Forum Post: [Call to Question] Should we unite OWS and Zeitgeist?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 8:42 p.m. EST by Marchelo
(67)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Fellow Occupiers, both actual and virtual, I call to question a proposal that has been laid before us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
How do we feel about the possibility of creating a Parallel Government as proposed by Peter Joseph? "Rather then trying to get a seat at the proverbial "Table" that exists, a new table needs to be created..." "Are [we] really prepared to do what it takes to actually get the change done?"
So I ask, are we ready and/or willing to proceed in the direction presented by the Zeitgeist Movement?
Sound off in the comments! To make this as useful as possible, I ask for your voluntary cooperation. Please begin your post with a simple "YAY / NAY / ABSTAIN" then defend your stance if you so choose.
If you require more information about this proposal, please check out these links:
Official site: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
Address to the LA General Assembly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkinHuvLEaU&feature=youtu.be
Address to the Vancouver General Assembly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F-yBfUQzfE
I look forward to your feedback as we all strive to find a direction for the movement that is worthy of our sustained efforts.
Yey. The bottom-line is our capitalistic system, as is, is based on unlimited growth, without growth it doesn't work. Well, we are living on a world with limited resource. With people living longer, with its consequential population growth, and with technology decreasing the demand for labor, we are going to need to experiment with new ideas (within a limited scope at least). We should go wherever reason and the scientific method takes us. We shouldn't capaciously exclude solutions because their socialist or communist, etc. Tradition is not a solution. We need to question all our prior notions, because we have all been indoctrinated.
Hear hear!
YAY please spread the word of the Venus Project!
The creature called knowledge is not yet ready, and you can't FORCE it to be ready by trying to push it ahead. This is much like the ZIonists who thought they could FORCE the Second Coming by restoring Israel.
Neither is this 'creature' something that will come from the sky on a beam of light.
Knowledge is understanding acquired through experience or it is just more dogma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QrDLwSgg24
NAY, because I don't desire for a supercomputer to rule over how I live my life.
I blame SkyNet...
lol I wasn't thinking of that.
This would fail spectacularly.
Keep the ideas on a realistic level IMO. Imagine the news anchors having a field day with this idea.
You can't just say, it's communism, therefore it's wrong. That's not a valid argument. You can criticize communism (but please don't cite examples of how communism has failed in the past because corporatism is failing now and the "communism" of the USSR and China is nothing like zeitgeist).
We're not just just saying it's communism and therefore wrong. We need to compare it to something. We are just as skeptical when we hear conservatives preaching Libertarian rhetoric about how the free market will always produce the optimal outcome. There is a general skepticism among the generation that makes up the OWS movement that is incredibly skeptical to all notions of ideological purity. Also, juxtaposing it with USSR or China (Stalinism and Maoism) doesn't really help us understand what it actually is.
YAY! I like the concept of a parallel government.
NAY. While I believe the Zeitgeist Movement is very good at identifying problems, the measures they advocate(abolishing money in favor of a resource-based economy) only seems like codeword for communism. I know they are sincere people, but any group that advocates 1 of the 2 forms of ideological purity (Communism/Libertarianism) are seeking simple solutions to complex problems that will lead to more harm than good.
Maybe I'm wrong?? Maybe a Zeitgeist Movement advocate needs to explain it to me further??
The Venus Project has a nice FAQ that could answer a lot of your questions, especially on comparisons to communism.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq
I'm going to have to be fair to Libertarians by asking you the same questions I usually ask them:
If these ideas are applicable in the real world, why can't you prove its superiority to current systems by doing it on a smaller scale??
What country do you feel best approximates your ideas being applied in real life??
If a country does move into the direction you advocate and it seems to cause widespread problems(much like unregulated markets have in the US), would you advocate shifting back towards our current system or simply blame the problems on a failure to embrace all your ideas??
I think we could and would have to somewhat prove it first on a smaller scale, or perhaps have many different "budding projects" over the globe. Resources are obviously globally placed by nature, so the full potential wouldn't be realized until it was done on a global scale. If we were to start in say one US state for instance, we would lack certain resources that would be available in a global system. Could we do without certain resources for a smaller scale exhibition so to speak? Possibly. Depends on the resources that are available to us in our particular "area" or "areas". I do think that people would gravitate towards a better system if one was available and that they would see the possibilities of it if some were already living in that new system, even if its full potential isn't shown aside from video clips, etc.
