Leaving Communism for Zeitgeist Movement?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

i just watched their documentaries,read bunch of their e-books,and im really impressed or shocked at least. And the first think that came to my mind was should i stay a communist or join the zeitgeist movement.

Zeitgeist has some really great updated ideologies that can fit in todays world.
And communism on other hand is more than 100 years old and it can fit ao well in this world anymore (technology,environmentalism,...)

So im asking is it worth to join zeitgeist movement? If no why not?

Pleas Im really confused right here on what to do?

[eric922]

I haven't read much on this movement, but this sounds similar to the Venus Project. What they are talking about sounds good, but how does the Zeitgeist Movement plan to achieve their goals? Socialism isn't perfect, but at least there is some sort of plan on how communism can be achieved.

[Q]

They're not revolutionists but utopians. Their latest movie, "Moving forward" is vague at the very best. If I remember correctly, we're supposed to change the world by throwing all out money in front of the banks...

Having said that, the movies contain lots of low entry critique and where this movement manifests itself, we should engage comradely with it. The "Zeitgeist movement" hasn't so far been more than a bunch of people giving out DVD's with the movies on it though.

[The Idler]

If you don't value democracy, join TZM.

[Rafiq]

Sounds cultish

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[campesino]

Please post your opinions of the zeitgeist movement and why it might be better, and then we can have a dialogue.

[Tim Finnegan]

This is a bit like somebody saying "should I drink six pints of bleach?". You feel that you should advise against it, but the very fact that they're asking the question pushes you towards indifference.

[Zostrianos]

The 2 first movies apparently were crap (I didn't watch either though), but I saw the 3rd one and it was spot on, especially the 1st half. I wouldn't say I agree with the movement as a whole, but that movie really exposed the cold hard truth

[Manic Impressive]

They're not revolutionists but utopians.
They are revolutionaries and they are Utopian the two are not mutually exclusive, actually utopian revolutionaries are the most common type of revolutionary. They wish to change the means of production, this is revolutionary. They don't know or have some weird fantasy about how to achieve their goals this makes them Utopian.

[Hit The North]

Saying you're gonna leave communism for the zeitgeist movement is a bit like saying you're gonna leave capitalism for the Alien quadrilogy. One is a mode of production and the other is a series of movies.

But as Q stated above, the zeitgeist movement is a utopian movement thinking that material reality can be changed simply by changing ideas.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

But but but, we can haz fancy movies toohoo.

I mean really, what do they have besides those moments?
I have once saw a flag with TZM written on it, but that is all.

[Will Scarlet]

Saying you're gonna leave communism for the zeitgeist movement is a bit like saying you're gonna leave capitalism for the Alien quadrilogy. One is a mode of production and the other is a series of movies.
:laugh:

This is what I was thinking (but put much better!). What about them is a movement? Conspiracy theorists posting on the internet is not a movement. I haven't actually seen the films but from what I know that is what they are, conspiracy stuff. I'm sure there's some truth in it, there usually is. Conspiracy theories are usually the wrong answers to the right questions.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Aren't they Ron Paul-esque libertarians?

[Manic Impressive]

only in the sense that they both think that reserve banking is the problem with capitalism. But the zeitgeisters want to abolish capitalism for what they call a resource based economy where as the ron paulers want completely unregulated capitalism.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

A resource based economy?

[Q]

A resource based economy?

Have a read (http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think Zeitgeist and the truther movement in general is some cloaked LaRouche bullshit. If you want to join a cult why not at least join one where you can engage in some weird communal sexual activities? That would sure as hell be better than watching shitty films on your computer and being terrified to leave your basement.

[#FF0000]

tbh it seems like the Zeitgeist nerds and communists have the same end goals. The difference is that they are utopian as all hell and don't really talk about how to get from here to there.

i mean there's a ton wrong with communists too but at least the whole "class struggle" thing is sound.

[o well this is ok I guess]

If you want to join a cult why not at least join one where you can engage in some weird communal sexual activities?Best advice ever given

[Positivist]

The Zeitgeist movies successfully identify some of the externalities of capitalism, but do little to analyze the underlying causes other than the vague notion of "inequality". Furthermore, the RBE while containing the communist qualities of local organization and free access, is harshly anti-democratic. It assumes decision making can be concentrated in the hands of some all powerful class of scientists or something, who would act in everyones best interests. The problem being neglected here is that the scientists would develop a different conscioussness than the rest if the population, and a corresponding set of different interests. Also, as others have mentioned, there is no program to reach their alternative.

The one thing that TZM focuses on moreso than communism is automated production. Evolving technology has tremendous potential to lighten the work load and enhance productivity. But even this isn't totally ignored by communists, the way issues like revolution are in TZM.

To be perfectly honest I have never known of anyone to go from being a communist to a TZM supporter. Usually the basic critiques presented in those films lose their strength once you get into more serious Marxist criticisms.

[Blackburn]

Sigh

Another so called hardline revolutionary leftist sees appeal in Ron Paul Libertarian groups.

Come on People! This is Bullshit!

At least I can understand just becoming like a Democrat, but going all the way to extreme Right Wing nuttiness at the drop of a hat???

At least please don't follow what these Zeitgeist Right Wingers say about Mythology. Half of their 'facts' are made up/in error.

[Manic Impressive]

Sigh

Another so called hardline revolutionary leftist sees appeal in Ron Paul Libertarian groups.

Come on People! This is Bullshit!

At least I can understand just becoming like a Democrat, but going all the way to extreme Right Wing nuttiness at the drop of a hat???

At least please don't follow what these Zeitgeist Right Wingers say about Mythology. Half of their 'facts' are made up/in error.
Dude didn't read the thread ^^


Anyway we're debating them in London on the 22nd if anyone is interested
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/whats-wrong-present-economic-system-and-how-get-society-where-money-isnt-needed

[Zav]

Many of you are being assholes. This person isn't even in high school yet. Maybe you all should explain what Utopianism is and why the Zeitgeist people are or aren't utopian instead of using smear words, such as thusly:

Utopia - Greek for 'no-place', it means a perfect society.
Utopianism - The belief that Utopia can be reached by some means.
Material conditions - The organization and present development of current economies and governments.
Idealism - The idea that ideas can affect the material conditions.
Materialism - The idea that material conditions affect ideas.

[Rafiq]

Utopia - Greek for 'no-place', it means a perfect society.
Utopianism - The belief that Utopia can be reached by some means.

That isn't necessarily how we as Marxists define "Utopia", as it's definition for us is more... extensive. Utopia for us is an abstract society devoid of real, actual existing material conditions. Whether it's "perfect" or not doesn't necessarily compel us to label it as such.

Material conditions - The organization and present development of current economies and governments.[/QUOTE]

Again, this is a bit vague. Material conditions can mean many things, but first and foremost they amount to the productive forces.

Material conditions are the entanglement of several wills, with the end result of something that no one really intentionally willed. Material conditions concern the makeup of the mode of production and, as you mentioned, it's offsprings (Economy in the formal sense, etc. not necessarily the superstructure) that result from it's process.


Idealism - The idea that ideas can affect the material conditions.


No. Idealism isn't simply the conviction that ideas can effect material conditions, but that Ideas in themselves precede material movement, i.e. that material existence adjusts to our Ideas and thoughts, and not hte other way around, that our material existence is a reflection of such, etc.

Here's an example: When the religious ask "Who created everything?" as if the very concept of creation itself, consciously, preceded material movement, that material movement itself is a product of this and not the other way around. The point is that the existence of the universe is indifferent to consciousness, i.e. Consciousness is the result of matter organized in a complex way (the brain).



Materialism - The idea that material conditions affect ideas.


No. Any person knows what we call material conditions effect ideas to an extent. That is common knowledge. The point of materialism is that material conditions precede thought, that all Ideas are a product of the movement of matter, etc. That the universe exists devoid of human thought and will.

And, with Historical materialism, human will and thought not only being a result of material processes, but of the social organizations and processes humans (Unintentionally, not as they pleased) established, which are material conditions.

[Positivist]

Dude didn't read the thread ^^


Anyway we're debating them in London on the 22nd if anyone is interested
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/whats-wrong-present-economic-system-and-how-get-society-where-money-isnt-needed

I am interested in this but I am in the States and couldn't possibly go, so do you know if there will be any videotaping or documenting of some sort, or even general topic layout so me and others who cant make it can check out what the arguments being raised are?

[Manic Impressive]

two topics being discussed "What's wrong with the current economic system" & "How to get to a society where money isn't needed". There will be a presentation by both sides then a discussion/questions.

They're hosting the event so I'm not sure what the recording facilities are like but they have recorded talks by us before. I'll either post it or send you a pm or something.

[Zav]

-snip-
I was trying to be broad and cursive.

[Book O'Dead]

They're not revolutionists but utopians. Their latest movie, "Moving forward" is vague at the very best. If I remember correctly, we're supposed to change the world by throwing all out money in front of the banks...

Having said that, the movies contain lots of low entry critique and where this movement manifests itself, we should engage comradely with it. The "Zeitgeist movement" hasn't so far been more than a bunch of people giving out DVD's with the movies on it though.

All true revolutionaries are utopians.

[Ocean Seal]

Aight bro have fun. Don't think that we'll try to win you back.

[Astarte]

The Zeitgeist movement or, also known as "The Venus Project" is, frankly, ridiculous. I like to refer to is as the "ultimate technocratic conspiracy" in that it essentially says that machines and technology should run every aspect of the economy and society for humans. What this actually would mean is that those who knew how to build, service, program, operate the machines, and those alone would become the new ruling class. At best the whole movement was created as a promotional program for the crappy mod architecture of Jacques Fresco, and at worse ... it is the ultimate technocratic conspiracy. Don't be duped by this guy...


http://www.henrymakow.com/Fresco-Venus-project.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mttaUy2VOMU/0.jpg
http://img.youtube.com/vi/SJ_q8l0s7Qc/0.jpg
http://kwa.me/images/jacques-fresco.jpg
Jacques Fresco as the Venus Project's "Mascot Monkey"

From Fresco's wikipedia entry:


For a short time, Fresco took an interest in attending the Young Communist League wherein he caused commotion. After brief discussion and disagreements with the League president, Fresco was physically removed.[11][18] Thereafter, Fresco turned his attention to Technocracy.[12][13] In the travels of his youth, one destination was Florida where he developed an affinity for the tropics, a place to which he would return later in life.[13] In the mid-1930s, Fresco traveled west to Los Angeles where he began his career as a structural designer in many fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Fresco

[o well this is ok I guess]

All true revolutionaries are utopians. I think the point here is that most forms of communism/anarchism/socialism/whatever have some organizational strategies and such.

Zeitgeisters have nothing. Zilch. They go on the street and the internet and propagate their ideology. But that's it.

I mean, utopian thinking isn't really worth much if one doesn't actually try to achieve the object of their thought.

[eric922]

two topics being discussed "What's wrong with the current economic system" & "How to get to a society where money isn't needed". There will be a presentation by both sides then a discussion/questions.

They're hosting the event so I'm not sure what the recording facilities are like but they have recorded talks by us before. I'll either post it or send you a pm or something.
If you don't post, please PM me as well. I would be very interested in seeing the debate.

[Rocky Rococo]

I note the widespread familiarity with their D VDs, which include lots of low-level entry material. While I remain utterly unmoved by their doctrines, we on the revolutionary left should learn fully and well how effective that communications/growth tactic has proven itself to be. Again, note that it's low-end and entry-level, and it would be a waste of time and money to fill up such outreach DVDs for any brand of revolutionary socialism wwith dogma and hair-splitting diatribes. KISS. That's what they've done, and it works, let's learn from it and then move on and leave them behind.

[Astarte]

I think the point here is that most forms of communism/anarchism/socialism/whatever have some organizational strategies and such.

Zeitgeisters have nothing. Zilch. They go on the street and the internet and propagate their ideology. But that's it.

I mean, utopian thinking isn't really worth much if one doesn't actually try to achieve the object of their thought.

Actually, that is not entirely true. They have something called "the resource based economy". It seems like some kind of non-Marxian, non-class struggle based fascist-technocratic adaption of the planned economy. I am not sure exactly what it is, as I never was interested or intrigued enough to read too much in depth about it.

You can see here: http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/blog/matt-berkowitz/false-left-right-paradigm-vs-resource-based-economy

That the ideology they bring to the table is essentially third-positionist bullshit, but an "ideology" brought to the table nonetheless.

[RRRevolution]

All true revolutionaries are utopians.I think utopian in this case means getting from point A to point B without any way of actually doing it.

[hatzel]

I note the widespread familiarity with their D VDs, which include lots of low-level entry material. While I remain utterly unmoved by their doctrines, we on the revolutionary left should learn fully and well how effective that communications/growth tactic has proven itself to be. Again, note that it's low-end and entry-level, and it would be a waste of time and money to fill up such outreach DVDs for any brand of revolutionary socialism wwith dogma and hair-splitting diatribes. KISS. That's what they've done, and it works, let's learn from it and then move on and leave them behind.

The popularity of their videos and stuff really isn't entirely down to just...a good PR campaign. It's also that everything they say seems to fit in perfectly with prevailing ideological structures. Everybody wants to be 'free' broadly speaking, and live in a harmonious world and all that stuff. Everybody wants to not be like so totally materialistic, maaaaan. Everybody thinks technology can somehow magically come and save the day in all situations, if only we can cram enough technomumbojumbo into every nook and cranny of our existence. That's what people seem to want as their utopia, and what people seem to believe is possible as a utopia. And TZM ticks all those boxes, that's exactly what they offer up. Nothing less and nothing more.

Of course the whole campaign and the videos and all that was important for actually getting the word out there, but it can't just be replicated by socialists expecting to achieve a similar degree of publicity. Because TZM - if you'll excuse the pun - connects with the zeitgeist in a way we don't. Actually a lot of self-declared socialists probably aren't all that different from TZMers, just spouting vague and pretty-sounding words all the time with little if any critical analysis. But for the rest of us...well, modifying our ideas so that they might resonate with with a collective conscience would probably mean betraying those ideas...

[Jimmie Higgins]

After reading the mission statement on the website, it seems like it could be classified as a kind of "petty-bourgeois socialism" where it overlaps superficially with the goals of revolutionary socialism (and is why posters are able to make parallels between this and other petty-bourgois ideas such as fascistic, reformist, or ron paul/libertarian ones).

This fits with their idealistic approach (if people get the right rational ideas, then society can change). And it fits with their concept that society should be organized based on the estimations of the best professionals (and technology developed by professionals) and what they deem most rational, rather than profit.

In my view this is totally unworkable and unconvincing. Having the right ideas is meaningless if there is no social force backing these ideas - and I don't mean just people who think it's a good idea. Most "irrational" things about our socierty are only irrational from a non-ruling perspective. Increasing prison populations by 1000% at a time of decreasing violent crime seems irrational for almost everyone - even some people in the ruling class, but to them the idea that they can't repress people when they need to is even more irrational because it put's their order in jeopardy.

Professionals, particularly skilled professionals, are motivated by wages, but often at a certain level of professional status, they are also motivated by moral or personal desire and fulfillment from their jobs. So you often find examples of Lawyers or Doctors or Engineers denouncing the totally irrational way their mental labor is used or corralled towards things that "don't make sense". Since they see their power in their ability to design and organize and think up things (and often aren't in a situation of collective labor efforts), there's a normal sort of tendency for them to believe that society can "think itself rationally out of problems".

The idea that it's "newer" than Marxism isn't a very good reason to support these ideas considering Marx critiqued these kinds of views back in his day - they already existed and pre-date Marxian socialism.

[Yazman]

It pisses me off when people call something "utopian." It's just such a worthless propaganda type of mud-slinging that it doesn't belong anywhere, and we as revolutionary leftists should be critiquing political ideologies or ideas based on criticism that has substance, not just "that's utopian!!!!!"

ANYTHING can be described as utopian. Anything. From nazism ("they're utopian! All the races living in segregated harmony!") to capitalism ("the true unfettered market will guarantee prosperity to all as wealth trickles down!") to socialism, to anything.

It is an insult rather than a form of criticism and reeks of a strawman type of fallacy to me. Whenever I see somebody calling an ideology utopian I find it very, very difficult to take their side - even if they are criticising an ideology that I oppose or one that is fundamentally reactionary.

