Adam Curtis

[rob_giri]

what we're really talking about is ethics, because we're talking about a culture of doing things. capitalism favors profit and growth over all else. people act accordingly. while an Illuminati smoky back rooms worldview is pretty useless, so is one about reform and ethical capitalism or whatever. the reforms required would so fundamentally alter the nature of the thing as to make it something else entirely. anyway, a hell of a lot more people subscribe to the latter view than the former.

capitalism is also inherently pyramidal and can't be anything else. tho so is every post-primitive human society I know of. which is highly disheartening. not that I have an alternative. rejecting power, or dual power structures, is about as close I get but that's a passive, waiting strategy. maybe as good as it gets, I dunno.

to me the realization that humans just act accordingly is infinitely more disturbing than anything about evil ever could be. this is how we organize ourselves. consumers whose ultimate consumption is each other, our world and ultimately ourselves.

I mostly agree with you here, by the way. You skimmed over it quickly but the question and hope of ethical capitalism really is the issue here. Personally I admire markets and the way that they work but think more government control tempered equally with ethical accountability so as to neutralize competing power conflicts towards an internationalist sybiosis is probably our best bet, to overly simplify extremely. Harkering on and complaining how un-militant and how pansy Curtis' work is because it doesn't demonize neoliberalism but instead just portrays it as an ill-devised, psychotic fantasy, as if that's not bad enough, is just stupid. Yes Capitalism is inherantly hierarchical, as is the very notion of empire, but, I dunno, all this mess has resulted out of conflicts of interest arising out of the need for us to organize ourselves responsibly. Surely it's heading somewhere.

Personally I'd like to read Mikhail Khodorkovsky's 'Left Turn' some time.

On that note, I'd like to point out that you haven't offered any solution here, just defended someone complaining childishly how fucked everything is by also complaining how fucked everything is.

 

[lanugo]

I find it incredibly empowering and incredibly humanizing.

Something that feels so good just can't be wrong, can it? And the humanising aspect of Curtis' work shows quite plainly how right David Cameron was when, introducing the austerity program, he said: We are all in this together. How could I not see our leaders before for the wonderful human beings they really are? And shame on me that I dared vilifying the earnestness of our condominium in being concerned for international security. Granted, there were blunders and mistakes and blatant, ill-devised naivety but what are, say, 1,5 million dead Iraqis or a bit of turmoil in some far-off failed state but glitches in this grand tale of human struggle for achieving a better world where we will once and for all be united in our common humanity? Not ever again shall I doubt the sincerity and goodwill of the authorities, and if some day they proclaim the necessity of a humanitarian nuclear holocaust I shall be mindful of their good intentions and trust that they know what is right for they have learned from their mistakes of the past.

 

[grizzleb]

I still think my point about it not being practically very useful to focus on how much agency is being exerted or not is a good one and has been overlooked. Basically avoids much of the discussion about how extensive conspiracies could possibley be.

Operation Gladio is interesting one on this that makes me question how impossible 'conspiracies' are. This documentary is really amazing and should be watched, no easy conclusions here either way...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I mostly agree with you here...ethical capitalism...admire markets...more government control...internationalist symbiosis is probably our best bet...

no, actually we don't agree at all. not that it matters whether people agree with each other on message boards, but to be clear. we disagree on levels so fundamental there's not any reconciling them. "ethical capitalism" is an impossible contradiction. if it was ethical, in that sense, it would no longer be capitalism. I don't believe in the power of government regulation any more than I do the power of the market. this ain't about secret cabals or whatever, just the fact the rich/powerful people by + large make laws, which by + large favor rich/powerful people. that isn't a conspiracy, it's just a reality. I find it interesting that you use "internationalist", with all its traditional Marxist connotations, rather than "globalization", perhaps for the latter's own neolib/c. theorist connotations but either way, no thanks. aside from it's supreme unlikelihood, that is. humanitarian intervention is really its own thread so I ain't gonna go into the whole myriad of issues there but suffice to say there are a myriad of issues. with that kind of thinking generally, which aside from its endless rationalizations, messes up symptoms + causes pretty often...

