social movements.

My main problem with Fresco is his advocacy of strict behaviouralism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I've read it. We in EOS are actually guilty as charged that it appeared on the local university library.

I think he's using the layman definition of communism, where any society run by a party with the name "communist" in it is a communist society. It is anti-intellectual I know, but Fresco is hardly an academic. Rather, he has reached his conclusions at a lot independently of most established social movements.

My main problem with Fresco is his advocacy of strict behaviouralism.

I don't know about that. I remember hearing both him & Peter Joseph talk about how China, although under the Communist banner, is actually just as Capitalist as the US is. This was even said on the "Zeitgeist Addendum" documentary.

[ChrisK]

I don't know about that. I remember hearing both him & Peter Joseph talk about how China, although under the Communist banner, is actually just as Capitalist as the US is. This was even said on the "Zeitgeist Addendum" documentary.

No, he said that Communism is the equivelent of Capitalism.

[Dimentio]

I don't know about that. I remember hearing both him & Peter Joseph talk about how China, although under the Communist banner, is actually just as Capitalist as the US is. This was even said on the "Zeitgeist Addendum" documentary.

Yes. But at the same time, he is making equivalence between communism and capitalism, which is understandable. In America, communism would probably need to rename itself into libertarianism and capitalism into communism to have a chance...

[The Vegan Marxist]

No, he said that Communism is the equivelent of Capitalism.

Under its monetary usage. Not equivelent of its entire ideology.

[Wanted Man]

I can't say about the state of the movement, but here is their total number of members
411,447

The website breaks it down by country.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?Itemid=50

Not members, but people who signed up for a newsletter. You can become a "member" as well by clicking on the very same link that you just posted. Why do you think they list dozens of members in Antarctica and North Korea?

[ChrisK]

Under its monetary usage. Not equivelent of its entire ideology.

True, he writes this




While virtually no nation on the planet currently uses anything else but Monetary Economic Theory in its country’s operations, certain variations are indeed present. Generally speaking, these variations have to do with the degree by which the system is controlled by the government of a country. The current ‘sliding scale’, moving from more regulation to less regulation, typically starts with “Communism ”(maximum state control), passes through Socialism (partial state control), and ends at Capitalism (little to no state control). These variations of economic application could be termed “Social Systems”.

He bascially says that this is the only difference between the systems. He seems ignorant of the actually ideological differences.

And, I could be mistaken, but I believe he calls Communism despotic in the documentary.

[ChrisK]

Not members, but people who signed up for a newsletter. You can become a "member" as well by clicking on the very same link that you just posted. Why do you think they list dozens of members in Antarctica and North Korea?

Ahh, I didn't know that. Thanks.

[Wanted Man]

By the way, I'm not saying that everything they do is shit. Of course, the fact that they get thousands of people to read their (utterly appalling) viewpoints is something to look at. They seem to have good word-of-mouth online, an attractive film capturing the essence of their views, and the people who do more than just sign up for a newsletter probably feel a pretty strong connection to their ideas.

But one should also consider who they seem to attract (the conspiracy theorist fringe) and what they do with their means of communication (build a kind of conspiracy theorist cult online). Because of that, it does not take a genius to see that their main activity will remain limited to agreeing with themselves on their forums, and that their "world strike" will be a major flop.

It's just that their methods of communication can also be put to much better use by communists with a good amount of money, time, and ambition.

[The Vegan Marxist]

By the way, I'm not saying that everything they do is shit. Of course, the fact that they get thousands of people to read their (utterly appalling) viewpoints is something to look at. They seem to have good word-of-mouth online, an attractive film capturing the essence of their views, and the people who do more than just sign up for a newsletter probably feel a pretty strong connection to their ideas.

But one should also consider who they seem to attract (the conspiracy theorist fringe) and what they do with their means of communication (build a kind of conspiracy theorist cult online). Because of that, it does not take a genius to see that their main activity will remain limited to agreeing with themselves on their forums, and that their "world strike" will be a major flop.

It's just that their methods of communication can also be put to much better use by communists with a good amount of money, time, and ambition.