Furthermore, it seems insane for revolutionary leftists of all people to sink to such a low level of utter stupidity - the entire broad spectrum of revolutionary left politics are routinely described as utopian by virtually the rest of society - we should be smarter and better than that, we should know not to sink to such a fucking pathetic level given that we are so often the ones being assigned such a meaningless label, and that's all it is - meaningless. Everything is "utopian" when described in the right way.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

A better documentary film-making group is Reel News (http://reelnews.co.uk/), a London-based collective of film-makers who make anti-capitalist documentaries (obviously with a British slant). They recently did a tour of Greece and released a series of excellent documentaries exploring the situation there.

Having said that, just watching films isn't really a basis on which you should solidify your political beliefs. I'm a film lover and I understand the power of a documentary film to bring ideas and situations to an audience's attention but it should be supplementary to your other education and experiences. Read more marxist literature and participate in more anti-capitalist organising before making these huge choices.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also I find this to be a huge flashing and wailing klaxon of a warning sign:


Rational Consensus is not to be confused with the historically failed traditional Mob Rule Democratic Process of "one person - one vote". TZM does not condone total, open mob rule democracy as it is based on the faulty assumption that each participating party is educated enough to make the most intellectually appropriate, unbiased decision.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I was once an impressionable kid and I guess impressionable kids will have to make their own mistakes. But be warned; Zeitgeist/venus project is science fiction with limited relations to reality. Plus; there are far better sci- fi films out there.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It pisses me off when people call something "utopian." It's just such a worthless propaganda type of mud-slinging that it doesn't belong anywhere, and we as revolutionary leftists should be critiquing political ideologies or ideas based on criticism that has substance, not just "that's utopian!!!!!"

ANYTHING can be described as utopian. Anything. From nazism ("they're utopian! All the races living in segregated harmony!") to capitalism ("the true unfettered market will guarantee prosperity to all as wealth trickles down!") to socialism, to anything.

It is an insult rather than a form of criticism and reeks of a strawman type of fallacy to me. Whenever I see somebody calling an ideology utopian I find it very, very difficult to take their side - even if they are criticising an ideology that I oppose or one that is fundamentally reactionary.

Furthermore, it seems insane for revolutionary leftists of all people to sink to such a low level of utter stupidity - the entire broad spectrum of revolutionary left politics are routinely described as utopian by virtually the rest of society - we should be smarter and better than that, we should know not to sink to such a fucking pathetic level given that we are so often the ones being assigned such a meaningless label, and that's all it is - meaningless. Everything is "utopian" when described in the right way.If you mean "utopian" in broad terms, then yes, any talk of a future society is "utopian". As a specific concept of utopianism, the use of the term in this thread is correct: it's based on an idealistic concept of society and change. It is creating a new society first in the realm of ideas and then wanting to implement it in real life. Revolutionary socialism and anarchism, however is an attempt to overcome a material impasse in the real world; it's goal is to advocate and organize for workers to reorganize society and get rid of obstacles that prevent a rational society for and by proletarians (and by extension all non-ruling people), not to plan out that society in advance over the population.

TZM seems to be textbook "utopianism" in the sense that Marx and Engels used the term.

[Anarpest]

It pisses me off when people call something "utopian." It's just such a worthless propaganda type of mud-slinging that it doesn't belong anywhere, and we as revolutionary leftists should be critiquing political ideologies or ideas based on criticism that has substance, not just "that's utopian!!!!!"

It is an insult rather than a form of criticism and reeks of a strawman type of fallacy to me. Whenever I see somebody calling an ideology utopian I find it very, very difficult to take their side - even if they are criticising an ideology that I oppose or one that is fundamentally reactionary.

Furthermore, it seems insane for revolutionary leftists of all people to sink to such a low level of utter stupidity - the entire broad spectrum of revolutionary left politics are routinely described as utopian by virtually the rest of society - we should be smarter and better than that, we should know not to sink to such a fucking pathetic level given that we are so often the ones being assigned such a meaningless label, and that's all it is - meaningless. Everything is "utopian" when described in the right way.

