Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.

Categories

What are anarchist views on TZM?

–4 votes
My personal view is that TZM reflects a train of thought aimed at technologically enabled anarchism/socialism.

I understand many see the vision as utopian, but as this is an unresolvable argument I was wondering more about what people thought about the specifics regarding the train of thought, whether positive of critical (as opposed to general statements)

I imagine there are few people who have not seen the Zeitgeist films but for those unfamiliar it is outlined here http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/orientation)

edited for tags
by (140 points)
edited by

1 Answer

0 votes
It seems like a sort of Parecon or Social Ecology for the Upworthy set. While they have critiques of capitalism, they still seem to fall in to a "better living through sharing and good feelings, also not money." They also seem incredibly enamoured with technology, which, if it is a cornerstone of your roadmap to a better world is, for me, a red flag. Also they seem to have a roadmap at all, which is antithetical to my personal take on things.

Any time I have talked to or otherwise communicated with people from the Zeitgeist Movement they have had the same sort of wide-eyed affect as members of various cults (LaRouche, RCP, Scientology) or, really, anyone who thinks they have found the truth and the one true way (I've had anarchists breathless tell me basically the same things that TZM is about). As with all those other groups, I try to stay as far away from them as possible.

There is a lot of stuff about them being connected to right wing conspiracy theorists and secretly anti-semitic. I quickly perused their website again before and while writing this, and don't see any overt indications of this, though I understand some of it is based on the movie Zeitgeist. Since I keep them at arm's length (including having not seen any of the movies and videos related to them), someone else will need to judge that.
by (22.1k points)
TZM is also really fond of appeals to "rights" which is something I won't get into at length right here, but there are multiple other places that has been explored on this forum  (here are a couple: http://www.anarchy101.org/tag/rights)
by (22.1k points)
You are so far off the mark I am not sure where to start... "Right wing" you have to be kidding me...

Some serious allegations none of which you have verified (and I know for a fact you cannot, it appears to be spurious and biased speculation as far as I can tell, unless you can come up with some kind of justification for your accusations?)

You appear to have no knowledge on the subject and yet you feel qualified to critique it...

next please...
by (140 points)
The reason you will not get into "rights" I believe is because you know it is unresolvable for all parties. You know where anarchy is concerned you are immediately in a sticky situation as there is no definitive or objective line regarding when ones rights infringe on anothers.

This is why the values will have to change, this is why our actions will have to align with natural law or we will suffer the consequences.

That is why you must define the environment to align motives, as long as motives are at odds you will continue to run into this issue, and the TZM and similar trains of thought are all I have seen that can deal with this fundamental issue guiding human behaviour.
by (140 points)
FMO - you are being rude, and haven't proven yourself worthy of putting up with.
this site has a lot of people who think that tech creates more problems than it solves. i am delighted that you disagree, since i'd like to get some good discussions going, but if the best you are capable of is saying "it's obvious," "x=x", "natural law," and "you're off the mark," then you won't get far here.
by (53.1k points)
Sorry my anwer didn't meet your needs.

You are right, I don't go in to a lot of specifics because TZM gives me the creeps, so I maintain enough knowledge to know when to get the fuck away from it when it rears it's head. That means I am not going to be able to get into all the nuances of their platform. As I said in my answer, the very idea of having a roadmap is something I am critical of - I find it prescriptive, whether that roadmap is to a moneyless techno-utopia or a future primitive. That said, their reliance on technology (what you called "technologically enabled anarchism/socialism") to establish their goals raises red flags for me, as an anarchist who is generally critical of technology and civilization.

Regarding the allegations, I said that I have heard them, and TZM has the feel of a group that could fall in to that pretty easily (hence my keeping them at arm's length). I bring them up because I've heard them. I am not saying they are true - in fact I said that I found no overt evidence of them. By mentioning them I was hoping that people who do know more about those would flesh them out (whether real or imagined)

I didn't get in to rights because it is a subject that has been discussed on this site inother places, and it was easier to link to a couple places where it has been, not because it is a subject I am not interested in critiquing (and I am critical of ideas like rights for many of the reasons you bring up - without law or morals, what determines rights? how are  they maintained?) relatedly, what is natural law, exactly? To my thinking it is a similarly amorphous concept to rights, human nature, or other universalized values.
by (22.1k points)
My intention was not to be rude, is there not a personal message you could send to me if you thought that?

Also stating me to not be worthy of "putting up with" is kind of arrogant and unnecessary do you not think?

I replied to what appeared to be an implication that my agreements with TZM made me some kind of crack pot cult member.

