V for Vendetta is on HBO

[MsDoodahs]

V for Vendetta is on HBO tonight. :eek:

Mere coincidence, I'm sure, but still ...

:D :cool:

NICE TIMING!

(Okay, where do I change the title, because what I'm doing is not working.

Josh, if you come across this, make the title something else, please!)

[mdh]

Awesome movie. I'm trying to get some folks around my area together, and once I have a good 15+ people who can attend one night, we're gonna hang out down town in Guy Fawkes masks passing out literature.

[retrorepublican]

God, I wish I had HBO right now.

[MsDoodahs]

lol! And you WILL be sure to get a nice bit for youtube, won't you?

:D

One of my favorite lines from the movie:

"This is the BTN. Our job is to report the news, not fabricate them...That's the government's job."

;)

[mdh]

lol! And you WILL be sure to get a nice bit for youtube, won't you?

I'll be busy, if things go as planned. But I'd really love someone else to do this who's more savvy with using flash, as I don't...

[Melchior]

That's an anarchist's movie. :cool:

Or at the very least a movie for anyone who believes in violent resistance to tyranny. By the way, I would appreciate it if you changed the thread title, it's misleading (I thought Ron Paul was going to be on HBO or something...)

[MsDoodahs]

Done.

Sorry about that bad title...

(and as an anarchist coming back into the system specifically for Dr. Paul, that movie is one of my favorites!)

[mdh]

I strongly disagree that 'V for Vendetta' only appeals to people who support violence. I find it to be a wonderful movie with a wonderful message that has nothing to do with the violent aspects of what occur in the film at all.

As for anarchists... anyone who supports Ron Paul supports an ideology closer to anarchy than to what is espoused by the current regimes in US politics (by virtue of that fact that Ron Paul has stated that more than 50% of the federal government needs to go.)

[Melchior]

I strongly disagree that 'V for Vendetta' only appeals to people who support violence. I find it to be a wonderful movie with a wonderful message that has nothing to do with the violent aspects of what occur in the film at all.

On the contrary, the entire movie advocates using violent resistance against tyrannical forces... which isn't a bad thing. The whole premise is the idea that the main hero is a terrorist of sorts, they talk about it on the DVD commentary.

"Blowing up a building can change the world."


As for anarchists... anyone who supports Ron Paul supports an ideology closer to anarchy than to what is espoused by the current regimes in US politics (by virtue of that fact that Ron Paul has stated that more than 50% of the federal government needs to go.)

Closer to market anarchy anyway.

I wasn't bashing the film for it's anarchist tone, by the way.

[Exponent]

On the contrary, the entire movie advocates using violent resistance against tyrannical forces... which isn't a bad thing. The whole premise is the idea that the main hero is a terrorist of sorts, they talk about it on the DVD commentary.

"Blowing up a building can change the world."
I got the impression that violent resistence wasn't the main theme, but actually moral ambiguity. I've always loved stories that involve characters that you want to love, but you hesitate because of some major part of their methods. Or stories that involve plotlines where there is no obvious right action, but something needs to be done. Stories with such moral ambiguity really get people's minds working; makes them think. And this is rarely a bad thing.

(I also have noticed that many people don't like stories with moral ambiguities. Perhaps for the same reason that I like 'em: it makes them think.)

[Korey Kaczynski]

I thought it was terrible; left wing garbage that promoted stupid politics. It also simplified the original comic strip into a good vs evil dichotomy and took on contemporary American issues, thus dumbing it down and making it low-quality. The author of the comic strip hated the movie, if that's any indication.

Anarchism is usually very closely tied to communism, and this movie's type of anarchism matches up.

It was made be same "brothers" (one is a transexual) who made the matrix, so it sucking makes a huge amount of sense.

[mdh]

On the contrary, the entire movie advocates using violent resistance against tyrannical forces... which isn't a bad thing. The whole premise is the idea that the main hero is a terrorist of sorts, they talk about it on the DVD commentary.

"Blowing up a building can change the world."



Closer to market anarchy anyway.

I wasn't bashing the film for it's anarchist tone, by the way.

I wouldn't say that the movie advocates anything. It's a fictional story. I would say that it is inspirational even to those of us who are not violent.

[mdh]

I thought it was terrible; left wing garbage that promoted stupid politics. It also simplified the original comic strip into a good vs evil dichotomy and took on contemporary American issues, thus dumbing it down and making it low-quality. The author of the comic strip hated the movie, if that's any indication.

Anarchism is usually very closely tied to communism, and this movie's type of anarchism matches up.

It was made be same "brothers" (one is a transexual) who made the matrix, so it sucking makes a huge amount of sense.

Not sure what somebody's gender identity has to do with anything... for the record, I rather liked The Matrix trilogy, as well. The idea that anarchism is tied to communism is bogus. Just because some kids who don't really understand either ideal call themselves "left anarchists" or whatever, doesn't make them right.

Anarchy ( from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anarchy ):
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order

Not really sure how communism can match up here, considering that........

Communism ( from http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism ):
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively

I suppose communism can exist in an anarchic society, but the communism commonly espoused is of the authoritarian nature. Note that the definition of communism explicitly states the existence of government. Now lets look at capitalism.

Capitalism ( from http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism ):
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Nothing there about governments at all.

I'm also left wondering how you came to the conclusion that 'V for Vendetta' is at all left wing. Can you explain this please? Thanks! :)

[Melchior]

Talk to communists and anarchists, they advocate the same thing. They both want to abolish government and capitalism, and have everyone live in communes. They just focus on different things, but they are very similar

All communists are anarchists, but not all anarchists are communists... although most are. The only exception are anarcho-capitalists, who aren't accepted by the anarchist community anyway.

Communists and anarchists are both "anti-hierarchy."

Also, I can easily understand why Korey saw the movie as left-wing:

Hero was a terrorist
Gays were oppressed
Koran is illegal
Propaganda broadcaster is identical to American right-wing (neocon) pundits
Chancellor Sutler was elected to the conservative party

It was definitely modified to appeal to left-wingers as well as anarchists, most of whom are left-wing anyway.

[MsDoodahs]

Market anarchists (such as myself) certainly don't wish to wipe out capitalism.

:)

[mdh]

Talk to communists and anarchists, they advocate the same thing. They both want to abolish government and capitalism, and have everyone live in communes. They just focus on different things, but they are very similar

Where in the definition of anarchist that I posted do you see anything about abolishing capitalism? I really don't see it. I see it in the definition of communism. This statement is akin to saying "Talk to bakers and loan sharks. They both sell baked goods and will break your kneecaps if you don't pay on time. They just focus on different things, but they are very similar."


All communists are anarchists, but not all anarchists are communists... although most are. The only exception are anarcho-capitalists, who aren't accepted by the anarchist community anyway.

All communists are anarchists? This is completely bunko. Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro are certainly not anarchists. If we could go to Cuba right now, it would be readily apparent that what exists is authoritarian statism, NOT anarchy.

With regards to this "anarchist community", if some tiny fringe community wants to take a word and misuse it, that's not my problem. I'm not sure who this "anarchist community" is anyways. I've heard the MSM refer to violent anti-globalization groups such as Black Bloc and friends as anarchists, but I've never really heard these groups refer to themselves as anarchists, and seeing how most of them actually favor stricter regulation of corporate conduct, the application of the term anarchist is nonsensical at best.


Communists and anarchists are both "anti-hierarchy."

I've known plenty of genuine communists who believe in hierarchies of varying sorts. If there's anyone around who's read a lot of Marx and such lately, maybe we could get some input on what sort of hierarchies exist in their writings if at all? That would more or less settle it.


Also, I can easily understand why Korey saw the movie as left-wing:

Hero was a terrorist
Gays were oppressed
Koran is illegal
Propaganda broadcaster is identical to American right-wing (neocon) pundits
Chancellor Sutler was elected to the conservative party

So you're saying that because the hero was a terrorist, that this is somehow left-wing? Just how do you describe left-wing that you managed that conclusion?! As far as the chancellor being from a so-called conservative party, I guess that may somehow be a point, but a stretchy one at best - as this takes place in a world where the common values are hardly conservative at all.


It was definitely modified to appeal to left-wingers as well as anarchists, most of whom are left-wing anyway.

How can anarchists be left-wing? Again, I'm lost on your definition of left-wing. In my view, left-wing implies a specific sort of statist, while right-wing implies another.

[MsDoodahs]

Perhaps this will help clarify?

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

(Anarchist Theory FAQ.)

:)

[aravoth]

the 9/11 truthers love that movie. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZXHJ8WLXhW8&mode=related&search=

[mdh]

Under anarcho-capitalism, individuals would still have every right to voluntarily pool their property to form communes, worker-controlled firms, and cooperatives; they would simply be unable to force dissenters to join them. Since this fact rarely impresses the left-anarchist, the anarcho-capitalist often concludes that the left-anarchist will not be satisfied with freedom for his preferred lifestyle; he wants to force his communal lifestyle on everyone. Not only would this be a gross denial of human freedom, but it would (according to the anarcho-capitalist) be likely to have disastrous effects on economic incentives, and swiftly lead humanity into miserable poverty. The anarcho-capitalist is also frequently disturbed by the opposition to all order sometimes voiced by left-anarchists; for he feels that only coerced order is bad and welcomes the promotion of an orderly society by voluntary means. Similarly, the left-anarchists' occasional short time horizon, emphasis on immediate satisfaction, and low regard for work (which can be seen in a number of authors strongly influenced by emotivist anarchism) frighten the anarcho-capitalist considerably.

So what it sounds like here is that non-capitalist anarchists generally feel that others should be forced to follow their communist ways by... force? So basically you do have governance in some form, in that everyone is forced to submit to a communist style. But who enforces it? Do the enforcers then end up granted additional powers to aid their enforcement? Can they be effective without such additional powers? And who are those powers granted by? Do the people granting the powers have yet another, even higher, level of power? :)

It sounds to me like people who call themselves anarchists, but subscribe to communism, are either not anarchists at all, or have never seen a dictionary!

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/def.htm
That specific sub-page seems to be even more to-the-point.

I'm willing to accept, as I've said, that such a thing as an anarchist communist can exist. Indeed, for short periods of time and within small groups, anarchic communist sub-societies *do* exist and can be, quite frankly, a very good experience for those involved. But they can never exist on a larger scale, because no everyone is going to want to play along, and once you start forcing them to, it just isn't anarchy anymore at all.

[MsDoodahs]

So what it sounds like here is that non-capitalist anarchists generally feel that others should be forced to follow their communist ways by... force?

:D


It sounds to me like people who call themselves anarchists, but subscribe to communism, are either not anarchists at all, or have never seen a dictionary!

:D


once you start forcing them to, it just isn't anarchy anymore at all.

:D

[Melchior]

All communists are anarchists? This is completely bunko. Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro are certainly not anarchists. If we could go to Cuba right now, it would be readily apparent that what exists is authoritarian statism, NOT anarchy.

But see, those guys really aren't communists.

True communism is supposed to be a stateless society.


I've known plenty of genuine communists who believe in hierarchies of varying sorts. If there's anyone around who's read a lot of Marx and such lately, maybe we could get some input on what sort of hierarchies exist in their writings if at all? That would more or less settle it.

It all gets confusing the more you get into it anyway. The difficulty I have with all anti-state collectivists is that they do not see market and state as a dichotomy the way I do. This is basically what I've received from both anarchists and communists alike; it's us and them. We are the people being oppressed and they are the politicians/CEO's/etc, at the top. They work together (which they do these days, they are at least correct in their analysis.)

I've heard anarchists use communist terminology all the time to describe their views, like proletariat and bourgeoisie.


So you're saying that because the hero was a terrorist, that this is somehow left-wing? Just how do you describe left-wing that you managed that conclusion?! As far as the chancellor being from a so-called conservative party, I guess that may somehow be a point, but a stretchy one at best - as this takes place in a world where the common values are hardly conservative at all.

You ignored my other points....

The fact that the hero is a terrorist means it's not a movie for neocons, and combined with the other liberal views of the movie it's easy to perceive it as left-wing. That was my only point really.


How can anarchists be left-wing? Again, I'm lost on your definition of left-wing. In my view, left-wing implies a specific sort of statist, while right-wing implies another.

Left-wing doesn't automatically mean statist, I think that's the mistake you are making here. It just always ends up that way, leftism isn't an ideology of statism, it's an ideology that can only be carried out by statism.

Left-wing means collectivist, which leads to statism 99% of the of the time. But true collectivism in it's theoretical form is anarchy, ideally you wouldn't need government to carry out equality and such, since people would share voluntarily... but since that's unrealistic and the only way to make people equal is to force people to be equal, communism (which is anarchist in theory) becomes statist.


Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

[Melchior]

Mdh, I agree that anarchists really aren't anarchists.

The only real anarchists are market anarchists, which are a minority within anarchism circles and are just not well accepted.

[mdh]

But see, those guys really aren't communists.

True communism is supposed to be a stateless society.

Well, it's hard for me to really make a judgement call as to whether they are true communists or not, so I'll accept for the sake of argument that they are just dictators who've decided to use the term without understanding it. That said, the definition for communism still most certainly leaves room for statism.


It all gets confusing the more you get into it anyway. The difficulty I have with all anti-state collectivists is that they do not see market and state as a dichotomy the way I do. This is basically what I've received from both anarchists and communists alike; it's us and them. We are the people being oppressed and they are the politicians/CEO's/etc, at the top. They work together (which they do these days, they are at least correct in their analysis.)

Well, just because a near-insignifigant segment of the population mis-uses a term doesn't mean that it makes any sense. If a loan shark calls himself a baker...


I've heard anarchists use communist terminology all the time to describe their views, like proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Hmmmm, I use 'proletariate' all the time, picked it up from 1984.


You ignored my other points....

The fact that the hero is a terrorist means it's not a movie for neocons, and combined with the other liberal views of the movie it's easy to perceive it as left-wing. That was my only point really.

Left-wing doesn't automatically mean statist, I think that's the mistake you are making here. It just always ends up that way, leftism isn't an ideology of statism, it's an ideology that can only be carried out by statism.

Left-wing means collectivist, which leads to statism 99% of the of the time. But true collectivism in it's theoretical form is anarchy, ideally you wouldn't need government to carry out equality and such, since people would share voluntarily... but since that's unrealistic and the only way to make people equal is to force people to be equal, communism (which is anarchist in theory) becomes statist.

OK, that's a fair enough definition. I've always defined 'left-wing' as being secular-socialist-authoritarian and right-wing as being theocratic-capitalist-authoritarian. It's pretty subjective though, as I don't think there's a dictionary definition for either... :)
As far as the hero being a terrorist and that making it not for neocons, there are some people on the fringe of neocons who do in fact seem to condone terrorism (abortion clinic attacks, etc), while the majority of non-neocons also do not support terrorism (and there are, likewise, still some tiny fringes who do.) So I don't know that I'd agree with you in that statement, still.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Mdh, I agree that anarchists really aren't anarchists.

The only real anarchists are market anarchists, which are a minority within anarchism circles and are just not well accepted.

Anarcho-capitalism would quickly degenerate into plutocracy. I think anarcho-primitivism is closer to a "workable" anarchy.