It's true that we should be careful when using it, but here it's perfectly applicable in its technical, traditional sense as referring to a form of socialism based around building elaborate details for a society of the future without linking this to the study of modern society. It's proposing models for society without giving them any reality or link with the modern world, as opposed to communism and anarchism, which are based in the proletariat. The word is more or less applicable in this case, unless you also find it hard to ever take the side of Marx, Engels and anarchists influenced by them against the Owenites and Fourierites.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

No my point was: socialists ideas cost many lives and put many people into difficult situations,and it didn't work as planned. This is why i got this idea to move from socialism to something new,but i think that i should ask other people as well,even before i posted this i already knew what you are going to say.

[Yazman]

I just want to say, Zaphod, that you're putting forward a false dichotomy here anyway. It's not necessarily "be a communist" or "support the zeitgeist movement" - it IS possible to be non-sectarian enough to support a movement if you think it's progressive in some way but don't necessarily agree with all points of their ideology.

I disagree with certain tendencies in the left on fundamental things but I still support some of them and their actions or organisations because I feel that even though I disagree with major parts of their ideology, that they can still be progressive in some way.

You can be a supporter of the Zeitgeist Movement and still be a communist. It just means you'll be a critical supporter, i.e. you can say "yes, I support the Zeitgeist Movement's view on how society should be constructed but I disagree with their official stance on ____ or ____".

You don't have to be a dogmatic supporter of one particular thing - what you call yourself and think is ideal socio-politically need not necessarily be the same as what you are willing to support.

[#FF0000]

No my point was: socialists ideas cost many lives and put many people into difficult situations,and it didn't work as planned. This is why i got this idea to move from socialism to something new,but i think that i should ask other people as well,even before i posted this i already knew what you are going to say.

Do you think that maybe you should try and understand why things happened the way they did instead of abandoning socialism altogether for a, like everyone said, utopian movement with no plan on how to get from here to there?

[Manic Impressive]

Also I find this to be a huge flashing and wailing klaxon of a warning sign:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TZM FAQ
Rational Consensus is not to be confused with the historically failed traditional Mob Rule Democratic Process of "one person - one vote". TZM does not condone total, open mob rule democracy as it is based on the faulty assumption that each participating party is educated enough to make the most intellectually appropriate, unbiased decision.


that sounds more like Left communism to me :D

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well obviously from this it shows that you really do not have a good understanding of what socialism is.


No my point was: socialists ideas cost many lives and put many people into difficult situations

Any movement wanting to bring about a revolution will cost many people's lives and put people into difficult situations. That is the same with bourgeois revolutions, etc. This really isn't a critique, but rather stating a fact about revolutionary movements.


and it didn't work as planned.

I am assuming this is in reference to the "authoritarianism" (I hate that word) of the Soviet system, correct? Well, let's look at why this happened. The degeneration of the revolution had much more to do with material conditions than "authoritarian people." When the Bolsheviks came to power they faced, almost right off the bat, sabotage, violent counter-revolutionaries, invasion from 14 countries, civil war, famine, etc. all this combined with the failure of the revolution to spread to Germany or another European country and isolation. In 1919 foreign trade was basically non-existent. Obviously, in these conditions, there won't be a "flowering of democracy" and it would be stupid to think otherwise. Stalin's rule was the "institutionalization" (for lack of a better word) of the degeneration of the revolution which had begun basically from the beginning.


This is why i got this idea to move from socialism to something new

Well, you might want to think of some better reasons or read and learn more about socialism before you make such a decision.

EDIT: Don't be afraid to pm or vm me about reading materials to get a better understanding of what socialism is. Here is one suggestion: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[Brosa Luxemburg]

that sounds more like Left communism to me :D

Nope. There is a huge difference between recognizing that a certain decision-making process might not be applicable to all material situations so we shouldn't make and decision-making process a principle but rather a very-much preferred means to an ends and what that was saying. Although, as I am writing this, I think you were just joking and being a pain in the ass. ;)

[x-punk]

I dont know a great deal about TZM but from what i have seen/read it looks a technocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship in perpetuity doesnt really warm with me but I can understand why it is so popular as it plays on peoples fears about sustainability of resources in the future which is very popular at the moment. Moreover, Peter Joseph is quite charismatic and articulate.

I cant post links, but there are some interesting videos with him arguing against capitalism and anarcho-capitalism which show how convincing he can be.

