RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 12, 2009 19:40:30 GMT
Cont:It's a good example of a film I like while finding myself ideologically at odds with it. I wasn't aware of Mamet's politics (I've only seen this and Spartan), but a particular kind of conservative worldview is pretty apparent in Redbelt. It is different though, it's not entirely offensive. Well, with fictional dramas with their manipulatable situations, certain ideologies with basic tenets can come off peachy. I've said it before, but Milius' RED DAWN seems to argue that the Russians only want to invade and rape/pillage, thus we all need to own firearms. But otherwise, a decent rebel insurgent tale that could have taken place in the French Resistence or Afghanistan, or hell even your own country. That kind of hysterically reactionary nonsense just takes on a camp quality though (I want to see that film, it sounds fun). It can't be taken seriously outside of the context of a wider cultural analysis, as a symptom of something else, some bigger ideological problem. But Redbelt's not like that. Mamet does come down decisively on the side of Terry, so he's apparently got no objection to his behaviour. But to me he's a very questionable figure. That line, "There's nobody here but the fighters," and the sense of the utterly isolated individual--isolated by his ethical 'purity'--in a hostile and alienating society, communicates a definite reverence for individualistic resistance by way of lifestyle ethicism. What do you mean by those things? There's no Left group with a voice in American politics. LEFT -------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ Democrats ---- Republicans ---- RIGHT The American Left is just the slightly more socially liberal and slightly more economically democratic of the two parties. The slightly lesser evil.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 12, 2009 20:09:00 GMT
(1) I mean the idea of a stable family unit, though I think American conservatives are hypocritical on the flipside for banning gays from adopting kids. There is no raw scientific data to suggest that such kids are worse off than straight-adopted tots, and better a family unit (even if not what those Conservatives intended) than none.
Also, the basic idea of the free market not needing government intervention, for the economy has its peaks and lows (it's a cycle) But then again those same Conservatives are hypocritical for they don't want government to tax or regulate the marketplace or whatever. Yet at the same time those same folks openly accept subsidies and grants and tax-breaks from the government.
Really, that attitude of "hating the government, but wanting all the perks" annoys me to no end. Of course me in my anarchistic attitude probably would have let those major banking corporations that failed in recent months to NOT be rescued by a bailout.
(2) Well you know Irish/European politics, and I don't. I only know American politics.
But that's the problems sometimes with you folks over there. America aint Europe, and no I don't mean the usual yankee-rhetoric of being tougher or whatever bullshit. America traditionally has been more religiously fundamentalist and more patriotic and optimistic (or naive, whatever).
Doesn't mean Europeans are better or less than Americans, bu that's just the difference.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 13, 2009 17:40:49 GMT
What i have to say about this movie, one which i haven't seen yet, is that i find it amusing to see David Mamety associated with a movie about karate/kung-fu/whatever martial arts is in this moviwe... and that he directed the thing himself.
But then again, and thanks to SPARTAN, one can see that Mamet, usually though as a wordsmith dedicated to heavy dramas, can alos make a pretty good action movie with the best of them... and then some.
Proof, if need be, that even in the action genre, talent matters.
As for parenthood capabilities as duiscussed above, let us remind that every major serial killer in the history of the USA, and abroad as well, came from very strict, very religious (puritanical even) families. I think that suffices quite well to get the picture.
I don't think that David Mamet is particulary conservative. The way i see it, i reckon he's more one of those guys who doesn't accept fools gladly and is allergic to hipocrisy, be they from the right or the left, if you know what i mean. OLEANNA, anybody?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 14, 2009 7:02:26 GMT
Let me put it this way Arkady:
Both SPARTAN and REDBELT are the sort of movies that John Milius would be making if Hollywood was still letting him direct, albeit with more slick production skills and maybe not as blunt storytelling.
But man, REDBELT at heart reads like a fucking Milius picture, you know?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 14, 2009 19:48:46 GMT
(1) I mean the idea of a stable family unit, though I think American conservatives are hypocritical on the flipside for banning gays from adopting kids. There is no raw scientific data to suggest that such kids are worse off than straight-adopted tots, and better a family unit (even if not what those Conservatives intended) than none. No, there certainly isn't any evidence that homosexuals are any less capable of care and nurture. But what do you mean by a 'stable family unit'? What does that translate to politically? Since no one is really positively 'anti-family', mostly the claim of being 'pro-family' is just a euphemism for taking a reactionary stance on issues like stem cell research, abortion, same-sex marriage and adoption, sexual liberty, gender equality, gender reassignment therapy, feminism, various forms of identity politics, etc. And just as often it's an absurd equivocation meant to link the prospect of the degeneration of the family unit to the decriminalisation of marijuana or the relaxation of censorship laws or the lifting of anti-immigration laws or whatever. That's not an accusation, just a fact. I don't know what you mean by 'stable family unit'. What is it that might destablise it? The free market is plutocracy, and there's nothing anarchistic about it, it's definitively authoritarian - actually totalitarian. Well, that's beside the point. The 'Left' in America are only the Left in the relative sense that they're to the left of the radical Right. They're opposed to common ownership, so they're not Leftists in any meaningful sense.
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Jan 15, 2009 2:16:06 GMT
Ronnie:Left and Right aren't relative terms. Saying something is liberal is deprecatory in the US, it's somehow managed to become synonmous with Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 15, 2009 13:13:32 GMT
RNL, in ancient Sparta, a stable family unit would be for an older man to take a younger boy under his wing and teach him the ropes.... including sex. And not in the "i'll introduce you to girls" kind of deal, but "i'll show you what love is" kind of deal, if you know what i mean. and for them, that kind of stable family unit worked wonders for many centuries. I mean, they were the ass kickers of ancient greece, and they were gay and paedophiles.
The point i'm making is that heterosexual family unit is just the kind we are most used to in our western culture. It's just what were are used to, nothign more, nothing less. All else is just debating morals, and morals, they always change with the times.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 15, 2009 15:16:20 GMT
heterosexual family unit is just the kind we are most used to in our western culture. It's just what were are used to, nothign more, nothing less. All else is just debating morals, and morals, they always change with the times. I could quible, but broadly: yes, true. Which raises the question again: what are the 'destabilising' forces that someone who identifies themselves as being 'pro-family' is opposed to?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 15, 2009 15:28:09 GMT
Left and Right aren't relative terms. They are to a certain extent. I mean, it's possible to be 'Centerist'. Also the fact that they're such ambiguous terms now, with so many contradictory connotations (evidenced right here), means they do have some relative quality. But there's no such thing as the laissez-faire Left or the communist Right. The so-called 'Left' in America are, at their most Leftist, well to the right of centre.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 15, 2009 15:30:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Jan 15, 2009 17:12:07 GMT
I see what you're saying RNL, but I just don't think the terms are being used properly. Republicans use "leftist" or "liberal" to put Democrats down, because any far-wing politiciain is scene as dangerous in this country, and the words bring up a fear of Communism without even having to mention the word.
And now we have all kinds of people bitching about the media being liberal when it's clearly a misuse of the term, and couldn't be farther from the truth.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 15, 2009 23:28:03 GMT
That's what I'm saying, that the term is misused. In any historically meaningful, consistent sense of the word, the political Left advocates common ownership of the means of production. The American Democratic party does no such thing, it comes down decisively on the side of corporate interests, just more moderately--with a greater intent to mitigate--than the Republicans. But they're both right-wing.
Still though, there's a relative quality to the terms. It's possible to be more or less to the right or left. It's not a fixed binary.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 16, 2009 20:03:36 GMT
RNL, i'm sorry to say this, but by and large, the vast majority of the americans have very little understanding of left-wing politics,a nd they all reduce it to a cliff notes version of stalinism-communism. It's still the ill effects of the barrage of anti-commie propaganda you suffered through the 50s and 60s.
By and large, you have little understanding the vast spectrum of left-wing type of politics that exist in all over the world, starting with Europe. Trust me, you have no idea.
The thing is, in USA, there only exist, with any representation right wing parties and policies. And yes, the Democratic Party is right winger too. It's a testement to how into the rgith USa is that the Democratic party could me mistaken for full left-wing. All over the world, it would be called center part which swings lightly to the right or the very light left, depending on the party leader's political needs.
And by teh way, left and right have VERY PRESICE defenitions, they ar enot lose defentions. What is happening today is that pratically no politicians who profess to be from a given party actually act upon the party's own ideals. a sort of right winger pseudo-pragmatism has invaded and currupted the government proceduals all over the world. And our current crisis is the inevitable result of such policies.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 16, 2009 21:18:49 GMT
I don't know how badly you'd have to misread my posts to make a post like that. RNL, i'm sorry to say this, but by and large, the vast majority of the americans have very little understanding of left-wing politics,a nd they all reduce it to a cliff notes version of stalinism-communism. It's still the ill effects of the barrage of anti-commie propaganda you suffered through the 50s and 60s. I'm European. And this is part of my point: there is a lack of comprehension of the meaning of left-wing politics among Americans (among Europeans too, but not to the same extent, since there are actual Left parties here with some traction). No, I have a very clear understanding, trust me. This claim is based on what? Your assumption that I'm American, or something I've written here? Yeah, I just said that twice. I didn't say they have loose definitions, I said they have a relative quality. Definitionally it's just a matter of collective ownership vs private ownership. But you can't have a left wing without a right wing. And you can have varying degrees of collectivisation and privatisation, so, as I said, it's not a fixed binary. It's not reducible to two crystallised models of social organisation, it's a spectrum of possibilities, and one that doesn't come close to capturing the complexities it's applied to. But if you vote Democratic, you're voting more Left and less Right than you would be if you voted Republican. If you take in the full spectrum of Left/Right politics, the Democrats come down on the Right, decisively. But the terms do have a relative quality.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 17, 2009 11:29:28 GMT
RNL, by and large, very few anglo-saxons have understanding of left.wing policties. What affected so badly the USa with the cold war propaganda bullshit, it also hurted the United Kingdom. Not as severely, but pretty bad too. The only thing the UK can boast that the USA doesn't is that, at some point in it's existence, there was TRUE LEFT-WING movements, in the 60s and 70s. which were then utterly crushed by Thatcherism and the emergence of a pseudo-new left, exemplified that the Bush lap-dog Tony "Failed Tory" Blair.
And to reduce the left to "all they want is collectivation of property" is absurd. Proof that trditionally right-winger countries like USA, UK, and Ireland don't understand much about the left.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 17, 2009 11:33:02 GMT
And there is no left in USA. There is only pseudo-left- Eco-Enviromentalists (yeah, right!!!), the light right (democrats) and the far, corporation ass-kissers, God bothering, quasi-fascist right (republicans, libertarians, gun-nuts, christian fundies etc).
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 17, 2009 16:02:14 GMT
RNL, by and large, very few anglo-saxons have understanding of left.wing policties. What affected so badly the USa with the cold war propaganda bullshit, it also hurted the United Kingdom. Not as severely, but pretty bad too. The only thing the UK can boast that the USA doesn't is that, at some point in it's existence, there was TRUE LEFT-WING movements, in the 60s and 70s. which were then utterly crushed by Thatcherism and the emergence of a pseudo-new left, exemplified that the Bush lap-dog Tony "Failed Tory" Blair. Yes. Amazing, it's like I didn't just say "there is a lack of comprehension of the meaning of left-wing politics among Americans (among Europeans too, but not to the same extent, since there are actual Left parties here with some traction)." What part of that completely concurrent statement was meant to refute what I said? And, FYI, there is a greater Left presence in Irish politics than in British politics - even if it's unfortunately wed to a reactionary nationalism sometimes. Stop telling me I don't know what I'm talking about while either repeatedly misreading or deliberately misrepresenting my position. I did not say "all they want" is economic collectivisation. That would be a ridiculous generalisation and simplification. I said, DEFINITIONALLY, Left/Right politics is reducible to economic collectivisation vs privatisation. If you knew the historic origin of the terms you'd know that that's a fact. The ONLY THING you can say about ALL LEFTISTS is that they're collectivists. Otherwise, what "they", the political Left, want is not DEFINITIONALLY tied to their Leftism. This is why it has been possible throughout history for there to exist a socially progressive right-wing and a socially reactionary left-wing, and vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 17, 2009 17:55:12 GMT
"a socially reactionary left-wing", aka, Tony Blair paradise.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 17, 2009 17:59:27 GMT
He's not left-wing. I was thinking more along the lines of Maoism and Eastern Bloc Stalinism.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 17, 2009 21:16:17 GMT
|
|