I would be much obliged if you would hold everyone to the same standards.
by (140 points)
Ingrate, I understand it is human nature to fear anything different but if you truly want to understand something you have to learn about it despite your fears otherwise your views are always going to be ill informed.

Needless to say given what you have said already any research you do would likely be subject to serious and significant confirmation bias.
by (140 points)
With regard to "natural law" my understanding is that it is based on objective measures required for managing the earths resources, obviously these calculations would be dependant on accurate measurements and that is the only place as far as I can see where potential errors could occur, technology allows for transparency humans are not capable of.
by (140 points)
FMO dot/ingrate, you are rude, if this is the kind of welcome new members get I am not surprised the membership of this place is significantly lacking...
by (140 points)
I did make it clear I was asking for specifics, and not general statements, I am not sure how I could have been much clearer on that, for which you then proceeded to talk in broad generalizations and clearly biased and uninformed speculation...
by (140 points)
FMO, I don't think you understand the purpose of this site. It is not to generate "membership"; it is to provide a forum for questions and answers. Registering and logging in is not the same as membership. Part of the problem with such a format arises when folks like you wander in and make statements disguised as questions. That's called bad faith, and there are several old-timers here who see right through it.

If you had looked at a few of the questions with longer responses you would have seen that topics like "rights" and "human nature" have been dealt with at some length. Some of us old-timers might be a little impatient when folks with bad faith try to provoke us into revisiting the same annoying objections we've already addressed.
by (570 points)
FMO I found one other related question and it did not cover TZM with regard to any specifics (hence me specifying such in the question) only blanket statements, the same as has been applied again here albeit in a more tactless, biased and admittedly uninformed manner.

What is this site anyway it is starting to seem more like some old boys club than an anarchist forum.
by (140 points)
Sorry, I was referring to all your questions and comments, not just about the zeitgeist idiots.
by (570 points)
How about you answer the question as opposed to push your own prejudices.

Personal attacks do not help matters.

If TZM is idiocy as you claim then justify that viewpoint, that was the entire point of this, and deal with specifics, I stated it pretty clearly at the start and all I have received in return are self righteous generalizations and personal insults from people who admit to being largely ignorant of the subject and appear to be undermining a viewpoint without justification.
by (140 points)
edited by
You seem to be confused on several points. Just because you ask a question doesn't mean that anyone will answer it. But if someone does, it may not be the answer you were looking for, and even if it were more along those lines, there's no guarantee that it will be any more satisfying to you. Further, many questions don't get answered the way an asker would prefer due to a lack of clarity in the way the question was phrased - hence these comments that are not answers.

I'm not interested in detailing any reasons for my dismissal of the Zeitgeist idiots; that they are techno-happy utopians is enough reason for an automatic dismissal. In that sense they have more in common with the LaRouchites than even the stupidest pro-Parecon anarchist.

How much knowledge of a topic does one need to have in order not to be considered ignorant by you?

Nobody owes you anything.
by (570 points)
Again I never claimed to be owed anything, I did not say I was looking for a specific answer, so it is you who appears confused

Also why bother writing comments that contribute nothing to the question or answer?

I would rather if you had nothing to offer on the subject you simply did not but obviously you are free to waste peoples time however you wish.

The one answer I did get was again from someone who admitted to not knowing what they were talking about, and clearly did not read the question.

Merely reading the question and answering it in a way that is clear and not unnecessarily offensive and presumptuous would suffice.
by (140 points)
It seems there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding what The Zeitgeist Movement entails... (it has evolved significantly since the films)

For the first time technology can actually enable anarchy and all I have seen is what appears to be superstitious fear of the unknown. (too many dystopian sci fi movies?)

How else could anarchy be realized? If anyone has any better ideas I would really LOVE to hear them...
by (190 points)
" How about you answer the question..." That is a demand, which means you believe anyone making comments on this thread owes you an answer.

I will comment on anything that suits my fancy for as long as it amuses me, whether or not those comments "contribute" anything for you. I don't owe you any particular contributions.

I am only wasting my own time, which as a self-owner, is my prerogative. You are under no obligation to read my comments, nor are you under any obligation to respond -- especially if they contribute nothing to you. Don't worry about other people's time being wasted; it's up to them to be amused or not. But I'm sure if you explained it to all these other people, they'd be grateful that you made that decision for them.

The presumptuousness is all yours. You presume that there is any sympathy for free market superstition on this site; you presume that registering entails membership; you presume that your particular interests will overlap significantly with others who frequent this site; you presume to know something about anarchist ideas...
by (570 points)
It was a polite request (given that questions/answers are the format of this forum), i said you were free to waste peoples time including your own. You have gone on to list a load of your presumptions about me and my intentions...

