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.
I am using this research as the basis not only for my context project but also for my film art consolidation project. Bearing this in mind I would like to briefly discuss how I wish the film to look.
In a session a while ago we discussed how music videos can be a good source of inspiration for film techniques and styles. This got me thinking, so I began to look through my favourite music videos for inspiration. My favourite music video is Before I Forget by Slipknot, for those who are perhaps unfamiliar with Slipknot, their image is based on the idea of anonymity, they all wear the same boiler suits, each wears an individual mask and they are all named with numbers.
In the music video they are all wearing simple black t-shirts, jeans and trainers, they're masks are off and displayed near them and they are performing in a large, white room. To me this music video is amazing, the cinematography fits the theme of anonymity so perfectly. The entire video is made up of close ups, the viewer never gets the full picture, with an extremely shallow depth of field, making anyone or anything appearing in the background of a shot blurry and out of focus, hiding their identity. It is also quite over exposed, making even their location a mystery.
All these techniques not only continue the band's theme of anonymity but it also makes them feel like more than just people. I feel that not only is this a cool look that I wish to explore but also that it would compliment the subject matter of the film, it would make the characters feel more like entities than people just as the music video does. Another thing to note is the use of costume in the video, very simplified that goes well with the look and it will be worth exploring that as well as the camera techniques for the film.
I have recently watched The Shock Doctrine. It is a documentary based on the book of the same name by Naomi Klein. Both explore and explain the rise of what they call Disaster Capitalism, which, according them, has become the dominant economic doctrine over the last thirty years.
The whole idea is based on the psychological effects of sensory deprivation and apply sensory deprivation to entire societies.
“Sensory deprivation really is a way of producing free monotony. It causes lose of critical capacity, the thinking is less clear. The subject complains that he can’t even day-dream, and when you have college students that can’t day-dream, you’re in a bad way. I began to think, while we were doing our experiments, it’s possible that something that involves physical discomfort, or even pain, might be more tolerable than simply the deprivation conditions that we studied. Well I had no idea that when I suggested that, what a vicious weapon, potentially vicious weapon, this could be. ”- Dr. Donald Hebb
Dr. Hebb was part of the team that performed research into the effects of sensory deprivation, he later stopped being part of the research but it continued in a far less ethical manner. The research began to explore how to use sensory deprivation, shock therapy etc to influence people, the aim was to 'wipe' a person's mind and build it from the ground up. The C.I.A took the research and began using it as interigation techniques.
The Shock Doctrine explains how these techniques have been used to spread radical free market capitalist ideologies around the world. The basic idea is that by using man-made and natural disaster to distract the public, they can destroy a country and build it from the ground up in their image.
"In Sri Lanka, in the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami. People who lived on the beaches for generations were prevented from returning so that the land could be privatised and sold off to luxury hotels. And this is exactly what I mean by the Shock Doctrine, the systematic raiding of the public’s fear in the aftermath of a disaster. When people are too focused on the emergency, on their daily concerns to protect their interest” – Naomi Klein
The film presents numerous examples of how this technique has been used throughout the last century. From the military coup in Chile in 1973 to the current financial crisis.
For example in Chile, Salvador Allende’s popular Unity Government was elected into power on a platform of nationalisation of large sectors of the economy. The US did all that they could to distablise the Chilean economy and with General Augusto Pinochet in charge of the Chilean military, work began on a military coup. The military assualted the presidential palace, resulting in the death of Salvador Allende. In the days after Salvador Allende was ousted, more than 13,000 opponents were arrested and imprisoned. Many were tortured.
With the Chilean people in shock the government put into action radical free market policies, planned by a group of economist called The Chicago Boys. The plan didn’t work, inflation increased dramatically. Milton Freidman began advising the government. His policies created unemployment, it became clear these policies favoured the rich at the expense of the poor. Used scare mongering of Marxism to support his policies.
Milton Freidman and Arnold Harberger argued that free market economics went hand in hand with freedom and democracy, however in Chile, where their ideas were being implemented within a military dictatorship, the opposite was true. General Augusto Pinochet ruled as a military dictator for seventeen years, despite Harberger arguing that having a repressive government for long is impossible within a free economic system. Freidman denied any relationship with the government of Chile.
It goes on to talk about Thatcher-ite britain and the war in Iraq and other examples. It ends on a hopeful note, It points out that the current financial crisis is unique as now the public understands what caused this crisis.
“This Crisis is clearly understood, by almost everyone as being the direct result of this particular ideology, of deregulation and privatisation... The Shock Doctrine, as a strategy, realise on us not knowing about it for it to work, and what I find most hopeful about the current economic crisis is that this tactic is getting tried because that element of surprise is no longer there. We’re on to them and it’s not working. We are becoming shock resistant.” – Naomi Klein
It was a very interesting and informative film, but it wasn't a fun watch at all. It's a hard watch but it should prove very useful as part of my research, and I highly recommend it, however I still wish to gain the perspective of someone in favour of absolute capitalism, I am considering whether looking into Milton Friedman's work as well as Ayn Rand would be useful.
.
This is the second time I've had to write this, damn internet ¬_¬
I have just finished the Communist Manifesto, It was certainly an interesting read and was very helpful for my research. It has helped me gain a reasonable grasp of the ideas behind Communism.
Here is a short overveiw, as I understand it:
The ideas behind Commuism is based on the idea of class struggle, it argues that society, praticularly modern 'Bourgeois' society, is founded upon the few oppressing and exploiting the many.
“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 states that once the Bourgeois overthrew the previous Feudal society and established a new one centered around the acquisition of capital and the Bourgeoisie's own self-interest. In this new society, the Bourgeoisie built a system where the Proletariat, the working class, had no choice but to live and labour in unpealsent conditions for the benefit of the Bourgeoisie.
“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.”
It explains how the Bourgeoisie's society is a self-defeating one, as Industry continues to evolve, compete and expand, it increases the number of Proletariat, giveing them more and more power. It argues that the fall of the Bourgeoisie and the rise of the Proletariat are inevitable.
“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.”
It goes on to explain the beliefs behind Communism, It primarily calls for an end to private property, which it argues is a luxury that only exist for the Bourgeoisie and only exists because the Proletariat does not have that luxury.
“But modern Bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
“But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population: its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.”
It calls for a society where there are no multiple classes, no oppressor and oppressed, where everything is in the hands of the state and everyone works for the mutual benefit of everyone.
“In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
It finishes by calling for all Proletariat of the world to rise up and take the world by force, from the clutches of the Bourgeoisie.
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”
As I said, It is certainly a very interesting read and was very helpful in gaining a grasp of the idea behind communism, I can see why it has become arguably one of the most important books in the past century. It has some positive ideas, such as the abolishment of slave and child labour and free education for all, but, although I have yet to investigate how I works in practice, it is easy to see how a society where the state has complete power, could go very wrong.
Having now a reasonable grasp of the ideas behind Communism I feel I can now begin to look into other ideaologies.