On that note, I'd like to point out that you haven't offered any solution here, just defended someone complaining childishly how fucked everything is by also complaining how fucked everything is.

yes, that's why I said "I have no alternative". I don't think there is a "solution". I have a supreme lack of faith in humans to organize ourselves in a less harmful fashion. not that you're really offering one up yourself, but whatever. I wasn't aware presentation of a solution was a requirement for entry. I'm not complaining other. this isn't a complaint, it's a statement of fact. or belief if you prefer. and specifically I'm not complaining about Adam Curtis, who I don't care about. some English guy makes TV docs about United Fruit + Ayn Rand + whatever. good for him. he's not telling me anything I don't already mostly know but whatever. mostly I'm just telling you how badly you're misusing the word reactionary.

incidentally, you can fuck right off with your "stupid", "childish", etc. the worst kind of smugness is the kind where the right to be smug hasn't even been earned. (that don't go for T, grizzle or rich who've managed not to be condescending) I don't ever agree with lanugo but at least, like zhao, he's earnest.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Operation Gladio is interesting one on this that makes me question how impossible 'conspiracies' are

I don't think anyone's saying individual conspiracies don't exist at all levels of society for an endless variety of purposes. the issue people are taking is more with there being some kind of single overarching New World Order type conspiracy being at the core of everything, which among other things would simply be impossibly large + unwieldy.

the question of exerting agency (a word that always puts me in mind of Fanon + Spivak + other post-colonialist types) is indeed pretty central if you want to have any serious go at delving into power structures. who's deciding what for whom and how/who does it impact? it doesn't require conspiracies as such tho. would you call subprime mortgages a conspiracy? or favorable awarding of contracts in the defense industry, or in construction? or would you just call it doing business? granted you also have things like Enron or lysine price fixing, which were actual conspiracies. or on another level things like Gladio, the entire strategia della tensione and other false flag operations. but there's a huge gray area in between the two ends of that spectrum. the really crucial point, I think, is that whether or not there are conspiracies is the wrong question to ask. of course there are. but what's really important is, as you're saying, who's wielding power + how are they doing so?

 

[rob_giri]

Something that feels so good just can't be wrong, can it? And the humanising aspect of Curtis' work shows quite plainly how right David Cameron was when, introducing the austerity program, he said: We are all in this together. How could I not see our leaders before for the wonderful human beings they really are? And shame on me that I dared vilifying the earnestness of our condominium in being concerned for international security. Granted, there were blunders and mistakes and blatant, ill-devised naivety but what are, say, 1,5 million dead Iraqis or a bit of turmoil in some far-off failed state but glitches in this grand tale of human struggle for achieving a better world where we will once and for all be united in our common humanity? Not ever again shall I doubt the sincerity and goodwill of the authorities, and if some day they proclaim the necessity of a humanitarian nuclear holocaust I shall be mindful of their good intentions and trust that they know what is right for they have learned from their mistakes of the past.

Once again, you have (seemingly deliberately) missed my point. To spell it out one more (last) time, Curtis develops a filmic narrative as a means of helping us to understand the confusions of our duplicitous leaders so as to empower us with the knowledge and understanding that the power they wield is weak, naive and very much vulnerable to the right sort of pressure. Secondly, he illustrates in the filmic narrative that human tragedy is not necessary like our Realist leaders would have us believe, it simply the result of human stupidity and failure in ideology. Get it through your head, he is not an apologist.

 

[rob_giri]

no, actually we don't agree at all. not that it matters whether people agree with each other on message boards, but to be clear. we disagree on levels so fundamental there's not any reconciling them. "ethical capitalism" is an impossible contradiction. if it was ethical, in that sense, it would no longer be capitalism. I don't believe in the power of government regulation any more than I do the power of the market. this ain't about secret cabals or whatever, just the fact the rich/powerful people by + large make laws, which by + large favor rich/powerful people. that isn't a conspiracy, it's just a reality. I find it interesting that you use "internationalist", with all its traditional Marxist connotations, rather than "globalization", perhaps for the latter's own neolib/c. theorist connotations but either way, no thanks. aside from it's supreme unlikelihood, that is. humanitarian intervention is really its own thread so I ain't gonna go into the whole myriad of issues there but suffice to say there are a myriad of issues. with that kind of thinking generally, which aside from its endless rationalizations, messes up symptoms + causes pretty often...



