I have just finished watching the documentary The Corporation. A very interesting documentary, well ballenced, containing the veiws of both critics of corporations and capitalism and corporate CEOs, overall a good documentary critising capitialism and large corporations basically ruling the world, however to me the most interesting part comes early on in the documentary.
First it explains how lawyers of large corporations were able to use laws originally meant to stop the government from depriving people of life, liberty or property without due legal process to aquire private propety and profit whilst no one person is ever held responisble, all based on corporations being considered a person legally, meaning they have all the rights a person does. The documentary follows this logic one step further, saying that if corporations are legaly considered a person and so are granted all the rights that a person is granted, then what kind of person are they? It proceeds to psychoanalyses the 'behaviour' of large corporations to determine their mental state.
After studying a number of casestudies and comparing the corporations' 'behaviour' against the DSM-IV's (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) symtoms of psychopathy, namely: Callous unconcern for the feelings of others, Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, Reckless disregard for the safety of others, Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit, Incapacity to experience guilt, Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours, all of which had been displayed by the corporations studied, leading to the conclusion that corporations are psychopaths.
Since I am studying representing political ideologies as characters I am very interested in doing a similar to the study performed in the documentary on the ideologies I am studying. Below is the first in a series of videos that make up the free online version of the documentary:
I have just finished reading George Orwell's Animal Farm. It's a great book and I highly recommend it but, like many political works of fiction, it isn't a pleasant nor fun read, but then it doesn't need to be and nor should it be.
The story tells of how the animals of Manor Farm rise up, overthrow their human masters and begin to run the farm themselves. However as time goes by what was originally a paradise were all animals are free soon turns into a nightmarish place were "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
The book is an allegorical tale of the Russian revolution and criticises soviet communism, and as such is full of characters, places and events that represent historical figures, peoples, places and events to do with the Russian revolution.
All in all, in regard to communism, the book seems to point out the same conclusion I came to after reading The Communist Manifesto, which is that although the basic ideas of equality and people working for the benefit of everyone are sound and overall positive ideas, in my opinion, the system that communism puts in place, where the state owns everything and everyone owns the state, is very open to corruption. It's easy for someone in power to abuse that power, a tale the world is all too familiar with, resulting in a society where some people suffer so others can benefit, which is exactly what communism seeks to destroy.
I found this a great read and a very helpful criticism of communism. Below are some links to some web pages where people explain/explore exactly what represented what in animal farm.
Just finished reading Alan Moore's V for Vendetta as part of my research into representing political ideologies as characters. A great read and I highly recommend it.
For those who don't know and perhaps haven't had the good fortune to read this masterpiece, I'll quickly sum up the plot. Set in an alternate 1998 where following a war Great Britain has become a fascist state, controlled by a Nazi-esque political group call "Norsefire", it follows the story of Eve Hammond, a young prostitute who is saved and taken under the wing of the anarchistic terrorist known only as "V", who "educates" her whilst also carrying out an elaborate plot to take down the fascist regime and usher in a state of anarchy.
As I have said before, seeing as Alan Moore is a self-professed Anarchist, V for Vendetta is kinda Alan Moore's Ode to Anarchy, and as such a great source of research for me since it is an anarchist talking about anarchism as well as exploring fascism. Through the plot of the V for Vendetta Alan Moore talks about his beliefs regarding anarchy and fascism, exploring and questioning the morals of both.
[spoilers]
It questions the need for revolutionary violence and it's moral repercussions, after all V is a murderous terrorist, throughout the book he murders and bombs to achieve his goals. Interestingly Evey refuses to help V kill, "I won't do any more killing, V. Not even for you." - Eve, and in a marvellous monologue V explains how although violence is necessary to achieve his goals, it has no place within a "better world" and even goes so far as to organise his own execution because of what he has had to do to build a "better world".
"Anarchy wears two faces, both Creator and Destroyer. Thus Destroyers topple empires; make a canvas of clean rubble where creators can then build a better world. Rubble, once achieved makes further ruins' means irrelevant. Away with our explosives, then! Away with our Destroyers! They have no place within our better world. But let us raise a toast to all our bombers, all our bastards, most unlovely and most unforgivable, let's drink their health, then meet with them no more." - V - page 222 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta 20:11 09/04/2012)
It addresses the idea that once the established hierarchy has been toppled chaos, looting and rioting will ensue. Once V removes the government's ability to listen, watch and address the public, looting and rioting does occur. Pointing out what may be obvious to some, that once people think no-one is looking they stop behaving, however V makes a clear distinction between this chaos and anarchy. He argues that this kind of disorder is a necessary phase that society must endure so that a state of anarchy can be achieved.
"All this riot and uproor, V... is this anarchy? Is this the land of do-as-you-please?" - Eve "No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders"; not "without order." With anarchy comes an age of ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order. This age of ordnung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course. This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos." - V- page 195
It goes on to argue that societies based around involuntary order, by their very nature, cause disorder.
"Involuntary order breeds dissatisfaction, mother of disorder; parent of the guillotine. Authoritarian societies are like formation skating. Intricate, mechanically precise and above all precarious. Beneath civilisation's fragile crust, cold chaos churns and there are places where the ice is treacherously thin." - V - page 197
It says that it is up to the people to choose between freedom or selfishness, that only by cooperating will people be able to move forward and progress, to make a better world.
"The people stand within the ruins of a society, a jail intended to out livge them all. The door is open. They can leave, or fall instead to squabbling and thence new salveries, the choice is theirs, as ever it must be." - Eve - page 260
It also explores the motives of a number of the fascist characters, the most interesting and telling of which is present as an internal monologue of the leader, Adam Susan.
"My name is Adam Susan. I am the leader. Leader of the lost, ruler of the ruins. I am a man, like any other man. I lead the country that I love out of the wilderness of the twentieth century. I believe in survival. In the destiny of the Nordic race. I believe in fascism. Oh yes, I am a fascist. What of it? Fascism…a word. A word whose meaning has been lost in the bleatings of the weak and the treacherous. the Romans invented fascism. A bundle of bound twigs was its symbol. One twig could be broken. A bundle would prevail. Fascism…strength in unity. I believe in strength. I believe in unity. And if that strength, that unity of purpose, demands a uniformity of thought, word and deed then so be it. I will not hear talk of freedom. I will not hear talk of individual liberty. They are luxuries. I do not believe in luxuries. The war put paid to luxury. The war put paid to freedom. The only freedom left to my people is the freedom to starve. The freedom to die, the freedom to live in a world of chaos. Should I allow them that freedom? I think not. I think not. Do I deserve for myself the freedom I deny to others? I do not. I sit here within my cage and I am but a servant. I, who am master of all that I see I see desolation. I see ashes. I have so very much. I have so very little. I am not loved, I know that. Not in soul or body. I have never known the soft whisper of endearment. Never known the peace that lies between the thighs of woman. But I am respected. I am feared. And that will suffice. Because I love. I, who am not loved in return. I have a love that is far deeper than the empty gasps and convulsions of brutish coupling. Shall I speak of her? Shall I speak of my bride? She has no eyes to flirt or promise. But she sees all. Sees and understands with a wisdom that is Godlike in its scale. I stand at the gates of her intellect and I am blinded by the light within. How stupid I must seem to her. How childlike and uncomprehending. Her soul is clean, untainted by the snares and ambiguities of emotion. She does not hate. She does not yearn. She is untouched by joy or sorrow. I worship her though I am not worthy. I cherish the purity of her disdain. She does not respect me. She does not fear me. She does not love me. They think she is hard and cold, those who do not know her. They think she is lifeless and without passion. They do not know her. She has not touched them. She touches me, and I am touched by God, by Destiny. The whole of existence courses through her. I worship her. I am her slave. No freedom ever was so sweet. My love, I would stay with you forever, would spend my life within you. I would wait upon your every utterance and never ask the merest splinter of affection. Fate… Fate… I love you." Adam Susan - pages 37 -39 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta 21:36 09/04/2012)
Adam Susan, believes that he is doing the right thing. He believes that freedom and individual liberties are luxuries that society neither need nor can afford. He believes that thanks to his efforts the people are untied and so are strong, and can progress into the new century. He is also portrayed as an unloved man, he even admits in that monologue that he is a virgin. He devotes himself to his ideals and to Fate, an A.I. computer system that monitors the entire country. Once Fate is revealed to be being controlled by V, he decides to love the public instead, however all too late as he is assassinated shortly after.
All in all, V for Vendetta is a great read, and I feel represents the ideologies of anarchism and fascism, at least from an anarchist perpective, very well. I have found it very helpful in my research and although i do think that it's message isn't very sutble at all, but then again does it need to be?, I intend to use it as a source of inspiration.
Below is a short video interveiw with Alan Moore, in which he discusses V for Vendetta.
I have been doing a lot of research the last few weeks and I feel that I have a good grip of the basic ideas behind the political ideologies I am studying. During a tutorial with Lucy, she pointed out that I shouldn't get bogged down in the complex detail of political theory but instead research how these political ideologies have been represented in works of fiction, after all that is what this project is about.
On a suggestion from one of my other lecturers, Dan, I have began to research comic superheroes, since they are very adept at creating allegories and satire, for example Alan Moore's V for Vendetta or Superman. This led me to re watch and begin to analyse Christopher Nolan's Batman series.
In the first film, Batman Begins, the villain Ra's al Ghul, seems to embody a lot of the core beliefs of Fascism, particularly the belief that the perceived causes of a societies decay, for example crime, must be purge for the betterment of society, "Crime can not be tolerated. Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."- Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/quotes - 29/03/12). The villain's grand scheme is to destroy Gotham in an attempt to purge the world of it's decadence, "Only a cynical man would call what these people have "lives," Wayne. Crime, despair... this is not how man was supposed to live. The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years. We sacked Rome, loaded trade ships with plague rats, burned London to the ground. Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence, we return to restore the balance." - Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/quotes - 29/03/12)
In the second film, The Dark Knight, one of my favourite films, the villain The Joker seems to be meant to represent anarchism however when analysing his character. After analysing and researching the ideas and beliefs behind Anarchism, I found the website called The Anarchist FAQ very helpful, http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ, I found that The Joker seems to be exactly what Anarchism seeks to destroy. In the words of my lecturer Dan, "The Joker is a bully". Anarchism is a rejection of hierarchy, where other political doctrines are based on the acquisition power, Anarchism rejects it. Anarchism believes that government is both unnecessary and harmful to society and instead society should have no hierarchy so that the people can cooperate as equals, society will organise itself. Because of these beliefs an Anarchist does not believe that Anarchism leads to Chaos, however The Joker does, he even says so in the hospital scene where he explains his view of the world, "Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/quotes -29/03/12). And despite his attempts throughout the film to destroy Gotham's hierarchy, he does so in an attempt to gain power himself,
"Mike Engel: [kidnapped by the Joker, Engel is reading a prepared statement] "I'm Mike Engel for Gotham Tonight. What does it take to make you people join in? You failed to kill the lawyer. I've got to get you off the bench..." The Joker : Bench... Mike Engel : "And into the game." The Joker : ...game. Mike Engel : "Come nightfall, this city is mine..." The Joker : Mine... Mike Engel : "... and anyone left here plays by my rules." The Joker : ...rules. Mike Engel : "If you don't want to be in the game... get out now. The Joker : ...get out now Mike Engel : But the bridge and tunnel crowd are sure in for a surprise. Ha ha ha ha."
[Joker laughs]"
The Joker only wishes to upset the established order so he can gain power and because he enjoys it, not because he believes in Anarchy and that it is the best and fairest form of society, I'm pretty sure The Joker doesn't care about society. The Joker is not an Anarchist.
I am going to continue my research into the political allegories and representation of political ideologies, both in comics and otherwise. I am finding this project extremely interesting and I'm very much enjoying this research.
As a part of my research I have been reading The Communist Manafesto by Karl Marx and Fredeich Engels. The book is divided into four sections, the first being The Bourgeois and The Proletarians.
I have just finished this first and I thought I'd note down here the main point and themes it talks about.
It first claims that:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles...oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another... a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
It goes on to describes how as Industry grew, the Bourgeois, formerly the lowest class in soceity, gained power. As they gained power they changed the system from men following their "Natural Superiors", kings, queens etc, and replaced the old system with one that was based on self-interest, the gaining of capital and wealth.
“The Bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’, and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’.”
The Bourgeois' system was dependent on the gaining of capital and wealth through competition, which ment that industry had to keep evolving.
“The Bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.”
As Industry grew and the Boursgeois grew, so did the Proletariat, the working class, described as an army of slaves.
“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e. capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the Proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who work so long as their labour increases capital.”
However, as long as industry expands and increases and competition forces not-so-successful business, out of business and become Proletarians themselves, the Proletariat increases and rapidly becomes the majority.
“The Proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority.” As the individual Proletariat and Bourgeois struggles become more common and the world becomes more and more connected the Proletariat begin to unionise to fight for better working conditions and wages.
It ultimately argues that the Bourgeois' system is a self-defeating one, because as they continue to change and evolve industry they also create their own worst enemy and set up their own downfall.
“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the Bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the Bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, is its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the Proletariat are equally inevitable.”
Overall It's very interesting and certainly makes it's argument well, I will continue to read it and take notes as I have been doing. I'm sure this information will be invaluable as research for my project.
