Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:42 pm

Here is more on Disney's history:

Mickey Mauschwitz, the Reactionary Politics of Walt Disney


Image


Along with FTR-304, this program might be entitled “The Politics of Illusion.” Few American cultural or artistic figures have come to be associated with wholesome, virtuous images as film maker and ani­mation pioneer Walt Disney. In both cinema and television, Disney established himself as an American icon, and the merged corpora­tion he left behind after his death is one of the giants of the media world. The reality behind Disney’s civic and political life is very differ­ent from the benevolent illusions projected onto big and small screens around the world.

In fact, Disney was one of the primary figures in the Holly wood blacklisting era and had a long professional association with fascist, anti-Semitic and organized crime elements.

1. This broad­cast accesses infor­ma­tion from a pen­e­trat­ing and insight­ful biog­ra­phy of Dis­ney, which high­lights the reac­tionary, vin­dic­tive polit­i­cal fig­ure behind the benev­o­lent facade he pre­sented to his audi­ences. (Walt Dis­ney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince; by Marc Eliot; Birch Lane Press; Copy­right 1993 [HC]; ISBN 1–55972-174-X.)

2. Disney’s image as a paragon of whole­some, Chris­t­ian, “fam­ily” val­ues against the per­ceived world of immoral, sex­ual, “Jew­ish” Hol­ly­wood was estab­lished by the suc­cess of Mickey Mouse (orig­i­nally known as “Steam­boat Willie.”)

3. Eliot chron­i­cles the rise of the Hol­ly­wood film indus­try as a reac­tion to the gang­ster­ism of “the Trust,” the movie-making con­sor­tium estab­lished by sem­i­nal film­maker Thomas Edison.

4. “Two of the endur­ingly pop­u­lar myths of the his­tory of Amer­i­can film are that Hol­ly­wood gave birth to the movies and that the industry’s pio­neers were Jews who had immi­grated from Europe. In truth, the Amer­i­can motion pic­ture indus­try began on the East Coast as the exclu­sive domin­ion of the urban Amer­i­can turn-of-the cen­tury entre­pre­neur­ial elite . . . . Among these com­pa­nies, the most pow­er­ful was the Wiz­ard of Menlo Park, Thomas Alva Edi­son, the head of the stu­dio that bore his name.

5. “For more than a decade Edi­son had been the unchal­lenged pre­mier maker and dis­trib­u­tor of mostly eso­teric, non-narrative, silent motion pic­ture ‘stud­ies.’ Edi­son was greatly dis­turbed by the sud­den, sweep­ing pop­u­lar­ity of the new century’s first nov­elty, street-corner nick­elodeons, amuse­ment par­lors that first appeared on New York’s Lower East Side. He felt they cheap­ened the sophis­ti­cated art of film by offer­ing ‘peep show’ films and other lurid diver­sions meant to sat­isfy the car­nal plea­sure of the workingman.

6. “In 1910, Edi­son formed the first motion pic­ture alliance, which came to be known as the ‘Trust.’ Its pur­pose was to pro­tect the pub­lic (and his own finan­cial inter­ests) from the kind of immoral trash pro­duced by what he termed the ‘Jew­ish prof­i­teers,’ who not only ran the nick­elodeons but made their own movies to show in them.

7. “The Trust was pub­licly ded­i­cated to the preser­va­tion of the industry’s moral integrity and pri­vately devoted to pro­tect­ing Edison’s prof­itable monop­oly. Not only were nick­elodeon oper­a­tors and film­mak­ers denied mem­ber­ship in the Trust, but they were pre­vented from buy­ing raw film stock and pro­jec­tion equip­ment, all of which Edi­son held patents on and absolutely con­trolled.” (Ibid.; p. 49.)

8. Not con­tent with sup­press­ing eco­nomic com­pe­ti­tion with monop­o­lis­tic mar­ket prac­tices, Edi­son turned to gang­ster­ism. “Edi­son, frus­trated by his inabil­ity to wipe out his com­pe­ti­tion, resorted to hir­ing goon squads. They smashed the nick­elodeon arcades and set block-long fires in the neigh­bor­hoods that housed them. All the while Edi­son jus­ti­fied his actions in the name of pre­serv­ing the nation’s morals.” (Ibid.; p. 49.)

9. Ulti­mately, the strong-arm strat­egy of Edi­son & com­pany pre­cip­i­tated the move by their com­peti­tors to Cal­i­for­nia. “The mob tac­tics of the Trust caused the inde­pen­dents to put as much dis­tance between them­selves and Edi­son as pos­si­ble. One by one they migrated west, until they reached Cal­i­for­nia. There they found cheap real estate, a per­fect cli­mate, and the nat­ural pro­tec­tion of a three-thousand-mile buffer zone. Cal­i­for­nia gave them a sec­ond chance to make their movies. The films they made rede­fined the Amer­i­can motion pic­ture and the indus­try that pro­duced them. Unlike their early East Coast coun­ter­parts, the heads of Hollywood’s stu­dios were less inter­ested in artis­tic exper­i­men­ta­tion than profit. They put on the screen what sold the most. The pub­lic was will­ing to pay to see films filled with sex and vio­lence, and Hol­ly­wood was more than happy to make them.” (Idem.)

10. The early dynam­ics of the film indus­try framed the polit­i­cal and cul­tural debate over the “moral­ity” of the movie indus­try that sur­vives to this day. The stigma that attached to Hol­ly­wood gave rise to close scrutiny of the indus­try in Wash­ing­ton. “By the early twen­ties, all that remained of Edison’s Trust was the issue it had raised regard­ing the moral con­tent of motion pic­tures. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment kept a close watch on Hol­ly­wood, the new cap­i­tal of the film indus­try, to make sure the movies it pro­duced remained ‘socially accept­able’ films.

11. “They didn’t know if their movies were morel or immoral and couldn’t have cared less. To them, films were strictly vehi­cles of profit, not instru­ments of expres­sion. The more money a film made, the bet­ter it was. As such, they ran their busi­nesses like busi­nesses and treated their writ­ers, direc­tors, actors, and scenery movers as clock-punching employ­ees rather than artists. When­ever the indus­try came under attack for being morally cor­rupt, none of Hollywood’s own­ers believed the prob­lem had any­thing to do with morality.

12. “Which, of course, was pre­cisely the prob­lem. Among those who cor­rectly per­ceived Hol­ly­wood as dom­i­nated by Jews, to many in gov­ern­ment and the pri­vate sec­tor noth­ing more than hea­thens, unable to com­pre­hend, let alone project, the essence of Chris­t­ian morality.

13. “They believed Hollywood’s Jew­ish busi­ness­men had cor­rupted an art form for the sake of mak­ing money, and by so doing had con­tributed to the widen­ing moral cor­rup­tion of Amer­ica. They were, in Henry Ford’s words, a per­fect exam­ple of America’s grow­ing prob­lem, its turn-of-the-century influx of ‘the inter­na­tional Jew.’” (Ibid.; pp. 49–50.) (For infor­ma­tion about Henry Ford’s anti-Semitism and his role in fund­ing Hitler and the Ger­man Nazi party in the 1920’s see Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M-11.)

14. With the onset of the Great Depres­sion, scape­goat­ing of the “immoral­ity” of Hol­ly­wood for America’s per­ceived “moral decay” increased. “. . . the finan­cial col­lapse of Wall Street brought renewed pres­sure on the gov­ern­ment from the most pow­er­ful inter­ests in the pri­vate sec­tor to reg­u­late the moral con­tent of motion pic­tures. This lat­est attack on the moral vacu­ity of Amer­i­can movies and the men who made them was led once more by those look­ing for a link between the nation’s eco­nomic down­turn and its moral one. And with each new attack, the nation’s Jewish-American stu­dio heads felt the chill of anti-Semitism cool Hollywood’s balmy, and quite prof­itable, cli­mate.” (Ibid.; pp. 50–51.)

15. Pub­lish­ing mag­nate William Ran­dolph Hearst led the charge against Hol­ly­wood, seek­ing to sell papers and sti­fle com­pe­ti­tion. (For dis­cus­sion of the Hearst Press and its open edi­to­r­ial sup­port for fas­cism, see RFA-1.) “In 1929, need­ing a ‘hot’ issue to boost his news­pa­pers’ sag­ging cir­cu­la­tions, William Ran­dolph Hearst ran a series of edi­to­ri­als demand­ing the revival of fed­eral cen­sor­ship to reg­u­late the grow­ing immoral­ity of motion pic­tures. No friend of either Jews or the film indus­try, he con­sid­ered news­reels, shown in effect ‘free’ along with the fea­tures, a threat to his newspapers.

16. “Hearst’s cam­paign received much sup­port in Con­gress, where the def­i­n­i­tion of movie moral­ity had expanded through the years to include not only sex­ual provo­ca­tion but polit­i­cal sub­ver­sion. In March of 1929, U.S. Sen­a­tor Smith Brookhart summed up what he con­sid­ered the dete­ri­o­rat­ing sit­u­a­tion in Hol­ly­wood as noth­ing more than a bat­tle for profit at the cost of sex­ual and social moral­ity between com­pet­ing stu­dios, led by ‘bunches of Jews.’” (Ibid. p. 51)

17. Enter Walt Dis­ney and Mickey Mouse (nee Steam­boat Willie), who were seen as the per­fect, “Chris­t­ian” anti­dote to the toxin of “amoral” Hol­ly­wood. “What Hol­ly­wood des­per­ately needed was a new hero who not only extolled the right virtues but under­stood what they were in the first place. What Hol­ly­wood got, as if on cue, was Walt Disney’s Steam­boat Willie, the per­fect non­sex­ual, apo­lit­i­cal movie star­ring a harm­less lit­tle talk­ing mouse who courted his sweet­heart by singing her a song. Overnight, every major stu­dio in Hol­ly­wood that had for the bet­ter part of a decade turned out the kind of lurid, vio­lent, sex­u­ally, sug­ges­tive flesh­pot films guar­an­teed to put money in their banks, was now eager to align itself with not only the very pop­u­lar, but now sud­denly polit­i­cally cor­rect, film­maker.” (Idem.)

18. Next, the pro­gram exam­ines alle­ga­tions of pre­war Nazi activ­ity on Disney’s part. As Eliot explains in his book, Dis­ney was the son of a Chris­t­ian evan­ge­list and was very anti-labor in his busi­ness deal­ings. (This was typ­i­cal of Hol­ly­wood stu­dio chiefs at the time.) These atti­tudes com­bined with resent­ment of the power of many of the Jew­ish Amer­i­can stu­dio heads. Per­haps because of these views, Dis­ney appar­ently began attend­ing Amer­i­can Nazi party meet­ings in the com­pany of Gun­ther Less­ing, Disney’s attor­ney and chief advi­sor on labor issues. “Dur­ing the time Dis­ney helped orga­nize the inde­pen­dent film­mak­ers against the industry’s main­stream, he also was accom­pa­ny­ing Less­ing to Amer­i­can Nazi party meet­ings and rallies.

19. “Accord­ing to [for­mer Dis­ney employee] Arthur Bab­bitt, ‘In the imme­di­ate years before we entered the war, there was a small but fiercely loyal, I sup­pose legal, fol­low­ing of the Nazi party. You could buy a copy of Mein Kampf on any news­stand in Hol­ly­wood. Nobody asked me to go to any meet­ings, but I did, out of curios­ity. They were open meet­ings, any­body could attend, and I wanted to see what was going on for myself.

‘On more than one occa­sion I observed Walt Dis­ney and Gun­ther Less­ing there, along with a lot of other promi­nent Nazi-afflicted [sic] Hol­ly­wood per­son­al­i­ties. Dis­ney was going to meet­ings all the time. I was invited to the homes of sev­eral promi­nent actors and musi­cians, all of whom were actively work­ing for the Amer­i­can Nazi party. I told a girl­friend of mine who was an edi­tor at the time with Coro­net mag­a­zine who encour­aged me to write down what I observed. She had some con­nec­tions to the FBI and turned in my reports.’

20. “If Dis­ney and Less­ing were sym­pa­thetic to the Amer­i­can Nazi move­ment, their inter­est was most likely moti­vated by the desire to regain favor with the once-lucrative, Nazi-occupied coun­tries where Dis­ney films were now banned. To that end Walt was also com­mit­ted to the ‘Amer­ica First’ move­ment and became one of Hollywood’s most active pre­war iso­la­tion­ists. Under Lessing’s tute­lage, Dis­ney dis­cov­ered how the pas­sions and power of polit­i­cal activism could be used as weapons for per­sonal gain. And later on, for revenge.” (Ibid.; pp. 120–121.)

21. In a foot­note to the above pas­sage Eliot adds, “In her mem­oirs, Ger­man film­maker Leni Riefen­stahl claims that after Kristall­nacht she approached every stu­dio in Hol­ly­wood look­ing for work. No stu­dio head would even screen her movies except Walt Dis­ney. He told her that he admired her work but if it became known that he was con­sid­er­ing her, it would dam­age his rep­u­ta­tion.” (Ibid.; p. 121.)

22. Well before the end of World War II, Dis­ney was instru­men­tal in bring­ing gov­ern­men­tal inves­ti­ga­tors into his anti-Communist activities.

23. After ini­ti­at­ing a Cal­i­for­nia leg­isla­tive inves­ti­ga­tion of Hol­ly­wood labor activist Herb Sor­rell (a per­sonal and pro­fes­sional enemy of Disney’s), Dis­ney acted as vice-president of the Motion Pic­ture Asso­ci­a­tion to cause the House Un-American Activ­i­ties Com­mit­tee to upgrade its puta­tive pres­ence in Hol­ly­wood. “Dis­ney was instru­men­tal in point­ing the orga­ni­za­tion [HUAC] in the direc­tion of its first ‘Com­mu­nist rad­i­cal crack­pot,’ Herb Sor­rell. This wasn’t the first time Dis­ney had gone after Sor­rell. Early in 1942, after his suc­cess with the Car­toon­ists Guild, Sor­rell had founded the Con­fer­ence of Stu­dio Unions. . .

“As far as Dis­ney was con­cerned, the CSU was all part of the same Com­mu­nist con­spir­acy that had struck his stu­dio and con­tin­ued to threaten all of Hol­ly­wood. As early as Octo­ber 1941, barely a month after the stu­dio strike ended, Dis­ney had con­tacted Jack Ten­ney, chair­man of the newly formed Joint Fact-Finding Com­mit­tee on Un-American Activ­i­ties of the Cal­i­for­nia Leg­is­la­ture and urged him to go after the strik­ers. After turn­ing over all the pho­tos taken dur­ing the walk­out, he urged Ten­ney to launch an inves­ti­ga­tion of ‘Reds in movies.’ Ten­ney took his cue from Dis­ney and did just that. The first wit­ness he called was Herb Sorrell.

24. “Although the Ten­ney com­mit­tee was unable to prove a con­nec­tion between Sorrell’s union activ­i­ties and the Com­mu­nist party, the hear­ings nev­er­the­less chilled Hollywood’s lib­eral left, who saw the actions of the Ten­ney com­mit­tee as a first dan­ger­ous step in the revival of the government’s belief that the enter­tain­ment indus­try was indeed an enclave of com­mu­nism.” (Ibid.; p.172.)

25. As indi­cated pre­vi­ously, Dis­ney played a piv­otal role in help­ing to focus the atten­tion of HUAC on the motion pic­ture indus­try. “One of Disney’s first offi­cial duties as vice-president of the MPA was to send a let­ter to an arch-conservative U.S. Sen­a­tor, Robert R. Reynolds (D-North Car­olina), dated March 7, 1944, urg­ing HUAC to inten­sify its pres­ence in Hol­ly­wood. Walt wanted a fell con­gres­sional inves­ti­ga­tion regard­ing the infil­tra­tion of com­mu­nism into the film com­mu­nity, for the ‘fla­grant man­ner in which the motion pic­ture indus­tri­al­ists of Hol­ly­wood have been cod­dling Com­mu­nists and totalitarian-minded groups work­ing in the indus­try for the dis­sem­i­na­tion of un-American ideas and beliefs.’ In a move rem­i­nis­cent of the tac­tics of the anony­mous anti­strike Com­mit­tee of 21, the only offi­cial iden­ti­fi­ca­tion that appeared on the let­ter was ‘A group of your friends.’”

26. “The imme­di­ate result of that let­ter was the arrival in Hol­ly­wood ten days later, of William Wheeler, a HUAC rep­re­sen­ta­tive, to begin yet another inves­ti­ga­tion of Sor­rell, his Con­fer­ence of Stu­dio Unions, and their pos­si­ble link to the Com­mu­nist party. The stu­dios hap­pily opened their doors to HUAC, and the com­mit­tee took the oppor­tu­nity to expand its inves­ti­ga­tion into every branch of the film industry’s working-class pop­u­la­tion that had sought affil­i­a­tion with any union or guild dur­ing the past decade.”

27. “HUAC, with the full sup­port of the FBI, this time sub­poe­naed every­one sus­pected of hav­ing any sub­ver­sive, or merely sus­pi­cious affil­i­a­tions in their back­ground. Vir­tu­ally no one with any evi­dence of lib­eral lean­ings escaped being sum­moned before the com­mit­tee.” (Ibid.; p. 173.)

28. Dis­ney worked with Roy Brewer, who became head of the IATSE (the mob-dominated Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion of The­atri­cal and Stage Employ­ees). In that capac­ity, Brewer encour­aged Dis­ney to main­tain a posi­tion of intran­si­gence toward his car­toon­ists’ demands, so that the IATSE could co-opt their loy­alty from the Car­toon­ists Guild. Eliot describes the close coop­er­a­tion between Brewer, Dis­ney and HUAC.
“Pri­vately, Roy Brewer, who had replaced Willie Bioff as the head of the Hol­ly­wood branch of IATSE, told Dis­ney a new strike would give IATSE the oppor­tu­nity to play hero by regain­ing the car­toon­ists’ lost jobs, and along with them their loy­alty.
“The first night after the lay­offs, Dis­ney met with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Guild and found them more amenable than he had expected or hoped. Sor­rell, who believed Dis­ney was try­ing to pull the Guild into another strike, was deter­mined to reach a set­tle­ment. Sor­rell set­tled for the rehir­ing of only 94 of the laid-off car­toon­ists and two weeks’ sev­er­ance for the other 215. The remain­ing cler­i­cal and main­te­nance work­ers received noth­ing. Dis­ney viewed these con­ces­sions as a total victory.

29. “With­out los­ing a sin­gle day of pro­duc­tion, Dis­ney had won a sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tion of his staff and pay­roll and severely weak­ened the Car­toon­ists Guild’s abil­ity to dic­tate stu­dio pol­icy. Walt then promised Brewer com­plete coop­er­a­tion in help­ing to rid the indus­try per­ma­nently of Sor­rell and his fel­low insurgents.

30. “That oppor­tu­nity came in Novem­ber 1947, with the com­mence­ment of HUAC’s next series of inves­ti­ga­tions into the enter­tain­ment indus­try. Now under the chair­man­ship of J. Par­nell Thomas, a noto­ri­ously anti-labor con­gress­man, HUAC received the warm endorse­ment of IATSE, the Amer­i­can Legion, and the Catholic Church and the full coop­er­a­tion of Hollywood’s stu­dios. A group of left-wing writ­ers, which came to be known as the ‘Hol­ly­wood Ten,’ sym­bol­ized the relent­lessly per­se­cu­tory actions of Thomas’s inves­ti­ga­tion. The Ten were deemed ‘unfriendly’ wit­nesses after each cited his right under the First Amend­ment to refuse to respond to the most famous ques­tion of the era: Are you now, or have you ever been, a mem­ber of the Com­mu­nist party? All ten were imme­di­ately black­listed, their careers shat­tered, and their lives dis­rupted by jail sen­tences for contempt.

31. “HUAC’s inves­ti­ga­tion, the head of the Hol­ly­wood branch of IATSE sent let­ters to every major indus­try fig­ure, on-screen tal­ent and off-, warm­ing that if they didn’t now declare their open sup­port for IATSE, they would be con­sid­ered ene­mies of the Hol­ly­wood estab­lish­ment. He warned that fail­ure to sup­port IATSE would make them sub­ject not only to indus­try boy­cott, that is, inclu­sion on the black­list, but inves­ti­ga­tion by Thomas’s HUAC.” (Ibid. pp. 188–189)

32. Eliot writes that, even­tu­ally, many Hol­ly­wood labor lead­ers went with the polit­i­cal tides that were flow­ing through the coun­try, and that Dis­ney had begun an active col­lab­o­ra­tion as an FBI infor­mant. “By May 1947, the mere receipt of a HUAC sub­poena implied Com­mu­nist affil­i­a­tion, and inves­ti­ga­tion by the FBI’s ‘com­pic’ (Com­mu­nist pic­tures) team of Hollywood-based inform­ers, in which Walt was by now an active par­tic­i­pant. Among the first to capit­u­late to the specter of HUAC and Brewer’s black­list were the lead­ers of the Screen Actors Guild, one­time lib­eral Roo­sevelt sup­porter Ronald Rea­gan and song-and-dance-man George Mur­phy, who hastily con­vinced their mem­ber­ship to reject Sor­rell and the CSU in favor of IATSE.” (Ibid.; p. 191.)

33. Even­tu­ally, Rea­gan and Brewer were to team up again, after Rea­gan became Pres­i­dent. “Accord­ing to Dan Moldea, in Dark Vic­tory, pp. 65–69,
332: ‘Instead of try­ing to rid the union of its gang­ster image and all rem­nants of mob con­trol, Brewer was obsessed with elim­i­nat­ing the ‘Com­mu­nist Influ­ence’ within the union and the movie indus­try in gen­eral. ‘When Browne [and Bioff] went to jail,’ Brewer insisted, ‘that ended any con­nec­tion with the mob in IATSE . . . the truth is, [the Com­mu­nists] had this town in the palm of their hands, and they were call­ing the shots.’ Brewer was appointed by Pres­i­dent Rea­gan in 1984 as chair­man of the Fed­eral Ser­vice Impasse Panel, which arbi­trated dis­putes between fed­eral agen­cies and the unions rep­re­sent­ing fed­eral work­ers.’” (Ibid.; p. 188.)

34. Dur­ing the course of the HUAC hear­ings, Disney’s per­sonal tes­ti­mony lent con­sid­er­able momen­tum to the pro­ceed­ings. “Disney’s tes­ti­mony helped strengthen Brewer’s industry-wide black­list. The mere whis­per of a name was enough to elim­i­nate some­one from con­sid­er­a­tion for a job. Because no proof was required, nor any defense short of con­fes­sion accept­able, the assump­tion of guilt until proven inno­cent replaced the con­sti­tu­tional rights of every­one accused, and plunged Amer­ica into one of its dark­est polit­i­cal peri­ods.” (Ibid.; p. 196.)

35. Eliot chron­i­cles the destruc­tion that the black­list brought to the pro­fes­sional lives of those affected. One of the most famous film per­son­al­i­ties to fall vic­tim to the anti-Communist witch hunts was Char­lie Chaplin.

36. “Of those most directly affected by the black­list, some, like the Hol­ly­wood Ten, served time in fed­eral prison on con­tempt charges. Oth­ers, includ­ing actor John Garfield, died pre­ma­turely. Like Sor­rell, Garfield suf­fered a fatal heart attack while still in his late thir­ties. Still oth­ers, like vet­eran actor Philip Loeb, grew despon­dent and, their pro­fes­sional lives shat­tered, com­mit­ted suicide.

“And still oth­ers, like Char­lie Chap­lin, were lit­er­ally exiled. Long a thorn in the side of con­ser­v­a­tive Hol­ly­wood, Chap­lin had been immune to the pow­ers of the indus­try because he him­self was one. After amass­ing a for­tune for his work in silent films and his par­tic­i­pa­tion in form­ing United Artists, he began his own studio.

“Through­out the thir­ties, up to and includ­ing The Great Dic­ta­tor, he made highly enter­tain­ing movies infused with pop­ulism. His active cam­paign for a sec­ond front against the Axis pow­ers dur­ing World War II and his pleas for the cur­tail­ment of anti­com­mu­nist pro­pa­ganda angered Dis­ney, who had once so idol­ized Chaplin.

“Chaplin’s actions also angered HUAC. After three post­pone­ments of his sub­poe­naed tes­ti­mony he sent HUAC a telegram in which he stated that ‘I am not a Com­mu­nist; nei­ther have I ever joined a polit­i­cal party or orga­ni­za­tion in my life.’ Although HUAC was appar­ently sat­is­fied by his response and wrote back that his appear­ance was no longer nec­es­sary, the mat­ter was far from closed. Chap­lin, who was British, had never applied for U.S. cit­i­zen­ship. In 1952, at the height of the black­list era, while Chap­lin was on a six-month tout of Eng­land and Europe, the Immi­gra­tion and Nat­u­ral­iza­tion Ser­vice barred his return to the United States under a code deny­ing an alien entry on grounds of morals or Com­mu­nist affil­i­a­tion. Chap­lin vowed never to set foot in Amer­ica again and blocked state­side show­ings of most of his fea­ture films.

37. “Thus ended the Hol­ly­wood career of per­haps the great­est sin­gle tal­ent the world of film had ever pro­duced. Although Walt declined to com­ment pub­licly on the mat­ter of Chaplin’s exile, in pri­vate he told one of his ‘Nine Old Men’ stu­dio loy­al­ists that the coun­try was bet­ter off with­out ‘the lit­tle Com­mie.’” (Ibid.; pp. 196–197.)

38. Even­tu­ally, Dis­ney was pro­moted by the FBI to the posi­tion of Spe­cial Agent in Charge con­tact, which enhanced his polit­i­cal power against his pro­fes­sional asso­ciates. The bureau’s was seek­ing an insider to pro­vide them with infor­ma­tion about the nascent tele­vi­sion indus­try, and felt that Dis­ney (a trusted oper­a­tive in the past) would fill the bill.

39. “Next to that report was a let­ter he had received from J. Edgar Hoover, the con­tents of which meant as much to him as the finan­cial report. In his let­ter Hoover informed Walt he had been offi­cially pro­moted to the posi­tion of Spe­cial Agent in Charge contact.

40. “Here is the con­fi­den­tial 1954 FBI inter-office memo that describes the pro­mo­tion: ‘Mr. Walt Dis­ney is the Vice-President in charge of pro­duc­tion and the founder of Walt Dis­ney Pro­duc­tions, Inc., 2400 West Alameda Street, Bur­bank, Cal­i­for­nia. Mr. Dis­ney is extremely promi­nent in the motion pic­ture indus­try and his com­pany is the fore­most orga­ni­za­tion in the pro­duc­tion of car­toons.’ Mr. Dis­ney has recently estab­lished a busi­ness asso­ci­a­tion with the Amer­i­can Broad­cast­ing Com­pany . . . for the pro­duc­tion of a series of tele­vi­sion show, which for the most part are sched­uled to be filmed at Dis­ney­land, a mul­ti­mil­lion dol­lar amuse­ment park being estab­lished under Mr. Disney’s direc­tion in the vicin­ity of Ana­heim, Cal­i­for­nia. Mr. Dis­ney has vol­un­teered rep­re­sen­ta­tives of this office com­plete access to the facil­i­ties of Dis­ney­land for use in con­nec­tion with offi­cial mat­ters and for recre­ational purposes. . . .

‘Because of Mr. Disney’s posi­tion as the fore­most pro­ducer of car­toon films in the motion pic­ture indus­try and his promi­nence and wide acquain­tance­ship in film pro­duc­tion mat­ters, it is believed that he can be of valu­able assis­tance to this office and there­fore it is my rec­om­men­da­tion that he be approved as a Spe­cial Agent in Charge (SAC) contact.’

41. “Being made an offi­cial SAC con­tact pleased Walt greatly, because it meant that in addi­tion to con­tin­u­ing to sup­ply his data to the bureau, other infor­mants could now sup­ply reports to him. It was Hoover’s Christ­mas present to Walt, the tim­ing of which was no acci­dent. Hoover, as he implied in his direc­tive, wanted to cap­i­tal­ize on Disney’s involve­ment with net­work tele­vi­sion. The FBI had thus far been unable to pen­e­trate the mid­dle ech­e­lon of the new medium’s power loop. What the Bureau wanted was some­one it could trust on the inside. As far as J. Edgar Hoover was con­cerned, the man most qual­i­fied for that assign­ment was the Bureau’s proven Hol­ly­wood vet­eran, the man every­one, includ­ing the head of the FBI, called ‘Uncle Walt.’” (Ibid.; pp. 224–225.)

42. Even­tu­ally, Dis­ney him­self came under sus­pi­cion, iron­i­cally enough, as the result of his hav­ing attended a memo­r­ial ser­vice on whose guests he reported to the FBI. “That same year, 1956, Disney’s rela­tion­ship with the FBI took an unex­pected turn. It was a bizarre episode that demon­strated the spread­ing infec­tion of polit­i­cal para­noia. The FBI had begun to ques­tion the alle­giance, patri­o­tism, and loy­alty of one of its own, most revered, and pre­sum­ably immune operatives.

‘The trou­ble began early in the year, in Jan­u­ary, when Dis­ney sent pro­ducer Jerry Sims to Wash­ing­ton to final­ize plans with the Bureau for a two-minute ‘Mickey Mouse Club’ news­reel of a group of chil­dren tour­ing the Bureau’s D.C. head­quar­ters. Sims sub­mit­ted a pre­lim­i­nary script to an FBI agent iden­ti­fied as Kem­per, who duti­fully passed it on to Lou Nichols, the Bureau’s head of pub­lic rela­tions. Nichols reviewed the mate­r­ial and ini­tially approved the ven­ture. How­ever a week later he appar­ently changed his mind when he returned Kemper’s report with a mes­sage scrawled in ink across the bot­tom that read “i don’t think we should.” Kem­per then called Sims and told him the bureau would be unable to assist on the project.
“When Walt received news of the FBI’s turn­down he phoned Hoover to find out why. Hoover told Dis­ney he would per­son­ally look into the sit­u­a­tion and ask his close friend Clyde Tol­son, the Bureau’s assis­tant direc­tor and sec­ond to com­mand, to inves­ti­gate the mat­ter. Tol­son ordered a com­plete review of what had now become in FBI head­quar­ters as the ‘Dis­ney Sit­u­a­tion,’ after which he reaf­firmed Nichols’s deci­sion not to coop­er­ate with Dis­ney.” (Ibid.; pp.238–239.)

43. “The unsigned memo was prob­a­bly requested by Hoover. Incred­i­bly, some mid-level bureau­crat, unaware of Disney’s sta­tus within the FBI, had turned up what he believed was infor­ma­tion that linked Walt Dis­ney to sub­ver­sive Com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions and activ­i­ties in the early for­ties. Even more aston­ish­ing, of the two ‘inci­dents’ cited, the first, the ‘Coun­cil for Pan-American Democ­racy’ had been attended by Dis­ney as an under­cover spy for the FBI, either by his own ini­tia­tive or at the Bureau’s direc­tive, after which he sup­plied a detailed report to his Los Ange­les SAC. As for the ‘trib­ute’ to Art Young, Dis­ney had never made a secret of his admi­ra­tion for the renowned artist’s work, and upon Young’s untimely death in an auto­mo­bile acci­dent, Walt attended a pub­lic memo­r­ial, made a small dona­tion to a memo­r­ial fund for Young’s fam­ily, and filed a com­plete report about who else attended the trib­ute to his SAC. Some­how, the FBI had con­strued from these two inci­dents that Walt’s polit­i­cal loy­al­ties were ques­tion­able. They did so in spite of his offi­cial SAC sta­tus and long his­tory of inform­ing, his anti­com­mu­nist activ­i­ties, his gov­ern­ment con­tracts, his involve­ment with the Hol­ly­wood Alliance, his friendly tes­ti­mony before HUAC (which he had been instru­men­tal In bring­ing to Hol­ly­wood), and his active sup­port of the blacklist.”

44. “When Hoover finally read the memo, he was aghast and imme­di­ately approved the ‘Mickey Mouse Club’ seg­ment.” (Ibid.; p. 241.)



http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ ... lt-disney/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:19 am

http://www.foet.org/books/age-access.html
The Age of Access

Tarcher/Putnam, 2000


Image


Imagine waking up one day to find that virtually every activity you engage in outside your immediate family has become a "paid for" experience. It's all part of a fundamental change taking place in the nature of business, contends bestselling author Jeremy Rifkin. On the horizon looms the Age of Access, an era radically different from any we have known.

In the hypercapitalist economy, buying things in markets and owning property become outmoded ideas, while "just-in-time" access to nearly every kind of service, through vast commercial networks operating in cyberspace, becomes the norm. We increasingly pay for the experience of using things-in the form of subscriptions, memberships, leases, and retainers-rather than for the things themselves. Already, millions of Americans have give up ownership of their automobiles in favor of leasing cars as a service and are renting everything from software to furnaces.

Similarly, companies around the world are selling off real estate, shrinking inventories, leasing equipment, outsourcing activities, and becoming "weightless". Ownership of physical property, once considered a valued asset, is now regarded as a liability in the corporate world.

Rifkin argues that the capitalist journey, which began with the commodification of goods and the ownership of property, is ending with the commodification of human time and experience. In the future, we will purchase enlightenment and play, grooming and grace, and everything in between. "Lifestyle marketing" is the buzz in the commercial world as more and more consumers become members of corporate-sponsored clubs and participate in corporate-sponsored activities and events. People are even living out their lifestyles in planned commercial residential communities. The business of business, therefore, is no longer about exchanging property but, rather, about buying access to one's very existence in small commercial time segments. In the Age of Access, Rifkin asks, will any time be left for relationships of a noncommercial nature?

The changes taking place are part of even a larger transformation occurring in the nature of capitalism. We are making a long-term shift to a system based on the selling of cultural experiences. Global travel and tourism, theme cities and parks, destination entertainment centers, wellness, music, film, television, the virtual worlds of cyberspace, and even social causes are fast becoming the center of an economy that trades in cultural resources.

The old giants of the industrial age, companies such as General Motors, Sears, USX, Boeing, and Texaco, are giving way to the new giants of cultural capitalism, Viacom, AOL Time Warner, Disney, Sony, and News Corporation. These transnational companies, with communications networks that span the globe, are mining cultural resources in every part of the world and repackaging them in the form of commodities and entertainments. The top one-fifth of the world's population, says Rifkin, now spends as much income accessing cultural experiences as buying manufactured goods and basic services.

Rifkin warns that when the culture itself is absorbed into the economy, only commercial bonds will be left to hold society together. The critical question posed by The Age of Access is whether civilization can survive when only the commercial sphere remains as the primary arbiter of human life.



http://www.techsoc.com/access.htm
Some examples Rifkin cites are:

Leasing: This is not limited to automobiles anymore. Now, even seeds farmers use to grow their crops may not be reused; farmers must pay for the right to plant Monsanto-provided seeds each year.

Outsourcing: As has been the case for years, companies are aggressively divesting themselves of capital-intensive functions and farming out non-core competencies to contractors at lower costs than they experienced with the functions housed internally.

Franchising: McDonald's, Super 8, Subway, you name it, those businesses are for the most part not owned by the home office, but are operated under licensing agreements with the grantee's franchising entity.

The commodification of cultural experiences: Native American casinos, guided tours of restored or replicated historical sites (Colonial Williamsburg, for instance), Disneyland and, perhaps worst of all, malls, are taking the place of authentic cultural exposure.



http://dwij.org/forum/statesperson/rifkin.htm
Image


AGE of ACCESS

Jeremy Rifkin

Can civilization survive when only the commercial sphere is left as the primary mediator of human life?


So much of the world we know has been bound up in the process of selling and buying things in the marketplace that we can't imagine any other way of structuring human affairs. The marketplace is a pervasive force in our lives: if markets are healthy, we feel buoyed; if they weaken, we despair. We are taught that acquiring and accumulating property are integral parts of our earthly sojourn and that who we are is, at least to some degree, a reflection of what we own.

Now the foundation of modern life is beginning to disintegrate. The market institution which drove humanity to ideological battles, revolutions and wars is slowly dying out in the wake of a new constellation of economic realities that is moving society to rethink the kinds of bond and boundary that will define human relations in the coming century.

In the new era, markets are making way for networks, and ownership is steadily being replaced by access. Companies and consumers are beginning to abandon the central reality of modern economic life—the market exchange of property between buyers and sellers. Instead, suppliers hold on to property in the new economy and lease, rent or charge an admission fee, subscription of membership dues for its use. The exchange of property between buyers and sellers—the most important feature of the modern market system—gives way to access between servers and clients operating in a network relationship. Many companies no longer sell things to one another but rather pool and share their collective resources creating vast supplier-user networks.

In the new network economy, both physical and intellectual property are more likely to be accessed by businesses rather than exchanged. Ownership of physical capital, once the heart of the industrial way of life, becomes increasingly marginal to the economic process. Intellectual capital, on the other hand, is the driving force of the new era and much coveted.

Not surprisingly, the new means of organizing economic life brings with it different ways of concentrating economic power in fewer corporate hands. In the era of networks, suppliers who amass valuable intellectual capital are beginning to exercise control over the conditions and terms by which users secure access to critical ideas, knowledge and expertise.

The changes taking place in the structuring of economic relationships are part of an even larger transformation occurring in the nature of the capitalist system. We are making a long-term shift from industrial to cultural production. Commerce in the future will involve the marketing of a vast array of cultural experiences rather than of traditional industrial-based goods and services. Global travel and tourism, theme cities and parks, destination entertainment centres, wellness, fashion and cuisine, professional sports and games, gambling, music, film, television, the virtual worlds of cyberspace and electronically mediated entertainment of every kind are fast becoming the centre of a new hyper-capitalism that trades to access cultural experiences.

The metamorphosis from industrial production to cultural capitalism is being accompanied by an equally significant shift from the work ethic to the play ethic. The Age of Access is about the commodification of play —namely the marketing of cultural resources including rituals, the arts, festivals, social movements, spiritual and fraternal activity, and more. Transnational media companies with communications networks that span the globe are mining local cultural resources in every part of the world and repackaging them as cultural commodities and entertainment.

Cultural resources risk over exploitation and depletion at the hands of commerce just as natural resources did during the Industrial age. Finding a sustainable way to preserve and enhance the rich cultural diversity that is the lifeblood of civilization in a global network economy increasingly based on paid access to commodified cultural experiences is one of the primary political tasks of the new century.

The richest fifth of the world's population now spends almost as much of its income accessing cultural experiences as on buying manufactured goods and basic services. We are making the transition into what economists call an 'experience economy'—a world in which each person's own life becomes, in effect, a commercial market. Selling access to cultural experiences is testimony to the single-minded determination of the commercial sphere to make all relations commercial ones.

The capitalist journey, which began with the commodification of space and material, is ending with the commodification of human time and duration. The selling of culture in the form of paid-for human activity is quickly leading to a world where pecuniary human relationships are substituting for traditional social relationships. Imagine a world where virtually every activity outside the confines of family relations is a paid-for experience, we increasingly buy others' time, their regard and affection, their sympathy and attention. We buy enlightenment and play, grooming and grace and everything in between. Even the passing of time itself is on the clock. Life is becoming more and more commodified, and communications, communion and commerce are becoming indistinguishable.

When everyone is embedded in commercial networks of one sort or another, cultural time wanes, leaving humanity with only commercial bonds to hold civilization together. This is the crisis of post-modernity. Can civilization survive where only the commercial sphere is left as the primary mediator of human life?

The age of access is bringing with it a new type of human being. The young people of the new 'protean' generation are comfortable conducting business and engaging in social activity in the worlds of electronic commerce and cyberspace and they adapt easily to the many simulated worlds that make up the cultural economy. Theirs is a world that is more theatrical than ideological and more oriented towards a play ethos than towards a work ethos. For them, access is already a way of life. People of the twenty-first century are as likely to perceive themselves as nodes on embedded networks of shared interests as they are to perceive themselves as autonomous agents in a Darwinian world of competitive survival. For them, personal freedom will be about the right to be included in webs of mutual relationships.

Just as the printing press altered human consciousness over the past several hundred years, the computer will likely have a similar effect on consciousness over the next two centuries. Psychologists and sociologists are already beginning to note a change taking place in cognitive development among youngsters in the so-called 'dotcom' generation. A small but increasing number of young people who are growing up in front of computer screens and spending much of their time in chat rooms and simulated environments appear to be developing what psychologists call 'multiple personas'— short-lived fragmented frames of consciousness, each used to negotiate whatever virtual world or network they happen to be in at any particular moment of time.

Some observers worry that dotcommers may begin to experience reality as little more than shifting story lines and entertainments and that they might lack both the deeply anchored socializing experience and extended attention span necessary to form a coherent frame of reference for understanding and adapting to the world around them. Others see the development in a more positive light as a freeing-up of the human consciousness to be more playful, more flexible and transient in order to accommodate the fast-moving and ever-changing realities that people experience.

Today's children, the optimists argue, are growing up in a world of networks and connectivity in which combative notions of 'mine' and 'thine', so characteristic of a propertied market economy, are giving way to a more interdependent and embedded means of perceiving reality—one more co-operative than competitive and more wedded to systems thinking.

In truth it is far too early to know where the new consciousness will lead. On the one hand, the commercial forces are both powerful and seductive and already are bringing large numbers of people into the new worlds of cultural production. On the other hand, many young people are using their new-found senses of relatedness and connectivity to challenge an unbridled commercial ethic and create new communities of shared interests. Whether the forces of cultural commerce will ultimately prevail or a renewed cultural realm is able to strike a balance between the two spheres is open to question.

The generation gap is being accompanied by an equally profound economic and social gap. While one-fifth of the world's population is migrating to cyberspace and access relationships, the rest of humanity is still caught up in the world of physical scarcity. For the poor, life remains a daily struggle for survival and being propertied is an immediate preoccupation, and for some, only a distant goal. Their world is far removed from fibre-optic cables, satellite uplinks, cellular phones, computer screens and cyberspace networks. Although difficult for many of us to comprehend, more than half of the human race has never made a phone call.

The gap between the possessed and the dispossessed is wide, but the gap between the connected and the disconnected is even wider. The world is fast developing into two distinct civilizations—those living outside the electronic gates of cyberspace and those living on the inside, in a second earthly sphere above the terra mater, suspended in the ether of cyberspace. The migration of human commerce and a social life to the realm of cyberspace isolates one part of the human population from the rest in ways never before imaginable. The separation of humanity into two different spheres of existence—the so-called digital divide—represents a defining moment in history. When one segment of the human population is no longer able even to communicate with the other in time and space, the question of access takes on a political import of historic proportions.

The shifts from geography to cyberspace, industrial to cultural capitalism, and ownership to access are going to force a wholesale rethinking of the social contract. A portion of humanity has already embarked on this new journey in which the material dematerializes and commodifying time becomes more important than expropriating space. Access is becoming a conceptual tool for rethinking our world-view as well as our economic view, making it the single most powerful metaphor of the coming age.

"It is possible to be in favor of progress, freedom of inquiry and the advancement of consciousness and still be opposed to essential elements of the prevailing scientific and technological world view.. We stifle freedom of inquiry and undermine the great potential of human consciousness only when we steadfastly refuse to entertain new ways of re-imagining our world"

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:52 am

http://helterskelter.in/2010/08/culture-jamming/

Culture Jamming

...Corporations soon discovered that profits lay not in manufacturing and marketing of products, but in selling branded identities people would adopt in their lifestyles. Products would become secondary to an idea, itself devalued by losing an essential connection to a belief or action. The measure of a successful brand became not a mark of quality of the product but rather how far it could permeate the culture creating a stratosphere of the ‘super brand’. Brands like Nike, Coca Cola, Tommy Hilfiger and McDonald’s, became revered symbols worldwide, accomplishing an assault on the public sphere in the form of corporate sponsorship, bombarding potential consumers with images, with blatant disregard for decency or the sanctity of personal space...

...The movement of ‘Culture Jamming’ is designed as a means to force a dialogue with an agenda of altering globalisation practices. Culture jamming baldly rejects the idea that because marketing buys its way into our public spaces, it must be passively accepted as a one-way information flow. A consumer’s response to corporate restraints within a capitalist society, this activist movement involves the act of transforming exciting mass media such as billboards and logos, hijacking these images to produce commentary about itself using the original mediums communication method.

Playing with these heavily circulated images that are already infused into the public’s general consensus, it aims not only to expose corporate agendas with government propaganda, along with seizing back commercialised private spaces, but also to enlighten the public and provide them with knowledge to make informed decisions and possibly even change consuming habits. These jammers have the ability to raise issues that are purposely kept out of public knowledge; environmental issues, child labour and exploitation, health issues, and the driving of small businesses into bankruptcy, all issues that jammers bring to the foreground, which corporations would most likely suppress. Repeated instances of culture jamming have dealt a heavy blow to corporate giants, adversely affecting both public approval and more importantly customers...

Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image





Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:13 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:14 pm

Image




Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:33 am

Manufacturing the Love of Possession

Richard York REVIEW

Michael Dawson, The Consumer Trap: Big Business Marketing in American Life (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 203 pages, cloth $26.95.




In 1877, speaking at the Powder River Conference, Chief Sitting Bull of the Lakota nation said of the European invaders who were destroying his people and their way of life, “[T]he love of possession is a disease with them.” Disease is an apt term, because it does not necessarily imply that the love of possession was inherent in the nature of the invaders, but rather that the affliction may have been acquired. Thus, any scholar wishing to locate the origin of the affliction should, like an epidemiologist, search out its sources and possible transmission vectors.

Michael Dawson is an “epidemiologist” of the finest type, seeking the origin of the most insidious ailment currently afflicting Americans (along with a growing share of humanity): hyper-consumerism, the love of possession in its latest form. Despite what neoclassical economists may tell us, people do not have an inherent, insatiable desire to consume without end. Rather, the desire to possess and consume must be created. The purpose of The Consumer Trap is to analyze how this desire is manufactured, by whom, and for what purpose.

Dawson goes to the source of the disease, big business and its marketing apparatus, and analyzes how the consumer trap is carefully set both to ensnare and infect its victims, to ensure that the rich get richer and that power remains in the hands of the powerful. Dawson bases his analysis in large part on the writings of corporate marketing specialists themselves and shows that they are quite frank about their purpose: to generate profit by manipulating people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Marketing, in effect, attempts to turn people’s private lives into just another part of a grand production/consumption line. In short, Dawson argues that the purpose of marketing is to perpetuate the capitalist system and its concomitant inequalities. Thus, Dawson shows us that the source of the love of possession in the modern world is more like weaponized anthrax than it is like the smallpox virus. It does not readily spread from one individual to another, living freely in a population, as consumer culture theorists would have it. Rather, infection requires contact with a concentrated source that has been carefully engineered (in this case by the marketing minions of the capitalist class) for its malign purpose.


http://monthlyreview.org/2004/02/01/man ... possession
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:09 am

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:25 am

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:36 am

..Thus, Dawson shows us that the source of the love of possession in the modern world is more like weaponized anthrax than it is like the smallpox virus.

It does not readily spread from one individual to another, living freely in a population, as consumer culture theorists would have it.

Rather, infection requires contact with a concentrated source that has been carefully engineered (in this case by the marketing minions of the capitalist class) for its malign purpose. ..


True, and important. Humans have loved possession since at least the first sharp rock, but the current era is in a league of its own, and not by accident or innate badness.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:29 am

Rustbelt ghost-towns: Ruins of Gary, Indiana

Posted by Cory Doctorow on Tuesday, Jul 26th

Image

Many American rustbelt cities are contracting radically as we enter the second decade of life in a WTO world, where industrial production has moved to China, India, and other developing nations. This has created a new kind of American ghost-town, on the outskirts of once-thriving midwestern cities — or, in the worst cases, in pockets right in the middle of town. David Tribby has documented some of the ruined areas of Gary, ID in a book called Gary Indiana | A City’s Ruins. Dark Roasted Blend has a gallery of some of the photos from Tribby’s book, along with a potted history of the town’s rise and fall.

Gary, Indiana, back then, was still a good place, a productive place. Founded in 1906, it was a gleaming city built of, and because of, steel. Quite literally, in fact; while other cities may have been at the intersections of trails or roads, rivers and rivers, or where sea met land, Gary was built by and for U.S. Steel and even christened for that corporation’s founder.

For decades, Gary was as tough and resilient as the metals it produced. It survived the Great Depression, it fought off the war years, and it forged and pressed through the 1950s. But during the 1960s, its gleaming life’s blood—steel—proved to be its undoing when the industry began to wane, then almost totally collapse, due to cheaper manufacturing overseas.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:22 am


DEINDUSTRIALIZATION, DRUGS AND RECOVERY

by Kent Paterson, Frontera NorteSur



The following story, filed October 4 by the independent news service Frontera NorteSur, is a report on the US War on Drugs conference held in El Paso, Texas, on September 21 and 22 of this year. The event was initiated by faculty from the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and supported by a host of local organizations and agencies.

The struggling corn fields of northern Chihuahua and the shuttered textile plants of North Philadelphia might seem worlds apart. Although nationhood, language and culture separate the two places, a history of globalization, deindustrialization and drug culture shape both entities.

As part of the landmark US War on Drugs Conference held in El Paso late last month, speakers examined the complex political economy that underlies the production, distribution and use of illegal drugs.

In a presentation at the University of Texas at El Paso, Chihuahua state lawmaker Victor Quintana delved into the socio-economic backdrop to the extreme violence raging away in northwestern Chihuahua, where rival cartels have turned entire zones into battlefields. Quintana took the audience back to 1982, when Mexico‚s ruling PRI party began instituting what later became known as a neo-liberal, or free market, economic policy.

In line with the project popularized by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics, as well as the International Monetary Fund, state subsidies and supports for farmers were steadily eliminated, pressuring small growers off the land and into the migrant stream stirred up by the North American Free Trade Agreement and (NAFTA) and Mexico's 1994-95 economic crisis.

An economic vacuum in the countryside was then filled by an illegal and profitable drug economy, which was marked by three stages, Quintana said. First, migrants returning from the US helped implant a drug culture that was initially controlled by locals who were well-known in their own communities and shared the proceeds of their illicit trade.

Later, outsiders with an eye on northwestern Chihuahua's fertile lands and strategic highways leading to the US border moved in and replaced the "community narcos." The result was the bloody orgy of violence that now destabilizes Chihuahua, Quintana said, adding that drug gangs have consolidated so much control that local police warn only air operations can penetrate certain zones.

The Philadelphia Story

Though the particulars were different, urban historian Dr. Eric Schneider separately told a similar story about North Philadelphia, a place he described as "the badlands" of the City of Brotherly Love. For Schneider, the closing of Philadelphia‚s Stetson Hat Company, which once produced the emblematic hat of the American West, was a watershed for a community with a once-thriving industrial base.

A University of Pennsylvania professor interested in globalization, Schneider recounted how he asked his students to examine the labels where their clothing was made, and then took the pupils on a tour of largely African-American North Philadelphia.

As in Chihuahua, an illegal business filled an economic void in de-industrialized Philadelphia, according to Schneider. High unemployment, marginalization of communities of color, a landscape of abandoned homes and plants and easy highway access all create a "perfect place" for a drug market, he said.

In the post-industrial US, North Philadelphia represents the prototype of an urban drug market. Such urban markets, or "drug enterprise zones," in the words of Schneider, acquire a life of their own, providing employment not only for marginalized youths but for police, other agencies of the criminal justice system and even rehabilitation centers charged with suppressing or controlling illegal activities. Urban drug markets are conducive to graft, Schneider insisted, citing the case of the infamous "Gold Coast" of Harlem during the 1970s which inspired corruption within the ranks of the New York Police Department.

With the official US unemployment rate nudging 10%, and with some economists predicting a long, jobless "recovery" from the 2008 economic crash, the type of urban drug markets chronicled by Schneider could have new, urgent meaning.

Schneider later told Frontera NorteSur that he hadn't studied the specific links between drug trafficking and free trade agreements like NAFTA, but he observed how both legal and illegal commodities often follow the same trade routes. "The pathways are the same and frequently the entrepreneurs are the same-at least on the underground side," Schneider said.


Continues at: http://ww4report.com/node/7886
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:51 am


Colour Line Feat. Ambalavaner Sivanandan



Today, the Colour Line/Is the Power Line/Is the Poverty Line

Racism and imperialism work in tandem
And poverty is their handmaiden

Those who are poor and powerless to break out of their poverty
Are also those who by and large are non-white, non-western, third world
Poverty and powerlessness are interwined in colour, in race
Discrimination and exploitation feed into each other today
Under global capitalism...

We are back to primitive accumulation - plunder on a world scale
Only this time, the pillage is accompanied by aid, sustained by expert
advice and underpinned by programmes and policies that perpetuate dependency

The IMF, The World Bank, Structural Adjustment Programmes
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - GATT,
are just a few of the organisations, schemes, projects
which under the guise of developing the third world, plunder it.


Trade agreements and commodity price-fixing, patents and
intellectual property rights
They lock them into paralytic dependency

There's no such thing as illegal immigrants, only illegal
governments...

Black is not just the colour of our skins
It's the colour of our politics...

There's no such thing as illegal immigrants, only illegal
governments...

Today, the colour line/is the power line/is the poverty line

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Image


American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:57 am

How to Read Donald Duck, by Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart:



http://www.adorfman.duke.edu/vaults/don ... monade.htm

In one episode (TR 40, US 12/63) a gang of irate people (observe the way they are lumped together) march fanatically by, only to be decoyed by Donald towards his lemonade stand, with the shout: "There's a thirsty looking-group. Hey people, throw down your banners and have free lemonades!"

Image

Setting peace aside, they descend upon Donald like a heard of of buffaloes, snatching his money and slurping noisily. Moral: see what hypocrites these rioters are; they sell their ideals for a glass of lemonade.

In contrast, there stands also another group drinking lemonade, but in orderly fashion - little cadets, disciplined, obedient, clean, good-looking and truly pacific; no dirty anarchic"rebels" they.


Image

This strategy, by which protest is converted into imposture is called dilution: analyze an unusual phenomenon of the social body and symptom of a cancer, in such a way that it appears as an isolated incident, removed from its social context, so that it can be then automatically rejected by "public opinion" as a passing itch. Just give yourself a scratch, and be done with it. Disney, did not , of course, get this little light bulb all on its own. It is part of the metabolism of the system, which reacts to the facts of the situation by trying to absorb and eliminate them. It is part of a strategy, consciously or unconsciously orquestrated.






Image
Image
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:35 am

US Sponsored "Democracy" in Colombia: Political Assassinations, Poverty and Neoliberalism

By José David Torrenegra

Global Research, July 27, 2011



Not a week goes in Colombia without reports of assassinations and persecution of labor and political activists.

Ana Fabricia Cordoba, gender activist and leader of displaced peasants, was shot dead on June 7th inside a street bus, after she foretold her own death due to constant threats and abuses against her family.(1)

Manuel Antonio Garces, community leader, Afro-descendent activist and candidate for local office in southwestern Colombia received on July 18th a disturbing warning that read “we told you to drop the campaign, next time we’ll blow it in your house” next to an inactive hand grenade.(2)

Keyla Berrios, leader of Displaced Women’s League was murdered last July 22nd, after continuous intimidation of her organization and threats on behalf of death squads linked to Colombian authorities (3), a fact so publicly known after hundreds of former congressman, police and military personnel are either jailed or investigated for colluding with Paramilitaries to steal elections, murder and disappear dissidents, forcefully displace peasants and defraud public treasury, in a criminal network that extends all the way up to former president Alvaro Uribe and his closest aides (4).

The official explanation for these crimes is also well known; Bacrim, an acronym which stands for “Criminal Gangs”, a term created from the Colombia establishment including its omnipresent corporate media apparatus to depoliticize the constant violence unleashed against union leaders, peasants and community activists.

Human Rights defenders point to the unequal and unjust structures of power and wealth which rely heavily on repression. However, no matter how much effort is put into misleading public opinion about the nature of this violence, the crimes are so systematic and their effects always turning out for the benefit of the elite that a simple class analysis debunks the façade of these “gangs” supposedly acting on their own, and exposes the insiduous relationship between the armed thugs and seats of political power in Colombia.

What we are dealing with is the expression of present-day fascism in Latin America.

In a country overwhelmed with unemployment and poverty - nearly 70% - and 8 million people living on less than U$2 a day who daily look for their subsistence in garbage among stray dogs or selling candies at street lights and city buses, is also shockingly common and surreal to see fancy cars - Hummers, Porsches - million dollar apartments, country clubs and a whole bubble of opulence just in front of over-exploited workers, ordinary people struggling merely to make ends meet, or at worst, children, single mothers, elderly, and people with disabilities, without social security and salaries, much less higher education and decent housing.

For instance, in Cartagena, a Colombian Caribbean colonial city plagued with extreme poverty, beggars, child prostitution and U$400 a night resorts, you can pretend to feel in Miami Beach or a Mediterranean paradise, and in less than five minutes away you can also visit slums which would make devastated Haiti look like suburbia.

The same shocking contrast can be experienced in all major cities in Colombia. Thus, in order to keep vast privileges of a few amidst inhuman conditions of the majority, the elite needs to have an iron grip on political power. And once its power is contested or mildly threatened by the collective action of social movements, democratic parties and conscious individuals, a selective burst of state violence is unleashed effectively dismantling any kind of peaceful organizing by fear and demoralization.

The high levels of attrition suffered by activists raising moderate democratic banners such as the right to assembly, collective bargaining, freedom of expression and reparation from political violence, are the result of decentralized state repression carried out by death squads led by high state officers (5) who supply them with intelligence and economic resources extracted from defrauding public treasury and money laundry in the narcotics chain, where social investigators claim that most of the profit accounts for institutional economy, the banks and the state (6). This elaborated repressive strategy differs from the one perpetrated by the military juntas the ruled Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, among others, where public forces exercised directly the political violence against dissidents without pretentious democratic credentials, such as the ones constantly regurgitated by the Colombian establishment, making it more difficult to expose its deep dictatorial mechanisms that have disappeared more than 30000 Colombians (7) in the last years of US backed “counterinsurgency” policies, far surpassing Pinochet’s reign of terror.

In Colombia, where the dominant social elite prevails, thousands of bodies of the "disappeared" have been buried into mass graves, the assassination of trade union leaders is the highest in the world (on a per capita basis rate). Meanwhile, several million peasants have displaced and impoverished. In a context of brutal social repression backed by neoliberal policies, an atmosphere of generalized fear prevails.

This state of affairs raises a basic question, as James Petras puts it: “How does one pursuit equitable social policies and the defense of human rights under a terrorist state aligned with death squads and financed and advised by a foreign power, which has a public policy of physically eliminating their adversaries?”(8). Some in Colombia already found and an answer in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that constitutes the basis for all modern states:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law (9).

In the light of the exposure of the Colombian hybrid state which pits formal democracy and excessive privileges for a few against brutal repression and poverty for the majority, one must comprehend the existence of an armed conflict. This class confrontation has resulted in a “polarization of civil war proportions between the oligarchy and the military, on one side, and the guerrilla and the peasantry, on the other”, (10) and is mostly funded by US government using taxpayers money to back a rogue state and a comprador elite that prefers to wage dirty war against its own population rather than yield some political power and moderate social reforms. Modernity hasn’t arrived in Colombia, where few can enjoy excesses and vices of promised ‘civilization’ in fancy restaurants and country clubs, and most still live in 1789.

In times when president Obama justifies his “humanitarian intervention” and escalation of the Libyan civil war by having public opinion to believe NATO and US bombs are there to protect civilians, and when the International Criminal Court applies selective justice as it rushes to levy charges against Gaddafi for alleged crimes that pale in comparison to the ones daily committed by the Colombian regime, the international community is turning a blind eye to crimes against humanity in the shameful custom of double standards and insulting those truly resisting with their teeth, the savagery and abuse of power.

Jose David Torrenegra is a Lawyer specialized in Public Law and Political Activism in Colombia.

Notes

1. Euclides Montes. “Ana Fabricia Córdoba: A death foretold”. The Guardian. June 13, 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... m-conflict .

2. Red de Derechos Humanos del Suroccidente Colombiano ‘Francisco Isaias Fuentes’. “Atentado y amenaza en contra del líder comunitario Manuel Antonio Garcés Granja y detención arbitraria de dos testigos del atentado”. July 18, 2011. http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/Aten ... contra-del.

3. Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe para la Democracia. “Alerta: asesinato de miembro de liga de mujeres desplazadas”. Julio 22 de 2011. http://www.democracialatinoamerica.org/ ... ombia.html

4. Simon Romero. “Death-Squad Scandal Circles Closer to Colombia’s President”. New York Times. May 16 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/world ... ?ref=world

5. Garry Leech. “Exorcising the Ghost of Paramilitary Violence: Reclaiming Liberty in Libertad.

http://colombiajournal.org/exorcising-t ... olence.htm .

6. Brittain, James (2010). Revolutionary Social Change in Colombia. New York: Pluto Press. 129.

7. Kelly Nicholls. “Breaking the Silence: In search of Colombia’s Dissapeared”. The Guardian. December 9, 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develo ... isappeared.

8. James Brittain, op cit. Foreword. By James Petras.

9. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. 1948. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr /.

10.James Brittain, op cit. 144.




The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArtic ... leId=25794
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests