Adam Curtis
- Thread starter rob_giri
- Start date
crackerjack
Well-known member
that pretty much confirms it must be his best
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I thought it was pretty funny. I like Curtis's documentaries too though. I think it's perfectly possible to like something and also to like a parody of it.
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
was a pretty cheap shot imo
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
'Curtis brings up Michel Foucault, the French philosopher who spent much of his career theorising and critiquing power: "People say, oh you must have read Foucault, and I say, well yeah, I tried it and what he's saying is so mind-crushingly banal, you could say it in one page. I hate all this because what all those things [do] they literally put people off, they frighten people because they are deliberately obscure. And I don't like that. I think you can take anything, however complicated and make it simple and approachable, and emotional as well as intellectual." '
Hahaha, that's my theory thoroughly pissed all over then.
Hahaha, that's my theory thoroughly pissed all over then.
ifp
Well-known member
K-Punk: After Networks: In Defence of Adam Curtis
Not sure about this. Good to see someone drawing some positives from the latest series, most of which I agree with, but I think they can't make up for the flaws (preconceived views on technology, massive oversimplification of complex movements).
Not sure about this. Good to see someone drawing some positives from the latest series, most of which I agree with, but I think they can't make up for the flaws (preconceived views on technology, massive oversimplification of complex movements).
luka
Well-known member
i think curtis uses pounds ideogrammatic approach to poetry in his films. machines of loving grace is bettr than i gave it credit for being while i was watching. its comprised to a large extent of a sereies of metaphors for and comments on free market ideology. in the book im reading karl polanyi is constantly stresing the utopian nature of the free market project and this documentary really brings that out in a strong way. the idea of the self-organising system, spontaneouly emerging and regulating itself, the idea that evrything would work out for the best so long as we just stopped intefering with things, let the strong rise to the top, ayn rand world, the internet and the sillicon valley randians... the mapping of ideology onto chaos in ecology and economics.... i think i should watch it a 2nd time.. its very good and i think perhaps cleverer than most of you have realised.
Ness Rowlah
Norwegian Wood
New blog from Curtis on the "terryfying gangs of England" with BBC archive footage from 1969.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/08/the_terrifying_gangs_of_englan.html
The Hell's Angels footage one is mostly a laugh (although skins claiming these are not "real" Angels, those patches look real enough). The gem is the second bit of footage (apart from the crap racist bit in the beginning) on skinheads, a smart sixteen year old kid banging his head against the class/glass ceiling and his ex-teddyboy dad defending and refusing to be outraged by the skinheads.
and as a neat link The Economist winds the historic clock back on rioting
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/08/civil-disorder-and-looting-hits-britain-0
with a pic of teddies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/08/the_terrifying_gangs_of_englan.html
The Hell's Angels footage one is mostly a laugh (although skins claiming these are not "real" Angels, those patches look real enough). The gem is the second bit of footage (apart from the crap racist bit in the beginning) on skinheads, a smart sixteen year old kid banging his head against the class/glass ceiling and his ex-teddyboy dad defending and refusing to be outraged by the skinheads.
and as a neat link The Economist winds the historic clock back on rioting
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/08/civil-disorder-and-looting-hits-britain-0
with a pic of teddies
Last edited:
er......................
lanugo
von Verfall erzittern
I strongly disagree with the viewpoint that the implementation of the free market ideology was a well-intentioned, if ultimately unsuccessful endeavour based upon primarily idealistic motives. In suggesting so, Curtis becomes an apologist for the designers of a specific organisational model of capitalism that, far from being utopian in nature, is inherently exploitative and destructive.
With its romanticising narrative and the euphemistic metaphorical illustrations of the supposed ideals underpinning the neoliberal agenda, Curtis' work promotes a misleading and exculpating account of the history of the coming about of modern global neoliberal capitalism. The current basically feudalistic redistribution system of wealth from the poor to the rich (see bank bail-outs in the financial crisis 2008) was conceived of by its engineers not as a utopian project for a just planetary society, but from the very outset it was intented - just like the introduction of the central banking system three centuries before - as a means of economic enslavement.
The ideological aspects of this agenda pertaining to ideas of individualism, self-regulation, efficiency, etc. are nothing but a smokescreen of rhetoric and it is either extremely naive or, as I would rather believe, highly perfidious to suggest, as Curtis does, that the architects of neoliberalism and financialisation themselves believed in the ideas with which they were justifying their economic reforms. After all, mysteriously, they are always on the safe side when it comes to compensating for the enormous amount of assets annihilated in the recurrent crises of the very financial system they have established.
Curtis never penetrates to the final layer of discourse where the true nature of these vast political, social and technological transformations is located, namely the very basic discussion of the fact that today a capitalist superclass accumulates more wealth than ever before in history while the exploitation of a global underclass has reached unprecedented heights. This state of affairs, I would argue, is not due to the failure of well-meant economic reforms whose alleged idealistic essense is "poetically" potrayed in Curtis' work; the current situation of almost universal impoverishment and accompanying hyper-concentration of wealth in private hands is rather the direct outcome of the deliberate installement of a system of economic exploitation, pragmatically pursued and accomplished by a global elite. In its total disregard of these issues of power and the fundamentally material motives for the neoliberal reshaping of the world, Curtis' work, either knowingly or unknowingly, makes itself complicit with the interests of the ruling class by depicting their intentions as essentially benevolent and sincere. Rather than attributing an "utopian" character to the free market ideology one should recognise that, if anything, it is apocalyptic in nature.
So, ultimately, yes, you are right, this piece might be cleverer than most of us have realised, including you.
lanugo
von Verfall erzittern
The evidence is really so ample that one almost doesn't see the wood for the trees: complex credit instruments (Credit Default Swaps, derivatives, securities) in the service of a large-scale ponzi scheme within the framework of a totally deregulated financial market, infiltration of the Treasury by Wall Street personnel, private ownership of central banks, targeted economic destabilization of developing countries by means of interest rate manipulation with subsequent IMF/world bank reforms leading to privatization and loss of sovereignty, etc. etc...
lanugo
von Verfall erzittern
Oh, and to see what happens if a country chooses not to open their economy to the global market turn on your TV and watch the mayhem unfolding in Tripoli.
Not surprisingly, one of the first actions of the CIA-backed Libyan National Transitional Council was to establish a central bank - something Ghaddafi had resisted for decades. Libyan rebel leader Gibril Elqarfally was also involved in a study called "“Libya: Vision 2025" that, financed by the IMF, propagates the integration of Libya into the "global scene" and how the oil-based economy has to be transformed into a service economy providing the work force needed in the European Union.
Not surprisingly, one of the first actions of the CIA-backed Libyan National Transitional Council was to establish a central bank - something Ghaddafi had resisted for decades. Libyan rebel leader Gibril Elqarfally was also involved in a study called "“Libya: Vision 2025" that, financed by the IMF, propagates the integration of Libya into the "global scene" and how the oil-based economy has to be transformed into a service economy providing the work force needed in the European Union.
IdleRich
IdleRich
That's not evidence of intention though is it, it's just looking at what exists and saying that you believe it could only have arrived by design (an interesting parallel to primitive arguments against evolution, possibly not coincidentally). Especially as these are late developments in capitalism and could hardly have been foreseen by its shadowy creators. It seems to me that the truth is much more complicated - a mixture of idealism and, yes, the self-interest of the wealthy (along with the selfishness of the less-wealthy) and random complications both created the system and caused it to travel the path it has done to reach the point where we are now.
To really convince me that capitalism was engineered from the start as a system for controlling the poor you would need to tell me who the engineers were and give me evidence of what they planned.
lanugo
von Verfall erzittern
First of all, I'm really amazed how the obvious criminal nature of the above examples of institutionalised economic scheming, which include instances of fraud, rigging, espionage and extortion, don't seem to immediately set off your alarm bells. It is self-evident that these acts of what can only be designated as criminal behaviour are prepared, committed and covered-up by a particular group or class of very powerful individuals. As it is the criminal themselves who are making the laws, official culture diligently avoids to call out this activity for what it is.
Fortune 500, Wall Street/City of London, the military-industrial complex are in effect the only ones directly benefitting from the radical politico-economic changes of Post-WWII-history. As your comparison of my critique with Intelligent Design arguments implies, you apparently consider these wide-reaching transformative processes, e.g. liberalisation, financialisation and globalisation, to be occurring, just as evolution does, according to some immutable natural principles or forces of history that really are outside of the control of human beings. To me, this stance is reminiscent of the delusions of a beaten housewife in denial who tells herself that what her psychopathic husband does to her is normal and that she probably deserves it.
If you're interested, have a look at the newest episode of the Kaiser report which has a very informative segment (at about 9:50) on a whistleblower revealing to the Rolling Stone how the federal agency SEC has "destroyed the records of thousands of investigations". He says that "by whitewashing the files of some of the nation's worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG." Well, there goes your evidence. The interview in the second half with a former Assistant Secretary of Housing who received death threats when she wanted to expose the housing bubble is also interesting.
Fortune 500, Wall Street/City of London, the military-industrial complex are in effect the only ones directly benefitting from the radical politico-economic changes of Post-WWII-history. As your comparison of my critique with Intelligent Design arguments implies, you apparently consider these wide-reaching transformative processes, e.g. liberalisation, financialisation and globalisation, to be occurring, just as evolution does, according to some immutable natural principles or forces of history that really are outside of the control of human beings. To me, this stance is reminiscent of the delusions of a beaten housewife in denial who tells herself that what her psychopathic husband does to her is normal and that she probably deserves it.
If you're interested, have a look at the newest episode of the Kaiser report which has a very informative segment (at about 9:50) on a whistleblower revealing to the Rolling Stone how the federal agency SEC has "destroyed the records of thousands of investigations". He says that "by whitewashing the files of some of the nation's worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG." Well, there goes your evidence. The interview in the second half with a former Assistant Secretary of Housing who received death threats when she wanted to expose the housing bubble is also interesting.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well I'm not disagreeing with that at all but that's nothing to do with the origins of capitalism is it? It's what's happening now. I'm asking as I'm sure you know about how you are so certain that it was designed to be like this rather than that it was corrupted or that it was an inevitable but misunderstood consequence of idealistic free trade beliefs. Surely not controversial to state that the system we have now is far beyond the control and understanding of any individual or even group of individuals (although of course some have a far greater stake than others).
Not so much immutable any more than the consequences of evolution were certain. I think that both capitalism and evolution are extremely complex systems in which small changes in inputs cause large and unforeseen changes in results. This is not a reason to accept that the way things are, I just think that it's better to attempt to understand something properly if you want to fight against it rather than to appeal to a conspiracy theory - which is basically what you're doing. Conspiracy theories being notorious in that they allow the theorist to avoid real engagement with the actual situation.
Again you (deliberately?) misunderstand and list effects rather than consequences. Unless you're saying that there was a document revealing how The Illuminati laid down the tenets of capitalism.
Once again do you have any evidence, or even reason to believe that the creation of capitalism (whatever that means) was a deliberate move on the part of anyone?
grizzleb
Well-known member
I really appreciate this exchange here, both from lanugo and idlerich. I think it's pretty important to get the correct analysis on this point as it has implications for ones praxis.
The issue is how much you want to ascribe agency to how the current capitalist system functions. The main problem as far as I can see in positing some malevolent actor(s) at work, actively seeking to make life shit for people on a systemic basis (in which all senior politicians are complicit, as it seems is necessary) is that it starts to become more and more ridiculous the more you apply it. To say that there is a hidden hand guiding history is to say something that simply won't be countenanced by most people. For one example, the idea that malevolence was the driving force behind John Locke or Adam Smith, highly influential political/economic theorists whos work laid much of the framework for modern capitalism is something that any person who has read these people would not accept.
My fucking annoying skepticism means I can't completely discount the idea that 9/11 was an inside job; that the bilderbergs don't choose heads of state, etc. However, my skepticism also doesn't allow me to assent to these ideas either.
As a result of this, I've taken that stance that In order to effectively tackle issues of injustice head on, I think it should be taken that essentially the issue of an agency is a 'non-issue. To apportion blame to specific individuals regarding the current state of the system is not what is morally primary: rather the bare necessity for changing the system is. Whether or not you think that such and such an event took place, that is not the issue. The issue is not, 'did Bush blow up the towers?' - but 'were their foreign policies wrong?' and 'how can I do something about this'.
Focusing on what agents may be lurking in the background is a kind of blind-alley which diverts attention from exposing the real problems of the system in a way that is palatable to ordinary people. Most people are scared off by talk of conspiracies, and in the spirit of pragmatism one should alter what one talks about as a result.
This is related to more general problems I have with (especially leftist, non-mainstream) politics today. I think that one of the main problem of the left is its unwillingness to pay attention to, as it were, public image/branding. It's an unfortunate fact that PR plays such an important role in defining the way ordinary people percieve politics, but a fact it remains - and one that should be met head-on, out of pragmatism.
I sometimes buy a lefty paper and as much as I have agreement with the content and the sentiment, I find the writing tired - hackneyed old rhetoric that sounds like it's from the sixties. All this talk of them-and-us only serves to alienate people in a public that no longer recognises the language of the steel-mill and the steamy. It puts young people off to read it, I'm certain, and acts as a kind of accidental exclusionary device - if only if you can get over the wild self-assurance of these publications can you be taken into the fold. It frustrates me as someone who's pretty sympathetic to leftist politics.
It needn't be said that the time is ripe for challenging the system, and I think it should be done from a position of cautious skepticism and dare I say it, respect. The media doesn't take lefty rabble-rousers seriously, and so there is a need to present as responsible, thoughtful, professional. I don't want to have fucking George Galloway the person I vote for (I actually voted for him at the last election (my list vote, but still)). I dunno, the people who are in positions of power in this country and others are capable and smart, but if you read any media these days it seems apparent that the post-coldwar analytic framework of that class is crumbling; they are unable to cognise fully what is happening to the global economy - we should be willing to provide our own analysis in a way that is as palatable to as many people as possible in as morally honest and intellectually rigorous a way as possible.
The issue is how much you want to ascribe agency to how the current capitalist system functions. The main problem as far as I can see in positing some malevolent actor(s) at work, actively seeking to make life shit for people on a systemic basis (in which all senior politicians are complicit, as it seems is necessary) is that it starts to become more and more ridiculous the more you apply it. To say that there is a hidden hand guiding history is to say something that simply won't be countenanced by most people. For one example, the idea that malevolence was the driving force behind John Locke or Adam Smith, highly influential political/economic theorists whos work laid much of the framework for modern capitalism is something that any person who has read these people would not accept.
My fucking annoying skepticism means I can't completely discount the idea that 9/11 was an inside job; that the bilderbergs don't choose heads of state, etc. However, my skepticism also doesn't allow me to assent to these ideas either.
As a result of this, I've taken that stance that In order to effectively tackle issues of injustice head on, I think it should be taken that essentially the issue of an agency is a 'non-issue. To apportion blame to specific individuals regarding the current state of the system is not what is morally primary: rather the bare necessity for changing the system is. Whether or not you think that such and such an event took place, that is not the issue. The issue is not, 'did Bush blow up the towers?' - but 'were their foreign policies wrong?' and 'how can I do something about this'.
Focusing on what agents may be lurking in the background is a kind of blind-alley which diverts attention from exposing the real problems of the system in a way that is palatable to ordinary people. Most people are scared off by talk of conspiracies, and in the spirit of pragmatism one should alter what one talks about as a result.
This is related to more general problems I have with (especially leftist, non-mainstream) politics today. I think that one of the main problem of the left is its unwillingness to pay attention to, as it were, public image/branding. It's an unfortunate fact that PR plays such an important role in defining the way ordinary people percieve politics, but a fact it remains - and one that should be met head-on, out of pragmatism.
I sometimes buy a lefty paper and as much as I have agreement with the content and the sentiment, I find the writing tired - hackneyed old rhetoric that sounds like it's from the sixties. All this talk of them-and-us only serves to alienate people in a public that no longer recognises the language of the steel-mill and the steamy. It puts young people off to read it, I'm certain, and acts as a kind of accidental exclusionary device - if only if you can get over the wild self-assurance of these publications can you be taken into the fold. It frustrates me as someone who's pretty sympathetic to leftist politics.
It needn't be said that the time is ripe for challenging the system, and I think it should be done from a position of cautious skepticism and dare I say it, respect. The media doesn't take lefty rabble-rousers seriously, and so there is a need to present as responsible, thoughtful, professional. I don't want to have fucking George Galloway the person I vote for (I actually voted for him at the last election (my list vote, but still)). I dunno, the people who are in positions of power in this country and others are capable and smart, but if you read any media these days it seems apparent that the post-coldwar analytic framework of that class is crumbling; they are unable to cognise fully what is happening to the global economy - we should be willing to provide our own analysis in a way that is as palatable to as many people as possible in as morally honest and intellectually rigorous a way as possible.
Last edited: