Film Review: Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

It's difficult to review documentaries without letting your own personal feelings interject, especially one as all encompassing as Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. If one were to review this film based through the looking glass of one's own politics it would immediately become bias and consequently its worth as an objective, balanced look at what is presented here questionable. Consequently it is desirable to refrain from passing any personal judgement on the information included in the film. Rather, the methodology will focus on what other politically motivated critics have said, whilst also attempting to look at some of the questions that might have been skirted over. This review is not intended in any way to push the author's own personal opinions upon its reader and that it is best to have watched the film yourself in order to garner your own frame of reference in relation to what is being said.

Zeitgeist isn't just a film documentary. To understand the film, you must also understand that it is a movement in its own right. Thus, it would be pertinent to explain what they're all about in order to establish the context of the film. What it is remains somewhat of a misnomer. Those involved have often been called everything from 'Marxist' to 'Fascist', and perhaps the most maligning tag of all, 'conspiracy theorists'. Spawned from the philosophical musings of philosopher Jacque Fresco, the Zeitgeist movement aim to fundamentally reengineer human society toward a post-scarcity world based around the scientific method. As with all political theory, many of their ideas coincide with other ideologies, and it is some of these overlapping ideas which some have selectively singled out to justify their definitions of the movement within a narrowly defined political paradigm. Zeitgeist followers accept that some ideas may indeed overlap, but reject any claims they fall into one of the existing political ideologies. Certainly there does seem to be a lack of understanding surrounding the Zeitgeist movement, and it is indeed often wrongly labelled as a knee-jerk reaction to a challenged belief system. Yet, it uncannily shares characteristics with one long forgotten ideology, one it has yet to be called, and one that might be the most fitting label of all.

Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the third film in the series attempting to answer that question everyone on Earth has asked; 'why are things so fucked up?'. Moving Forward is the most mature of the bunch, seeking to distance itself from mainstream critics who have dismissed the movement as 'conspiracist crackpots'. At two-hours and forty-minutes long, any attempt to adequately summarise its contents would probably end in abject failure. However, when discussing anything to do with politics, economics and in general why human beings make the decisions they do there is always one fundamental argument in which the discussion comes back to; nature vs. nurture. Attempting to answer this comprises the first section of the film. Through the use of scientific studies and interviews with academics in the fields of biology, neurology and behavioural psychology the film makes an incredibly persuasive case that neither nature nor nurture alone can accurately explain human behaviour. It then logically extrapolates by asking whether the condition we've created in the modern world supports our health, needs and development. This second section is all about the monetary system in which the film asserts that the society which is built around this system is ineffective in meeting human needs, broadly defined under Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. More to the point, Moving Forward accuses this system of actually being detrimental to our ability to achieve them. Thus the film moves onto its final third section; how to fix the problem through redesigning society and applying the scientific method to social concerns. This is the part that makes the film not just controversial, but downright subversive.

Admittedly Moving Forward is the most thorough in the series. Criticisms of the previous two films cited a lack of proper references and the mixing of truth with half-truths as their main problems. Moving Forward has gone a long way to rectify this, and the academic information and statistical evidence used to support its claims in the first two sections is nothing short of compelling. Some of it will literally have you shaking your head in both disgust and absolute astonishment. The way in which the culmination of all these things you have long suspected is so forcefully, vehemently and concisely conveyed is tantamount to taking a shot of adrenaline. Certainly, if you have any empathy you will be angered. But herein lies part of the problem with Moving Forward. Foremost, the sources it uses - the academics, the studies - are clearly selected in a one-sided academic fest without dissenting opinion. While this is inevitable with any film of this nature it might have been more effective if they sought sources that may have tried to contradict them and address those critiques. The second criticism in relation to the information presented is that Moving Forward has very high production values. This might be seen as a plus point, and in one sense it is insofar that it can be taken more seriously. But its production values are so good that the film is almost hypnotic. Boasting an emotive musical score to boot you might be forgiven for mistaking whether Moving Forward is genuinely presenting you with information for critical analysis or whether it's pushing it on you through emotional osmosis. Conspiracy theorists, notably Truthers, New World Order believers and Evangelical Christians all argue the latter, adding that the Zeitgeist movement is a cultist patsy front for the NWO designed to brainwash you. While you'd be a tad retarded to take it that far, Moving Forward most certainly appeals to your emotions. Whether you see that as a weakness of the film or utterly superfluous would probably depend on your open-mindedness to the ideas presented.

