The Zeitgeist Movement, Peter Joseph, and Psychology

[Wesley]

This is me just exercising some ideas, but I am sure that other people will be able to contribute to this. 

 

Stef has often talked about how certain ideas that are found to be illogical can often be traced back to childhood stages of development. These are the points where they did not continue to develop and thus got stuck.

 

Just for curiosity, I thought I would float some theories as to how TZM analogizes with a child's view and see what others can add/deny.

 

First, is there is some anger at the current state of the world. This could be entirely logical, or could be rebellious, but I thought I would add it.

 

As far as the ideal society, it is an all-knowing machine controlling infinite resources and properly allocating them. This seems to analogize to a child whose parent seems to know exactly how to manage everything to give the child all of their needs met. (and possibly anger that the current world is not providing this.)

 

Let me know what your thoughts are and if there are any other analogies that you could see that may make sense.

[Gnostiphile]

As far as the ideal society, it is an all-knowing machine controlling infinite resources and properly allocating them. This seems to analogize to a child whose parent seems to know exactly how to manage everything to give the child all of their needs met. (and possibly anger that the current world is not providing this.)

 

Is it anger that the world is not providing it or that their parents never did?  I think for a lot of people, computers would have been preferable to who they were actually raised by.

[MarkIX]

I've come to the conclusion it's not just illogical ideas that are developed this way.

Take the example of Stefan himself

He only successfully achieved independence when his mother no longer had power to adversely affect his life, i.e. when she could no longer exercise violent authority over him. Now what is his solution to improve the world "End violent authority,end the State". 

Peter Joseph said that his mother was a social worker (iirc) who therefore would spend her working time caring for others, and therefore have less time to care for her son. Does this reflect on his solution to improve the world, a supercomputer that will care for everyone all the time?

Of course when we talk about the psychology of other individuals they tend to end up as us in a mask, perhaps this reveals more about me than about the individuals I have directly referred too

[PatrickC]

I'm not sure I want to psycholgise individuals, since I don't know them of course. But TZM bares a lot of resemblance to Marxism. Both ideologies refer to a central resource processor, except TZM's belongs to a computer, which exponents see as quite benign compared to that of the state. Marxist ideology has progressed and changed itself over the years. But it still sits under the belief of the greater good for the greater number.

 

I'm of the deep opinion that many folk are unaware of their collectivist leanings. TZM is susceptible to these leanings and I would agree that broadly speaking that it's all about a child's need for a benevolent provider. A benign computer seems like the most logical progression for otherwise unprocessed Marxist thinking.

[MarkIX]

I'm of the deep opinion that many folk are unaware of their collectivist leanings. TZM is susceptible to these leanings and I would agree that broadly speaking that it's all about a child's need for a benevolent provider. A benign computer seems like the most logical progression for otherwise unprocessed Marxist thinking.

Human communication is inherently collective, the good kind of collective!

But I think it would be more true to say that acceptance of Marxism is due to some unprocessed problems.

[PatrickC]

Marxist thinking is just an extension of the religious thinking that proceeded it (at least the Abrahamic ones). They each come under the umbrella term collectivist thinking. Ayn Rand did a fairly good thesis on this topic, which whilst I might find to be self evident, is also a rather compelling argument, even if you don't.

 

The reason I consider most people to be in the dark about their 'collectivist' leanings, is not necessarily because of Marxism or religion even. Although it's difficult to ignore the cultural Marxist ideas that abound these days within political correctness. But that these ideologies hold the same values to be true. That primarily the collective always trumps the individual. People simply consider that demoting or sacrificing their person-hood for the greater good as a moral and just action. This of course has played rather well into the hands of despots that would like to laud it over everyone, whether they be Kings, dictators or Presidents.

 

Trying not to get too off topic with Wesley's opener, but I see collectivist thinking as keeping us in the mindset of remaining utterly dependent upon a single provider. Rather than negotiate with our neighbours we must seek permission from this central agency before we can decide on our own individual actions. This is wholly analogous to the parent child relationship, which statism means to keep us in a state of perpetuity with itself, for its own ends. As children we answer to our parents, as adults we answer to the state. Thankfully our parents let us go, the state however does not.

 

Whilst I believe TZM is attempting to loosen those shackles. It's hard not to see some similarities with the collectivist thinking we have all been indoctrinated with.

[MarkIX]

I haven't actually read anything by Ayn Rand, my path to Anarchy didn't travel that way. My comment on "the good kind" of collectivism is strictly about communication. Any language is in fact a collective, wouldn't be any use if it wasn't. But it is a practical mutable collective sensitive to the requirements of individual members while still maintaining enough cohesion  to be useful to the multitude, all without any central authority. Sure there are people who claim to have authority in certain languages but the are humoured or respected rather than feared and they have no real power. Marxism and Religion are really hierarchical power structures who use certain Mantras to control the Livestock (they don't call then the flock for nothing). Where in the world has this "collective" ever appeared, the places that confess to be communist have bad records on collectivism, since its the very people they purport to be freeing who do the most dying and the theocracies are perhaps only slightly less backward in filling graves. Faced with the facts it seems that collectivism is a term that shouldn't be used for the actual application of these ideologies. After all if I call myself a pacifist and then spend the rest of the day stabbing people in the neck, you can and should call me a liar. 

[PatrickC]

But it is a practical mutable collective sensitive to the requirements of individual members while still maintaining enough cohesion  to be useful to the multitude, all without any central authority.

 

I really have no idea what this means frankly. Language is certainly something we share collectively with groups of people, but this has little to do with my earlier definition of the term.

 

Communism, theocracies as with monarchies have all been pretty much discredited. Which is why it only ever occurs in the most economically backward economies. But collective ideology is still very much the swinging mantra of the day, that we learn in our schools, parents, churches and indeed the state. If you don't see it, then that doesn't surprise me, because most people believe it to be 'self evident' or instinctive even.

 

It's only when people recognise that they have no moral authority to dictate what another person most do, that the blinkers begin to peel off. At the moment most people absolutely believe that the majority can enforce it's beliefs onto the minority or individuals.

[Guest darkskyabove]

It's only when people recognise that they have no moral authority to dictate what another person must do, that the blinkers begin to peel off. At the moment most people absolutely believe that the majority can enforce it's beliefs onto the minority or individuals.

 

If it's OK for YOU to tell me what I SHOULD do, then it's OK for ME to tell you what YOU should do.

 

Can you hear the sound of their shoes burning rubber, trying to escape reality?

[Josh F]

Well in the memetic sense, the communist or collectivist or socialist meme is spread to children by the multitudes rewarded by the state.  It works until it doesnt.