Is the Zeitgeist Movement Marxist?

This question was posed at Ben McLeish's talk for the Transhumanist association at Birkbeck College today.

The Zeitgeist movement claims not to be a political movement, but the question misses the point. One person at the talk was an avowed Marxist, so to him to say the ZM is Marxist is a good thing, but I think most of us were supposed to think Marxism = bad.

'Marxism' like any ism is just a label, or really more of a heading (a flagpole for deBono). If we label something 'Marxism' it doesn't make it Marxism, even if Marxism is closely enough defined and the definition widely understood, which it almost certainly isn't. We have to say whether the specific individual ideas of Marxism, or the ZM are good or bad. From a ZM perspective this is not a moral judgement - it would ask how the ideas/aims help us achieve a resource based economy.

It is not up for debate that humans and all life on this planet have to live within the limits of the finite physical resources of the planet. This is not a political idea, but just a fact, true as much for Marxists and Marks and Spencers.If I understand it correctly, the current prevailing moetary/capitalist system says that the best way to do this is to compete for the resources available, which clearly assumes and indeed requires there to be not enough resources to go round. It argues that economic growth causes there to be more to go round, but still suggests that has to be competed for. Clearly, though, the economy cannot grow in any meaningful sense beyond the finite limits of the earth's carrying capacity.

The obvious criticism of the system we have is the vast waste of resources we are witnessing - everything from duplication of products and services to full on pollution, land fill and such more obviously undesirable side effects.

ZM would argue that even if we have to compete for scarce resources, we should use them as efficiently as possible in order to ensure that there's more in total to compete for. The ZM would also make a priority of finding out exactly what we've got to use - we currently don't know.

ZM would further argue that the monetary system requires waste for it to work, because for example if you made a gadget that lasted a long time without needing repair or replacement it would either be too expensive to buy so you would go out of business, or you would go out of business as there would be no market for replacements / repairs. This problem plainly needs fixing.

Secondly, the mechanism for competing for resources is money, which requires people to get money, which in most cases requires work. Therefore, it is necessary to use inefficient human labour rather than efficient automation and tech, so that people can have work, and it pays you to work slowly if you're paid by the hour.

If you work for a drugs company that sells anti-cancer drugs, not only is it in your interest that people get cancer, but also if someone discovered a free or cheap cure you would have to resist its introduction which would put you out of business, or else try to monetize the new treatment so that you could sell it at a profit.

Presumably capitalism thinks these issues are not problems. The competition that is necessary becomes intensified by the effects of the competition itself, becoming yet more necessary, but this is a good thing. It's a dog eat dog world and you compete to survive.

ZM believes that by being more efficient we can ensure there is enough to go round, but seems to me to be silent on what to do if there isn't, whereas Marxism would say that what is there should be shared equally. In ZM's wired up, computerised world, we would have advance information about any particular resources running low and we would at least have more time to address the issue. Under capitalism, if a resource runs low, its price will go up, which is good for profits - hence capitalism craves scarcity?