Stefan Molyneux says TVP is hippie communism

Peter Joseph re-releases first film

Zeitgeist :The Movie - 2010 Companion Source Guide

Sources

If you need proof, just look at all the falsehoods in Zeitgeist: The Movie. That would mean @tzmglobal is a con man or a pathological liar.

— The Goodest Jim Jesus 🤘🏴💰🍕 (@JimJesus) October 7, 2013

I've been in debate with myself for a while now. After all the books, shows, lectures, podcasts, films over the past 13 yrs... I realized I have rejected the feeling that created #Zeitgeist: The Movie

I think I might reboot Z1. No sequel. A reinvention.https://t.co/szv4kNPUi0

— Peter Joseph (@ZeitgeistFilm) December 26, 2020

Jacque Fresco making people sleep again

Take the 666 Peter Joseph Challenge

The Venus Project started selling Jacque Fresco mini busts

The 301 view censorship begins

A Baseless Theory

A Baseless Theory Part 1

The following is the first part of an analysis of the Zeitgeist Movement’s support of Resource Base economies. The parts are as follows

1) A Vision of the Human: A Philosophical Hole

2) The Rejection of the State: The paradox of Anarchy and Economy

3) Betrayal of the Technocrats: Authority structures lying in Wait

Conspiracy Theories by themselves do not formulate systems of political theory on the whole. The entire aim of a Conspiracy Theory is only to expose the conspirators and thus to explain the how and why of the world’s events. By believing in a Conspiracy Theory there is no defacto socio-political position that must be taken, and Conspiracy Theories do often originate from both ends of the political spectrum.

The Zeitgeist Movement has presented us with an interesting case, however. It is undeniable that the Zeitgeist Movement began with a film focusing exclusively on conspiracies, regardless of what current members claim. This critique is explained on the Conspiracy Science blog-page, and I link this so that readers can have an understanding of how linked conspiracy theorism is with the movement today. And all one needs to do is remember that Peter Merola, creator of the Zeitgeist films, has stated that the movies are still the core generator of interest in the movie, and thus it is clear to see how conspiracy theories lead to the movement. The movement, in turn, is essentially built to correct the social ills described in the films.

The Zeitgeist Movement has essentially merged with The Venus Project, which looks to establish what the founder refers to as a “Resource Based Economy” (RBE). The official definition that the Venus Project has selected for itself is as follows:

The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

The first statement is debatable, and indeed there would need to be extensive documentation to prove what the Venus Project is claiming. However, it is the Venus Projects’ definition I am here concerned with, and thus it becomes my operative point of critique.

The final part of the Zeitgeist film essentially launches into a criticism that the current financial system is built to put people into debt and enslave those not in the banking elite. It is then consistent that Zeitgeist supporters would support the Venus Project’s goal of abandoning “the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude.” However, what I wish to examine now is the tremendous tension that logically exists in this theory. What I want to do now is demonstrate some of the geneological aspects of RBE and why it is essentially dead in the crib.

A Vision of the Human

Marxist theory contends that the capitalist system is inherently flawed not only because it is created by the bourgeoise in order to benefit themselves at the expense of the working class, or proletarian, but also because it is a system built on the selling of one’s own humanity and subsequent alienation from that humanity. In Das Kapital Marx maintains that humans are, by nature and definition, a productive creature. The ability to create and to produce is what makes a human a human, and so a system where labor is sold to another so that the products of that labor can be sold is immediately twisted and deserving of destruction. Marx’s own argument is clearly much grander than this and includes a historical-materialist dialectic, but it is this that I wish to begin with.

The Venus Project further maintains:

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

This is then at least partially defined by a quasi-Marxist position that human dignity is linked with the human’s ability to labor. This is distinctly different than applied Marxism, like Soviet-Stalinism and so forth, in that the human is not being told what he must do, but the basis of human dignity remains the same. I am not claiming that the Venus Project has taken any direct ideas purposefully from Marxism, but the underlying logic here is undeniable. The argument, implicitly, is that humans can be satisfied and fulfiled through ones work.