I don't think there is a country that is close. Norway, the happiest country in the world, seems to be open to new ideas and seems to strive towards increasing the social betterment of its citizens, but I don't think they have anything really similar to what a resource based economy proposes, but maybe they are somewhat similar in social philosophy. If you were to combine Norway's aforementioned traits with the United States' technological ingenuity, then maybe that would give an idea.
If there are widespread problems, I think we would have to look at each aspect of the grievances or disturbances, and figure out what we can do to make improvements.
This is also my chief concern with ZM and I wish I had a better answer for you. I have asked some of those involved how finite resources (like prime real estate, and original works of art) would be handled but have heard no reply as of yet.
Have you seen all the Zeitgeist films? http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ I still need to check out the most recent one myself, will report back here if I see answers.
The Venus Project has a nice FAQ that could answer a lot of your questions.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq
Thanks rbe, that was super helpful!
Still, the question of finite goods remains... who gets the best view? I know this point is moot when compared to the possible gains for society as a whole, I only ask it to address the problem of an economy with no means of out-competing other individuals to determine the distribution of finite goods.
I think the key word is sustainability. Even if everyone can't have the "best view", I'm sure it wouldn't matter as much when so many other needs are filled. I would trade not having the best view with not having to work 40 hours a week for the bulk of my life. I'm just a student myself when it comes to this, so I learn from listening to everyone else as well. Nanotechnology may take care of some of our problems with finite resources in the future also.
Sure, at least get a dialogue going if nothing else
NAY , I dont agree totaly on zitgeist... the economy is quite far of real. There many steps that must be done before.
Im not interested in changing govt types or economic systems. And i think you will find that a majority of people will not be either.
Yes and no.
I think the main roadblock to reaching a consensus on an end game strategy is primarily that some want to work within the system we have while others want to replace it with... something else. I am seeing the discussions here and on other forums grapple with the very concepts of what that new system could be; everything from alternatives to the monetary system to the technical realities of direct democracy.
What endears me to the Zeitgeist movement is the existing infrastructure that it has built up over the years as well as the far-reaching solutions the plan proposes to end the boom/bust cycle of our (crony) capitalist system. The biggest fear vocalized against sticking with the government/economic systems we have now is the likelihood that our problems will return once people 'get back to work'.
Well in order to change the system, if you were to change the system, it will almost definitely lead to bloodshed. While fixing the current system can probably be done peacefully.
The current system can be fixed. The reason it got in this mess is because Americans got lazy with politics. They learned to "accept" that their govt did whatever it wanted. Instead of demanding the govt do as the people wish.
This can be fixed but it requires Americans not to be so lazy and self centered when it comes to politics.
You are not going to find popular support for your Zeitgeist movement. It is to much change and not really the change most people are looking for. Communism/socialism which is basically what your movement seems to be has never worked and more than likely never will. All communist/socialist states either had to make drastic reforms towards capitalism or failed.
Agreed. Though I can not claim ownership of ZM. I only made this post after Peter Joseph's original post got NO attention. I figured a prepared video message deserved some discussion over the pros and cons to give the notion a fair shake.
ZM definitely has its shortcomings: It places a huge amount of responsibility for civilization on the system programers who would, in their own words, run the show. Effectively making these technocrats the new minority master class while the majority is left to rely on their decisions. The devil is most certainly in the details.
I agree that Zeitgeist is a bit too socialist for my tastes. However, Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist Movement have some very, very valuable ideas.
I think ZM deserves a seat at the table.
Better to unite beside with Adbusters.
I am aware they began the protest, but am not aware of their end game strategy. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?
adbusters.org they're promoting sane, less materialistic, cool. We only need to return to sanity with better financial regulations, transparency and reason. Oh, and, of course, peace and sustainability. Thats it. And after that, or sooner, I'd like to get back to work please, as well.
The Zeitgeist thing is a thin disguise for communism.
This leaves it to the reader to determine if you are for or against communism. I'll put you down for Nay... :)
Correct, I'm not commenting for or against communism. (personally I think that it works really well on a small scale, where everybody involved personally knows everybody else involved, but definitely not for an entire society.). I'm just labeling this Zeitgeist thing for what it is.