Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 28
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist MovementPage 2 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
I actually did sit down to watch the two hour Youtube movie. Interesting, and probably a lot of it is true, but in the end, it is just a theoretical approach which has no bearing in the real world. Kind of reminds me of the early 80s - does anybody remember Global 2000 ?
Back then, I was a member of the Green Party in Germany. These were smart people, but very arrogant as well, they sort of thought themselves superior to the rest. I quit the party after proposing to get up very early on Sunday morning and clean up the garbage around a nearby lake. Nobody wanted to come. That same night, I drove home with a chain-smoking lady from that same party, I asked her if she could stop smoking or at least roll down the window because it gave me a severe headache and also I did not want to get lung cancer. Her answer: this is MY car, and I do what I want. Seconds later she hit a rabbit and did not even notice. I suggested to stop, to check if the animal had been killed or was lying there dying. She looked at me and said: you really ARE naive, aren't you ?
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 29
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/11/2011 3:53:32 PM

I am willing to bet that when you were asked... "you really are naive, aren't you", she was finally showing her true colors.

Some naive people think humanity can improve itself
Some naive people think humanity can,t improve itself
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 30
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/12/2011 3:51:53 AM

I really don't have to step too far out on a limb to say the following........ Most of the "green movements" have at their heart a huge red socialist streak. I am willing to bet that when you were asked... "you really are naive, aren't you", she was finally showing her true colors.


You are probably right. I think we all know how socialism ended. This whole Zeitgeist babble really reminds me of the 70s and 80s (I think you are old enough to remember that, too). I am from Germany, we had a home-grown terrorist movement, and the left wingers supported them big time. They would have embraced Zeitgeist, I am sure of that.
I think I eventually figured out what they were really after: total power, and that based on the assumption that the masses are stupid, and need to be taught. Well, the masses are NOT stupid, most people are actually pretty smart. That's why the green movements never really get a large percentage of the vote.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 31
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/13/2011 9:52:32 PM
Socialism is nothing to fear. What needs to be feared are denials of everything. Apparently these twenty to thirty year olds can get a job easily enough to support the cost of living these days? Hey, Paul are you living on another planet? Technology is cutting into lawyer's income...doctor's can be replaced on certain levels by the Internet and educated enough medical practitioners and this does not take into account those who had no access to higher education which is getting harder to get and even professors do not get easy tenure and well....Long live sensible and equitable solutions whether they be labelled Socialism or Free the flippin people that have to visit this hard nosed and dumb Earth. Hey, sir, some of these twenty and thirty year olds do not have the jobs that generate enough taxes to fill a glass of water. Duh.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 32
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/15/2011 9:18:23 PM
Oh please, when was the last socialist government in the great U.S. of A.??? When and please do not throw Obama at me. He folded. Big time. Nope...it went horribly wrong with this damn notion that we deserve nothing unless we have something. Under these conditions those who had something but not money and toys ended up with nothing. Maybe its Karma or just the flippin stupidity.
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 33
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/17/2011 5:23:23 AM
Being from Germany originally, when I said that socialism has ended, I kind of referred to the end of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Of course you are right, the idea behind socialism is still around, prominently. I live in The Netherlands, a tiny country where socialist ideas are alive and well everywhere you go. I can tell you what this does: it destroys the dynamic of a society. You have millions of people whose only goal in life is to fly under the radar, work and contribute as little as possible, and at the same time try and get as much as possible for themselves, from the government and, obviously, others. The few who stick out their neck are crucified on a regular basis. I sometimes get in discussions with these people, and when I tell them that I live on the premise that you are entitled to NOTHING, and have to earn EVERYTHING, they look at me as if I were some alien trying to chop their heads off. They have not the slighest idea what it means to be responsible for themselves. The effect this has on those who really want to achieve something is that frustration sets in, since you are surrounded by jealous masses who surely do not appreciate what you are doing. Because it makes THEM look bad.
I lived in the US for a few years, and I visit as often as I can. Be assured, you are still lightyears away from socialism !
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 34
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:46:38 PM
The fact that there are a lot of those out there who see no harm at all in a little bit of re-distributing, in fleecing those who achieve. It is very chic to proclaim that there are a few people at the top, and everybody else is in poverty, that ONLY IF the right people were in charge, it gets old just repeating the same old crap over and over.