Whatever your political affiliation it is difficult to argue with the points put across in the first two sections of the film. Where many balk however is at the proposals by the Zeitgeist movement to rectify the matter. What they advocate is a complete eradication of money where goods and services are under the collective ownership of the people. Demand and production are carried out by computers tracking the planet's resources and fully-automated robotic factories. It's not so much fears of Skynet taking over but as one familiar YouTube philosopher Stefan Molyneux put it, "Marxism with robots". Rightly, there is good reason to fear collectivised central planning given the historical precedence. Zeitgeisters would argue that it is not so much the method of economic distribution, but rather the political which has always hindered its workability. Rather than shouting down what the Zeitgeist movement calls a 'Resource Based Economy', perhaps it is more pertinent to ask how in such a system you would calculate demand and opportunity cost without the pricing mechanism, which is often seen as the fairest way to distribute resources. The idea, one Zeitgeister might retort, is that demand is recorded on a centralised data collection system through surveys and individual requests where the computer will set production targets according to the resources available in a high-tech internet-like system. For some this might not be a convincing enough substitute to the current price mechanism, but in theory this would technically be more efficient. And that's what is at the core of this film, to promote a system based on efficiency - something far less wasteful than the current practices of capitalism which is inarguably leading Earth toward ecological collapse. You will of course find that members of the movement are incredibly dogmatic in regards to what is proposed in the film, yet in theory the ideology proposed here should be adaptable. If it is, as it claims to be, based on the scientific method then it should without hesitation or sentimentality discard theories which fail the tests of scientific rigour.

If you've ever read any Kropotkin or Bakunin you might recognise that the long forgotten ideology alluded to earlier is anarcho-communism. The similarities are stark and only begs the question 'how new are all these Zeitgeist theories?'. If you want to call the Zeitgeist movement anything this would be the closest you would get to it. Like anarchists the world over, the Zeitgeist movement's core support emanates primarily from young people seeking answers, distrustful of governments who have left them out in the cold. At a time when graduate unemployment is at an all time high and government austerity measures have seen the rise of tuition fees it understandable that people are looking to all kinds of alternatives for answers. Whether Moving Forward offers anything revolutionary in the way of political thought however is still debatable.

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is a difficult film to objectively review without letting one's own emotionally charged preconceptions interfere. Sure, it's all too easy to bury your head in the sand and dismiss everything said in this film. And yes, it will probably threaten everything you previously thought to be true, and this would understandably be the natural reaction. Naturally the film has its weaknesses, and there's a particularly interesting debate raging on YouTube at the moment between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux. However, what's more beguiling than anything is that Peter Joseph often comes across as a perturbed and socially dysfunctional intellectual, wafting around with an air of arrogance unbecoming of him. Indeed, Joseph has been known on certain occasions to call those who disagree with him "intellectually incapable". Even the Zeitgeist forums have reportedly removed posts they consider 'inappropriate'. For a movement that claims it has little in common with Marxism, they certainly appear to occasionally don the outfit of an NKVD officer from time to time. Yet everyone is an individual and it would be wrong to judge the information presented here through the lens of character assassination. Above all one should view this film with an open mind. At the very least it will make you think, hard, and hopefully reassess what is really valuable in life. It is thought provoking to say the least, but given the chance and the patience, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward may perhaps prove to be one of the most insightful films you've seen in your life.

WATCH THE WHOLE FILM HERE

Eradicating the Monetary System

Ask yourself this: How did we arrive at a state where even efforts to 'save the planet' hinge on the requisite of money? How has the economic social mechanism we use to distribute the earth's products become so far removed from the physical nature of earth?

Once we lived in balance with nature, but with the development of agrarian practices humans began producing more than they needed. Enterprise became too cumbersome for simple 'bartering'. Thus a new medium of exchange, money, was selected, desirable for its scarcity. It was no longer tangible goods being distributed, but still something one could 'touch'. With each development of money - from tangible metals, to coloured bits of paper, to plastic credit cards, the money system has been removed from anything physical. It has been so far removed that now the system relies on confidence in the capability of money to compound on itself. Debt fuels consumption created at a computer screen. We adhere to a paradigm of growth and consumption which is no longer appropriate. The magic of 'buy now, pay later' has accelerated consumption far beyond 'pay-as-you-go'. Retailers clear out land, erect huge depots, then close shop and do it again a couple of miles down the road to engage in 'competition' with another retailer offering the same merchandise across the street. Duplications, redundancy and waste abound.

So, what do I propose instead? A 'Technocracy' or 'Resource-Based Economy', which in theory provides every citizen an equal share of resource-conscious production. The social and environmental ramifications are enormous, but living things, animal or human would cease to be cash crops. Not a single tree would be chopped down, car or missile produced for the sake of sales or job creation. Technology is not a tool for domination, but management, an enhancement of the human being. Computers which now monitor the flow of debt will turn their attentions to monitoring the flow of energy and resources. Consumption is instantly recorded and production set accordingly, eliminating the need for excessive warehousing. Ironically, machines that lead to the rise of the monetary system may well make it obsolete as technological abundance drives prices down and technological production eliminates wage earners and tax payers.

Now here's the part you may need to get your head round; all goods and services will be available without the use of money, credits, barter or other system of debt servitude. This premise is based on the notion that earth's resources are actually plentiful; the current practice of 'rationing' through monetary methods is both irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. At our current level of technology we can make available food, clothing and housing as well as create limitless supplies of energy. Through an efficiently designed economy based on resources, not money, we can easily provide the basic necessities as well as a high-standard of living for all.

If you doubt this, consider an analogy by the philosopher Jacque Fresco. At the start of WW2 the US had only 600 front-line fighter aircraft. They overcame this shortfall by, at peak development, producing 90,000+ aircraft a year. The question was "do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war?". The answer was 'no', there was not enough money or gold. But, there were enough resources. It was these available resources which enabled the US to achieve such feats of production and efficiently win the war. Unfortunately, this way of thought was only considered in times of war.

The new measure of success in such an economy would be the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. Scarcity precedes crime, greed and violence. By overcoming scarcity it is conceivable that by and large, these things would be eliminated. Technology is well within its ability to overcome scarcity by applying it to renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing more energy-efficient cities and above all generating a new incentive based on human and environmental concerns. Machines wouldn't displace people, but free them by easing their workloads whilst simultaneously increasing the availability of goods and services while lengthening holidays. Technology would be used to raise living standards rather than threatening human existence.

Under such a system designed to eliminate scarcity, everything is thrown at creating efficiency by conserving energy and reducing waste. Thus energy requirements take primacy as resources would be thrown at providing alternatives to burning scarce resources like oil. Such energy sources to consider include; geothermal, controlled fusion, solar and hydro technologies. Energy in unlimited quantities is well within our technical capabilities, but the only reason it is not available is because there is not profit in it. If you can't sell it, why do it? It's a small wonder that the largest energy companies in the world own all the patents to such technologies and are merely sitting on them. Energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, kitchen utensils and household appliances for example. By all means, choice is good, but instead of wasting resources on hundreds of different manufacturing plants, the bureaucracy and the manpower required to turn out different versions of the same product, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the whole population.

Capitalism is self-perpetuating, breeding a vicious cycle of selfish individualism, waste and slavery. It is a wonder that everyone accepts Capitalism as the pinnacle of human advancement, as if this is it, we cannot go any further. Do you think those a thousand years ago ever saw anything superseding feudalism? Probably not. Capitalism perpetuates a perceived need for power and materialism because of 'scarcity'. Eliminating the monetary system eliminates debt and fear of unemployment with it. A system based on cooperation would see both mental and physical stress decline sharply, leaving the individual free to explore and develop their abilities. Money is not necessary to survival. Money, gold, diamonds - all are irrelevant to your survival, unlike air, food and water. Only if resources are scarce can money be used to control their distribution. You cannot sell air or water because they are naturally abundant. If it is abundant, you can't sell it.

Work essentially amounts to nothing more than paid slavery. This misnomer that 'making a living by the sweat of your brow' holds people back. What a resource-based economy proposes frees people from drudgery and their repetitive jobs which make them ignorant. The monetary system robs them where machines free people. The only reason a world without money is inconceivable to you is because you've never known such a world. It's funny when machines have been replacing human labour since time began. This shows a clash proving the falseness of the monetary system. Human employment is in direct competition with technological development. Given the fundamental priority of industry is profit, people through time will continue to be replaced by machines. In a monetary system you have every right to fear this; if a machine replaces you, your ability to survive in the system diminishes. You NEED a job in this system to earn money to survive. In a resource-based economy machines don't make you redundant, they free you from servitude. This is the point of technology, to make human life easier. Labour for income hinders progress. As long as such a system survives, humans will never be free from their caged cubicles and technology will remain paralysed. Machines should be viewed as an extension of human performance above all.

So what's the incentive I hear you ask? What will motivate people to do anything? Surely, if people have access to all the necessities of life without servitude, debt, barter, trade, man will just lay around in the sun? This is a myth perpetuated by a conditioning in our culture. We are trained to believe the monetary system produces an incentive. This is what you've been taught to support the monetary system. The reality is people would behave very differently if they wanted for nothing. Incentives would be different, new incentives would arise. A new environment based on cooperation might perhaps point you toward space travel, or something as simple as creating something you enjoy? In turn you'll probably enjoy sharing your creation with someone else rather than having done it merely to sell it on. The problem is most education today merely produces people for jobs. You are taught to specialise. People are not generalists, they do not know a lot about a lot. Such narrow-mindedness leads to disasters such as wars. We are not given the necessary tools in education to either think critically or solve problems adequately. The smarter you are however, the richer the world is as everyone becomes a contributor. The greatest untapped resource on earth is human ingenuity and potential.

If market economics persists, it would be some wonder if it does not result in vast populations warring over dwindling resources. If at some point in the future, scholars of a post-monetary era will wonder how we survived for so long trading our real wealth - our natural resources - in diehard subjugation to something as insubstantial as the flow of imaginary 'I.O.U's'. Patriotism, weapons, militaries - all are signs that we are not civilized. The same scholars will ask "did you not see the necessity of machines?" or "was it not obvious war was inevitable if you produce scarcity?". I'm not saying this is some vision of a perfect utopia. It's not. It is impossible to reach perfection. But it's a darn site more appealing than what we've currently got.