Given my experience here they should rename this site hypocrisy101.
by (140 points)
Polite? Hardly.

The list I made was based on the things you've written here. I have no idea what your intentions are, but I discern a pro-capitalist agenda, which makes me very skeptical of any intentions on your part. If you had blundered onto this site with no preconceived ideas and had asked naive questions, then that would have been one thing. That you have come to this site with a set of talking points leads me to believe that you are interested in provocation.

Hypocrisy is a big word. Pointing out contradiction is to be expected in any series of arguments, but alleging hypocrisy brings in the supposition that regular posters here are overflowing with bad faith, are dishonest, and have no regard for the consequences of their writings. The intention behind invoking hypocrisy is moralism pure and simple; you are merely condemning that which you dislike, and playing the victim card.

But you were not forced to come here, ask leading questions, become upset when answers to your satisfaction were not forthcoming, and continuing to lash out. That's not really polite, is it?
by (570 points)
Again hypocrisy. And the hypocrisy and dishonesty you are displaying here is all the evidence needed to make such an accusation.

You are claiming I have attributes which you express.

I am not upset, your posts are uninspired ignorant and boring.
by (140 points)
"Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."
http://m.dictionary.com/definition/hypocrite

Look it up for yourself, too. You are not using it correctly.

Just as nobody owes you anything, it is not my job to inspire or entertain you. I will continue to point out your ignorance for as long as it amuses me.
by (570 points)
*yawwwwwwwwwn*

FYI

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs
Full Definition of HYPOCRITE

2
:  a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Examples of HYPOCRITE

the hypocrites who criticize other people for not **** but who don't **** themselves
by (140 points)
And what's the word that describes a person who believes that constant repetition is proof of accuracy? Maybe next time you can point out what **** means. You know, illustrate your conclusion with, what's that called again? Oh yeah, an example. Empty allegations from you are more boring than bus schedules.
by (570 points)
Lawrence, you appear to be nothing more than an internet bully hiding behind your keyboard. As far as I can see only one person has contributed to the question and it is the person who has asked it, the person you are relentlessly attacking for ( as you claim )no reason other than your own amusement.

Perhaps it is more likely you have some ulterior motive as all you have done is attempt to distract from the question being asked with personal attacks.

FAO MODS: I wrote an answer here and it appears to have disappeared...
by (190 points)
Anonymous32, thankyou, nice to see one person can see what is going on here...

I have the answer you gave to the question in my e-mail and you are right it is not here, perhaps because it showed a lack of disagreement or vitriol aimed towards me,  or the fact you pulled apart the dismal reasoning, ignorance and obvious lack of understanding shown in the preceeding diatribe and the only permitted "answer"...
by (140 points)
Curses, foiled again!

You kids are so funny, invoking charges of hypocrisy, attacking, and bullying. I hope you'll get tired of portraying yourselves as victims soon.
by (570 points)
Au contraire lawrence, I do not have to invoke charges of anything you are perfectly capable of making yourself appear to be all those things.

Again with the ad hominems referencing those with whom you disagree as "kids", presumably in a derogatory manner, you really are transparent and your goading is pathetic and immature, manners cost nothing, ignorance is only bliss until that bright light runs you over.

Perhaps you had a bad day, perhaps you had a tough life and decided it would be best to just be an *** hole, either way i don't care, you are not worth my time or energy.
by (140 points)
And yet you are compelled to get in the last word. Well go ahead little buddy, I won't stop you any more.
P.S. You really need to work on your insulting skills. "I know you are but what am I" just doesn't cut it among adults.
by (570 points)
You truly have turned projection into an art form...

compelled to get the last word, you mean like you just did...

I guess it is one of your many less than admirable traits, like how you are also compelled to talk complete nonsense.

Anyway you did your job, you helped convince me that this site is either full of capitalist shills, or it actually has nothing to offer, good riddance.
by (140 points)
Lawrence, farbeit from me to want to defend FMO, but I'm not sure the perception of a capitalist agenda is an accurate one. FMO and TZM seem to genuinely be opposed to capitalism, at least as it is commonly understood. The problem is that capitalism can be eliminated and we still have industrial civilization.

Hehe, I initially posted this, then I just saw that FMO called us all capitalist shills (had just seen their condemnation of the term shill being applied elsewhere.)
by (22.1k points)
All I can do is SMH
by (570 points)
those who are alert to such things will have noted that freemarketoxymoron and anonymous32 are the same person.

i'm not sure about the relevance of most of this thread, but for the sake of ingrate's good faith efforts i will leave it up.
by (53.1k points)
Powered by Question2Answer
...