[Lanky Wanker]

I say either you need to read up on communism a bit more, or maybe you'd simply be better off with the whole Zeitgeist thing.

[Rafiq]

ANYTHING can be described as utopian. Anything. From nazism ("they're utopian! All the races living in segregated harmony!") to capitalism ("the true unfettered market will guarantee prosperity to all as wealth trickles down!") to socialism, to anything.



The difference is that Nazism is an ideology, not a mode of production. Capitalism doesn't equate to Liberalism, Liberalism is just capitalism's ideological offspring in the West. Nazism is, Ideologically Utopian. So is Liberalism as an end goal. There can be no objection of that! That's not the point, though. The difference is that Nazism represents a real, actual existing class interest, it represents the meeting of their ends. Saying that all races should live separably isn't the core root of what makes Nazism significant, as that's just rhetoric. And the same goes with Liberalism. Although they are ideological rhetoric, they still are rooted in a form of class interest.

The difference between that and Utopianism is that Utopians don't really have a set of defined material interests in regards to class, i.e. They just sling shit about what society would be nice to live in, which exists completely in the abstract as a formulation and mixture of several different class interests and reflections of several different modes of thought as a result (Bourgeois thought, petty bourgeois thought, etc.).

Utopianism is like asserting the existence of a Three headed Horse ogre with wings that throws exploding watermelons at things. Of course, it combines several real existing things, but mixes them to the point where each and every one is useless.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

All these sort of fringe, utopian movements are a result of an atomised society, of individuals who long for a better world but have no connection to experiences of past and present revolutionary realities. Also the large anarchist movement i believe is to an extent a result of this. These people have the same aspirations as us communists but have no deductive and realist approach to how to move society towards our goals of complete co-operation and that people stand in our way: the Bourgeoisie. The anti-dote to this sectarian sects is to socialise people, to fight for a social society where the communication, resonance and exchange of reality and its interpretation is of high velocity. Educative and scientific material will then gain a higher resonance when people see the problems and class obstacles in reaching our goal. "Alleine machen sie dich ein" 'Alone they make you small'

[Yuppie Grinder]

Worst sci-fi films I've ever seen, and I've seen plan 9 from outer space.

[Q]

Relevant to this topic: Peter Joseph does a video blog about the critics of TZM (dated 15 July):

XRI8QSpD3_s

[Manic Impressive]

Thanks for posting that Q, very enlightening. Especially the bit where they said they thought capitalism would collapse on it's own. Again reminded me of Left communists, decadence theory and all that.

[The Idler]

Seems a bit unfair on TZM to compare TZM to LaRouche. Also I don't get whether Jimmie Higgins wants "bourgeois" workers support as a social base or not? Consensus decision making is used in lots of revolutionary organisations especially anarchist ones.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also I don't get whether Jimmie Higgins wants "bourgeois" workers support as a social base or not?Huh?

[x-punk]

He did a good vid against capitalism entitled
'Peter Joseph's Response to Stefan Molyneux'
well worth a watch.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Seems a bit unfair on TZM to compare TZM to LaRouche.

I really don't think it is. I will admit that I have not watched the two later movies, but I actually thought the first film was put out by LaRouche when I originally saw it. As I recall he's even in the fucking thing.

His organization has been trying to dupe dimwitted leftists into their ranks for decades with the same tactics as these guys. Conspiracy theory, utopian politics, bad economics and even a hint of anti-semitism (a lot of anti-semiism on LaRouche's part). It's a trap, I don't know what for but it's definitely a trap.

[Q]

I really don't think it is. I will admit that I have not watched the two later movies, but I actually thought the first film was put out by LaRouche when I originally saw it. As I recall he's even in the fucking thing.

His organization has been trying to dupe dimwitted leftists into their ranks for decades with the same tactics as these guys. Conspiracy theory, utopian politics, bad economics and even a hint of anti-semitism (a lot of anti-semiism on LaRouche's part). It's a trap, I don't know what for but it's definitely a trap.

You should definitely watch the other two movies then. While not anything Marxist, they're a huge improvement.

[Tim Finnegan]

I could fart into a tuba and it would be a huge improvement, but that's no reason to watch me do it.

[RedHal]

Was going through their radio show lists and found this. This is the kind of crap you get when your movement tries to avoid any left-right dichotomy and classs analysis.


Feb 01, 2012 Host: Neil Kiernan
Neil (A.K.A VTV) and Aaron (A.K.A StormCloudsGathering) to discuss strategies for reaching people in various activist groups; How to concentrate on what we all have in common, and how to avoid alienating these groups when spreading your message; And the necessity of the various groups (Occupy, Tea Party, etc.) to join forces against common foes to affect real change. About : Started in 2009, TZM Global Radio is a weekly radio show presented by various coordinators/lecturers of The Zeitgeist Movement in a rotational fashion.

[Book O'Dead]

So... If I happen to mention the word zeitgeist in one of my rants, will I be suspected of some conspiracy to take over the world?

[The Idler]

I really don't think it is. I will admit that I have not watched the two later movies, but I actually thought the first film was put out by LaRouche when I originally saw it. As I recall he's even in the fucking thing.

His organization has been trying to dupe dimwitted leftists into their ranks for decades with the same tactics as these guys. Conspiracy theory, utopian politics, bad economics and even a hint of anti-semitism (a lot of anti-semiism on LaRouche's part). It's a trap, I don't know what for but it's definitely a trap.
What is the hint of anti-semitism?
Where did you hear LaRouche supports Zeitgeist?
In what sense is TZM a trap, what is it concealing? And what are the practical consequences for people who fall into the trap? I understand being part of the membership of TZM requires no commitment whatsoever so I don't see how that could be described as a trap with unforeseen consequences?

[helot]

Was going through their radio show lists and found this. This is the kind of crap you get when your movement tries to avoid any left-right dichotomy and classs analysis.

What you found it just fucking ridiculous!



No matter what else someone says if they don't even have a basic understanding of the class forces at play within capitalist society i'm not going to listen to them when they talk about anything political.

[Terminator X]

I subscribed to updates from the Venus Project on Facebook for a while but had to delete them, as all they did was post quotes and bad "futuristic" city paintings by their Dear Leader Jacque Fresco. It was a complete cult of personality. Also, ever try to listen to a speech by Mr. Fresco? This guy couldn't lead a nursing home game of cribbage, let alone a revolution.

[Terminator X]

Here's a video on how one of these mythical Venus Project cities would work. (mind you, by not discussing anything political or how humanity would even get to this point.) Future porn for engineering geeks, nothing more.

DqplP-E8Dvw

[The Intransigent Faction]

i just watched their documentaries,read bunch of their e-books,and im really impressed or shocked at least. And the first think that came to my mind was should i stay a communist or join the zeitgeist movement.

Zeitgeist has some really great updated ideologies that can fit in todays world.
And communism on other hand is more than 100 years old and it can fit ao well in this world anymore (technology,environmentalism,...)

So im asking is it worth to join zeitgeist movement? If no why not?

Pleas Im really confused right here on what to do?

I'm surprised nobody brought this up yet (at least from what I glimpsed at here). Since you're asking this you probably don't fully understand communism or the nature of its implications, so I'd recommend doing a little more research first.

There were plenty of liberal theorists before Marx showed up, and liberalism remains a significant global force today. Marx and Engels are dead, but that doesn't make their writings unimportant. They set the foundations by explaining the unavoidable conflict in capitalism between the working poor majority and rich capitalist minority. Plenty of people since have "updated" the theories to apply them more to present material conditions.

In short, what matters is not how much time has passed since Marx began writing, but how relevant his main observations (and observations of those who built on his work later) are to society today and hence to the struggles of people within it.

[The Idler]

TVP (Fresco) and TZM (Joseph) have grown apart over the last few years if not formally split.

[m1omfg]

Saying you're gonna leave communism for the zeitgeist movement is a bit like saying you're gonna leave capitalism for the Alien quadrilogy. One is a mode of production and the other is a series of movies.

But as Q stated above, the zeitgeist movement is a utopian movement thinking that material reality can be changed simply by changing ideas.

I'm gonna leave capitalism for the Alien quadrilogy. The means of production should be managed by cannibalistic. parasitoid extraterrestrials. I'll call it Marxism-Xenomorphism.