Since I'm a rep for The Zeitgeist Movement I cannot resist to step in here with what might be a long-winded rant.

I'd have to ask how you can possibly consider free-market capitalism and democracy to be mutual 'brothers and sisters' so to speak? I'd also have to ask you to define what a democracy actually is, in your definition, rather than simply using it as a throwaway term.

This system certainly isn't democratic, for if it was every law or statute that was passed would have to be approved by the population. Likewise, when someone disagrees with the Capitalist system (which is not democracy, they're two very different things) why is it that political leaders and tabloid media are all to quick to label anyone who thinks the profit system is a failure as a 'socialist' or a 'communist'? Again, they're throw away terms because they don't actually mean anything - they're just used to scare the public.

And, I'm sure many are aware that works pretty well - where labelling someone a 'Communist' has been in the past akin to the world 'Islamic terrorist'.

This world has never experienced what a true democracy actually is. To have a true democracy ever member of the public would have to be able to access the means to make a contribution equal to that of everyone else, but they cant. The profit structure leads to monopoly, and those monopolies have much more influence than any individual can ever have - why? Because capital speaks. How undemocratic can the system possibly get? In regard to politics, in a democractic society you wouldn't elect figureheads - you'd elect ideas. By electing officials the public is essentially surrendering decision making power to a human administration, which, because of the way the system is oriented is inherently negligent. Mainly because, the election is the only time when people get to exercise anything even reminiscent of the term democracy - and as even the textbooks state, if you don't like one government you just don't vote for it at the next election. But what happens when you have monopolies that fund those politicans, so that if those politicans actually made decisions in line with the will of the people and most importantly protecting the environment (and implementing more social programs!) they'd be at odds with the very people that funded them - and they'd lose that funding.

Enough on that, or I wont stop.

What you call a democracy has a strong propensity to fascism, which Mussolini said was essentially strong corporate influence in the political sphere. Washington, along with most other Governments are polishing the shoes of the corporate world.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Could he have described our world at present more perfectly?

I'm not a socialist, and neither is The Zeitgeist Movement (because socialism is a monetary structure, while we advocate the abolition of such a structure in favour of a systems approach to social design and decision making - based on the Scientific Method).

I do, however, wonder why you say "It has been illustrated time and time again that socialism fails" when in-fact the economically richest nations in the world are social democracies!

According to the United Nations Human Development Index - Norway, Australia and Iceland (in that order, and followed by countries such as Canada, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden) have the highest standards of human development in the world. All three of those countries have broad social programs such as Medicare, unemployment benefits, public schools and hospitals (all typically 'socialist' programs).

America being the most typically 'capitalist' country on the planet has the worst wealth gap, ridiculously high levels of crime and the largest prison population on planet Earth. The United States ranks #13 on this development index, far behind where it should be as the so called 'leader of the free-world'.

How is it possible that a tiny little country like Norway, or a typically defined arctic dessert like Iceland, can possibly have higher living standards than a large and comparably resource abundant nation like the United States?

I'll leave such conclusions up to you.

It's interesting though, that in the face of failure America falls onto socialism. I'm of course talking about the bail-outs that took place not too long ago as well as Obama wanting to increase federal intervention in the medical system.

Enough on socialism and present social conditions.

"Zeitgeisters" do not 'believe' that it is not 'human nature' to commit crimes and murder people. The conclusion comes from reasoned, and broad studies which have taken place which lead us to the logical conclusion that people are not inherently murderers. We contend (as does the science) that humans are predominately products of the environment and culture they live in, and that their behaviour is dictated by a wide range of bio-social pressures. If you change those conditions, you will instantly alter human behaviour. This is really, pretty obvious to anyone within the realm of social science.

The 'nature' argument actually holds next to no weight anymore. It's a common understanding (which is taught in schools) that humans are products of their environment, that adapt to it (as the theory of evolution leads us to understand) in order to survive.

Adaptation, or alignment, to environmental conditions is the reason why we haven't failed as a species entirely.

Changing the way people think about the world is not some impossible task as you've presented it, either. People just need exposure to adequate information, and their perspective is changed. We need only look to previous paradigm shifts such as the industrial revolution. All we're advocating is embracing the next paradigm, which is no different to changes of paradigms in the past.

The system that we advocate is the closest thing to a participatory democracy I've ever come across because the entire structure of social operation is dependent upon the contribution (and thus advancement) of each human being - and we're talking all human beings, not just the wealthy West.

Your point-of-view is appreciated, however, if you're going to belabor this further can you please ask questions about things you don't entirely understand instead of making blanket statements? I find that such a position of discussion is much more beneficial for all concerned.

Instead of speaking like someone prior to the moon landing who would say "you'll never see that in a thousand years!" why not ask "how do you propose to bring this about?"

That's a real problem with the values of most if not all of us, we just don't ask enough questions. We're all too ready to conclude things based on our own biases.

(and yes, this has been long-winded - but 'you ain't seen nothin' yet!)

Merry festive season to you all.

I should add some agreement here. Yes, there is 'silver lining' or positive aspects to most if not all systems but that doesn't validate clinging to it in the face of a more optimal solution.

How is it possible that a tiny little country like Norway, or a typically defined arctic dessert like Iceland, can possibly have higher living standards than a large and comparably resource abundant nation like the United States?

I think you answered your own question in that statement: tiny little countries. What are the populations of Norway and Iceland compared to the United States? It is far easier to take care of a small population of people than it is to look after a large one, no matter what resources one is sitting on. Most of the world's political and economic systems will work, and can work well, with small groups of people...but when you expand them and try to make them work with countries on the scale of the United States, Russia, or China...you're going to run into complications. If our country was a true democracy, nothing would ever get done...because every decision would have to be passed by the entire population, every time.

Democracies and communes have one thing in common: they work best when there is only a small number of willing people to be governed. Monasteries are a great example of communism working great. Committees and boards are examples of true democracy in action. I posit that these work so well because there are so few people involved, and because they are willing.

For example, I'm a board member in our local writer's guide; we make all the decisions for the guild as a whole. (Technically, our entire guild is a working democracy, but there's what, a few hundred members in total?) Our little group of six or seven of us could properly be called a democracy; everyone gets to contribute, voice objections, and vote. It takes us at least an hour to make decisions on three or four items...and that's with only seven of us! Town meetings, PTA meetings...ever been to one? I have. Decisions do not get made in a timely manner, especially if people have strong objections or opinions. There are a whole lot of people in this country. We elect people to represent us because the government could not possibly hear us all otherwise, even if they wanted to.

Capitalism, as an economic system, like anything else, also works best on a small scale. Farmer's markets are great. Humans tend to be shortsighted...if something is working NOW, they aren't willing to try something else that might work better in the long run. "So that river MIGHT get horribly polluted in a few years by this new processing method? We'll deal with the problem then. Meanwhile, if we keep doing things THIS way, we get to keep all our employees and take home our Christmas bonuses this year." Alas, money makes the world go 'round, no matter what political and economic labels the bigwigs choose to slap onto its distribution.

It is only my opinion, as I said above, that the Zeitgeist movement will not succeed, I did not ever once say that it was invalid, or that it wasnt an ideal system. Also, I am not bias as you said to the democratic system, because as you said, what America has now is far from true democracy. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make, in far less words. We do not have a true democracy, and we probably never will. Just as there will probably never be a true socialist system, or a utopia of any kind.

Also, I find relating the Zeitgeist movement to the industrial revolution rubish, in my personal opinion. If it is a task that is far from impossible, then please explain the need to defend Zeitgeist continuosly? Please tell me how you plan on exposing this idea worldwide? How do you plan on tearing down the thousands of political systems all over the planet, to make the way for this new world? Especially since very few people who claim to be zeitgeist reps aren't nearly as active as I presume you to be?

I think the zeitgeist system is brilliant personally, and an ideal system. I just do not believe that it is a solid movement that will manifest in the way it is intended to. Like I said, everything looks better on paper..

I think you answered your own question in that statement: tiny little countries. What are the populations of Norway and Iceland compared to the United States? It is far easier to take care of a small population of people than it is to look after a large one, no matter what resources one is sitting on. Most of the world's political and economic systems will work, and can work well, with small groups of people...but when you expand them and try to make them work with countries on the scale of the United States, Russia, or China...you're going to run into complications. If our country was a true democracy, nothing would ever get done...because every decision would have to be passed by the entire population, every time.

Democracies and communes have one thing in common: they work best when there is only a small number of willing people to be governed. Monasteries are a great example of communism working great. Committees and boards are examples of true democracy in action. I posit that these work so well because there are so few people involved, and because they are willing.

For example, I'm a board member in our local writer's guide; we make all the decisions for the guild as a whole. (Technically, our entire guild is a working democracy, but there's what, a few hundred members in total?) Our little group of six or seven of us could properly be called a democracy; everyone gets to contribute, voice objections, and vote. It takes us at least an hour to make decisions on three or four items...and that's with only seven of us! Town meetings, PTA meetings...ever been to one? I have. Decisions do not get made in a timely manner, especially if people have strong objections or opinions. There are a whole lot of people in this country. We elect people to represent us because the government could not possibly hear us all otherwise, even if they wanted to.

Capitalism, as an economic system, like anything else, also works best on a small scale. Farmer's markets are great. Humans tend to be shortsighted...if something is working NOW, they aren't willing to try something else that might work better in the long run. "So that river MIGHT get horribly polluted in a few years by this new processing method? We'll deal with the problem then. Meanwhile, if we keep doing things THIS way, we get to keep all our employees and take home our Christmas bonuses this year." Alas, money makes the world go 'round, no matter what political and economic labels the bigwigs choose to slap onto its distribution.

I agree completely Amaranth. Another point that leads me to the improbability of movements like Zeitgeist, which wish to creat a world wide system..

a few notes here: 1st capitalism works best on a grand scale not a small scale. The goal of any capitalistic organization or corporation is the monopoly. Despite the happy sing along of free competition etc. the goal of every corporation is to be number one or ultimately the only one. For example I do not think Microsoft would shed one tear if Apple went out of business or vice versa.
Second and more importantly in order to shift away from the current totalitarian, capital dominated political structures loosely defined as democracy a true shift in attitude amongst all people has to occur. Not only do people have to realize that a certain economic simplicity in life is needed but also the definition of nation states has to change towards the embrace of all people and nations as equals. Economic simplicity does not mean you have to give up everything but why do families need 4 or 4 cars. Why do we produce so much food that it is actually cheapest to throw it away? Not even hand it to those who need but to throw it away? The second is much much harder to achieve. The notion of nation states is superfluous. We are all children of the Great Mother and I do not care what nation, what race you are of. I have no interest in killing anyone let alone killing someone because they are of a different nation....

I stick by my original statement that something good can be found in every system even the potential ones. Why waste energy thinking about all the bad things, when there are good things every where??? I say that if we all focus on the positive aspects and work on expanding and enhancing those areas, that things will naturally get better for all.