Left wing critic of film:
What’s got to go
“…I’m 94 years old now and I’m afraid my disposition is the same as
it was 74 years ago, THIS SHIT’S GOT TO GO!”
And so begins Zeitgeist: Moving Forward the third film in a series
of independently produced and distributed films by Peter Joseph.
For those unfamiliar with these films, which have enjoyed
considerable success on the internet, perhaps a quick recap will be
useful.
In 2007, following on from a live music and visual production, the
film Zeitgeist was released on the internet. The content of the
film was concerned with religion, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and
fractional reserve banking. After viewing this film ‘social
designer’ and ex-Technocrat Jacques Fresco contacted Joseph with
details of his techno-utopian life work known as The Venus Project.
Peter Joseph was so impressed by this that he devoted a large part
of his next film the Addendum, and his subsequent life, to
expounding these ideas.
In the closing lines of this second film, and as an apparent near
afterthought, contained the words ‘Join the Zeitgeist Movement dot
com’. On the back of this Joseph has been able to amass a large
following on the web and through this fan base co-ordinate an
international release comprising of 341 screenings without the
association of a major distributor.
Moving Forward itself follows a similar format to the last film in
that it is composed of interviews with various academics and
journalists, though the range of interviewees is wider this time.
There has also been the addition of cartoon animated sequences and
other light-hearted sequences that help break the film up giving it
a well rounded feel.
The first section of the film is concerned with how society affects
physiology and psychology. The film criticises concepts such as
‘human nature’, genetic determinism, nature versus nurture in a way
that would be acceptable to socialists, indeed in places covering
issues close to those in the socialist party pamphlet Are We
Prisoners of Our Genes? Nothing too ground breaking or
controversial here but so far so good. Unfortunately things go
rather downhill after this.
The shaky economic analysis of the first two films makes a
re-appearance. Apparently private property originates not with the
beginnings of agriculture but with the works of John Locke.
Capitalism starts not with the rise of the mercantile class and the
creation of a landless proletariat but with the works of Adam
Smith. We are told that the current economic system is
characterised by ‘cyclical consumption’ as if consumption under any
other system of production could ever be anything other than
cyclical, all goods get used up or wear out eventually.
An unfortunate consequence of this section is that it gives the
impression that monetary reform would be at least some kind of
partial solution. We are told that the problem is that the ‘life
cycle’ of commodity production has become dis-attached from the
‘money cycle’ of the market and that people are forced to work
because of the debt created by fiat currency; as if the market was
ever primarily about human need and people didn’t have to work
before the advent of consumer credit and the abandonment of the
gold standard.
The fact is that
a more thorough and scientific analysis of the capitalist system
has already been undertaken, and well over 100 years ago, in the
works of Marx; the makers of the film seem ignorant of this
probably as they imagine he advocated the continuation of the money
system. In fact Marx, along with all true socialists, recognised
that money would pass away with the passing away of private
property and capitalism.
Though, to be fair, despite these false beginnings the analysis is
at least on the right track. In the closing lines of this sequence
the narrator states that the fundamental problem facing humanity is
not to do with greedy bankers or a secret ruling elite but ‘is in
fact the socio-economic system itself at its very
foundation’.
The next section of the film, entitled ‘project earth’ is mainly
concerned with the Venus Project’s proposed technical solutions to
the world’s problems. Anyone who has seen the Addendum would be
familiar with what’s on offer here. Hi-tech circular cities,
vertical hydroponic farms and suchlike are suggested as ways of
producing enough means of subsistence for the world’s population to
live comfortably; and perhaps they will be, but such ideas can only
be taken as vague suggestions as it is impossible to know what
other technological possibilities would have come into fruition by
the time such a society becomes a real possibility. The underlying
message here is that the technological means for the manufacture of
abundance are already in existence, again something which
socialists would not disagree with or haven’t said before.
A weakness of the film is that there is no mention of how to get
from here to there. Democracy is written off as a fraud since
monetary interests are the real guiding force in society. Whilst we
would say this is true of all major parties we would also add that
a popular movement aimed solely at the transformation of society
would be able to exploit the democratic system to its advantage.
The closing words of the film are; “The in group will do all it can
to stay in power and that’s what you gotta keep in mind. They’ll
use the army and navy and lies or whatever they have to use to keep
in power. They are not about to give it up because they don’t know
of any other system to perpetuate their kind”.
For socialists it
can only be heartening that a film questioning the material basis
of modern society has enjoyed such success. But it is important not
to get too carried away. The ‘Zeitgeist Movement’
has certain attracted many well-meaning people though to the extent
that this represents a cohesive organisation is debatable. Peter
Joseph is solely responsible for the content of the films leaving
the ‘movement’ to take a more or less passive role. If the movement
is going to transform itself into an active agent for change it may
well involve it becoming something else.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/mar11/film_review.html