There are also many that see no problems with using their wealth and power to take advantage of the system and lean the playing field to their side, but yes lets all take a moment to pay homage to those poor wealthy few that are so oppressed and are forced to do without.




As far as obama goes, yes, he was only the latest who is doing his best to push us down the road to socialism. The analogy of trying to put a frog in hot water where the frong will jump out, and if you put him in cold water and slowly turn up the heat is very appropose here. Those that don't see what direction that howdy doody is trying to take the US are blind to it usually because for some stupid reason they seem to think that it is a good thing.

Well considering that the top 1% now control more money than they ever have and tax breaks have gotten better for the wealthier, I would contend you do not have a clue what you are talking about, unless of course you can provide examples of this.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit for below
If you think what is happening in the US is a trend towards socialism you really need to educate yourself a bit more.

Corporations now have more power than they ever did and pay little to no taxes.

The wealthiest have gotten wealthier while the poor have gotten poorer.




http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer

By Robert C. Lieberman
January/February 2011

The U.S. economy appears to be coming apart at the seams. Unemployment remains at nearly ten percent, the highest level in almost 30 years; foreclosures have forced millions of Americans out of their homes; and real incomes have fallen faster and further than at any time since the Great Depression. Many of those laid off fear that the jobs they have lost -- the secure, often unionized, industrial jobs that provided wealth, security, and opportunity -- will never return. They are probably right.

And yet a curious thing has happened in the midst of all this misery. The wealthiest Americans, among them presumably the very titans of global finance whose misadventures brought about the financial meltdown, got richer. And not just a little bit richer; a lot richer. In 2009, the average income of the top five percent of earners went up, while on average everyone else's income went down. This was not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a 40-year trend of ballooning incomes at the very top and stagnant incomes in the middle and at the bottom. The share of total income going to the top one percent has increased from roughly eight percent in the 1960s to more than 20 percent today...


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer



So if you are unable to refute this claim and 1000's more just like it I will assume you do not know what you are talking about and have other reasons for your dislike of Obama.

 aguilayserpiente_1
Joined: 5/11/2008
Msg: 35
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 1:33:01 PM

Communism in practice means that citizens have no life and no identity other than as part of the state collective. It also means that the state has complete control over every aspect of everyones' life and everyone's loyalty to the state (and to the demagogue figure who heads the state) is absolute (often on pain of death).


This is an incorrect statement. Dialectical materialism is the study of the stages through which society passes. Communism is a classless society. Dialectical materialism proposes that man's perceived reality is shaped by a material base. Man's origins begin with primitive socialism of ritualized cooperation. The advent of the division of labor with the skilled craft gives rise to an evolving process of concentration of capital, feudalism, nacient mercantilism, primitive capitalism, capitalism, imperialism (with the wretched decline of the conditions of the workers), revolution, socialism controlled by the workers (marked by egalitarian distribution of control over production, and the withering away of the state to a classless society- communism. There is no state or centralized controlled as proposed by the poster above. Citations upon request. Thank you.
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 36
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 1:35:31 PM
^^

then (if you are correct) communism has never existed in the history of mankind.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 37
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 9:36:00 PM
There is really only one sensible and just way to live on this Earth. A common good that supports all....not just the sharks ...and sharks are not only the rich. Just read an interesting article on a web site re: workers who produce all those fancy phones committing suicide and feeling the reel of hopelessness, so that all of you with your fancy phones can go on merrily. The man who wrote the article was a tech geek who questioned his conscience on this one. Of course the producers of these fine and silly and ultimately useless phones lived in a third world country. Socialism, captitalism and all of the designations are just flippin terms that ultimately lead to ....ego. Figure it out from there. The web site was arts and literature daily. com, etc.
 aguilayserpiente_1
Joined: 5/11/2008
Msg: 38
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 9:59:55 PM

then (if you are correct) communism has never existed in the history of mankind.


It is not that communism has not come into existence. It is that the dynamic tension that gives rise to the progression of history has not yet reached that stage in each nation. Consequently, mankind has not yet reached that stage of development or way of being.

That communism of the post- commercial era, a crude term I use for illustration, occurs after the productive forces of capitalism have spawned the mega concentration of capital in each society. Of note is Marx's insight that the transformative moment from imperialism, through socialism, and finally an egalitarian free association does not occur globally but within each nation at its own pace.

Within dialectical materialism, the state withers away and free association of communism occurs at the end of that march of history. Marx and Engels discuss early socialist society with the equal distribution of resources and simplified social organization, which is swept away by nascient industrialization. An example would be many of the egalitarian, indigenous societies of the Americas or among the most recent to vanish the Dobe! Kung of Africa.

In dialectical materialism mankind is in the process of becoming.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 39
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 10:22:10 PM
We are becoming less rather than more. This talking history has not proved anything other than the fact that people are individuals born into a space and not able to understand anything other than where they were imprinted. Live and let live is not honored or respected. We are the slaves of industralization and we need some big time levelling to understand just a simple principle. You need land in order to grow food. You need wisdom to control the madness.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 40
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/21/2011 5:15:41 AM
Neither true Communism, or completely free capitalism (or any other pure ism, for that matter) has ever held sway over any significant area for any length of time. Plenty of people have CLAIMED to have set up one or another of those systems, and plenty have labeled someone else's system as BEING one of those from time to time, but that's more political semantics than anything else.
That's part of what makes it so difficult to debate these sorts of things in any valid way. For the folks who think Obama is the next coming of Karl Marx, anything he does that ISN'T a move to end taxes and fees for EVERYONE, gets labeled Socialism. People who think of the idea of socialism as more of a biological disease than the complicated and variegated general concept that it is, ALWAYS fear that it is on the rise, even if every person who SAYS the word out loud is imprisoned.
Personally, I have become completely convinced that 1) Communism can't POSSIBLE ever work, because it has no structure by definition (in it's true form), and therefore relies on a NON-EXISTENT version of human nature. Neither humans, nor any other creature I've heard of, guide their lives by seeking the best result for everyone and everything. That's why capitalism has always been more appealing to most, because it IS designed around the natural self-centric approach to life that is common to all.
I have a frustration with the folks who adamantly claim that ALL governmental effort to assist, or care for, or even simply avoid injuring the less fortunate is a form of "wealth redistribution", and that as such it is inherently bad. This is NOT because I support redistribution of wealth, it is because I can clearly see that those who have power always try to rig the game in their favor...to "redistribute wealth" in the OTHER direction. So sometimes it might be necessary to restore balance.
Simple example: ownership of property. As governments came into being in the distant past, the idea that any INDIVIDUAL could truly own any land in a nation, was eliminated as part of the general power-grab that all governments perform. By this, I specifically refer to the fact that there is NO place on earth, nor has there ever been a place with a government of any kind, where people are allowed to do ANYTHING THEY WANT with the ground they live on. Here in the U.S. for example, no one can EVER truly own land. If you stop paying your taxes on it, it will be taken away from you, so that means to me, that you don't own it, really.
Now look at the next level: in a capitalist set up, there are always rules about what constitutes 'buying' and 'selling' and 'earning.' The values assigned to labor, for example , don't actually have anything to do with the REAL value or cost of the work being done at all. If it did, then a given task would ALWAYS have the same cost or value attached to it, regardless of other factors.
The people who HAVE the money will always use the people who have the power, to help them make and keep their money. It can be easily seen in history, that again, human nature will NOT make them choose to do what's best for all, or even for THEMSELVES, in the long run. The mess related to derivatives and bad loans illustrates THAT all too well. Anyway, the people who have power are the ones who make sure that what ever value the moneyed people set for labor, MUST be accepted by those who DO the labor; not in the sense that they are forced to accept a given job for a given amount (though that HAS happened on many occasions), but in the sense that those doing the work aren't allowed to TAKE from those hiring it done, the amount they think the labor is actually worth, or even what it can be legitimately SHOWN to be actually worth.
In this sense, capitalism is rigged in a basic way, in favor of those with capital wealth, and against those without it. This can and does, often get out of balance, again because it isn't human nature to SEEK balance, it's human nature to seek greatest profit. Once the system GETS out of balance, it is bad for everyone in the long run. Therefore we occasionally will need to act against the built-up set of rules, to reset the system to a balanced state, OR allow it to go so far out of whack that it collapses into chaos.
Now, some capitalists (usually the ones who HAVE acquired a fair amount of wealth) actually LIKE the idea of a collapse into chaos, because they will benefit tremendously from that. Classic example: in an economic collapse, the value assigned to many things suddenly falls to near zero. Those who already HAVE a big bunch of money can then buy them up at far below their REAL value, thus becoming even richer from it, while those who DIDN'T have any money stored up before the collapse, will suddenly find themselves with nothing at all. Since the REAL value of the things (such as land) has NOT changed (in the sense that the land can still be used for the same things it always was), and only the artificial PRICE of them has, then wealth is, in such times, REDISTRIBUTED in favor of the rich, with the support of the government.
But those who freak out about "wealth redistribution" being wrong, don't complain about THAT form of it, only about the other form, where those who have suffered from the downturn benefit.
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 41
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 12:46:38 PM
I have always found this rich vs poor controversy rather bizarre. I am 44 years old, and I have never met a 'rich' person who does not hold an advantage over others, which is the very reason that person is rich. It is either intelligence, courage, risk-taking, or any sort of behaviour that leads to wealth. In that regard, the last thing you want is to be governed or ruled by the poor (masses). Why ? Because, simply said, if you are poor, you are not smart enough to be rich. Any given group selects the smartest, strongest, most fit people as their leaders. You mark yourself for extinction if you artificially try to change that. It is almost comparable to quotas for women, or black people. Bad news for companies if they are forced to take somebody on just because of gender or race...
So, my conclusion is: stop pounding on the rich and wealthy, because those are the very people that move us forward. And there really are not that many that can do that...
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 42
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 8:58:44 PM
Moonwhatever....the poor are weak, the rich are strong and should be encouraged. Easy edit. Dumb and so much dumber and so very wrong. Dumb. I will always support the poor and take a real measure of caution where the rich are concerned. I take it that your post was just written in some unconcious state that has nothing to do with compassion and justice. Uck. Darwinism is a poor excuse for anything, at all.
Paul K..Capitalism has EVERYTHING to do with the total consensus of those who were never money changers but thought they could ride easy. Please. We are not the dumb and dumber citizens of some illusionary nation where we just pick up our socks and get rich. Puhleeze.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 43
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 10:07:58 PM
Oh well...why don't you? Its never about you and your little nest egg, its always about what you are creating. We are the inhabitants of a greater world and a greater good...always, forever.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 44
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 10:09:00 PM
Jeez...wish I had a good joke.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 45
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 10:43:11 PM
Paul K...the greater good is how you walk this earth. More concern with yourself? Or more concern with the fact that being comfortable and done with concern is your life goal and plan. What you commit to is what becomes the way.
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 46
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 11:49:45 PM
@60-70: I never said the poor are weak, or the rich are strong. All I am saying is that there are exceptionally smart people out there, and they make a lot of money, and it's for a reason. You say you will always support the poor. First of all, being poor or rich is not a fixed state. If some poor guy wins 30 million dollars in the lottery, he really couldn't care less about your support. It's all about money, everybody wants more, rich or poor, and in order to get it, you have to DO something. That is the dynamic that advances a society. The very reason I do not believe in Jesus Christ is just that - he was a poor sucker running around telling everybody to be nice to each other, and eventually got nailed to a cross by the Romans. What he should have done was find better ways to fund his operations, get support from, yes, the rich, and outsmart the Romans. I find it rather bizarre that this guy is supposed to be a good example of how to live your life. I don't want to die like that. The Romans were the smarter ones back then, for whatever reason. And because they were smarter, they had more money, and because they had more money, they had more power.
By the way, did the poor ever ask you for your support ? Or is that your own idea ? I know a lot of people, many of them poor, but none of them needs my support. They can take care of themselves, and they do. To be honest, I think that the eagerness of many people to support what they call the weak is based on arrogance and the notion that they know better, that they have a right to tell people how to live their lives. And so-called poor people appear as an easy target. That, in the end, is the flaw of socialism - it is just the flip side of dictatorship.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 47
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/23/2011 12:10:57 AM
You, moonwalkerman, proved a point I thought about many years ago. Jesus does not jive with most men because he was humble and able to understand that there is more dignity in spurning greed and its outcomes and sorrows than your silly viewpoint. And all of your reasoning re: how the poor do not need our help is just plain denial. Socialism is a flip side of dictatorship? Capitalism is a flip side of suicide!! Arrogance??? How very arrogant AND insensitive you are. Here's what I hope you experience....just a little bit of the nothing and indignities of being poor. Ach. Money is nothing more than an illusion that leads all down a path to apathy. What really counts is mercy and consciousness.
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 48
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/23/2011 10:33:24 AM
If money is just an illusion, how do you want to help the poor ? What else is there to give to them ? As far as I know, that's all they want from you anyway. They really don't care about your kind words and your understanding of their pitiful existence. It's all about cold, hard cash. If a beggar in the street approaches you, what does he ask for ? The problem I have with those who feel they are on a mission to help and support the poor is: pity. Nobody wants to be pitied. Everybody wants to be respected.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 49
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/23/2011 9:44:36 PM
Hey...there is not one bit of relief for the poor. Money is indeed the illusion that covets status, more stuff, less mercy. Please....the poor shall inherit the earth. You will inherit more denial and arguments that amount to nothing more than indifference. Oh well. Feel the pain. There are no easy analogies or metaphors to explain why the poor exist. But I do know where I place my life given energies. Never in the court of the fortunate. Ever and forever. I give the fortunate their space, but I do NOT give them much in the way of ease of way. Then. I consider. Those who I have met in my life who were fortunate and financially able were also the last I would seek mercy with. There was no common ground and no hope of soul. In most, but not all. Money and power are terrible afflictions. We all suffer from the drudge of greed and ego.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 50
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/23/2011 10:55:27 PM
Not envy Paul. Just healthy skepticism. I have never had the curse of envy. Never. Just understand that I understand human nature and predictable outcomes. Money is as much an affliction as poverty. BUT. Those born with the beauty of talent in many spheres do not have a stage because they did not have the werewithal and etc. etc. etc. There is nothing more severe and heart breaking than a child with given talents in any area having no financial werewithal because the parents are poor. What is the explanation? Karma? Whatever? Capitalism? Why do some never realize their inherent beauty? Laziness? Please do not insult me...and yawn.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 51
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/25/2011 12:50:06 AM
Its late... and Paul K. , I think you are also misguided. I am also glad that I don't live in your world where one is shot down pretty easily. Think Paul. What did you lose with your sterness and easy access to shooting down the less than fortunate? Does it make you feel more powerful? I love those who scorn money and its evil. You worship money and its illusionary power. Money never solved anything. In fact money and power mongerers have created more suffering than anything.
 moonwalkerman
Joined: 2/19/2008
Msg: 52
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/25/2011 3:09:12 PM
I don't think that shooting down the poor is what this is all about. I do not know a single 'rich' person that consciously thinks 'hey let's screw the poor suckers and get rich'. Money is simply a reward for talent and hard work. By the way, Paul K. is right, money can do a lot of good things. I am not sure what church is like in the US, but here in Germany, every time you go to the church, they ask you for a donation. Cash. I was at the Vatican once, they have a museum there that is filled with the most immesurable treasures. Even I found that almost obscene, so I asked one of the priests about it. You know what he said ? He said 'Without money, we wouldn't be of much use to the world'.
Obviously, I get your point. I would agree that money alone doesn't make you happy. But if you have to worry about paying your bills ALL the time, what kind of life is that ?
So in the end, a good mix is probably the best. You have to be able to see the value of money in its right context.
Look at Bill Gates and how much money he puts to work for good things. And there are many others.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >