Abstract Dynamics: The Corporation, Take 2 (of 3), The Permanent Critique:

June 16, 2004

The Corporation, Take 2 (of 3), The Permanent Critique:

The contemporary left has seemingly unlimited capacity for the negative. Their ability to find faults with world is match only with their in ability to offer viable alternatives to the awful picture of the world they generate.

An hour into The Corporation I'm fully convinced of the evil of this organization form, and I want to change things. Another hour passes, and I'd would like to thinking about the viable alternatives, the course of action. Instead I'm approaching the point of nihilism, of surrender, situation normal - all fucked up.

Its is at this point where point where one thread in my mind leaves the movies flow. If the world is really as awful as this movie paints it, then perhaps I am better off not caring? Would you rather be a medieval serf, toiling in servitude, or instead the king, living in luxury off the exploitation of the same serfs? Robber baron or the labor leader shot dead by Pinkerton guards? If the world is so bleak in helpless, perhaps you best of accepting that and living in ignorant pleasure.

Happily that is not my world view. I do not see world as half empty and out of resources for a refill. I don't see critique as a bludgeon or sword, but instead think it should be wielded more like a scalpel. With extreme precision and only when deemed necessary.

The king of the American left's materialist ubercritics is linguist Noam Chomsky. Now Chomsky occasionally is spot on. But I've never yet seen Chomsky acknowledge that life has room for pleasure. Chomsky seems to believe the overriding goal of most people's lives should be worrying about the world's atrocities. And from a propaganda standpoint that's a dud. Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, few but the pessimists and sadists are going to subscribe to that world view. Critique as a bludgeon. Can someone please surgically remove this man from my mindscape?

It's not that The Corporation is 100% negative, there are a couple mild positives in the mix. Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface an industrial carpet company, pops in repeatedly through the film as a something of a hero. His Paul Hawkin inspired transformation of his company into a vision of sustainable development comes off quite well. Of course there is a certain violence between the possibilities he preaches and the filmmaker's "corporation as a psychopath" thesis, that unfortunately never gets addressed. Hmmmm.

The other hero is Oscar Olivera the Bolivian anti water privatization activist. And while I don't know his story other then through the film, he serves as a guide to what seems to be an old school marxist revolt against government privitization. Inspiring, yet hazily told, with no indication on how to reproduce or maintain such an action. More please!

Ultimately looking back on film (and bare in mind I have only had the opportunity to view it once, I will be rewatching once it is fully in the theaters), there is a clear junction of potentiality where the film could have run in any number of directions. The point is maybe an hours in, when the corporation is diagnosed as a psychopath. This could have easily been the climax of the film, a critical point, made sharply and strongly. Or it could have been the point of inflection, the diagnosis is in, time to develop a cure. Instead the filmmakers opt for more brutalist approach, they have diagnosed the corporation's illness and then proceed to kick the shit out it. And I'll admit I took some pleasure watching the god of neoclassical economics, Milton Friedman, hang himself with his own rope, for the most part the film criticizes endlessly into a cycle of despair. A cycle that seems perhaps perversely enjoyable to a certain breed of leftist. Count me out, I exit at the point of inflection. Critique ultimately breeds more critique and so its time to jump back and move on.

Abstract Dynamics: The Corporation, Take 3 (of 3), Constructions

Posted by Abe at June 16, 2004 02:37 PM

Comments

"Chomsky believes the overriding goal of most people's lives is worrying about the worlds atrocities"

Really? Chomsky writes that the majority of the population is marginalized, to the point of not caring or knowing about atrocities. I will assume that this is his motivation for being so over-the-top at times.

"acknowledge that life has room for pleasure"

hahahha. So true. Let me live in my vices. ok?

Cheers.

Posted by: Rowen | June 16, 2004 10:43 PM

Yeah that's a typo on my part should (and I'll be changing it in a minute) read:

"Chomsky believes the overriding goal of most people's lives *should be* worrying about the world's atrocities"

Posted by: Abe | June 17, 2004 12:23 AM

modified it a bit more actually, I don't really know what Chomsky believes, so it says "seems to believe".

Chomsky actually seems a lot like the religious anti-abortion people. Both profess huge concern for the lives of "people" (the quotes are for the abortion side) that are essentially completely abstract to anyone in the west. At the same time they don't really think much about the consequences of their particular concerns as a reality on the people.

Chomsky lost me forever when he went after sports in Manufacturing Consent. He's right to an extent of course, sports do reinforce a degree of "us vs. them", but they also reinforce the tremendous power of teamwork, unity and community. Even in the heart of Maoism the Chinese had sports. Plus they are fun, they make life more worth living. Yet it never seems to cross his mind that by saving a million East Timorese lives, he would have saved half a million sports lovers....

I agree with him that there are problems out there that deserve far more attention and time. But there is a need for life to be lived, and not just saved.

Posted by: Abe | June 17, 2004 12:44 AM

I had the same arc of emotions while wathcing the corp. at the end I wanted to go fire-bomb bechtel. I will say Ray Anderson is definitely a hero. Much respect.

so true on chomsky.

keep it up.

Posted by: Peter Markatos | June 25, 2004 12:36 AM

People on this list seem to be agreeing that Ray Anderson is a kind of here in The Corporation.

Call me a skeptical Marxist, but the potential for systemic social(ist) change does not in my opinion, in the main, lie with the Ray Andersons of the world. Consider the following:

I was struck by the fact that Ray Anderson never mentioned changing the labor conditions in his Interface factories (sweatshops?). His "rebirth" as a corporate reformer is cast in exclusively environmental terms.

While environmental concerns are absolutely crucial (and in fact I believe that the destruction of the world's biosphere and unsustainable capitalist development can only be effectively pursued through a mass-popularly based global socialist movement to radically redirect state policies), I get nervous when concern over the "Earth" starts to take precedence over justice and decency for all the world's PEOPLE.

The inspiring figure in this film for me is the Bolivian activist, Oscar Olivera: "El Pueblo Unido, Jamas Sera Vencido!" [The People United, Will Never be Defeated!]

Posted by: Joseph Ramsey | July 14, 2004 05:38 PM

People on this list seem to be agreeing that Ray Anderson is a kind of here in The Corporation.

Call me a skeptical Marxist, but the potential for systemic social(ist) change does not in my opinion, in the main, lie with the Ray Andersons of the world. Consider the following:

The inspiring figure in this film for me is the Bolivian activist, Oscar Olivera: "El Pueblo Unido, Jamas Sera Vencido!" [The People United, Will Never be Defeated!]

Posted by: Joseph Ramsey | July 14, 2004 05:39 PM

great blog kicks rear

Posted by: Back Room Facials | March 28, 2005 05:45 PM