Joss Whedon pretty much outlines the mindset of the new geek cinema....

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dEEHn7ZiXU

Forward to 55 minutes and listen to the basic mindset and idea that liberal geeks not only in Hollywood but also in the media structure have about socialism.

Apparently, it's this beautiful concept that went awry and turned totalitarian. Whedon believes that we must stop the madness before there is a revolution and we have total totalitarian as a result of a socialist revolution.

:rolleyes:

I guess this sort of explains the whole notion lately in comic book movies about the revolutionaries trying to topple the rigid social structure are worse than the structure itself and these heroes are preserving what's good in that structure before it was corrupted by the elite.

Essentially I think this is what liberals (and to some extent libertarians) believe. That the basic foundation of the system is good and thus just needs a big reform cleansing of the "extremists" before other "extremists" take it over.

They literally think that socialism is the big bad boogie man waiting in the wings to take over the corrupt government and it's up to liberals who are the moral center to keep that from happening.

[Conscript]

The liberals posture themselves as the golden mean. They are pluralists and claim to serve everyone, while actually subjugating political constituents and movements to the same disarming, moderating force they also bow down to. They are proponents of the supposed 'mixed economy' that is claimed to combine the best of both state intervention and private initiative. They are socially progressive (usually) but tie initiatives and movements related to such to the state. They are the some of the first to complain about capitalism's particular excesses, but of course use it anyway, like trimming an overgrown bush.

Their 'extremism' talk just shows how vile and self-righteous they are about it all. Easily as dangerous as any fascist in regards to the revolution and the working class, yet viewed by some as 'democratic' and thus worthy allies in face of fascism. So they do their part to perpetuate things, and some of us do ours, unfortunately.

The liberals really do put us in chains with their appeal to the humane and moderate. To me they are intellectuals pushed into a corner over their defense of capitalism, while those like fascists freely admit its nature, and that of bourgeois nations too.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Are you really surprised that Hollywood represents the bourgeois ideology? For me, it doesn't take any enjoyment I have from Hollywood films, I just recognize their ideological limitations.

[RadioRaheem84]

It just surprises me at how these writers and directors have ample time and money and the will to research whatever they please and have yet to stumble on Marx or a leftist critique of capitalism.

How could they come so close like this and then just miss the mark?

I guess it goes back to this notion that if you really cared about these issues as they say they do how is it that they couldn't run into radical left wing sources? How can your limitations be that well.....limited?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Do you think any of them would get funding if they actually believed in establishing socialism via revolution? That's like bosses donating to the strike fund. Never going to happen.

[RadioRaheem84]

It doesn't even have to go that far. How about making an anti-cap film?

[Taters]

It doesn't even have to go that far. How about making an anti-cap film?

Somebody already made Robocop.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes that was a legit anti-cap film. A great one too.

Too bad the remake will most likely take out the social commentary.

[ComradeOm]

Essentially I think this is what liberals (and to some extent libertarians) believe. That the basic foundation of the system is good and thus just needs a big reform cleansing of the "extremists" before other "extremists" take it over.

They literally think that socialism is the big bad boogie man waiting in the wings to take over the corrupt government and it's up to liberals who are the moral center to keep that from happening.Yeah, that's a new one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_in_France)


It just surprises me at how these writers and directors have ample time and money and the will to research whatever they please and have yet to stumble on Marx or a leftist critique of capitalism. Two problems with this:
1) Not everyone is particularly well read when it comes to 19th C German emigre journalists. Nor does everyone have the inclination to correct this obvious deficiency of theirs

2) Marx is not a shining beacon of truth that illuminates all those who read him. Plenty do and, shockingly, disagree. They do so because of their circumstances (hold the press, comfortable rich film director isn't keen on violent social revolution) or simply because they're not convinced. It happens and that's life. There's no grounds for this (apparent) US assumption that every 'liberal' who isn't a sign-up revolutionary simply hasn't read enough Marx

[RadioRaheem84]

Marx's analysis of capitalism can be viewed as sound without the support for violent revolution.

Their ideas about socialism are usually mired more in ignorance than in understanding socialism. Listen to the way he talks about it in a general sense, an idealistic notion that cannot be met because things are just too complicated and people are too complex and what not. Socialism failed because it was the wrong idea, like capitalism which is failing. Apparently, we need a new ideal that champions human dignity, whatever that means.

So are you through excusing their ignorance? Considering they have the means, the resources and the clout to execute ideas into an art medium but choose instead to propagate the tired idea that all extremes go full circle and a healthy liberal center is needed to win the day shows the level of their narcissism.

A lot of working class converts to socialism in the US begin as liberals or tread from right wing conservatism to liberalism to socialism. What was usually the catalyst was a fine tune reading of Marx or other leftists, usually beginning with the progressive trinity (Chomsky, Zinn and Parenti), but more often that not it's their position in life and realizing the shit liberals do isn't working, capitalism still runs rough shot over working people. Rich liberals are sometimes but not usually convinced because they have not read Marx or read enough Marx to make a correct assessment of it, usually they read from second hand sources, but they tend to fundamentally disagree because they're rich, and a revolution distributing wealth and nationalizing any industry they happen to work for is not in their interests either. Not to mention that they have rich friends and see the good side of capitalism and what they're doing and think capitalism can be redeemed.

I am trying to point out that instead of just admitting that it's more their social/economic position in life that tends to dissuade them from Socialism/Marx, not a fundamental disagreement. Most of the times they cannot even tell you the fundamentals of socialism.

Comrade, get real. It's not being leftier than though to defend the liberal position.

[human strike]

It's not really a new thing in Hollywood. I'd say that films like All the President's Men and Clear and Present Danger, to name just two examples of many, feature ordinary Americans fighting the forces of corruption. In fact those two films show how even presidents can be toppled by ordinary (albeit white middle class male) law-abiding citizens - the ultimate lesson being that the system works. These films are liberal wet dreams.

Zizek talks about this subject somewhere in terms of a prevalent "anti-capitalism" that is dominant in Hollywood but I don't remember what he says exactly - would be great if anyone is able to remind me though.

[RadioRaheem84]

The system holds in movies like Clear and Present Danger because movies like that are adapted from reactionary writers like Tom Clancy. The President could be a corrupt bastard it doesn't matter because the system is still solid enough to offer justice.

But I'm talking more about actual professed liberal movies that are more anti corporate not anti capitalist. These films tend to say that the even the system has fallen but its redeemable and just needs tweaking.

Lately these comic movies tend up have villians that are seen as worse than the corrupt forces they're fighting against.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually don't think that his bit there displayed gross ignorance or anything. For one, he actually uses the phrase "working class". Two, he apparently came from a pro-socialist background, or at least from parents who were pro-socialist. He apparently thinks that capitalism is imploding on people but isn't convinced by the socialist alternative. *shrug*

He did co-write "Cabin in the Woods" which I thought was a pretty good satire/genre deconstruction.

[Quail]

I actually don't think that his bit there displayed gross ignorance or anything. For one, he actually uses the phrase "working class". Two, he apparently came from a pro-socialist background, or at least from parents who were pro-socialist. He apparently thinks that capitalism is imploding on people but isn't convinced by the socialist alternative. *shrug*

He did co-write "Cabin in the Woods" which I thought was a pretty good satire/genre deconstruction.
I thought that a lot of what he described as a good system for humans to flourish in actually sounded a bit like socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah I don't think the remarkable thing is that he thinks that socialist revolution leads to Stalin-like totalitarianism - something probably 70% of the population takes as a given. It's more remarkable in that clip is that he thinks the working class is getting the shaft (rather than "corporations are too powerful" and make things bland, like most movie criticism of corporations). But he says he's angry and doen't know what to do. If he was saying all that in an era of mass working class struggle in the US, then, yes, he would be demonstrating a certain level of willful ignorance.

Also he name-checks John Reed, so I wouldn't be shocked at all if he has read Marx if not other revolutionaries. But reading an analysis doesn't make someone a commited radical, even if they agree with it more or less.

[RadioRaheem84]

I actually don't think that his bit there displayed gross ignorance or anything. For one, he actually uses the phrase "working class". Two, he apparently came from a pro-socialist background, or at least from parents who were pro-socialist. He apparently thinks that capitalism is imploding on people but isn't convinced by the socialist alternative. *shrug*

He did co-write "Cabin in the Woods" which I thought was a pretty good satire/genre deconstruction.

My point was that a rich liberal like him doesn't just disagree with socialism out of some profound disagreement but more so because of their social position. They're rich, they have a different experience with other rich people, they don't look at themselves or their friends as necessarily exploiters and think capitalism or liberal democracy can be saved. There usually read some Marx but it tends to be very general stuff and they dismiss it more because they think that it will lead to totalitarianism.

I think he knows socialist phrases like working class because he came from a socialist household but that still doesn't stop him from giving the old, socialism is nice on paper but in real life leads to totalitarianism bull.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

'Working class' is not a socialist term. If anything, that would be the 'proletariat', surely.