Actually, no. If you go on their forums & listen to their viewpoints on what they feel the Zeitgeist movement should progress through, the vast majority agree that he should take on the more scientific approach & through the Venus Project & to back off the conspiracy theories. Which is where Peter Joseph has gone. He's backed off the theories in order to progress the movement through the Venus Project. Hopefully, when Zeitgeist 3 is released, there'll be a huge uplift from it. I can't wait.

[DRGonzo]

To be honest I think the movement is going to fail. The reason I supported it was because it was not based on any ideologies per se (These change with time anyway) – it was based on a method of finding the “optimum ideals” in society and reflecting that in the economic system seamlessly through a feedback system. (I hope that doesn’t sound retarded – I mean analyzing trends in S/D and social projects in order to gauge their relevance to society – so because every aspect has a set formula the outcome of this formula is dependent on natural variables (eg. supply and demand) as well as the aggregate of social values.
Anyway – I think it won’t really kick off because right now they are only talking about the endpoint and the finalized social values that will come of that – so no crime etc...this seems unrealistic to most who bother to even listen that far. Further still there is no way in which people can submit ideas or plans to the movement in a structured form – and so essentially the “leaders”, i.e. peter joseph and Jacque fresco, ultimately decide the direction of the movement.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

One of my best friends actually used to be a supporter of these people. Now he's on board with communist revolution. The Zeitgeist people are progressive-minded futurists. Our critiques of their decidedly incorrect conclusions regarding class issues need to proceed from that understanding and starting point. Their stated goals are somewhat similar to those of communists, but we need to bring forward the point to its adherents that the Zeitgeist movement isn't half as rigorously scientific as it claims to be in that it fails examine human history scientifically. In particular, we need to challenge this notion that technological advances by themselves can just automatically solve the problems of the present human condition without people having to take the initiative. We also need to challenge the elitist conception of society essentially being administered by a handful of computer experts.

We may not agree with some of the Zeitgeist people's idealist conclusions (like that classes can be abolished without revolution), but we should not just disassociate ourselves from them as many people here seem to think we should. We should engage with them and challenge their wrong conceptions, but also be willing to yes learn from the ideas these people have come up with regarding the potential of technology in particular to better human life.

[Wanted Man]

Actually, no. If you go on their forums & listen to their viewpoints on what they feel the Zeitgeist movement should progress through, the vast majority agree that he should take on the more scientific approach & through the Venus Project & to back off the conspiracy theories. Which is where Peter Joseph has gone. He's backed off the theories in order to progress the movement through the Venus Project. Hopefully, when Zeitgeist 3 is released, there'll be a huge uplift from it. I can't wait.

I did read their forums before making that post. Admittedly, I spent more time reading their Dutch forums, because I was curious whether they ever did anything offline in my location. Perhaps they are one of the weirder "sections".

One of the more interesting threads was about our recent general election, with the question: who to vote for? Some of them advocated not voting because all parties are working for Bilderberg, others advocated voting fascist, and only one person backed a Socialist Party vote. 'Nuff said.

[Dimentio]

I did read their forums before making that post. Admittedly, I spent more time reading their Dutch forums, because I was curious whether they ever did anything offline in my location. Perhaps they are one of the weirder "sections".

One of the more interesting threads was about our recent general election, with the question: who to vote for? Some of them advocated not voting because all parties are working for Bilderberg, others advocated voting fascist, and only one person backed a Socialist Party vote. 'Nuff said.

The Swedish section on the other hand seems more interested in Open source technology. I think you cannot generalise the Zeitgeist Movement because of its large diversity and that many of its members have their own agendas which only tap into a few aspects of the films. Nevertheless, the US community within Zeitgeist is more representative since most members seem to be American.

[Wolf Larson]

Jacque Fresco is a great man, though I am not sure of the Zeitgeist Movement. A quick scroll through their forums reveal a movement which is full of people with their own personal agendas stretching from "personal enlightenment" to conspiratism to new age to promotion of pyramid games and obscure parties.

It seems to be like a great hodgepock of People Genuinly Enticed By The Vision of Jacque Fresco + Paultards + Conspiratists + New age nutters + Disillusioned left liberals, like a delicious sallad filled with grapes, bananas, herring, Russian caviar, old worn-out socks, ketchup, elephant trunks, bicycle tires, toilet paper and broken videogames.
This thread should be in the opposing ideologies section. And it should be obvious, the amount of new accounts in this thread promoting this shit.

People liked Zeitgeist because people are fucking stupid and will believe any sensationalized dumbed down banter. Those idiots are up there with Alex Jones in regards to misunderstanding the world around them. Pathetic is pathetic. Capitalism is not a conspiracy theory. It. the Zeitgeist movement, is testament to the amount of shit the worlds citizens are being fed from all angles. Alex Jones with a "liberal" twist. No thanks.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They irritate the piss out of me, honestly. Zietgeist (the first film) was nothing but a paranoid wank fantasy for the black helicopter crowd. :rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

The Swedish section on the other hand seems more interested in Open source technology. I think you cannot generalise the Zeitgeist Movement because of its large diversity and that many of its members have their own agendas which only tap into a few aspects of the films. Nevertheless, the US community within Zeitgeist is more representative since most members seem to be American.

It's impossible to generalise them because it's an ever-changing bunch of people who post on a forum. On the other hand, it is possible to make general statements about the initiators, what kind of direction they have in mind, what kind of audience they cater to, etc. Those things do provide us with good reasons not to bother with them too much.

[Dimentio]

This thread should be in the opposing ideologies section. And it should be obvious, the amount of new accounts in this thread promoting this shit.

People liked Zeitgeist because people are fucking stupid and will believe any sensationalized dumbed down banter. Those idiots are up there with Alex Jones in regards to misunderstanding the world around them. Pathetic is pathetic. Capitalism is not a conspiracy theory. It. the Zeitgeist movement, is testament to the amount of shit the worlds citizens are being fed from all angles. Alex Jones with a "liberal" twist. No thanks.

Conspiratism is shit yes, but people are not believing in that because people like Alex Jones are existing. On the contrary, Alex Jones is existing because people want a simple explanation to why they feel that their existence is so fucked up.

A lot of those who believe in conspiracy theories are people who are very alienated and feel powerless. By explaining a complex system as a conspiracy ran by a few powerful individuals, the world is made predictable. People seem to prefer some sort of "god" even if that god is an evil god (and Illuminati certainly fulfills all characteristics of a god).

As for zeitgeist and conspiratism. If anything is going to bring the Zeitgeist movement down, it will be its intermingling with conspiratism. Nevertheless, Jacque Fresco is not an enemy of progressives and he does certainly not believe in conspiracies (which I cannot say about Peter Joseph).

[The Red Next Door]

I have a friend who is actually one of them, they are very deep into con theory and stuff, speaking from having one of them as a friend.

[Wolf Larson]

Conspiratism is shit yes, but people are not believing in that because people like Alex Jones are existing. On the contrary, Alex Jones is existing because people want a simple explanation to why they feel that their existence is so fucked up.

A lot of those who believe in conspiracy theories are people who are very alienated and feel powerless. By explaining a complex system as a conspiracy ran by a few powerful individuals, the world is made predictable. People seem to prefer some sort of "god" even if that god is an evil god (and Illuminati certainly fulfills all characteristics of a god).

As for zeitgeist and conspiratism. If anything is going to bring the Zeitgeist movement down, it will be its intermingling with conspiratism. Nevertheless, Jacque Fresco is not an enemy of progressives and he does certainly not believe in conspiracies (which I cannot say about Peter Joseph).
Actually, what brought the Zeitgeist movement down was the silly Technocrat Venus project. People are stupid enough to belive CT's but are smart enought to spot Utopian cult hogwash when they see it. It's funny that the "engineers" who advocate technocracy are never actually engineers. They all seem to be crack pot high school drop outs. Like the wide eyed heavens gate cult leader from the venus project.

PS. Hillary Clinton called herself a 'progressive'. Is RevLeft a 'progressive' website now?