This then becomes the first position of criticism and potential refutation. As with Marxist theory, the RBE can be critiqued on its understanding of human fulfilment. If the position is rejected that humans are fulfiled by their labor, the rest of the RBE tenents are moot. Should humans be fundamentally fulfiled by, say, rational triumphs, the RBEs goal is flawed.

This is probably some of the worst waters for the Venus Project to enter. There is no indication that the supporters of the movement are prepared to deal with the philosophical implications of the statement made by the Venus Project. This position must withstand arguments such as “human’s are actually fulfiled by emotional connections” and models such as Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs which holds that human self-actualization comes through creative, moral, and factual awareness- not exclusively labor based.

Why this is further so problematic is that none of the leading figures have any competence in philosophical tradition and are thus ill-equipped to defend this position. Consider that Jacques Frescoe is a self-described engineer and technocrat and has never stated he has any familiarity with philosophical argument. Thus we must assume that the only arguments that the Venus Project should be prepared to make are empirical- firmly outside the realm of answering this difficult question.

What I want to leave you with is an understanding that there is a very critical point of contention within the basis of the Venus Project. All it requires to be dissatisfied with RBE is to follow the philosophical geneology of Marxist theory. If it is rejected that humans are satisfied by their labor, it is then rejected that a system built upon this tenent is in any way correct. I am not convinced by this position, and feel as though supporters of RBE take this assumption without much consideration.

I have not forwarded my own argument for what a human is defined by for the simple reason that I believe it is far too complicated to delve into now. My point is that this is a contentious position, and thus any supporters of RBE should be ready to either defend the position, or surrender it and find a more philosophically tenable position to hold. My own position is that humans are defined by cognitive accomplishment and freedom. Labor is a social act- it is given meaning not by the individual, but by the culture that individual is in.  It is then incongruent to simply assume that labor is what makes a human fulfiled.

For now, I hope that this gives supporters and opponents something to consider. Personally, this fundamental argument is unsatisfying but is far from the only problem with RBE theory.

Rejection of the State: The Paradox of Anarchy and Economy

This is part 2 of a 3 part essay on Resource Base Economies as they are described by Jacque Fresco of The Venus Project. Part 1 can be found here. This section will look at the political paradox that exists in RBE and why it is an incomplete picture for future governance.

Resource Based Conspiracies

Before embarking on this task, it is important to see exactly how The Venus Project views the status quo it hopes to revise. This is important because it allows the observer to fully comprehend what the Venus Project envisions as its most important changes to society and how it differs from what exists. This essentially allows us to also evaluate RBE on one further level- whether it has an accurate perception of the world at all.

According to the Venus Project:

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world’s population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body

What is so striking about this statement is that it largely falls in line with a common Conspiracy Theory known as the New World Order. This theory is famously forwarded by Zeitgeist film in part 3. The theory maintains that a secret cabal of bankers and other elite individuals are attempting to put the world under a one world government with themselves in power. This theory has been refuted time and time again, and so it is unnecessary to enter into that discussion now. However, what this then opens up is a very problematic situation for the validity of RBE.

If their view of global governance is wrong, what is it they are actually changing. As The Venus Project makes very clear, they do, in fact, believe that the world is currently under a push from corporations and an elite to enter a one world government. Now, as we look at the evidence for such a shift, we find that it is a remarkably thin theory and thus puts the Venus Project in an uncomfortable situation. That is not to say that there is no corporate injustice in the world (my own views on corporations are not favorable towards the system) but simply that there is no conspiracy for corporations and an elite to form a one world government. The logical tenability of such a theory is remarkably weak, and thus the world the Venus Project wants to change is not the world that is.

All this is to say that, aside from a debatable position on what fulfills a human being, the Venus Project is based on a faulty world view. This presents the second problem the Venus Project must overcome if it is to be a respectable theory. If the world it hopes to change does not exist, what good is the Venus Project? Perhaps a casual reader would be sold with the affective reasoning presented by the Venus Project. After all, people are suffering in the world. This, however, greatly oversimplifies the reasons for this suffering. It is not all due to the scarcity created by global-capitalism. Sudan, for example, is largely suffering due to a colonial legacy that distinct groups within the same country when no such arrangements would have been reached independently. Furthermore, to reject the Venus Project is not to reject helping people who are in dire situations. Consider that Jeffery Sachs has written extensively on the possibilities of eradicating global poverty in his book Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. This is not to argue that Sachs is right, only to note that there are more viable options for addressing the problem.

Anarchy, Economy, and A Go Nowhere Policy

What is perhaps the most undeveloped aspect of RBE is found in the opening of its introduction. RBE is described as

It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few

Here we find a very difficult tension in the RBE theory. On the one hand it seems to support a kind of political anarchy. That is, there is no socio-political order under which any of the human associations are to occur. Political governance is replaced with an “economic governance” where the economic state of affairs seems to lead to a situation benign anarchy. One need only look at the language in the above quote. There is no social control on economic endeavors, no social medium for trade. People, in some form or another, merely take what is needed (or desired).

This, however, is built upon a fundamentally flawed axiom. Namely, that socio-political spheres are divorced from economic ones. RBE is based on an idea that somehow, hierarchal social structures are removed when scarcity of resources is erased. This, however, needs to be tested. Let us consider first that all human activity is a social action. The interaction of individuals is dependent upon social constructs such as language, customs, and norms. I cannot engage with another individual if there is not some common social medium between us. Now, we can examine theories of language to see how there is a case for the fact that language refers to the material world (or in the case of theorists like Johann von Gottfried Herder, come from the material word). So, we must admit that social interactions are omnipresent, and that these social constructs emerge from a material condition.

This then means that any interaction in society is governed by a social structure- even the Venus Projects RBE. Even if there is an unlimited amount of resources and goods, the movement of goods, the possession of goods, and the sharing of goods are all socially constituted and thus dependent upon a social order. Indeed, the RBE view is dependent upon goods and resources having no other value than the fulfillment of needs. A simple anthropological survey will quickly dismiss such a simple view. Consider that in many cultures, the movement of goods represented displays of power and not the exchange of value in terms of use.

What RBE is dependent upon is that material goods in abundance somehow reverse any social construction attached to economic interaction. Such a view is historically without precedent and untestable. Fundamentally, no economy can exist without a social order. And a social order is the derivative form of a political order. It is thus foolish to believe that abundance will lead to a leveling of the social order. Never has there existed a culture where all members existed on the same plane, and where goods were exchanged free of any such social construction.

Imagining the potential problems in this model is not difficult. What will the role be of people adept in technological engineering? How are resources distributed? How do we overcome the biological impulses to form social groups? These are questions RBE supporters have no demonstrated they are able or willing to answer, and they are further overlooking how there has been no historical point at which benign anarchy has taken dominance in society.

Betrayal of the Technocrats: Authority structures lying in Wait

This is the third and final part of a three piece commentary on the Venus Project and Resource Base Economies. Parts one and two are found here and here.

This final section is meant to specifically address the final section of the previous post, namely the role of expertise and potential authority in RBE. This can be seen as a further charge against the quasi-anarchic social order that is envisioned in the Venus Project. As I have observed before, there is a hope to create a society without social inequality driven by scarcity. This, however faces a very difficult challenge in setting up a RBE much less in its functionality.

Experts In Wait

What must first be addressed is the entire RBE school of thought’s structure. The movements associated with this brand of RBE, Venus Project and Zeitgeist, both rely on a very specific illusion of expertise. Indeed, the Venus Project asserts that Jacque Fresco is responsible for coining the term “Resource Based Economy” (this can be seen in the first part of this essay). The idea here is that one man had the driving expertise to begin the movement. There is, at the very least, an inequality in information among supporters of RBE. Zeitgiest is no exception, despite claims to the contary. At the very least, the inception of the movement was reliant upon the inequality of knowledge. Peter Merola made Zeitgeist to spread his ideas, no matter how false his ideas were. Furthermore, the second film Zeitgeist Addendum introduced the Venus Projects to people who watched the films. This may appear to be a frivulous point, but it is, in reality, part of a much graver danger to RBE supporters.

There is always a serious inequality among people. I am not here refering to the kinds of arguments made by J.J. Rouseau in Origins of Inequality though my argument does follow a similar path. Human beings are born with inequality within all societies. Consider that children, almost universally, are not considered equal to adults. Even in the United States, children are granted basic rights but are not given certain privileges. And indeed, children are legally dependent upon adult care and authority. This extends to the intellectual realm. Human’s are not equal in their possesion of information. Schooling and experience add to this inequality as more learned people come to posses more knowledge than those who are not. This is not a claim about the superiority of formal education over self education, but rather a claim of the inherent inequalities we are faced with in our human experience.

Why this is so salient is because the Venus Project is dependent upon expertise in order to even begin. It is dependent upon technological expertise to create the necessary technologies for the forming of resource abundance. And it is further predicated upon Fresco’s own “expertise” and know-how in the development of urban planning as well as technological progress. It should then be immediately admitted that there is always an inequality at work even within this RBE. There are those qualified to develop technologies and those who are not. At the absolute minimum, there is a latent authority in RBE society.

And Once More We Ask Who is the Human

What is further troubling is an inherent contradiction in understandings about human behavior on the part of RBE supporters. As the fist section argued, the conception of human fulfillment is open to debate and thus a faulty and ill defended position to begin from. Marx himself could be argued to have failed in defending his understanding of the human as a productive creature. However, there is further a very troubling tension here between the world RBE is said to correct and the world an RBE would turn into.

If human greed is not inherent, why were there ever the greedy in the first place?

Let us assume greed is a social trait that people like the elites and bankers picked up and thus lead them to their quest for one world government. How does an RBE economy hope to reverse social conditioning? The reasonable argument would be that a surplus of resources would mean that no one would have to be greedy about material possesions. Again, however, this is not only dependent upon a successful creation of ample resources, but on the notion that greed is even based on the material or that it is purely rational. The love of excess is not dependent upon taking from others, but rather on the love of having more than one needs. It is then perfectly reasonable that an RBE promotes social greed, not erases it. Society has more than it needs, and individuals have acess to more than they need. It is then incredibly difficult to combat the socially learned quality of greed if that is its base form. Thus the argument could be “well, someone will stop people from taking more than they need.” Who is that arbiter? Here again, inequality and authority emerge.

Now let us assume that greed is instinctual. There is a possible case for the evolution of greed, and thus it is beyond the scope of the RBE to correct. RBE does not offer a triumph over evolved characteristics, but is instead dependent upon this quality being social. So if they gamble the wrong way, they have further been unable to eliminate greed from society.

Conclusion

These sections were not meant to be inclusive of all arguments against RBE but rather meant to provoke discussion. It is clear that RBE supporters have not addressed from very critical, and ultimately fatal flaws in their theory. The mixtures of anarchic social order and necessary expertise, as well as the fundamental assumptions about human behaviors have lead RBE as a go-nowhere, and unsound theory for how society should look. It is built on contradictions that, once actually set right, reveal themselves to completely undermine RBE completely. If the answer to fixing the propensity for greed is to place some rationing on society, then the RBE returns to a social order where authority and power are in place. If the correction is to allow people to take what they will, the result is again nothing but anarchy. And this further fails to address not only the problematic understanding of human fulfillment, but also the very omnipresence of social order and inequality. How can a society exist without inequality of even a just kind when social interactions immediately necessitate it? These questions leave one to only reasonably assume that RBE is no answer to the world’s ills, and a fools dream.