#a history of america in ten strikes | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fatehbaz · 2 years

Text

Caribbean cruise vacations have a long violent history. Earlier today, I came across one of the early print advertisement illustrations for the Caribbean cruise ship vacations offered by “the Great White Fleet.” And I pondered bananas.

Just as uncomfortable as it sounds. The story of the origin of the Caribbean cruise industry is, after all, also the story of the origin of the term “Banana Republic.”

In 1914, the Great War began as the planet’s powerful empires of old were collapsing, as British, French, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, and Qing/Chinese powers were marred by internal revolt and global warfare. But in 1914, the United States completed their Panama Canal and consolidated power in Latin America and the Caribbean, celebrating the ascent of a “new” empire made strong, in part, by bananas.

As of 2022, bananas generate 12 billion dollars per year, with 75% of bananas exported from Latin America and the Caribbean.

The planet’s single biggest banana-producing company is Chiquita. The Chiquita brand was previously known as United Fruit Company, which had essentially monopolized the banana industry in Latin America. United Fruit Company has a bit of an image problem, following its theft of Indigenous land across Central America in the early 20th century; its role in provoking the killing of tens of hundreds/thousands of plantation laborers during the Banana Massacre of 1928; the company’s direct role in the CIA-backed toppling of the Guatemala government in the 1950s; and the company’s role in paying to harass and intimidate labor organizers in Colombia in recent decades.

But what of the “romance” and “adventure” of the Caribbean?

So it’s 1915 or 1916.

Middle of the Great War. Classic empires are disintegrating: Spanish empire, British empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, Russian empire, Ottoman empire, remnants of the Qing/Chinese state, etc. And whose empire is rising? United States, an empire expanding in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. After the 1898 Spanish-US war, as Teddy Roosevelt’s cartoon cavalry conquered Cuba, the Spanish Main belongs to the US of A. The US Navy controlled the Caribbean Sea, and was aiming to expand across the Pacific Ocean, to Hawai’i and beyond.

But the official US Navy isn’t the only fleet upholding the empire. The United Fruit Company had its own fleet.

The text of one of these Great White Fleet ads, from 1916, adorned with imagery of a blue-and-gold macaw and an aerial map of the Caribbean, reads:

“[W]here winter never comes and where the soft trade winds bring renewed health. [W]ith all the comforts and all the luxuries of life you enjoy aboard the palatial ships of the GREAT WHITE FLEET. Delicious meals a la carte [...]. Dainty staterooms, perfectly ventilated [...]. [A]mid the scenes of romance and history in the Caribbean. And with it the opportunity to win for yourself a treasure of health and happiness, of greater benefit than the fabled fountain of youth, sought by Spanish adventurers in the tropic isles of the Spanish Main.”

Who’s leading the charge?

The United Fruit Company!

From the May 1916 issue of Red Book. Image source, from Archive dot org:

Another:

Image source, from Archive dot org:

“There the Pirates hid their Gold -- and every voyage, every port, every route of the Great White Fleet through the Golden Caribbean has the romance of buried treasure, pirate ships an deeds of adventure [...].”

The Golden Caribbean.

The same region where Columbus murdered Indigenous people, where the US and France had just spent 100 years punishing Haiti with unending economic warfare afters slaves rebelled against colonization, and where the United Fruit Company would now set up shop.

The company’s plantations would expand across Central America, establishing brutal racial hierarchies and essentially controlling federal governments of Central American nations.

In 1928, over 30,000 laborers were on strike at banana plantations in Colombia. They demanded payment of actual wages, rather than the credits they were given which were mostly only redeemable at company-owned stores in company towns. The US government threatened to send the Marine Corps to intervene if the “subversive” workers would not return to UFC’s plantations. In December 1928, after martial law had been declared, General Cortes Vargas entered the town square of Cienaga (Magdalena) during Sunday gatherings, with machine guns, opening fire on the crowds, and killing perhaps 3,000 people.

In the late 1940s, the United Fruit Company intensified its ad campaigns led by propagandist Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud???), who also practiced his skill at manipulative advertising when working to popularize the American Tobacco Company by showing women smoking “torches of freedom” and linking “women’s rights” to cigarette iconography.

Bernays, who explicitly wrote about his “counter-Communist” intention in the ads, was “drafted” in the war to topple ascendant leftist governments. After 1944 and after Arevalo’s labor reforms, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman took control of Guatemala in 1951, and took over 200,000 acres from United Fruit Company and returned them to poor families. Bernays launched propaganda attacks against Guatemala, helping to plant stories about Guatemala eventually carried in the Saturday Evening Post, New York Herald Tribune, and Reader’s Digest. In January 1952, Bernays personally led a tour of Central America, accompanying publishers and editors of Newsweek, the Miami Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Cincinnati Enquirer, Scripps-Howard, and Time magazine. When the CIA-trained military force led by Carlos Castillo Armas invaded Guatemala, with CIA aerial support, installing Castillo Armas as president, Bernays called them an “army of liberation.”

Bananas and Caribbean cruises aren’t the only culprits in expanding imperial power in Latin America, the tropics, and the Global South.

In 1914, the same year that the United States finished the Panama Canal and consolidated power in Latin America and the Caribbean, Richard Strong was a newly appointed director of Harvard’s new Department of Tropical Medicine. Strong was also appointed director of the Laboratories of the Hospitals and of Research Work at United Fruit Company. Strong toured the company’s plantations in Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Cuba. In the coming years, Strong would also personally approach Harvey Firestone, chief executive of the Firestone company, which owned and brutally operated rubber plantations in tropical West Africa. Research in tropical medicine was thus inaugurated by and dependent on colonial/imperial plantations and racial/social hierarchies at United Fruit Company and Firestone sites across the tropical regions, planetwide. Strong is just one character that demonstrates the interconnectedness of academia, fruit plantations, rubber supplies, food distribution, motor vehicle industries, strike-breakers, military forces, imperial expansion, and other tendrils of violently-enforced racist power.

Today, in 2022, Chiquita maintains twenty thousand employees across 70 countries.

I think about this as I eat a banana for lunchtime. I think about this when I see the Edenic portrayal of a Caribbean shore, a landscape baked not so much by the tropical sun but instead scarred by centuries of genocide, slavery, and plantation labor, where government officials gleefully report “with honor” on the massacre of thousands.

“Just a banana, it ain’t.”

Agreed.

#tidalectics #multispecies #my writing i guess idk

345 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 1 year

Note

What are your thoughts on government intervention to end labor disputes in general? On one hand, forced settlements almost always favour management, and if management knows that the government will intervene, they have an incentive to stall negotiations and run out the clock, so to speak. On the other hand, some shutdowns will have far reaching negative effects on society as a whole, particularly if the strike involves the public service or things like railroads or ports.

In terms of my take on government intervention to end labor disputes, I'm fully in favor of procedural hypocrisy (or, as a philosophy PhD might put it, consequentialism) because the only question that really matters is whose side the government is intervening on behalf of. (This is where I'm going to make a massive plug on behalf of my colleague Erik Loomis' book A History of America in Ten Strikes, and in particular recommend his chapters on the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 and the Flint Sit-Down Strike of 1937.)

As a labor historian, I would say that as a rule, the state almost always intervenes in labor disputes at some level, whether it's the local cops and local government, the state militia, the U.S Army, or the courts. For most of labor history, the state has intervened on behalf of capital, and was broadly succesful in using its police power to crush strikes and keep the trade union movement economically marginal.

Where the union movement has been most successful is not when the state is neutral (because capital versus labor is not historically a fair fight between opponents of equal weight), but when the state intevenes on behalf of labor. So yeah, government intervention in labor disputes is awesome - when it's Governor Frank Murphy sending in the National Guard to keep the cops and the strikebreakers out of the plants in the Flint Strike, or the "Madden Board" NLRB enforcing the Wagner Act through the work of the Economic Division and the Review Division, or the National War Labor Board ordering Little Steel to recognize SWOC and agree to the union's terms.

Specifically on the issue of forced settlements, whether they're a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely on whose terms the settlement is made, which in turn depends on how labor law is written and enforced (and staffed). The whole reason why the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 mandates that "neither party shall be under any duty to accept, in whole or in part, any proposal of settlement made by the [Federal Mediation] Service" is because one of capital's biggest grievances against the "Madden Board" NLRB was that the Board's orders and settlement proposals had systematically favored workers between 1935-1947.

I think the numbers tell the tale - when the state was at its most "neutral" at the turn of the 20th century, union density hit a ceiling of 10% of the workforce. The only time that the labor movement broke through that ceiling was during WWI and then the New Deal, when the state shifted to supporting unions. And then when the state began to shift back in the direction of capital and labor law increasingly favored management, the union movement began to shrink.

This is why I always tell my students that the state is like a great stationary engine, and the only thing that changes is where that engine's power is being sent to. If you refuse to engage in electoral politics and only rely on direct action, the engine doesn't go away - it just gets harnessed by the other side and the power is used against you.

#history #labor history #labor law #trade unions #forced settlements #strikes

65 notes · View notes

metalheadsforblacklivesmatter · 2 years

Text

Things about America that would give Europeans a heart attack.

Many Americans are expected to drive AN HOUR to work every day. Europeans don't even visit their mom regularly if she lives 30 minutes away.

We measure distance traveled in time. Because sometimes driving 15 miles can take as long as driving 45 miles. How long you'll be in a vehicle is most important.

Zoning laws. Many of us actually do like to walk. Our major cities were designed by automotive lobbyists to force us to buy cars.

Food deserts. There's some places in America with literally zero grocery stores within 5 miles of your home.

Hospital bills. 1 emergency room visit can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Not to mention the $15,000 of you need an ambulance.

Mental health. You can be forced into grippy sock jail against your will. Then stuck with a bill that costs tens of thousands of dollars when you get out.

Speaking of medical bills. Credit reports. Remember that medical bill that costs tens of thousands of dollars? That goes on your credit report if you can't pay it. Which makes it harder to rent, buy a house, buy a car, or get a credit card.

Retirement. You can't get social security until you're 62 and social security isn't enough to live on. You're supposed to be saving money to retire on, on top of that. And based on your family's health history and cost of living. It's not unusual to need $1-2 million to retire. And it's not unusual for people to have to work into their 80s.

College. A hundred thousand dollars in student loan debt isn't unheard of and many Americans are never able to pay it off in their lifetime because interest is like 5-8%. Also. That goes on your credit report.

Minimum wage. I don't necessarily believe that Europeans would be shocked that minimum wage doesn't cover the cost of living here. But there's people that live here that are suprised to find out our minimum wage is $7.20. I've gotten into arguments over this, several times. If Americans don't believe it, how can I expect a European to?

Lack of public transit. Only like, major cities have public transit, and only a few of them have reliable public transit.

Lack of labor unions and union busting. Many European countries like France will go on nation wide strikes if an oligarch sneezes wrong. Companies in America will shut down business in entire states if the unions are getting too strong. Honestly I'm kinda surprised that we don't strike more.

Lack of paid vacation time. In a lot of countries 6 weeks is like normal. My last job I got none. And people legitimately didn't believe me when I said I had to work on Christmas or not get paid (yeah, it was a desk job). Again. If Americans can't believe it. Why would I expect Europeans to? Also I feel like Europeans would just die from the burnout because it's not uncommon for Americans to literally work themselves to death.

No. For real. I have people mad at me because I couldn't go to a family friend's wedding because they didn't believe I didn't have labor day off.

-fae

129 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 2 months

Text

J.4.2 Won’t social struggle do more harm than good?

It is often argued that social struggle, resisting the powerful and the wealthy, will just do more harm than good. Employers often use this approach in anti-union propaganda, for example, arguing that creating a union will force the company to close and move to less “militant” areas.

There is some truth in this. Yes, social struggle can lead to bosses moving to more compliant workforces — but this also happens in periods lacking social struggle too! If we look at the down-sizing mania that gripped the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s, we see companies firing tens of thousands of people during a period when unions were weak, workers scared about losing their jobs and class struggle basically becoming mostly informal, atomised and “underground.” Moreover, this argument actually indicates the need for anarchism. It is a damning indictment of any social system that it requires people to kow-tow to their masters otherwise they will suffer economic hardship. It boils down to the argument “do what you are told, otherwise you will regret it.” Any system based on that maxim is an affront to human dignity!

It would, in a similar fashion, be easy to “prove” that slave rebellions are against the long term interests of the slaves. After all, by rebelling the slaves will face the anger of their masters. Only by submitting without question can they avoid this fate and, perhaps, be rewarded by better conditions. Of course, the evil of slavery would continue but by submitting to it they can ensure their life can become better. Needless to say, any thinking and feeling person would quickly dismiss this reasoning as missing the point and being little more than apologetics for an evil social system that treated human beings as things. The same can be said for the argument that social struggles within capitalism do more harm than good. It betrays a slave mentality unfitting for human beings (although fitting for those who desire to live of the backs of workers or desire to serve those who do).

Moreover, this kind of argument ignores a few key points.

Firstly, by resistance the conditions of the oppressed can be maintained or even improved. If the boss knows that their decisions will be resisted they may be less inclined to impose speed-ups, longer hours and so on. If, on the other hand, they know that their employees will agree to anything then there is every reason to expect them to impose all kinds of oppressions, just as a state will impose draconian laws if it knows that it can get away with it. History is full of examples of non-resistance producing greater evils in the long term and of resistance producing numerous important reforms and improvements (such as higher wages, shorter hours, the right to vote for working class people and women, freedom of speech, the end of slavery, trade union rights and so on).

So social struggle has been proven time and time again to gain successful reforms. For example, before the 8 hour day movement of 1886 in America most companies argued they could not introduce that reform without doing bust. However, after displaying a militant mood and conducting an extensive strike campaign, hundreds of thousands of workers discovered that their bosses had been lying and they got shorter hours. Indeed, the history of the labour movement shows what bosses say they can afford and the reforms workers can get via struggle are somewhat at odds. Given the asymmetry of information between workers and bosses, this is unsurprising as workers can only guess at what is available and bosses like to keep their actual finances hidden. Even the threat of labour struggle can be enough to gain improvements. For example, Henry Ford’s $5 day is often used as an example of capitalism rewarding good workers. However, this substantial pay increase was largely motivated by the unionisation drive by the Industrial Workers of the World among Ford workers in the summer of 1913. [Harry Braverman, Labour and Monopoly Capitalism, p. 144] More recently, it was the mass non-payment campaign against the poll-tax in Britain during the late 1980s and early 1990s which helped ensure its defeat. In the 1990s, France also saw the usefulness of direct action. Two successive prime ministers (Edouard Balladur and Alain Juppe) tried to impose large scale neo-liberal “reform” programmes that swiftly provoked mass demonstrations and general strikes amongst students, workers, farmers and others. Confronted by crippling disruptions, both governments gave in.

Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, the radicalising effect of social struggle can open new doors for those involved, liberate their minds, empower them and create the potential for deep social change. Without resistance to existing forms of authority a free society cannot be created as people adjust themselves to authoritarian structures and accept “what is” as the only possibility. By resisting, people transform and empower themselves as well as transforming society. New possibilities can be seen (possibilities before dismissed as “utopian”) and, via the organisation and action required to win reforms, the framework for these possibilities (i.e. of a new, libertarian, society) created. The transforming and empowering effect of social struggle is expressed well by the Nick DiGaetano, a one-time Wobbly who had joined during the 1912 Lawrence strike and then became a UAW-CIO shop floor militant:

“the workers of my generation from the early days up to now [1958] had what you might call a labour insurrection in changing from a plain, humble, submissive creature into a man. The union made a man out of him … I am not talking about the benefits … I am talking about the working conditions and how they affected the men in the plant … Before they were submissive. Today they are men.” [quoted by David Brody, “Workplace Contractualism in comparative perspective”, pp. 176–205, Helson Lichtenstein and Howell John Harris (eds.), Industrial Democracy in America, p. 204]

Other labour historians note the same radicalising process elsewhere (modern day activists could give more examples!):

“The contest [over wages and conditions] so pervaded social life that the ideology of acquisitive individualism, which explained and justified a society regulated by market mechanisms and propelled by the accumulation of capital, was challenged by an ideology of mutualism, rooted in working-class bondings and struggles … Contests over pennies on or off existing piece rates had ignited controversies over the nature and purpose of the American republic itself.” [David Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labour, p. 171]

This radicalising effect is far more dangerous to authoritarian structures than better pay, more liberal laws and so on as they need submissiveness to work. Little wonder that direct action is usually denounced as pointless or harmful by those in power or their spokespersons for direct action will, taken to its logical conclusion, put them out of a job! Struggle, therefore, holds the possibility of a free society as well as of improvements in the here and now. It also changes the perspectives of those involved, creating new ideas and values to replace the ones of capitalism.

Thirdly, it ignores the fact that such arguments do not imply the end of social struggle and working class resistance and organisation, but rather its extension. If, for example, your boss argues that they will move to Mexico if you do not “shut up and put up” then the obvious solution is to make sure the workers in Mexico are also organised! Bakunin argued this basic point over one hundred years ago, and it is still true: “in the long run the relatively tolerable position of workers in one country can be maintained only on condition that it be more or less the same in other countries.” The “conditions of labour cannot get worse or better in any particular industry without immediately affecting the workers in other industries, and that workers of all trades are inter-linked with real and indissoluble ties of solidarity.” Ultimately, “in those countries the workers work longer hours for less pay; and the employers there can sell their products cheaper, successfully competing against conditions where workers working less earn more, and thus force the employers in the latter countries to cut wages and increase the hours of their workers.” [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 306–7] Bakunin’s solution was to organise internationally, to stop this undercutting of conditions by solidarity between workers. As history shows, his argument was correct. Thus it is not social struggle or militancy which perhaps could have negative results, just isolated militancy, struggle which ignores the ties of solidarity required to win, extend and keep reforms and improvements. In other words, our resistance must be as transnational as capitalism is.

The idea that social struggle and working class organisation are harmful was expressed constantly in the 1970s and 80s. With the post-war Keynesian consensus crumbling, the “New Right” argued that trade unions (and strikes) hampered growth and that wealth redistribution (i.e. welfare schemes which returned some of the surplus value workers produced back into our own hands) hindered “wealth creation” (i.e. economic growth). Do not struggle over income, they argued, let the market decide and everyone will be better off.

This argument was dressed up in populist clothes. Thus we find the right-wing guru F.A. von Hayek arguing that, in the case of Britain, the “legalised powers of the unions have become the biggest obstacle to raising the standards of the working class as a whole. They are the chief cause of the unnecessarily big differences between the best- and worse-paid workers.” He maintained that “the elite of the British working class … derive their relative advantages by keeping workers who are worse off from improving their position.” Moreover, he “predict[ed] that the average worker’s income would rise fastest in a country where relative wages are flexible, and where the exploitation of workers by monopolistic trade union organisations of specialised workers are effectively outlawed.” [1980s Unemployment and the Unions, p. 107, p. 108 and p. 110]

Now, if von Hayek’s claims were true we could expect that in the aftermath of Thatcher government’s trade union reforms we would have seen: a rise in economic growth (usually considered as the means to improve living standards for workers by the right); that this growth would be more equally distributed; a decrease in the differences between high and low paid workers; a reduction in the percentage of low paid workers as they improved their positions when freed from union “exploitation”; and that wages rise fastest in countries with the highest wage flexibility. Unfortunately for von Hayek, the actual trajectory of the British economy exposed his claims as nonsense.

Looking at each of his claims in turn we discover that rather than “exploit” other workers, trade unions are an essential means to shift income from capital to labour (which is why capital fights labour organisers tooth and nail). And, equally important, labour militancy aids all workers by providing a floor under which wages cannot drop (non-unionised firms have to offer similar programs to prevent unionisation and be able to hire workers) and by maintaining aggregate demand. This positive role of unions in aiding all workers can be seen by comparing Britain before and after Thatcher’s von Hayek inspired trade union and labour market reforms.

There has been a steady fall in growth in the UK since the trade union “reforms”. In the “bad old days” of the 1970s, with its strikes and “militant unions” growth was 2.4% in Britain. It fell to 2% in the 1980s and fell again to 1.2% in the 1990s. A similar pattern of slowing growth as wage flexibility and market reform has increased can be seen in the US economy (it was 4.4% in the 1960s, 3.2% in the 1970s, 2.8% in the 1980s and 1.9% in the first half of the 1990s). [Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson, The Age of Insecurity, p. 236] Given that the free-market right proclaims higher economic growth is the only way to make workers better off, growth rates have steadily fallen internationally since the domination of their ideology. Thus growth of output per head in the USA, Europe, Japan and the OECD countries between 1979 to 1990 was lower than in 1973–9, and 1990–2004 lower still. The deregulation, privatisation, anti-union laws and other neo-liberal policies have “failed to bring an increase in the growth rate.” [Andrew Glyn, Capitalism Unleashed, p. 131] What growth spurts there have been were associated with speculative bubbles (in the American economy, dot.com stocks in the late 1990s and housing in the 2000s) which burst with disastrous consequences.

So the rate of “wealth creation” (economic growth) has steadily fallen as unions were “reformed” in line with von Hayek’s ideology (and lower growth means that the living standards of the working class as a whole do not rise as fast as they did under the “exploitation” of the “monopolistic” trade unions).

If we look at the differences between the highest and lowest paid workers, we find that rather than decrease, they have in fact shown “a dramatic widening out of the distribution with the best-workers doing much better” since Thatcher was elected in 1979 [Andrew Glyn and David Miliband (eds.), Paying for Inequality, p. 100] This is important, as average figures can hide how badly those in the bottom (80%!) are doing. In an unequal society, the gains of growth are monopolised by the few and we would expect rising inequality over time alongside average growth. In America inequality has dramatically increased since the 1970s, with income and wealth growth in the 1980s going predominately to the top 20% (and, in fact, mostly to the top 1% of the population). The bottom 80% of the population saw their wealth grow by 1.2% and their income by 23.7% in the 1980s, while for the top 20% the respective figures were 98.2% and 66.3% (the figures for the top 1% were 61.6% and 38.9%, respectively). [Edward N. Wolff, “How the Pie is Sliced”, The American Prospect, no. 22, Summer 1995] There has been a “fanning out of the pay distribution” with the gap between the top 10% of wage-earners increasing compared to those in the middle and bottom 10%. Significantly, in the neo-liberal countries the rise in inequality is “considerably higher” than in European ones. In America, for example, “real wages at the top grew by 27.2% between 1979 and 2003 as compared to 10.2% in the middle” while real wages for the bottom 10% “did not grow at all between 1979 and 2003.” In fact, most of the gains in the top 10% “occurred amongst the top 5%, and two-thirds of it within the top 1%.” Unsurprising, the neo-liberal countries of the UK, USA and New Zealand saw the largest increases in inequality. [Glyn, Op. Cit., pp. 116–8 and p. 168]

Given that inequality has increased, the condition of the average worker must have suffered. For example, Ian Gilmore states that ”[i]n the 1980s, for the first time for fifty years … the poorer half of the population saw its share of total national income shirk.” [Dancing with Dogma, p. 113] According to Noam Chomsky, ”[d]uring the Thatcher decade, the income share of the bottom half of the population fell from one-third to one-fourth” and the between 1979 and 1992, the share of total income of the top 20% grew from 35% to 40% while that of the bottom 20% fell from 10% to 5%. In addition, the number of UK employees with weekly pay below the Council of Europe’s “decency threshold” increased from 28.3% in 1979 to 37% in 1994. [World Orders, Old and New, p. 144 and p. 145] Moreover, ”[b]ack in the early 1960s, the heaviest concentration of incomes fell at 80–90 per cent of the mean .. . But by the early 1990s there had been a dramatic change, with the peak of the distribution falling at just 40–50 per cent of the mean. One-quarter of the population had incomes below half the average by the early 1990s as against 7 per cent in 1977 and 11 per cent in 1961.” [Elliot and Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 235] “Overall,” notes Takis Fotopoulos, “average incomes increased by 36 per cent during this period [1979-1991/2], but 70 per cent of the population had a below average increase in their income.” [Towards an Inclusive Democracy, p. 113]

The reason for this rising inequality is not difficult to determine. When workers organise and strike, they can keep more of what they produce in their own hands. The benefits of productivity growth, therefore, can be spread. With unions weakened, such gains will accumulate in fewer hands and flood upwards. This is precisely what happened. Before (approximately) 1980 and the neo-liberal assault on unions, productivity and wages rose hand-in-hand in America, afterward productivity continued to rise while wages flattened. In fact, the value of the output of an average worker “has risen almost 50 percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small minority had proceeded so rapidly that we’re not sure whether the typical American has gained anything from rising productivity.” Rather than “trickle down” “the lion’s share of economic growth in America over the past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority.” In short: “The big winners … have been members of a very narrow elite: the top 1 percent or less of the population.” [Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, p. 124, p. 244 and p. 8]

Looking at America, after the Second World War the real income of the typical family (“exploited” by “monopolistic” trade unions) grew by 2.7% per year, with “incomes all through the income distribution grew at about the same rate.” Since 1980 (i.e., after working people were freed from the tyranny of unions), “medium family income has risen only about 0.7 percent a year” Median household income “grew modestly” from 1973 to 2005, the total gain was about 16%. Yet this “modest gain” may “overstate” how well American families were doing, as it was achieved in part through longer working hours. For example, “a gain in family income that occurs because a spouse goes to work isn’t the same thing as a wage increase. In particular it may carry hidden costs that offset some of the gains in money.” This stagnation is, of course, being denied by the right. Yet, as Krugman memorably puts it: “Modern economists debate whether American median income has risen or fallen since the early 1970s. What’s really telling is the fact that we’re even having this debate.” So while the average values may have went up, because of “rising inequality, good performance in overall numbers like GDP hasn’t translated into gains for ordinary workers.” [Op. Cit., p. 55, pp. 126–7, p. 124 and p. 201]

Luckily for American capitalism a poll in 2000 found that 39% of Americans believe they are either in the wealthiest 1% or will be there “soon”! [Glyn, Op. Cit., p. 179] In fact, as we discussed in section B.7.2, social mobility has fallen under neo-liberalism — perhaps unsurprisingly as it is easier to climb a hill than a mountain. This is just as important as the explosion in inequality as the “free-market” right argue that dynamic social mobility makes up for wealth and income inequality. As Krugman notes, Americans “may believe that anyone can succeed through hard work and determination, but the facts say otherwise.” In reality, mobility is “highest in the Scandinavian countries, and most results suggest that mobility is lower in the United States than it is in France, Canada, and maybe even in Britain. Not only don’t Americans have equal opportunity, opportunity is less equal here than elsewhere in the West.” Without the blinkers of free market capitalist ideology this should be unsurprising: “A society with highly unequal results is, more or less inevitably, a society with highly unequal opportunity, too.” [Op. Cit., p. 247 and p. 249]

Looking at the claim that trade union members gained their “relative advantage by keeping workers who are worse off from improving their position” it would be fair to ask whether the percentage of workers in low-paid jobs decreased in Britain after the trade union reforms. In fact, the percentage of workers below the Low Pay Unit’s definition of low pay (namely two-thirds of men’s median earnings) increased — from 16.8% in 1984 to 26.2% in 1991 for men, 44.8% to 44.9% for women. For manual workers it rose by 15% to 38.4%, and for women by 7.7% to 80.7% (for non-manual workers the figures were 5.4% rise to 13.7% for men and a 0.5% rise to 36.6%). [Andrew Glyn and David Miliband (eds.), Op. Cit., p.102] If unions were gaining at the expense of the worse off, you would expect a decrease in the number in low pay, not an increase. An OECD study concluded that ”[t]ypically, countries with high rates of collective bargaining and trade unionisation tend to have low incidence of low paid employment.” [OECD Employment Outlook, 1996, p. 94] Within America, we also discover that higher union density is associated with fewer workers earning around the minimum wage and that “right-to-work” states (i.e., those that pass anti-union laws) “tend to have lower wages, lower standard of living, and more workers earning around the minimum wage.” It is hard not to conclude that states “passed laws aimed at making unionisation more difficult would imply that they sought to maintain the monopoly power of employers at the expense of workers.” [Oren M. Levin-Waldman, “The Minimum Wage and Regional Wage Structure: Implications for Income Distribution”, pp. 635–57, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XXXVI, No. 3, p. 639 and p. 655]

As far as von Hayek’s prediction on wage flexibility leading to the “average worker’s income” rising fastest in a country where relative wages are flexible, it has been proved totally wrong. Between 1967 and 1971, real wages grew (on average) by 2.95% per year in the UK (nominal wages grew by 8.94%) [P. Armstrong, A. Glyn and J. Harrison, Capitalism Since World War II, p. 272]. In comparison, real household disposable income grew by just 0.5 percent between June 2006 and 2007. Average weekly earnings rose 2.9% between April 2006 and 2007 while inflation rose by 3.6% (Retail Prices Index) and 2.8% (Consumer Prices Index). [Elliot and Atkinson, The Gods That Failed, p. 163] This is part of a general pattern, with UK Real Wages per employee being an average 3.17% per year between 1960 and 1974, falling to 1.8% between 1980 and 1999. In America, the equivalent figures are 2.37% and 1.02%. [Eckhard Hein and Thorsten Schulten, Unemployment, Wages and Collective Bargaining in the European Union, p. 9] Looking at the wider picture, during the early 1970s when strikes and union membership increased, “real wage increases rose steadily to reach over 4% per year” in the West. However, after von Hayek’s anti-union views were imposed, “real wages have grown very slowly.” In anti-union America, the median wage was $13.62 in 2003 compared to $12.36 in 1979 (reckoned in 2003 prices). In Europe and Japan “average wages have done only a little better, having grown around 1% per year.” [Glyn, Op. Cit., p. 5 and p. 116] It gets worse as these are average figures. Given that inequality soared during this period the limited gains of the neo-liberal era were not distributed as evenly as before (in the UK, for example, wage growth was concentrated at the top end of society. [Elliot and Atkinson, Fantasy Island, p. 99]).

Nor can it be said that breaking the unions and lower real wages translated into lower unemployment in the UK as the average unemployment rate between 1996 and 1997 was 7.1% compared to 4.5% between 1975 and 1979 (the year Thatcher took power). The average between 1960 and 1974 was 1.87% compared to 8.7% over the whole Thatcherite period of 1980 to 1999. Perhaps this is not too surprising, given that (capitalist economic theology aside) unemployment “systematically weakens the bargaining power of trade unions.” In short: “Neither on the theoretical nor empirical level can a strictly inverse relation between the real wage rate and the level of unemployment be derived.” [Hein and Schulten, Op. Cit., p. 9, p. 3 and p. 2] As we discussed in section C.1.5 this should come as no surprise to anyone with awareness of the real nature of unemployment and the labour market. So unemployment did not fall after the trade union reforms, quite the reverse: “By the time Blair came to power [in 1997], unemployment in Britain was falling, although it still remained higher than it had been when the [last Labour Government of] Callaghan left office in May 1979.” [Elliot and Atkinson, Age of Insecurity, p. 258] To be fair, von Hayek did argue that falls in unemployment would be “a slow process” but nearly 20 years of far higher unemployment is moving backwards!

So we have a stark contrast between the assertions of the right and the reality their ideology helped create. The reason for this difference is not hard to discover. As economist Paul Krugman correctly argues unions “raise average wages for their membership; they also, indirectly and to a lesser extent, raise wages for similar workers … as nonunionised employers try to diminish the appeal of union drives to their workers . .. unions tend to narrow income gaps among blue-collar workers, by negotiating bigger wage increases for their worse-paid members … And nonunion employers, seeking to forestall union organisers, tend to echo this effect.” He argues that “if there’s a single reason blue-collar workers did so much better in the fifties than they had in the twenties, it was the rise of unions” and that unions “were once an important factor limiting income inequality, both because of their direct effect in raising their members’ wages and because the union pattern of wage settlements … was … reflected in the labour market as a whole.” With the smashing of the unions came rising inequality, with the “sharpest increases in wage inequality in the Western world have taken place in the United States and in Britain, both of which experience sharp declines in union membership.” Unions restrict inequality because “they act as a countervailing force to management.” [Op. Cit., p. 51, p. 49, p. 149 and p. 263]

So under the neo-liberal regime instigated by Thatcher and Reagan the power, influence and size of the unions were reduced considerably and real wage growth fell considerably — which is the exact opposite of von Hayek’s predictions. Flexible wages and weaker unions have harmed the position of all workers (Proudhon: “Contrary to all expectation! It takes an economist not to expect these things” [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 203]). So comparing the claims of von Hayek to what actually happened after trade union “reform” and the reduction of class struggle suggests that claims that social struggle is self-defeating are false (and self-serving, considering it is usually bosses, employer supported parties and economists who make these claims). A lack of social struggle has been correlated with low economic growth and often stagnant (even declining) wages. So while social struggle may make capital flee and other problems, lack of it is no guarantee of prosperity (quite the reverse, if the last quarter of the 20th century is anything to go by). Indeed, a lack of social struggle will make bosses be more likely to cut wages, worsen working conditions and so on — after all, they feel they can get away with it! Which brings home the fact that to make reforms last it is necessary to destroy capitalism.

Of course, no one can know that struggle will make things better. It is a guess; no one can predict the future. Not all struggles are successful and many can be very difficult. If the “military is a role model for the business world” (in the words of an ex-CEO of Hill & Knowlton Public Relations), and it is, then any struggle against it and other concentrations of power may, and often is, difficult and dangerous at times. [quoted by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!, p. 47] But, as Zapata once said, “better to die on your feet than live on your knees!” All we can say is that social struggle can and does improve things and, in terms of its successes and transforming effect on those involved, well worth the potential difficulties it can create. Moreover, without struggle there is little chance of creating a free society, dependent as it is on individuals who refuse to bow to authority and have the ability and desire to govern themselves. In addition, social struggle is always essential, not only to win improvements, but to keep them as well. In order to fully secure improvements you have to abolish capitalism and the state. Not to do so means that any reforms can and will be taken away (and if social struggle does not exist, they will be taken away sooner rather than later). Ultimately, most anarchists would argue that social struggle is not an option — we either do it or we put up with the all the petty (and not so petty) impositions of authority. If we do not say “no” then the powers that be will walk all over us.

As the history of neo-liberalism shows, a lack of social struggle is fully compatible with worsening conditions. Ultimately, if you want to be treated as a human being you have to stand up for your dignity — and that means thinking and rebelling. As Bakunin argued in God and the State, human freedom and development is based on these. Without rebellion, without social struggle, humanity would stagnate beneath authority forever and never be in a position to be free. So anarchists agree wholeheartedly with the Abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. “This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” [The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, vol. 2, p. 437]

Of course, being utterly wrong has not dented von Hayek’s reputation with the right nor stopped him being quoted in arguments in favour of flexibility and free market reforms (what can we expect? The right still quote Milton Friedman whose track-record was equally impressive). Still, why let the actual development of the economies influenced by von Hayek’s ideology get in the way? Perhaps it is fortunate that he once argued that economic theories can “never be verified or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the presence of our assumptions in the particular case.” [Individualism and Economic Order, p. 73] With such a position all is saved — the obvious problem is that capitalism is still not pure enough and the “reforms” must not only continue but be made deeper... As Kropotkin stressed, “economists who continue to consider economic forces alone … without taking into account the ideology of the State, or the forces that each State necessarily places at the service of the rich … remain completely outside the realities of the economic and social world.” [quoted by Ruth Kinna, “Fields of Vision: Kropotkin and Revolutionary Change”, pp. 67–86, SubStance, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 72–3]

And, needless to say, while three decades of successful capitalist class war goes without mention in polite circles, documenting its results gets you denounced as advocating “class war”! It is more than pass the time when working class people should make that a reality — particularly given the results of not doing so.

12 notes · View notes

elcomfortador · 1 year

Text

I want everyone to know about Terry Sweeney, the first openly gay person to perform in the cast of Saturday Night Live.

Terry was hired in season 11, which is the 1985-1986 season — the first one where Lorne Michaels was in charge again after a five-year absence. Considering that it took until 2012 to have another openly gay person in the cast, this strikes me as being more progressive on SNL's part than I would have guessed. What's more, Terry is bringing a distinct gay flavor to his performances, which is notable considering that a more frequent face of gay America at the time was the AIDS epidemic. Take this sketch, from a Dec. 8, 1985, episode hosted by John Lithgow. Not only is the First Lady being portrayed by a drag performance, but also his version of Nancy Reagan works differently than, say, Phil Hartman as Barbara Bush, because Terry is bringing a distinct gay flair to the role that a straight performer probably wouldn't.

This particular sketch is interesting to me because Terry is essentially using his Nancy impersonation — and his platform on this TV show with a national reach — to make everyone watch him do a song and dance number with sexy back-up dancers, which is kind of a little gay boy's dream? There's not that much of a "joke" to this sketch, really, other than Nancy dreaming that she would have ever been the most famous performer in all of show business. The "joke" is that he got NBC to sign off on him doing this very gay thing on network TV.

What I especially love about this performance, however, is that it's not a pre-tape, which I feel a lot of performers would prefer, because choreographed dancing is hard enough, much less doing it while you're singing. Instead, you can see that Nancy is wearing her stage dress when she appears at the beginning next to Ronald. She's just throwing off her blazer and running to the second stage while the establishment shot of the theater is running onscreen. When she's done, she's disappearing behind her dancers and running back to the first set, to the point that Terry a little out of breath because dancing while singing is a lot of work, it turns out.

He really gave it his all.

This is all something I talk about in the newest Gayest Episode Ever, which is the first part of an in-depth look into how SNL has portrayed LGBTQ characters and themes over its nearly fifty years on the air.

Of all the eras this show has had, I feel like this one is the most off-limits to people today, just because it wasn't frequently run in syndication, it often is not included in SNL's own retrospectives of its own history, and it's under-represented in what's streaming on Peacock. But I really think there's some interesting stuff from this era, that can help us understand how mainstream audiences came to understand LGBTQ humor the way it does.

And yes, season 11 also featured Danitra Vance, who was both the first black woman to be hired into the main cast and also a gay person herself, but she was not out at the time. I'll be profiling Danitra's work as we move through the series run of SNL.

#snl #saturday night live #terry sweeney #lgbtq #nancy reagan #my podcasts

27 notes · View notes

glasshalftrue · 6 months

Text

just finished reading 17776 (warning for those who haven't heard of it: there's a very mild jump scare on the initial page). overall it was basically what i expected - which is good, because i'd heard a lot of good things about it!

some scattered thoughts:

this is one of the most measured takes on immortality i've seen in a piece of media, and probably the one that most closely aligns to how i feel about the concept. it doesn't go the whole "immortality is a curse" route, which i've always thought was pure sour grapes, but it does acknowledge the very real problems that we'd run into when faced with eternity. one of my favorite quotes by a fictional character is from mr. peanutbutter in bojack horseman: "the key to being happy isn't the search for meaning; it's just to keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually, you'll be dead." and turns out he's right, even if eventually we won't be dead.

the sheer level of cultural and societal stagnation strikes me as a little far-fetched, but i understand that it serves several important functions (reinforces the story's themes about contentedness; keeps things more grounded and comprehensible for the reader; a source of humor), so i'll let it slide.

one of my favorite moments was when the 500 ball crashes into the bulb: in the video leading up to it, the unsettling music, the dread in ten and juice's voices, and even the title of the chapter ("No no no no no no.") lead you to believe that something terrible is going to happen and that the stakes are suddenly about to become much, much bigger. what is about to be destroyed? is it something related to the nanomachines? is this going to cause humanity's long period of rest and relaxation to finally end? and then... it turns out it was just about a light bulb that's been burning for a long time. but then, you realize that, in a world almost entirely free of loss, something like this really is as tragic as it gets: an irreplaceable piece of history from the before-times is gone forever. it's a great little double subversion of expectations.

the focus on football is the most conflicting element of the story for me. on the one hand, i know nothing about and do not care at all about football. on the other hand, the story is clearly not really about football, and anyways in the story it's evolved into something completely unrecognizable from the sport today. on the other other hand, it's written by someone who does actually care a lot about football, and it comes through in the writing, so there is a certain element of the story that feels inaccessible to me. on the other other other hand, i think the genuine passion that bois has for the subject gives the story a level of specificity that couldn't have been achieved any other way. ultimately, i think i personally would've liked it if the story had been mostly the same but centered around something i cared more about (i know there's also thematic relevance around it being football specifically because of america and whatever but tbh i don't care as much about that as i do the broader themes about humanity), but given who the creator is, i'm glad they wrote it the way they did.

#17776 #media analysis

7 notes · View notes

akitoscorpio · 1 year

Note

No one cares.

Greenlightvolume10 :P

So you can tell this person Was not committed to the message, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this as an Anonymous "question"

But considering this was likely in response to This post I made a few days ago in which I vented some, honestly pretty well-deserved frustration at the mediocre quality of the merch they sell and the fact that they, are basically saying to fans "Oh you made this great design? Sweet we're going to sell it on a shirt so we don't have to pay an actual artist and not credit you at all for your work?"

Is frankly shady as all hell.

but this does give me a chance to be "Rwde" to the more hardcore fans on Twitter once again. Because I've had some thoughts on the #Greenlightvolume10 campaign, and why people demanding this should stop being a bunch of selfish assholes.

Hey, have you all head about this thing called the WGA/SAGAFTRA - Strike? Yeah turns out The Screen Actors Guild, the Writers guild of America, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. are all currently on strike for some very valid and awesome reasons such as....

Preventing their Jobs from being replaced by AI, or in actors cases, Keeping their likeness from being use by an AI without pay.

Demanding better pay when working on shows for "Streaming services" (Hey wait a sec Rooster Teeth, HBO Max, and Crunchy Roll are streaming services)

Getting better royalty/residual payments for shows in reruns on Network TV or when shown on streaming services (By the way when a show you worked on gets pull from a streaming service after a couple months, that's happening to fuck the people that worked on it from getting residual payments.)

Not to mention "Better working conditions" something anyone who has paid attention to RT in the last few years know how badly that is needed

All of these things, in some form or another, have the potential to affect RT staffers that would have to be, in this case, rehired back on to work on a Volume 10.

As a side note boy, it's cute when people say "Protect Crwby" cause most of what you know as Crwby was let go and have likely moved on a year or two ago.

Back to the point though, to my understanding, I don't think anyone directly working for RT is part of SAG, WGA, Or AFTRA, but they really should be. Because if any of the production staff of Volume 9 were part of the WGA or AFTRA then there would have been a larger stink when the bulk of them was let go after the last frame of Animation for Volume 9 was finished.

The point is, Greenlighting Volume 10, during this strike, would be a fucking awful look for the company, they would be affectively "Scabs" who were crossing the picket lines to work, and honestly, anyone who really does give a damn for the people who create Rwby, really should not want them to do this because crossing that line, will make it so much harder for Rooster Teeth to get people who are part of any of the above organizations to willingly work for them in the future.

So show some God damn patience, Wait till the strike is over, and then demand that they greenlight the next season of Rwby. While you're at it keep demanding better working conditions for the people who create the content you watch at the same time. Don't forget Rooster Teeth has a long history of treating its employees like shit that anyone who can rub two neurons together should understand, is not something that should be forgotten and swept under the rug.

But to directly counter the Anon here, I didn't say I didn't want a Volume ten, cause at this point I do want to see how it ends. I said

#rwby #rwde #This anon has some serious bitch energy

25 notes · View notes

3rdeyeblaque · 2 years

Text

Today we venerate Elevated Ancestor Dr. Huey P. Newton on his 82nd birthday 🎉

Known around the world as one of THE most prolific faces of Black Revolutionary History in the Americas, we celebrate for his co-creative vision that birthed THE Black Panther Party Of Self-Defense on October 30th 1966 .

Dr. Huey P. Newton served as the Party's leader and it's Minster Of Defense. His Marxist/Leninist perspective (of the Black Community existing as an separate internal colony trapped/controlled within an external colony and its forces) became the blueprint for the Party's founding document, the Ten-Point Program, which sought to equip our community with the power necessary to regain our land, food, housing, education, clothing, justice, & peace.

It was this revolutionary vision of true independence, self-preservation, self-education, peace, & freedom that called to the spirits of many who would members and supporters while striking a legacied fear in the hearts of our oppressors that continues to breed ignorance and fear to this day; an ancestral prayer answered by any means necessary. It is the legacy of his vision & work that lives on to this day.

"You can kill my body, and you can take my life but you can never kill my soul. My soul will live forever!" - Dr. Huey P. Newton

We pour libations & give extra 💐 to Dr. Huey P. Newton on this day for pioneering courage & love for us. May be continue to be a beacon & a blueprint for those committed to the protection & betterment of our lineages/people. ✊🏾🖤

Offering Suggestions: a white candle toward his elevation, libations of water, soul food, & committing energy to his creative vision.

‼️Note: offering suggestions are just that & strictly for veneration purposes only. Never attempt to conjure up any spirit or entity without proper divination/Mediumship counsel.‼️

#dr. huey p newton #huey p newton #ancestors #elevated ancestors #hoodoos #veneration #ancestor veneration #the hoodoo calendar #the black panther party of self defense #the black panther party #the black panthers #black history #free huey

58 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 8 months

Text

96th Academy Awards nominations reactions

Well, it wasn't doomsday. But it wasn't the best Oscar nomination morning I've ever experienced either!

And goodness me, the two major Best Picture contenders that have the most upwards momentum right now (Oppenheimer doesn't have upwards momentum, it's been top of the pack for the whole awards season) did well. And it just so happens, those two films are the ones I'm the most terrified to criticize.

Some thoughts:

From some of the talk going around and the lack of love from outside the United States, I'm a little concerned with Killers of the Flower Moon as it stands. It's my personal pick for Best Picture, jsyk. Ten nominations sure, but missing out on Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor for DiCaprio is not a good look, despite the surprise Original Song nomination. Certainly, AMPAS is majority/plurality American, so the story strikes deep chords for any of us who care a smidgen about the nation's history and racial injustice. But I have been seeing chatter - not gonna name nationalities - from outside North America saying how they're tired of American racial guilt movies. That is an aspect of KOTFM, but that completely flattens a morally complicated, beautifully made work. A near-miracle it was made in 2020s Hollywood. I think another part of it is that we are all now taking the Scorsese and Spielberg generation of filmmakers for granted. They've come full circle. Their films have done wretchedly at recent Academy Awards ceremonies as of late, and undeservedly so.

The (imo) overperformance of Poor Things makes the Gladstone v Stone matchup look like it may be slowly tipping away from Lily Gladstone. I don't think I will be writing on the film on this blog but, suffice it to say, I didn't enjoy it. Yorgos Lanthimos is a director that has never truly clicked with me, largely due to his earlier, very cynical work. Poor Things is not as cynical, but I didn't care for the messaging at all (yes, Victorian men were sexual hypocrites and miscreants - how self-congratulatory, I found it) or its sense of humor. I guess some can say that I'm just another puritanical American prude, as well. But I thought the sex was getting into the male gaze-y territory, and the sex work subplot was way waaayyy too sanitized. I also despised the atonal score by Jerskin Fendrix, which was very close to stuff me and my orchestra mates might do if we were messing around in rehearsal (disclosure: I was taught classical piano and violin, have studied music theory up to the college level, played in various orchestras up to a decent level in high school, and am a massive film score fan).

It looks like Oppenheimer is running away with this. I just don't see how anything can stop it in Best Picture. I can respect an Oppenheimer Best Picture winner, even if I'm not even sure if it cracks my top three and Nolan is certainly not one of my favorite filmmakers.

I don't think Oppenheimer is getting Best Actor, though. Rooting for Paul Giamatti for The Holdovers on that one. Shame Dominic Sessa couldn't join him in Supporting Actor, but Da'Vine Joy Randolph has essentially got the Oscar in the bag - despite my reservations on how her character essentially disappears in the last third of the film.

But what about Barbie? It's a movie I respect, deeply. But I never thought it in the caliber of Best Picture nominee one bit. The America Ferrera nomination in Supporting Actress I don't support one bit. Gosling? Sure. Robbie? Had a better case than Ferrera, but I understand why she didn't get it. Gerwig? I'm on the fence over her exclusion in Director.

Sensational stuff for Justine Triet and Anatomy of a Fall. It's probably my #2 vote in Best Picture. I just wish Milo Machado Graner was in for Supporting Actor. This is a dark horse, folks, more than capable of pulling off an upset or two come Oscar night. And a damned good movie, too...

... But its success appears to have come at the expense of Trần Anh Hùng's The Taste of Things. And as the Artistic Director of Viet Film Fest in Orange County, California, that stings, as he's VFF alumni. When France passed over Anatomy of a Fall for The Taste of Things in Best International Feature, there was a lot of outrage directed at Taste by people who had and had not seen the film. Perhaps the damage was already done. A massive shame if that was the case.

Other than Poor Things, the other movie with tons of upward momentum right now is Jonathan Glazer's The Zone of Interest. For the record, I think, on its face, you can still make a morally responsible movie about the Holocaust from a Nazi point of view - which I think Glazer mostly does. But my criticism comes from elsewhere. Glazer, in interviews, has said how he wanted to 1) make the movie not primarily about the 1940s, but about our time and our complicity in atrocities and 2) make a film shorn of cinematic artifice to absorb us into the setting. I think his messaging never evolves beyond the basics on the first point; I think he utterly fails on the second. Cases in point: the use of nightvision cameras that only serve to remind the audience they are watching an artistic exercise, the horrific score from Mica Levi that too many film critics (who don't know better, most notably David Ehrlich at IndieWire - really, everyone at IndieWire), and a weird sound mix that reminds me of when stage plays play off-stage sound effects or background noise but that audio doesn't sound sufficiently "far away" enough.

A slight underperformance by Past Lives. It was never going to get a boatload of nominations. But it appears Greta Lee was squeezed out (I have nothing constructive to say about Annette Bening and Jodie Foster in Nyad as I haven't seen the film) and there was scarcely a campaign for Teo Yoo.

American Fiction is, I think, going home empty-handed. Its nominations are the win, and I think it's a decent satire well worth watching.

Maestro doesn't deserve a Best Picture nor its screenplay nomination, but I'm not happy with some of the accusations of Bradley Cooper Oscar-thirsting that's flying around. You folks are taking it much too personally. Did he defecate on your kitchen table or something? Calm. Down.

And speaking about disrespect, there has been a ton of disrespect towards John Williams' nomination for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Again, we're coming full circle to an iconic figure of late twentieth century cinema. Especially from fans of Daniel Pemberton's score to Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (who I agree should have been nominated in Score). No, Indy 5 was not great. No, Williams' score to the film was not the best score in the series. No, I don't think Williams should win this year. But did you listen to the score? Helena's theme was gorgeous and its integration across the score was the work of a master. The interplay between the Nazi and Dial themes is something lesser composers just simply cannot replicate. And for those complaining that Williams simply reuses material the entire time, I get the feeling you haven't seen the film or listening to the score by itself (or understand how themes can develop). Yes, I know melody is on its way out in film scores (see: Hans Zimmer, his acolytes, and any composer who thinks that orchestras should be used like drums) and pop music in general in favor of texture and a beat. But I bet you many composers will sell their souls to piece together something half as good as a lesser John Williams score. It's a great score, worthy of its nomination.

Where is Robot Dreams, Neon? This movie's been on my radar for some months now, but radio silence! Do you guys not know how to distribute an animated film? Flee (2021, Denmark) had this same problem! I'm so glad it's in, though.

That nomination for Nimona, though? Dreadful. Again, tumblr won't like I'm going to say this, but I thought it was gratingly written, poorly voice acted, and its humor and character behaviors are going to date like milk.

And a massive congratulations to Godzilla Minus One for its Best Visual Effects nomination. After 38 films in the series, the big fella with atomic breath is heading to the Academy Awards!

No Disney in Animated Short for Once Upon a Studio. Surprising, but not completely so. I'm excited for a slate of independent animated shorts when the short film categories come around!

The Live Action Short slate is rather disappointing. I like the category best when it's full of no-name directors and actors. Without having seen anything else, this is going to Wes Anderson isn't it?

Most prioritized films I haven't seen: all short films, Elemental, Io Capitano, Perfect Days, Robot Dreams, Rustin, Society of the Snow, 20 Days in Mariupol

10 notes · View notes

radiofreederry · 2 years

Text

Happy birthday, John Reed! (October 22, 1887)

Journalist John "Jack" Reed was born in Portland to well-to-do family, the grandson of local industrialist Henry Dodge Green. He grew up in the upper class, and attended Harvard from 1906 to 1910. While in school, Reed became politically interested, attending meetings of the campus Socialist Club. After graduating, Reed moved to New York to become a journalist and gained a passion for social issues and joined the staff of The Masses, a socialist newspaper, in 1913. His assignments radicalized him further, and he was arrested for the first time while covering the Paterson Silk Strike. He gained contacts and friends in the Industrial Workers of the World. Reed covered the Mexican Revolution and the Colorado Coalfield War, and in 1914 traveled to Europe to cover the First World War. Firmly against American entry into an imperialist conflict, Reed's career seemed to be over after the United States declared war on the Central Powers. Reed traveled to Russia, hoping to write articles about the rapidly developing political situation there. Reed became a witness to the Russian Revolution and subsequent Bolshevik seizure of power. A fervent supporter of Bolshevism, Reed published his account of the revolution, Ten Days That Shook the World, in 1919. Reed played a role in the split of the Socialist Party of America's left wing, and became a leading member of the Communist Labor Party, one of two Bolshevik-inspired parties which arose from this split. His life was ultimately cut short by a bout of spotted typhus which killed him in 1920.

"No matter what one thinks of Bolshevism, it is undeniable that the Russian Revolution s one of the great events of human history, and the rise of the Bolsheviki a phenomenon of worldwide importance."

#birthdays #john reed

142 notes · View notes

webshootersandwingdings · 1 month

Text

In case you didn't see, there's a rumor going around that a Captain Marvel game may be in early development.

As someone who is into comics and games, I feel particularly attacked by this lol. Carol Danvers is my favorite hero. A Carol game is my ultimate pie in the sky dream.

She has been playable in a number of games on console and mobile, but I unfortunately believe this rumor to be untrue.

Here's why:

I have a lot of thoughts and I like to type, so this will be needlessly wordy. Scroll to the bottom for my TLDR.

First of all, rumors like this spread all the time. People just make stuff up and other accounts will spread it like wildfire. It happens constantly in the world of gaming just as it does in film.

But I don't think Marvel is willing to gamble on Captain Marvel to this degree.

I will preface what I'm about to say with a gentle disclaimer that The Marvels was not a great financial success for many reasons. I personally was disappointed by it, and think it has a lot of issues as a film. And I overall am not a fan of the way Carol has been adapted in the MCU. But casual fans generally enjoyed it. Marvel, however, did very little to actually ensure its success. Not even considering the strikes, they put little effort into marketing, promoting, and merchandising it. They let it release with all its issues. Even if you love it, you can see where it's messy with rewrites and editing.

On the comics sides of things, Marvel again keeps setting Carol up for failure by giving her to writers who either are unfamiliar with her or outright misunderstand and even openly dislike her. They don't even promote her comics. The final issue of Wong's arc just released last week and Marvel social accounts didn't even include it in their "New Comics This Week" posts. In my opinion, that is egregious. It definitely gives fuel to the "They only keep a Captain Marvel title going for copyright reasons" fire. It's not a good look. But it does give the impression that Marvel has little faith in Carol Danvers. Or at least, inconsistent support.

Now, video games are at a point in history where they cost more and take longer than ever before to produce. Development cycles for a AAA big budget game can be 3 to 8 years. The cost to develop, in the tens of millions. Insomniac's Spider-man 2 reportedly cost somewhere around $300 million. Creating a game like that is a huge investment, which in turn means it's a huge risk. Marvel's biggest moneymakers have historically been Spider-man and X-Men, so it's no surprise they would look to those properties when considering video games. With the MCU and the increase in Avengers popularity, you see a focus on Captain America, Iron Man, and Black Panther titles. But Captain Marvel has never been one of these titans of profitability. The first Captain Marvel film was an outlier. But it's clear that whatever reasons people flocked to the theaters to see it then did not stick. It may have made some new Carol fans, but it didn't turn Carol into a pillar of the Marvel Universe. And even though all reasonably minded people know the misogyny rooted reasons for the manufactured hate on her, the fact remains...She is a highly contentious character.

Almost all female led projects seem to become punching bags for the "anti-woke" masses, but Carol was really the trailblazer in a way lol, sadly. In no small part because of the wild misinformation spread about Brie Larson. But dislike for the actress has been transferred to the character, as tends to happen. Again, incorrect and presumptive takes on sales and popularity have made most discourse surrounding Carol Danvers extremely prone to toxicity. There even tends to be issues with fans of other female characters, as if Marvel is only allowed to have so many women-centered projects. The point is, Carol is divisive in a way most male heroes are not.

The unfortunate reality is that there has been a growing movement in the last few years of the same level of toxicity in the gaming arena. Painfully often, you will see clickbait over the shape of female character's chin as a "lack of femininity". Clout chasers and outrage bait accounts are working tirelessly to tear down and decry female creatives, female characters, and women in general who do not fit their ideals. If a woman exists in a way that they don't like, they claim she has been purposely made unattractive to demonize heterosexual men. If a women is competent, she exists purely to emasculate men.

All is "woke" all is "DEI" all is" forced diversity" ....Essentially, buzzwords for "there's a woman in this who isn't sexually satisfying to me" . . . With this being the current state of gaming, how successful do you think a Captain Marvel game would actually be? Realistically? Marvel undoubtedly knows this. I would love a Captain Marvel game. But would the general audience? Would causal gamers?

TL/DR:

Games are very expensive and cost a lot of time and money to produce. That means they have to sell a lot of copies to make any money. Carol is a divisive character that has a lot of baggage attached to her name at this point because of toxic online discourse, and there is a subset of male gamers who are atrocious about women-led games to the point of rivaling even the most toxic mcu 'fans'. It would be a huge gamble for Marvel to invest in. And I don't see them doing it for lack of guaranteed sales. If they did, it would probably be a smaller-budget AA title or the game would be an ensemble deal with Carol as a part of a larger cast.

Speculation:

If this was 10 years ago, the obvious first women of marvel led game basically writes itself. A spy-thriller / shooter starring Black Widow would have been extremely safe, if a little lacking in innovative gameplay. Many games like that already exist, so putting a Marvel Universe coat of paint on the genre would have been too easy. Today, there really is no clear lead for a sure success. Any woman of the X-Men is high in popularity, but I assume most fans would rather have an ensemble game with other mutants rather than a Rogue or Storm solo game. The next most popular female hero is probably Scarlet Witch. But Marvel may be unwilling to have a magic based game so soon after Midnight Suns, and if they did you know they'd probably do Doctor Strange before her, despite the legion of vocal Wanda fans who would be willing to support it.

It sucks because even though it's 2024 it's very clear how male dominated Marvel products still tend to be. I would love a AA She-Hulk game that combined Ace Attorney like court room text based gameplay with side scrolling beat em up action...maybe even some dating sim elements. But after the She-Hulk show on Disney+, is Marvel ever going to invest in such a thing? With so much negativity and fake outrage surrounding almost everything starring a woman, what is Marvel willing to invest in?

In the past, Marvel has tried to prop up Carol as their Wonder Woman. But as I said, support for her has been inconsistent. Maybe it is that they know its a bad look for all their games to be male led and they want a competitor to the upcoming Wonder Woman game... but I feel skeptical.

Highly doubt anyone read all this, but it's nice to get my thoughts out in any case.

If Carol got a game, I would be beside myself with excitement. There'd be no living with me lol

#text #captain marvel

2 notes · View notes