yes, that's why I said "I have no alternative". I don't think there is a "solution". I have a supreme lack of faith in humans to organize ourselves in a less harmful fashion. not that you're really offering one up yourself, but whatever. I wasn't aware presentation of a solution was a requirement for entry. I'm not complaining other. this isn't a complaint, it's a statement of fact. or belief if you prefer. and specifically I'm not complaining about Adam Curtis, who I don't care about. some English guy makes TV docs about United Fruit + Ayn Rand + whatever. good for him. he's not telling me anything I don't already mostly know but whatever. mostly I'm just telling you how badly you're misusing the word reactionary.

incidentally, you can fuck right off with your "stupid", "childish", etc. the worst kind of smugness is the kind where the right to be smug hasn't even been earned. (that don't go for T, grizzle or rich who've managed not to be condescending) I don't ever agree with lanugo but at least, like zhao, he's earnest.

Frankly, you seem to be quite nihilistic in nature, you seem to disagree because, like you said, you have no faith in humanity and are basically a defeatist. I agree that 'ethical capitalism' may not exist and if it did it would be something else altogether, but then so be it. The only logical pathway surely is a slow evolution towards more ethical accountability, human rights, social concerns, etc. If more of this awareness is imbued and finds it's balance with the necessities and causes of Realist ideology, beyond greed, and a more global investment in the restraining and channeling of global power, surely something good will come out of it. It may take a long time, so be it. Better than becoming jaded, surely.

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/201...iracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/

I think we can all agree that big government is conspirational in nature (as Rich or T said, there are conspiracies and there are Conspiracies), and as you say, conspiracies exist on all levels of government and society. Curtis work reflects the fact that although such conspiracies and yes, cabals, do exist - they are completely reliant on their own interests and on the social forces at work. They are transient, subject to change at any moment. Overly-invested self-interest is inherently unsustainable and therefore will not survive. Unlike you, I have faith, whilst not losing myself in idealistic ideology, that this evolution will lead to greater freedoms if cultivated in the right way. Arab spring etc.

You have a right to tell me to fuck off with my smugness, so fair enough. I would argue that T or Rich might have been just as condescending, but whatever, if they were it was certainly justified. I would argue that lanugo is not earnest, he's repeatedly ignored points and arguments that all of us have been making, out of clearly being blinded by his own zealousness. Anyway

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Frankly, you seem to be quite nihilistic in nature...

nihilistic, almost certainly. in nature, no. one of the very few things I'm very sure about is that to believe in nothing you have to really strong believed in something at some point. it's something that developed over years fully immersed in the anarchopunk scene, holding those kinds of beliefs, holding them fervently, then further years of bitter disillusionment. not that I'm the 1st or 1000th person to experience that, but the feelings were all borne out of actual experiences, it's not just some surface reading of Nietzsche bullshit or whatever. a defeatist...certainly I have very little faith in humans, and I reckon the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side there, but I think that you have to struggle towards something better, even if it seems impossible or futile. especially if it seems that way, maybe. if only to be able to live with yourself. I'm not a defeatist. I used to be jaded. now I'm just a skeptic.

The only logical pathway surely is a slow evolution towards more ethical accountability, human rights, social concerns, etc...

how is that, exactly? how is that the only "logical pathway"? if that's your belief, fine, just be clear that it's a belief and not a statement of fact. that's what really bugs me, how you sneer at other people while somehow privileging your own leap of faith as not only a reality, but an unavoidable reality, the only possible outcome...what's ironic, or maybe not, is how much it smacks of Marxists with their supreme faith in dialectical inevitability. that myth of inevitable, unstoppable progress is one of the cornerstones of modern thought, one of the most basic underlying, highly dubious assumptions. it's very pacifying, the acknowledgement that while there may be problems, they will be solved by the passage of time, removes the impetus from the individual to strive for change and shunts responsibility onto the shadowy forces of history.

citing Arab Spring doesn't help your case either, if anything it exposes its paucity. not only is it too soon to call but also, more to the point, too complex a series of events to fit into any simple narrative of "things getting better". go ask Iran 1979 how that worked out. or Russia 1917-1991, for that matter. or about a million other things, and not just revolutions either.

 

[e/y]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html

 

[Sectionfive]

interview

http://www.e-flux.com/journal/in-conversation-with-adam-curtis-part-i/

 

[luka]

thats great. thanks for that

the moods move through society. It’s something we’re often unaware of these days because we’re so obsessed by our own experience, that the mood we feel is probably common to a lot of other people at this point in time. I would refer to sociologists like Durkheim, who, back in the late nineteenth century, told us something that we forget these days, which is that we’re actually very similar to each other. And a lot of what we think comes from inside of us actually comes from outside.

thats so important and part of why i like trying to keep up with new music and trends and whatnot.

 

[luka]

teenage tumblrs, music, what clothes people wear, the things they say. socities talking to themselves.

 

[luka]

architecture and politics too of course.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=a...lBA&biw=1366&bih=664&sei=1VU8T8FS7u6YBcirgbML

 

[grizzleb]

I like his terrible misreading of Marx. We're all of our place I guess. Cheers for the link.

 

[luka]

i havent read marx yet but i mean to eventually. can you tell me the correct way of reading marx please? it will help when i come to read it.

 

[grizzleb]

Well as an attentive a reader as I'd imagine you are I'd say not too much - just don't think of him as an economic reductionist (because he isn't), and don't take his statements about the inevitable movements of history as anything other than a shorthand. Read his earlier stuff and not just Capital - the early work is continuous with and illuminates that later work. All you really need to do is read Marx, it's all there in plainsight. It's interesting where he derides Marx for not taking into account the importance of ideas in the social fabric when that makes up so much of his writing.

 

[luka]

well im gonna start with capital cos its in my house. when i do i will start a thread about it.

 

[grizzleb]

Sometimes I feel like Curtis is still trapped in this Oxford bubble from the 70's where anything Marxist or Continental was dismissed on the basis of caricature. I remember him saying that Foucault was really overblown and intentionally obscure and difficult. That's nothing like the Foucault I recognise - he's actually a reasonably easy read a lot of the time. Sounds more like recieved opinion from his dons than anything else.

 

[grizzleb]

well im gonna start with capital cos its in my house. when i do i will start a thread about it.

Do it, you'll have a blast. He's a good writer incidentally.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I watched one of AC's less well-known docs the other night: The Way Of All Flesh, about attempts by geneticists to understand the mechanisms of cancer. Dunno if it was part of a series or a one-off. Anyway it's less explicitly about political ideology than most of his other programmes. It focuses on a mixed-race woman from the Deep South who died of cancer in the '50s and how cells taken from her tumour became the first human cells that scientists could persuade to reproduce without limit in the laboratory. Then it turned out that the (mostly white) scientists who'd been working for years on tissue cultures they'd taken from their own bodies or from their relatives started finding a certain enzyme in the cultures they were working on that only black people produce. Their cell cultures had been contaminated by cells grown from the dead woman's tumour, and it soon transpired that all the American oncologists who'd been working for years on various human cell cultures had in fact been working on cells from the same person. Then in '70s when US and Soviet scientists swapped cell cultures that they'd been working on in isolation for decades, the Americans realised that even the cultures in Russian labs had been taken over by the same cell line.

I studied physics but this is the kind of science that really takes my breath away.

What's also interesting is that, this being Adam Curtis, he talks about this ultra-fecund cell line invading places no-one ever thought it would get to in exactly the same way that he talks about neoliberal economic ideology or Cold War-era game-theory doctrines 'invading' (say) the higher management of the NHS. Or the adoption of Eddy Bernaise's Freudian marketing techniques by spin doctors. Or whatever.

He also interviews members of the original woman's family who were a bit surprised when a bunch of scientists turned up on their doorstep decades after the death of their grandmother/great aunt, asking for tissue samples so they could carry on the Great Work in the fight against cancer - of course none of them had been told, let alone asked, about the use of the cells.

Well worth a watch.