Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn (Read 3941 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« on: 2006-03-08 01:31:51 » |
 |
[Blunderov] Saw "Syriana" the other evening. Good movie. I recommend it
highly. IMV this is free speech which actually has something to say* - a
newish trend in Hollywood.
Best Regards.
* Unlike the Mohammed cartoons, whose only point was that they were speech
freely spoken, so to speak. I have acquired some misgivings about that.
http://dailynews.com/theiropinion/ci_3568210
Oscar contenders take a left turn
Hollywood experiences a new era of progressive films
Ed Rampell, Guest Columnist
NOT since the 1940s, when the pro-union "The Grapes of Wrath" and the
antifascist "The Great Dictator" were Best Picture nominees, have so many
left-tilting studio features, indies and documentaries been in Academy Award
contention. Clearly socially conscious movies - from "Good Night, and Good
Luck" to "Brokeback Mountain" - are back.
All of this year's Best Picture contenders break the mold of big-budget
blockbuster, Titanic-type Tinseltown entertainment. George Clooney's "Good
Night, and Good Luck" is a low-budget, black-and-white docudrama about CBS
broadcaster Edward R. Murrow's expose of Sen. Joe McCarthy. "Crash" is a
nitty-gritty look at racism in L.A. released by an indie distributor. Steven
Spielberg's "Munich," about terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, raises
right-wing eyebrows by presenting Palestinian perspectives while questioning
Israel's targeted assassination tactics. With its home-on-the-range
homosexuals, "Brokeback Mountain" explores gay themes, as does the Truman
Capote biopic "Capote."
The trend extends to the acting categories as well. Philip Seymour Hoffman
and Heath Ledger are nominated, respectively, for Best Actor for "Capote"
and "Brokeback," while Jake Gyllenhaal is up for Best Supporting Actor in
"Brokeback." Felicity Huffman is nominated for Best Actress for portraying a
transsexual in "Transamerica." Gender issues also inform "North Country," a
docudrama about America's first workplace sexual-harassment lawsuit, with
Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand contending for Best Actress and Best
Supporting Actress awards.
Other nominations also lean left. In the adapted screenplay category, along
with "Brokeback," "Capote" and "Munich," "A History of Violence" and John le
Carre's "The Constant Gardener" compete for the golden statuettes. According
to star Viggo Mortenson, "History" ruminates on America's penchant for
resorting to violence to resolve problems. The film's William Hurt is
nominated for Best Supporting Actor, while "Gardener's" Rachel Weisz, as an
activist challenging big pharmaceutical companies in Africa, is competing
for Best Supporting Actress. David Strathairn's portrayal of newsman Murrow
scored a Best Actor nomination.
In addition to Best Director and Best Original Screenplay nominations for
"Good Luck," Clooney is a Best Supporting Actor contender for portraying a
CIA agent in "Syriana," a Middle East thriller that critiques U.S. foreign
policy. This is the first time a Best Director candidate has been nominated
for an acting Oscar for a different picture in the same year.
Foreign and nonfiction films also perpetuate the Academy's left-of-center
trend. The Hitchcockian "Paradise Now," about suicide bombers, is the first
Palestinian production ever Oscar-nominated. "Tsotsi" is a hard-hitting
drama about South African ghetto and thug life. France's "Joyeux Noelle"
depicts a real-life Christmas trench warfare truce during World War I.
Germany's "Sophie Scholl - The Final Days" is a biopic about an anti-Hitler
activist.
In the Best Documentary Feature category, Bobby Kennedy's daughter Rory
produced "Street Fight," a liberal look at a reformer's campaign to unseat
Newark's longtime mayor. Activist actor Martin Sheen and commentator Arianna
Huffington presented it at a screening with Jane Fonda's ex-husband and
former
Chicago 7 defendant Tom Hayden and United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores
Huerta - who'd just returned from visiting Venezuela with leftist singer
Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest tyrant (and)
terrorist in the world." Although Eugene Jarecki's biting
military-industrial-complex analysis "Why We Fight" isn't in Oscar
contention, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" - a scathing critique of
corporate criminals - is.
Tinseltown's first period of conscience and consciousness-raising movies
came during the Great Depression and World War II, with populist and
anti-Nazi films such as "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "Casablanca."
Progressive Hollywood's second wave was in the 1960s and '70s, with
power-to-the-people pictures like Arlo Guthrie's antiwar "Alice's
Restaurant" and Melvin Van Peebles' "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song."
Grant Heslov, who produced and co-wrote "Good Night, and Good Luck" with
Clooney, explains: "When George and I conceived this ... it was to (ask): Is
the media questioning authority enough? To us, that is the most important
job of the fourth estate. Clearly, they weren't doing that during the
lead-up to the war." But poor reporting didn't make truth disappear. As
Heslov indicates, it moved to other mediums, and progressive Hollywood
re-emerged as a sort of fifth estate.
An indispensable factor for Left Coast progressivism is an audience that
pays to see political subjects. With only four nominations in mostly
technical categories, "King Kong" is the $200 million-plus ape in the room,
and like other wannabe blockbusters, has under-performed at the box office,
indicating escapism is out, and thought-provoking topicality is in.
According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, "Munich," the most expensive Best Picture
nominee, cost $70 million and its worldwide gross is more than $100 million.
The $6.5 million "Crash" is doing boffo box office, scoring more than $83
million. The $14 million "Brokeback" has earned upward of $73 million.
Heslov says the $7 million "Good Luck" sold more than $30 million in
tickets.
Once again, progressives behind and in front of the cameras are creating
compelling, politically aware works. Audiences are responding and the Motion
Picture Academy is sitting up and paying attention. No matter who the Oscar
winners are, the progressive Hollywood trend continues, with Sean Penn's
"All the King's Men" and Michael Moore's "Sicko" and "Fahrenheit 9/11"
coming soon to theaters near you.
Film historian and freelance writer Ed Rampell is the author of "Progressive
Hollywood: A People's Film History of the United States."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.06
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #1 on: 2006-03-08 05:14:58 » |
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Blunderov
> Sent: 08 March 2006 07:32
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
>
> [Blunderov] Saw "Syriana" the other evening. Good movie. I
> recommend it highly. IMV this is free speech which actually
> has something to say* - a newish trend in Hollywood.
New trend? I don't think so.
Artists in general, including film makers, tend to be left leaning. It is
only pseudo-patriotic commercial pap like Rambo that buck the otherwise
relentless leftism of the cinematic arts.
I mean really, apart from a small but excellent new breed of right-wing
documentary makers, the film industry is overwhelmingly left wing.
This was the great irony about Michael Moore, the self proclaimed man of the
people. He had massive financial backing (not least from George Soros, one
of the worlds most unsentimental and ruthless Capitalists.
As for the films mentioned in the article, I thought Munich was an excellent
film and it in no way raised an eyebrow in this right-wing Jew lover.
My view on McCarthy is simple: He was basically right. Hollywood was a
hotbed of Communist sympathisers and KGB stooges and Communism is in my view
at least as evil as Nazism (except it killed more people).
Crash is an excellent movie and it takes a big swipe at progressive race
-card playing racists (I mean the *white* cop is framed).
Pace Viggo Mortenson "A History of Violence" has fuggall to do with
"America's [putative] penchant for resorting to violence to resolve
problems".
"The Constant Gardener" is pap. It has a go at Big Pharma by recycling the
familiar conspiracy theories and whines. When will Big Pharma's critics
start refusing medication for the rest of their lives (including of course,
anaesthetics)?
Oops, out of time.
Thanks for the posting that article.
JD
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
DrSebby
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.04
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
     
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #2 on: 2006-03-08 07:32:43 » |
|
...actually communism always gets a bad rap because no one has ever seen it.
it has been attempted several times by means which cannot, by definition,
result in communism. it cannot be forced upon people. communism as i
understand it necessitates 3 major factors which we have not yet
accomplished...a mastery of logistics occurs naturally.
1. massively high and nearly universal education levels
2. immensely high degree of automation (nearly eliminating shitty jobs)
3. a very very low population...e.g. USA = instead of 300,000,000 ...more
like 30,000,000 at most.
...if these factors are met...for an extended amount of time, true communism
would likely appear naturally and happily...almost inevitably.
...the basic concept of true communism is that each and every person would
wake up and pretty much do exactly as they please. not for monetary
superiority but for peer approval, peer merit, respect, and a sense of
accomplishment and self-gratification.
in other words, it's a loooooong way off.
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jonathan Davis" <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:14:58 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Blunderov
> Sent: 08 March 2006 07:32
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
>
> [Blunderov] Saw "Syriana" the other evening. Good movie. I
> recommend it highly. IMV this is free speech which actually
> has something to say* - a newish trend in Hollywood.
New trend? I don't think so.
Artists in general, including film makers, tend to be left leaning. It is
only pseudo-patriotic commercial pap like Rambo that buck the otherwise
relentless leftism of the cinematic arts.
I mean really, apart from a small but excellent new breed of right-wing
documentary makers, the film industry is overwhelmingly left wing.
This was the great irony about Michael Moore, the self proclaimed man of the
people. He had massive financial backing (not least from George Soros, one
of the worlds most unsentimental and ruthless Capitalists.
As for the films mentioned in the article, I thought Munich was an excellent
film and it in no way raised an eyebrow in this right-wing Jew lover.
My view on McCarthy is simple: He was basically right. Hollywood was a
hotbed of Communist sympathisers and KGB stooges and Communism is in my view
at least as evil as Nazism (except it killed more people).
Crash is an excellent movie and it takes a big swipe at progressive race
-card playing racists (I mean the *white* cop is framed).
Pace Viggo Mortenson "A History of Violence" has fuggall to do with
"America's [putative] penchant for resorting to violence to resolve
problems".
"The Constant Gardener" is pap. It has a go at Big Pharma by recycling the
familiar conspiracy theories and whines. When will Big Pharma's critics
start refusing medication for the rest of their lives (including of course,
anaesthetics)?
Oops, out of time.
Thanks for the posting that article.
JD
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #3 on: 2006-03-08 07:37:31 » |
|
[Blunderov] You're welcome.
A couple of observations.
Whilst cinematic artists may tend to be a little left of centre generally
speaking, this has not usually translated itself onto Hollywood screens. By
and large, committees concerned with profitability have tended to have the
final word on the content and sentiments conveyed in the final product.
Bread and circuses has been the usual result.
"Communism" is a very big word. To large for the generalization you offer
IMO; perhaps Marxist-Leninism is the flavour to which you most object?
How many people has Capitalism killed I wonder? Is it possible, or even
desirable, to make this comparison? Be that as it may, it is possible that
the future will see a resurgence of "communism" (I think). It seems to me
that in a society which has almost no economic surpluses at all it may be
simply unavoidable. The alternative would seem to be constant civil war and
revolution. But we shall see.
I'm inclined to agree with you about the "Constant Gardener" although
perhaps not as emphatically. IMV, the story is as much about a man who finds
his integrity irredeemably compromised, more by force of circumstance than
his own hubris, although he is not blameless in this respect. And there has
been the most appalling record of double standards, duplicity and corruption
in respect of Africa by the West. Reasonably faithful to the book as it was,
the film somehow never became anything more than a pallid representation.
Without being able to put my finger on quite why, it came across a bit
"paint-by-numbers" for some reason. It may be that, if fault it was, that
this was the fault of the book itself and what is revealed is a somewhat
plodding effort on Le Carre's part.
Best regards.
Jonathan Davis
Sent: 08 March 2006 12:15
>
> [Blunderov] Saw "Syriana" the other evening. Good movie. I
> recommend it highly. IMV this is free speech which actually
> has something to say* - a newish trend in Hollywood.
New trend? I don't think so.
Artists in general, including film makers, tend to be left leaning. It is
only pseudo-patriotic commercial pap like Rambo that buck the otherwise
relentless leftism of the cinematic arts.
I mean really, apart from a small but excellent new breed of right-wing
documentary makers, the film industry is overwhelmingly left wing.
This was the great irony about Michael Moore, the self proclaimed man of the
people. He had massive financial backing (not least from George Soros, one
of the worlds most unsentimental and ruthless Capitalists.
As for the films mentioned in the article, I thought Munich was an excellent
film and it in no way raised an eyebrow in this right-wing Jew lover.
My view on McCarthy is simple: He was basically right. Hollywood was a
hotbed of Communist sympathisers and KGB stooges and Communism is in my view
at least as evil as Nazism (except it killed more people).
Crash is an excellent movie and it takes a big swipe at progressive race
-card playing racists (I mean the *white* cop is framed).
Pace Viggo Mortenson "A History of Violence" has fuggall to do with
"America's [putative] penchant for resorting to violence to resolve
problems".
"The Constant Gardener" is pap. It has a go at Big Pharma by recycling the
familiar conspiracy theories and whines. When will Big Pharma's critics
start refusing medication for the rest of their lives (including of course,
anaesthetics)?
Oops, out of time.
Thanks for the posting that article.
JD
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #4 on: 2006-03-08 08:33:09 » |
|
>
>
> "Communism" is a very big word. To large for the generalization you offer
> IMO; perhaps Marxist-Leninism is the flavour to which you most object? Ho=
w
> many people has Capitalism killed I wonder?
I believe Jonathan's statement was correct in this regard. The death toll
under Stalin was larger than that within Nazi Germany before one has added
in Mao's cultural revolution or Pol Pot. A generalisation it may have been,
but Marxist-Leninism did seem to produce remarkably consistent results. The
spectrum from Yugoslavia at one end to Russia at the other does offer some
variety, but probably not enough to afford much in the way of
rehabilitation.
The comparison with capitalism is valid in so far said economic structure
has often had devastating effects (though the economic fall-out of communis=
m
was probably the least of its crimes). Nonetheless, it's probably not very
helpful for a number of reasons, most obviously that fascism and communism
were both mass movements, which capitalism has certainly not been since the
nineteenth century. Equally, the spectrum of what can be counted as
capitalism from Sweden to Hong Kong does seem to afford rather more
diversity than can be said for communism.
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #5 on: 2006-03-08 18:11:27 » |
|
[Blunderov] Hmm. I'm not keen on relativism. By this standard one can say of
the Nazis that they were better than the Communists because the Nazi body
count was lower.
And what is one to say of China? That it is a triumph of Capitalism or a
triumph of Communism? If the Chinese have any relativists amongst their
number they might well argue that the sacrifices of the Cultural Revolution
were "worth it" considered against the prosperity and cultural/economic
dominance that now prevails.
Taxonomy is a tricky thing. And anyone who performed such an accounting
would be likely to discover nothing more useful than their own historical
preconceptions it seems to me.
Best Regards.
_____
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Kharin
Sent: 08 March 2006 15:33
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
"Communism" is a very big word. To large for the generalization you offer
IMO; perhaps Marxist-Leninism is the flavour to which you most object? How
many people has Capitalism killed I wonder?
I believe Jonathan's statement was correct in this regard. The death toll
under Stalin was larger than that within Nazi Germany before one has added
in Mao's cultural revolution or Pol Pot. A generalisation it may have been,
but Marxist-Leninism did seem to produce remarkably consistent results. The
spectrum from Yugoslavia at one end to Russia at the other does offer some
variety, but probably not enough to afford much in the way of
rehabilitation.
The comparison with capitalism is valid in so far said economic structure
has often had devastating effects (though the economic fall-out of communism
was probably the least of its crimes). Nonetheless, it's probably not very
helpful for a number of reasons, most obviously that fascism and communism
were both mass movements, which capitalism has certainly not been since the
nineteenth century. Equally, the spectrum of what can be counted as
capitalism from Sweden to Hong Kong does seem to afford rather more
diversity than can be said for communism.
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #6 on: 2006-03-09 00:29:49 » |
|
[Hermit] Wow. So many statements, to my mind many of dubious value - and touching on so many complex issues – none to do with Ira(q/n) – I am overwhelmed. But before I comment on a few of the things that caught my attention, there is one thing above all else that gives this thread a special significance for me - Kharin, what a total delight to see you active again. I have missed you a lot.
[Hermit] And now, in no particular order, for the rest.
[Blunderov] Syriana
[Hermit] Haven't seen it. Will now try to.
[Blunderov quotes Ed Rampell] Spielberg's "Munich," about terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, raises right-wing eyebrows by presenting Palestinian perspectives while questioning Israel's targeted assassination tactics.
[Jonathan Davis] As for the films mentioned in the article, I thought Munich was an excellent film and it in no way raised an eyebrow in this right-wing Jew lover.
[Hermit] I would expect no less.
[Hermit] Spielberg's much discussed and (deservedly) little watched "Munich" is in my opinion not so much a "present[ation] of Palestinian perspectives" as an artistic, historic and ethical disaster, presenting a bloody angst-riddled pastiche of Israeli/American prejudii against an imaginary backdrop based upon the wholesale distortion of the entire Palestinian issue. The underlying reality, completely ignored by the people who have cobbled together this fabulously [in the literal sense] perverted Weltanschauung is the fact that the State of Israel exists to a major extent because of Zionist inspired terrorism coupled with a denial of the rights of the Palestinian peoples by world-movers largely motivated by religious fanaticism of the Judeo-Christian persuasion - and quite capable of ignoring any amount of terrorism committed in what they consider to be a good, a justifiable or even a merely unexceptional cause.
[Hermit] Zionist terrorism started in the early 1920s and escalated into the late 1940s when it was rewarded by the establishment of the State of Israel on land held in trust for the Palestinians by uncaring, untrustworthy, self-interested and deeply dishonest politicians more interested in the immediate benefits offered by Jewish voters than by any number of Palestinians, the responsibility they had assumed or the future costs of their perfidy. Costs we are now, in part, paying. The State of Israel has subsequently acted as a proud sponsor of state terrorism, protected and shielded in the Security Council by its before and after the fact enabler, co-conspirator and accomplice, the United States.
[Hermit] To focus on "Palestinian terrorism", (even when, as here, disguised in the form of a pseudo historical fictional work) serves only to exacerbate the fundamental lie, the reality-inversion that "Palestinian terrorism" is the root cause of the human catastrophe in the Middle East today. Taking a few well documented examples, when a radically armed state actor repeatedly attacks an almost completely disarmed peoples, fires "carefully targeted" air-to-ground missiles into crowded marketplaces with completely predictable and thoroughly murderous results, regularly kills pre-teen children in brutal attacks gilded as “anti-terrorism” or “police actions”, frequently engages in threats to assassinate elected political leaders - and malignantly implements these threats as “policy”, continuously engages in massive land- and resource-grabs as well as the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure and property, all the while subjecting the disarmed population to armed embargoes that cause massive harm (physical as well as psychological) then I can't think of any words to describe this other than genocide, racism and terrorism.
[Hermit] These are things I thought, think, were disapproved of by civilized people.
[Hermit] When the world stands by as most of a genetic and religiously coherent population is converted into stateless refugees by the worlds longest lasting and arguably most blatant "ethnic cleansing" then any examination of "angst" over "targeted assassinations" dwindles into near total insignificance. Especially in the light of the film’s careful omission of any mention of the disgustingly inept murder by Mossad of a waiter in Liliehammer; the "judicial" execution by Israel of random people, uninvolved except for their membership in the PLO; and even the fact that two of the actual Munich terrorists are still alive, as is Abu Daoud, one of the actual architects of the attack. These, however inconvenient to the myth of Mossad’s competence, upon which Spielberg’s parody of this tragedy (to flatter Spielberg’s work) relies, are inseparable from any serious treatment of the assassination-as-policy upon which Israel so much relies. “Munich” manages to miss that point too, weaseling that it is only “based-on” reality (while attempting to create it). To the extent that “right-wing Jew lover[s]” and others of their ilk are prepared to accept a monochromatic world, I suppose they succeed. This work is in my opinion, more accurately described as a distorted, simplified, commercialized, Judeo-Christian perspective, designed to appeal to American audiences, particularly those who describe themselves as intellectuals whether they include “right wing” or “left wing” in the appellation. It is an utterly inexcusable abuse of language and sense to assert in any way whatever that this perversion purports to provide a “Palestinian perspective”.
[Jonathan Davis] I mean really, apart from a small but excellent new breed of right-wing documentary makers, the film industry is overwhelmingly left wing.
[Hermit] Umm, what is the "right wing" and how do you discern the difference between it and the "left wing"? Oh, I know all about the Kentucky Fried Chicken "Tutu & Boesak Box" (which only contained "a left wing and an arsehole"), but I mean in today’s context? You have special spectacles given to you by Ozoma?
[DrSebby] Actually communism always gets a bad rap because no one has ever seen it. it has been attempted several times by means which cannot, by definition, result in communism. <snip> ...the basic concept of true communism is that each and every person would wake up and pretty much do exactly as they please. not for monetary superiority but for peer approval, peer merit, respect, and a sense of accomplishment and self-gratification.
[Hermit] I suspect that the closest the world has come to a "functional communism" may have been long before Marx attempted to define it. The prosperous religious communities of the Albigensians and Cathars were amazingly communist and surprisingly successful without your "pre-requisites". But, seeing as they espoused communal property and "brotherly love", had they not been very thoroughly wiped out by the Catholics they would undoubtedly have been eliminated by the Protestants under the “Kill them all, God will know his own” policy.
[Blunderov?/Jonathan Davis?] How many people has Capitalism killed I wonder? Is it possible, or even desirable, to make this comparison? Be that as it may, it is possible that the future will see a resurgence of "communism" (I think).
[Hermit] Communism is the politics of the poor and aspirant. Just as Capitalism is the politics of the rich and established. Neither is a proximal cause of murder or indeed any of the myriad forms of homicide. I agree that more have died under nominally communist forms of government than have under the nominally capitalist forms (refer as usual to the most excellent Mr Rummel's democide resources). Then again, I'd suggest that most of the "communist" dead are consequent not on communism per se, but to the emergence of "democracy" (in the sense of people-power) from either feudalism or colonialism and deaths are at their worst in ethnically divided societies where the similarities are greater than the differences - and particularly when simultaneously struggling with limited resources. So, for example, while I think that we can recast the simian Djugashvili's murders in the light of a Georgian pauper-become-prince eliminating those-who-had-sneered-at-him along with hasbeen-princes, wannabe-princes and spurious untrusted peasants, with the brutal help of starvation and the West, I'm sure that the unpublicized American invasion of Russia to put down the revolution did little to inspire him to trust the USA. Likewise, China's noxious internal uprisings would likely have been less-worse had the West not first destabilized the Empire, then attempted to prop up a more amenable boy-emperor and his keeper and when that led to a signal failure, supported the only "Christian" (but none-the-less brutal) warlord to emerge from WWII until his eventual richly deserved dismemberment. In the same way, it can certainly be argued that like the Algerians, the Pol Pot learned their very effective brutish nastiness from the French colonialists and merely transformed terror into a tool deployable by mass-movements rather than the exclusive property of a few paramilitary thugs rather than inventing it for themselves.
[Hermit] Supposedly capitalist countries have a pretty good track-record at instigating and effecting large-scale executions too. The only reason we think well of ourselves is that we write the history books which are used to teach ourselves a totally imaginary, peculiarly heroic perspective of ourselves as the rescuers of those incapable of or unwilling to improve themselves. Ask any student of the history of the North American Indians (A death toll not yet added to capitalism’s account. It includes at best guess between 10 million and 100 million deaths in the century prior to the Western invasion, and between 1 million and 10 million after).
[Blunderov?/Jonathan Davis?] It seems to me that in a society which has almost no economic surpluses at all it may be simply unavoidable. The alternative would seem to be constant civil war and revolution. But we shall see.
[Hermit] I'm not convinced about the virtues of either capitalism (which is, I'd argue, more mythical than communism) or communism as a tool for dealing with shortages. Certainly the so-called communist countries seem to have done a much better job at establishing basic education, healthcare and other social services than the so-called capitalist countries, but the reverse seems to have occurred for more advanced services. At the end-of-the-day, should we live that long, perhaps we will learn that shortages are silly, and work to eliminate them - which given the will, would not be difficult. In which case, neither capitalism nor communism will be particularly helpful. Both are predicated on the idea of value. An idea which I am becoming convinced has little intrinsic merit, as value is only sensible when related to completely unnecessary scarcity.
[Blunderov?/Jonathan Davis?] "Communism" is a very big word. To large for the generalization you offer IMO; perhaps Marxist-Leninism is the flavour to which you most object?
[Hermit] Maoism is much more successful than Marxist-Leninism (or Stalinism) at reducing populations.
[Kharin] The death toll under Stalin was larger than that within Nazi Germany before one has added in Mao's cultural revolution or Pol Pot.
[Hermit] For all their nasty reputation, the Nazis were remarkably inefficient killers. The allies did a much better job. Particularly when bombing civilian infrastructure and populations. And post-war of course.
[Kharin] though the economic fall-out of communism was probably the least of its crimes
[Hermit] Interestingly, except under conditions of all out economic warfare, communism appears to have created greater real growth and much flatter income distributions (resulting in hugely larger per capita improvements over most of the population) than capitalism. I'm also fairly sure that the coming economic reality show is going to provide some interesting lessons in the relative merits of economic systems (as usual, the valuable lessons are only available to those interested in learning). Certainly, if sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, then a collapse in capitalist economies should result in claims that this proves that the system is just as bad as communism.
[Kharin] Equally, the spectrum of what can be counted as capitalism from Sweden to Hong Kong does seem to afford rather more diversity than can be said for communism.
[Hermit] Indeed. Then again, pretending that complex social, political and economic interdependencies can be reduced to left vs right, capitalist vs socialist, liberal vs dictatorial or even Republican vs Democrat (which labels now appear inversions of their recent meanings - if they are not synonyms) labels is always bound to result in strange (as in weird) conclusions.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #7 on: 2006-03-09 05:43:50 » |
|
Quote from: DrSebby on 2006-03-08 07:32:43
...the basic concept of true communism is that each and every person would
wake up and pretty much do exactly as they please. not for monetary
superiority but for peer approval, peer merit, respect, and a sense of
accomplishment and self-gratification.
in other words, it's a loooooong way off.
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
|
[Blunderov] Well, social responsibility would need to be factored into the deal too, strictly speaking. (Not even in the workers paradise would there be any free lunches.)
That aside, sign me up today for some of that there SebbCom (TM) please! One day when you, Sebbmeister, are "first amongst equals" I hope to have a place in the nomenklatura. Sadly though, it seems true sailing is dead.
The Scandinavian coutries, Denmark in particular, have gone some way towards this ideal. Depending on whom you read, their efforts have been either very successful or a travesty of coercive redistribution.
Best Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.06
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #8 on: 2006-03-09 06:11:54 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2006-03-09 00:29:49
[Hermit] Wow. So many statements, to my mind many of dubious value - and touching on so many complex issues – none to do with Ira(q/n) – I am overwhelmed. But before I comment on a few of the things that caught my attention, there is one thing above all else that gives this thread a special significance for me - Kharin, what a total delight to see you active again. I have missed you a lot. |
Seconded
Quote from: Hermit on 2006-03-09 00:29:49
[Blunderov quotes Ed Rampell] Spielberg's "Munich," about terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, raises right-wing eyebrows by presenting Palestinian perspectives while questioning Israel's targeted assassination tactics.
[Jonathan Davis] As for the films mentioned in the article, I thought Munich was an excellent film and it in no way raised an eyebrow in this right-wing Jew lover.
[Hermit] I would expect no less.
[Hermit] Spielberg's much discussed and (deservedly) little watched "Munich" is in my opinion not so much a "present[ation] of Palestinian perspectives" as an artistic, historic and ethical disaster, presenting a bloody angst-riddled pastiche of Israeli/American prejudii against an imaginary backdrop based upon the wholesale distortion of the entire Palestinian issue. |
Firstly, go see the film.
Secondly, admit you area secret Jew lover. Admit it! Gefilte fish excites you!
Regards,
GoyBoy
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #9 on: 2006-03-09 06:44:41 » |
|
> [Blunderov] Hmm. I'm not keen on relativism. By this standard one can sa=
y
> of the Nazis that they were better than the Communists because the Nazi b=
ody
> count was lower.
>
I certainly agree that these are very different beasts and that comparisons
between them are prone to be difficult. But frankly, I'm somewhat bemused b=
y
why you find the idea that Communism proved more destructive than fascism
(or that the Nazis were better than the Communists to use your phrasing)
quite so outlandish that you appear to have phrased it as an inconceivable
idea. Of course, communism did endure for much longer than Nazism and
accordingly had much more time to do damage. But it does seem to me that
there is an important issue at stake, namely that there is a form of
holocaust denial that pertains to communism and its atrocities. Bear in min=
d
that it wasn't until 1968 and Robert Conquest's The Great Terror documented
the extent of what had happened and even now the names of Stalin's gulags
are largely unknown when compared to Auschwitz, Treblinka or Dachau.
And what is one to say of China? That it is a triumph of Capitalism or a
> triumph of Communism? If the Chinese have any relativists amongst their
> number they might well argue that the sacrifices of the Cultural Revoluti=
on
> were "worth it" considered against the prosperity and cultural/economic
> dominance that now prevails.
>
Hmm, I'm sure they would and do, just as many Turks deny the Armenian
genocide and many Russians still yearn for Uncle Joe. But frankly, it's ver=
y
difficult to see how any substantial argument can be advanced for the great
leap forward laying any foundations for China's current growth.
Taxonomy is a tricky thing. And anyone who performed such an accounting
> would be likely to discover nothing more useful than their own historical
> preconceptions it seems to me.
>
Quite possibly but I would have to again suggest that you give every
impression of regarding fascism as beyond the pale as a de facto statement
while considering that equivalent statements regarding communism to be at
risk of generalisation. Which seems equally subject to historical
preconceptions to me.
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #10 on: 2006-03-09 12:50:49 » |
|
[Blunderov] What I mean to say is that the statement "communism has caused
more deaths than capitalism" is specious IMV. There is first of all the
problem of proximate versus remote cause. And secondly the problem of
taxonomy; which deaths are to be laid at which doors precisely? And who
lives exactly lives behind those doors anyway?*
But even if this turns out to be a true statement, what would we learn? If
it was the case, for instance, that, say, Islam had caused fewer deaths than
had Judaism (per capita and corrected for inflation) would we conclude that
Islam is the "better" religion? I don't think I would, not on just this
basis anyway.
I can see that I need to clarify my problem with statements such as "Nazism
was better than Communism because it killed fewer people." My difficulty is
with the word "better". Whilst not exactly an abuse of language it veers
dangerously close IMV. When confronted with a choice between two evils,
usually one chooses the lesser. One concludes that one has done the right
thing. The difficulty is that, all too often, it is also concluded that that
"right" thing which has been done is, by virtue of that fact, also a "good"
thing. (I'm convinced that it is this precise error that is the worm in the,
err, rose of neo-conservatism.) It is possible with such a system of
"lesser evilism" to rationalize almost anything. (It may even be THE most
usual mechanism by which that process is advanced if my own experience is
anything to go by.) So, my objection to the use of the word "better" in this
context is that it is sloppy, misleading, dangerously inexact and conveys no
useful information.
In closing let me say that the hideous purges of Stalin and the Cultural
Revolution (just for instance) are in no way acceptable to me. I do not
condone or excuse them at all. I would observe though that man's inhumanity
to man has been a fairly consistent theme down the ages no matter what
political systems have pertained at the time.
(Nice to see you posting again BTW.)
Best regards.
* Pol Pot, for instance, dissolved the Cambodian Communist party in 1981.
Whether he was ever anything other than a maniac in Communist clothing seems
open to question.
_____
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Kharin
Sent: 09 March 2006 13:45
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
[Blunderov] Hmm. I'm not keen on relativism. By this standard one can say of
the Nazis that they were better than the Communists because the Nazi body
count was lower.
I certainly agree that these are very different beasts and that comparisons
between them are prone to be difficult. But frankly, I'm somewhat bemused by
why you find the idea that Communism proved more destructive than fascism
(or that the Nazis were better than the Communists to use your phrasing)
quite so outlandish that you appear to have phrased it as an inconceivable
idea. Of course, communism did endure for much longer than Nazism and
accordingly had much more time to do damage. But it does seem to me that
there is an important issue at stake, namely that there is a form of
holocaust denial that pertains to communism and its atrocities. Bear in mind
that it wasn't until 1968 and Robert Conquest's The Great Terror documented
the extent of what had happened and even now the names of Stalin's gulags
are largely unknown when compared to Auschwitz, Treblinka or Dachau.
And what is one to say of China? That it is a triumph of Capitalism or a
triumph of Communism? If the Chinese have any relativists amongst their
number they might well argue that the sacrifices of the Cultural Revolution
were "worth it" considered against the prosperity and cultural/economic
dominance that now prevails.
Hmm, I'm sure they would and do, just as many Turks deny the Armenian
genocide and many Russians still yearn for Uncle Joe. But frankly, it's very
difficult to see how any substantial argument can be advanced for the great
leap forward laying any foundations for China's current growth.
Taxonomy is a tricky thing. And anyone who performed such an accounting
would be likely to discover nothing more useful than their own historical
preconceptions it seems to me.
Quite possibly but I would have to again suggest that you give every
impression of regarding fascism as beyond the pale as a de facto statement
while considering that equivalent statements regarding communism to be at
risk of generalisation. Which seems equally subject to historical
preconceptions to me.
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #11 on: 2006-03-10 07:43:28 » |
|
> But even if this turns out to be a true statement, what would we learn? I=
f
> it was the case, for instance, that, say, Islam had caused fewer deaths t=
han
> had Judaism (per capita and corrected for inflation) would we conclude th=
at
> Islam is the "better" religion? I don't think I would, not on just this
> basis anyway.
>
I don't imagine anyone would wish to make a judgement solely on the basis.
But are we really saying that nothing can be inferred about an ideology and
its compatibility with human rights from its outcomes? That we have to
disregard all such outcomes due to problems of comparability or of isolatin=
g
specific ideological factors in the midst of other, political, economic or
social factors? Isn't disentangling such factors precisely one of the
principal goals of historical study? One of the particular reasons for my
being nervous concerning such arguments is that I've heard believers invoke
them too often; religion is always something where its social goods are
easily quantified and vaunted but its social evils are always attributable
to some other factor and can't be considered. Certainly, I always hear
precisely the same reasons being advanced in the context of communism.
I can see that I need to clarify my problem with statements such as "Nazism
> was better than Communism because it killed fewer people." My difficulty=
is
> with the word "better". Whilst not exactly an abuse of language it veers
> dangerously close IMV.
>
Agreed, hence my earlier rephrasing. Though I must admit the question of
what side to take in the context of something like the Spanish Civil War
makes for an especially interesting thought experiment. As a
counter-factual, what might a communist Spain have become?
(I'm convinced that it is this precise error that is the worm in the, err,
> rose of neo-conservatism.)
>
Yes. Ideologies that perceive themselves as utopian are always the most
dangerous and neo-conservatism goes a long way to meriting such a
description.
>
> I would observe though that man's inhumanity to man has been a fairly
> consistent theme down the ages no matter what political systems have
> pertained at the time.
>
Hmm, why bother with the idea of a Virian replacement for religion then?
Surely, man's inhumanity would simply play out in precisely the same way,
irrespective of whether society was predominantly atheist, islamic or
zoroastrian?
(Nice to see you posting again BTW.)
>
Thank you.
* Pol Pot, for instance, dissolved the Cambodian Communist party in 1981.
> Whether he was ever anything other than a maniac in Communist clothing se=
ems
> open to question.
>
Quite possibly, but then that could be said of any number of historical
figures, Mao and Stalin included (certainly someone like Churchill who neve=
r
quite grasped the concept of political allegiance). I'm not convinced that
that this is a reason not to consider the role of ideology in what happened=
;
certainly, the worst of Pol Pot's purges had already been ended before 1981=
.
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #12 on: 2006-03-10 09:02:12 » |
|
[Blunderov]But even if this turns out to be a true statement, what would we
learn? If it was the case, for instance, that, say, Islam had caused fewer
deaths than had Judaism (per capita and corrected for inflation) would we
conclude that Islam is the "better" religion? I don't think I would, not on
just this basis anyway.
[Kharin1]
I don't imagine anyone would wish to make a judgement solely on the basis.
But are we really saying that nothing can be inferred about an ideology and
its compatibility with human rights from its outcomes? That we have to
disregard all such outcomes due to problems of comparability or of isolating
specific ideological factors in the midst of other, political, economic or
social factors? Isn't disentangling such factors precisely one of the
principal goals of historical study? One of the particular reasons for my
being nervous concerning such arguments is that I've heard believers invoke
them too often; religion is always something where its social goods are
easily quantified and vaunted but its social evils are always attributable
to some other factor and can't be considered. Certainly, I always hear
precisely the same reasons being advanced in the context of communism.
[Blunderov1] I take your point. It seems that perhaps inferences should be
drawn with an abundance of caution. And yes, one frequently hears similar
reservations expressed by defensive religious persons.
I share you trepidation about this to some extent. Nonetheless, it cannot be
gainsaid that the practice of institutions is not always identical with the
principles that they are founded upon.
[Blunderov]I can see that I need to clarify my problem with statements such
as "Nazism was better than Communism because it killed fewer people." My
difficulty is with the word "better". Whilst not exactly an abuse of
language it veers dangerously close IMV.
[Kharin1]
Agreed, hence my earlier rephrasing. Though I must admit the question of
what side to take in the context of something like the Spanish Civil War
makes for an especially interesting thought experiment. As a
counter-factual, what might a communist Spain have become?
[Blunderov] (I'm convinced that it is this precise error that is the worm in
the, err, rose of neo-conservatism.)
[Kharin1]
Yes. Ideologies that perceive themselves as utopian are always the most
dangerous and neo-conservatism goes a long way to meriting such a
description.
[Blunderov1] I hadn't thought of neo conservatism quite that way before. But
yes, I can agree.
[Blunderov]I would observe though that man's inhumanity to man has been a
fairly consistent theme down the ages no matter what political systems have
pertained at the time.
[Kharin1]
Hmm, why bother with the idea of a Virian replacement for religion then?
Surely, man's inhumanity would simply play out in precisely the same way,
irrespective of whether society was predominantly atheist, islamic or
zoroastrian?
[Blunderov1] I don't think that an observation of something that has
previously been consistent necessarily means that it cannot vary in the
future. Of course it may not change, and there are quite good grounds for
suspecting that it probably won't. There is at least the possibility of
hoping that it might. Slim, I grant.
[Blunderov] (Nice to see you posting again BTW.)
[Kharin1]
Thank you.
[Blunderov]* Pol Pot, for instance, dissolved the Cambodian Communist party
in 1981. Whether he was ever anything other than a maniac in Communist
clothing seems open to question.
[Kharin1]
Quite possibly, but then that could be said of any number of historical
figures, Mao and Stalin included (certainly someone like Churchill who never
quite grasped the concept of political allegiance). I'm not convinced that
that this is a reason not to consider the role of ideology in what happened;
certainly, the worst of Pol Pot's purges had already been ended before 1981.
[Blunderov1] I think there are grave problems in undertaking such an
enquiry. Does one include road traffic deaths in the toll for instance? (The
more the capitalism, the greater the carnage seems to be.)
What about the toll from the diseases of affluence? Or for that matter,
from the diseases of poverty? Slavery; how is that to be reckoned?
Probably it is fair to conclude that totalitarian government tends to be
more deadly than non-totalitarian government in general. And that the extent
and degree to which a communist regime is also totalitarian would tend to
predict its deadliness is also probably true. But it seems to me that
totalitarianism is the common factor here.
Best regards.
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #13 on: 2006-03-10 11:21:22 » |
|
>
> >I share you trepidation about this to some extent. Nonetheless, it canno=
t
> be gainsaid >that the practice of institutions is not always identical wi=
th
> the principles that they are >founded upon.
>
>
I don't want to minimise the difficulty of making comparisons for precisely
reasons of that kind. But it seems important to me that comparisons are
made and this is what historians, sociologists and economists do all the
time.
>[Blunderov1] I think there are grave problems in undertaking such an
> enquiry. Does one >include road traffic deaths in the toll for instance?
> (The more the capitalism, the greater the >carnage seems to be.)
>
I agree that comparisons of this kind are markedly more difficult than
comparisons of different political structures alone (the 20 million figure
for Stalin presumably doesn't include industrial accidents or the like) i.e=
.
whether outcomes are directly attributable to a single party from the
starvation that followed farm collectivisation or the gulags on the one han=
d
or the mass deaths of Irish navvies in constructing the British railway
system, the crimes of the East India company (or Enron and the report
amnesty international filed against it) or the atrocities in the Congo.
But that example leads me to wonder if you're not actually comparing degree=
s
of economic development. After all, it's not as if cars or road traffic
deaths are tied to capitalism; the Soviet bloc did manufacture cars. The
difference was that under capitalism no-one had to wait six years to get
their Lada, so it does seem somewhat unfair to blame capitalism for being
more economically efficient.
>What about the toll from the diseases of affluence? Or for that matter,
> from the diseases >of poverty? Slavery; how is that to be reckoned?
>
But we do reckon all of these. We do have a good idea of how economic
productivity or standard of living changed for differing classes in the
former Soviet Union and historians do compare it with comparable rates in
the West. Government are compiling data on shortened life expectancy as a
result of obesity and slavery's economic toll can be tabulated with
sufficient accuracy to form the basis of reparations claims (though I would
point out that slavery is no more specific to capitalism than the
automobile). We have to reckon all of these; it's really not optional.
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
« Reply #14 on: 2006-03-10 13:48:13 » |
|
Kharin Sent: 10 March 2006 18:21
<snip>
I don't want to minimise the difficulty of making comparisons for precisely
reasons of that kind. But it seems important to me that comparisons are
made and this is what historians, sociologists and economists do all the
time. </snip>
[Blunderov] I thought I would send along this interesting link whilst I
spend some time digesting it, and aspects of our recent conversation,
myself.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm
Deaths by Mass Unpleasantness:
Estimated Totals for the Entire 20th Century
<snip>
"Note: Although the bulk of humanity lives outside developed countries,
tobacco-related deaths are not as common there, largely because the average
Third World life expectancy does not leave enough time to develop cancer and
heart disease. Ditto for the developed world prior to 1930. Basically,
smoking is a rich man's way to die. </snip>
[Bl.] There are so many value judgment calls to be made. I think that deaths
by smoking, along with automobiles, should be to the account of Capitalism.
Even if smoking was invented long before Capitalism, it was deeply exploited
and amplified by Capitalist venture. (Deaths by smoking in Communist
countries would count towards their tally to be fair. The differential is
the thing.) And it is at least debatable, I think, whether more automobiles
represent a more efficient economy or simply a more rapacious one.
Eyeballing the figures at the link I mentioned, it seems possible that the
score Communist vs Capitalists might be closer than I first supposed.
But I confess this impression is likely to prove unreliable - arithmetic was
never my forte. But we shall see. Perhaps you would be kind enough mention
any conclusions which suggest themselves to you from this data?
Best regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
