Zeitgeist, a word that appeared here for the first time, derives from German. In this article, I would like to dig deeper and explain more about the movement and its notion.
So, first time I bumped into this word was when I watched a documentary movie series of the same name.
You can check the official webpage of the Zeitgeist movement here. Some of the quotes from the mission statements are below:
“Founded in 2008…The Movement’s principle focus includes the recognition that the majority of the social problems which plague the human species at this time are not the sole result of some institutional corruption, scarcity, a political policy, a flaw of “human nature” or other commonly held assumptions of causality in the activist community…The Movement recognizes that issues such as poverty, corruption, collapse, homelessness, war, starvation and the like appear to be “Symptoms” born out of an outdated social structure…the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management…The Zeitgeist Movement also has no allegiance to a country or traditional political platforms. It views the world as a single system and the human species as a single family and recognizes that all countries must disarm and learn to share resources and ideas if we expect to survive in the long run.”
Reading the above summary makes me think that this movement is a bit like that of a socialist movement. I consider their leader-less policy very wise. Usually, these kinds of movements tend to be religious because the person on top of the organization starts ruling over its followers (cf. Scientology).
From the Q&A section on the website, I summarized what they are aiming for.
- Abolishment of the financial system and monetary system
- Automation of labor
- Technological Unification of Earth via “Systems” Approach
- Abolishment of the notion to “own” something
- Developing a self-contained/localized city and production systems
- Adoption of The Scientific Method as the Methodology for Governance
Hmmm. Yes, definitely socialistic; in a way, however, if you read the explanation they have on their website, you can see that they are denying the similarity and comparison to socialism.
To be continued to Part.2