Anyway... I literally just rewatched the new Spiderman movie and was thinking about this thread. If you can stomach the respect etc of cops then there's a slight underpinning of a socialist theme. The whole concept of 'if you have the ability to do something and someone needs your help, you have an obligation to help them' kind of reminds me of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' and there's a sequence where Spiderman is trying to get to Oscorp and he's helped on his way by all the working class crane operators creating a path for him to swing along. It's not exactly 'viva a revolution!' but at least it's not a billionaire hedonist going out and beating up poor people.

[Quail]

'Working class' is not a socialist term. If anything, that would be the 'proletariat', surely.

Yeah, but most people don't know what proletariat sounds like. I never (or try not to) use words like "proletariat" or "bourgeois/bourgeoisie" because it sounds ridiculous in casual conversation. It's better to use words that everyone knows the meaning of if you're not talking to a room full of revolutionary socialists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well at least he didn't say "middle class". So that is a start and shows he is more of a left-liberal.

At least Joss Whedon is better than David Goyer of The Dark Knight Rises and Justin Theroux of Iron Man. They're both billionaire praise movies where this alpha male hero battles others who were wrongfully scarred or mentally unstable or had the right idea for toppling a corrupt regime but end up being portrayed as Bolsehviks.

Spiderman of the Sam Raimi variety was underdog, I liked those movies. I dislike these new hero movies where we must praise a big Aryan Demi-God with a cocky attitude, a billionaire playboy industrial mogul with a cocky attitude, a Russian temptress super spy with a cocky attitude, a melancholy billionaire industrialist who dresses up as a bat and thinks Gotham should remain under the control of the corrupt elite....but at least he lacks the cocky attitude.

[ComradeOm]

So are you through excusing their ignorance? Considering they have the means, the resources and the clout to execute ideas into an art medium but choose instead to propagate the tired idea that all extremes go full circle and a healthy liberal center is needed to win the day shows the level of their narcissismAgain, somebody disagreeing with you does not necessarily imply ignorance. They might simply disagree with you. That concept should not be difficult to get your head around: there are plenty of people who are well read in Marx and still disagree with him

And if it is ignorance then it's hardly surprising. A tiny, tiny number of people in the US alone have read a full Marx text. An even smaller number know their Kapital. Berating people for this reality is just snobbery


'Working class' is not a socialist term. If anything, that would be the 'proletariat', surely.Somebody probably should have told Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/) that

[GBOG]

A thread about Joss Wheadon not mentioning Buffy? Watch the episode "Anne" from season 3 and you'll see Buffy fight capitalism in a demon dimension with a hammer and a sickle as weapons.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Somebody probably should have told Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/) that
Probably should have clarified that with 'it's not an explicitly socialist term' which was what I was trying to say.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Probably should have clarified that with 'it's not an explicitly socialist term' which was what I was trying to say.
In the US, most working class people identify as middle class, and it's rare in mainstream circles to hear the phrase "working class."

[RadioRaheem84]

Again, somebody disagreeing with you does not necessarily imply ignorance. They might simply disagree with you. That concept should not be difficult to get your head around: there are plenty of people who are well read in Marx and still disagree with him

And if it is ignorance then it's hardly surprising. A tiny, tiny number of people in the US alone have read a full Marx text. An even smaller number know their Kapital. Berating people for this reality is just snobbery

Somebody probably should have told Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/) that

I think you're under the impression that I expect the man to be a hammer and sickle shirt wearing Trot or something. I was just saying that many of these rich liberals in positions where they wield considerable media sway tend to dismiss socialism as a failed dream more out of an ignorant narcissm than any actual study of it, and they usually reject it more because of their social position. They don't see capitalism as a working class person would, they see it from above and think that it can be re-worked and there are good capitalists out there. For one, if they have that outlook they don't even realize that it's a systemic issue, they think it's an issue of having the wrong ideal.

So they sit there and arrogantly proclaim, "look it's obvious that socialism doesn't work. I mean we need a system based on some general ambigious human dignity ideal instead or we're going to have totalitarianism".

Forgive me for being "snooty" if I tend to think it's ridiculous for these types to talk about socialism in very ambigious terms while denouncing it as totalitarianism. It's these types of liberals that promote the myth of socialism being great on paper but in the end is totalitarian, and that it's not "human" enough.

So do you expect this type of behavior from a rabid anti-communist zealot on the right but when it comes to liberals, it's being snooty to call them out on their BS too?

The point you're making I would concede to a liberal like Chris Hedges, not Joss Whedon.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SugxshvC85s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SugxshvC85s)

I like what Hitch said about liberals....

[Jimmie Higgins]

A thread about Joss Wheadon not mentioning Buffy? Watch the episode "Anne" from season 3 and you'll see Buffy fight capitalism in a demon dimension with a hammer and a sickle as weapons.LOL, I don't think I ever caught the reference - though I wasn't a radical when that aired.