Oh, the stories you'll have to tell all your friends.

Have you ever seen a webpage, thread, or post about how some such thing is a "conspiracy?" I'm not saying that there aren't kernels of truth in statements such as those, but I don't know that it's helpful to state such things in such a fantastical, dramatic way. First of all, it sounds like you are selling something. If people are presented with facts and reassured against paralyzing emotions, they will draw their own conclusions and then *really* own those beliefs.

OTOH, something like this I feel can paralyze people who read it and don't know what to make of it or how to react. I noticed this with "Farenheit 911". Perfectly reasonable people would enter into this state where they were suspended between believing that Bush was part of this giant conspiracy to "get us", or Michael Moore was a completely full of shit con man. I'm sure they are back to 8 to 5 wage slavery marking time until they are dead.

We are socialized to internalize the belief that the "people on top" are better than us. Better looking, more popular, stronger, faster, and that all important human characteristic of smarter! Something like this piece doesn't really challenge that notion. It just adds "more evil" to the list of things they do better than us. Personally, I think it is hogwash.

To read some of the things people say (even Anarchists and other radicals), you would think that "the powers that be" were so brilliant, so deceptive, so ultimately in control that little to nothing could be done about it. If that were the case, then the fact that such a message even appears on "their" internet means they must have crafted that, too! OMG, I should turn off my computer right now and go fill out an application to be a security guard at my local Bank of America before the Thought Police find out!

I don't buy it. These people are not better and certainly not smarter than other people. I once heard Einstein made a crack about compounding interest being the most powerful force in the universe. These people had a little bit more than the rest of us a long time ago and over time and generations it has snowballed. The Fed, the Treasury, the OMB, they can't figure out this financial mess even with the power to make money out of thin air and regulate what people do under penalty of the law. Can you imagine these people trying to feed three kids between a disability check, AFDC, food stamps, and a late child support payment? But we scapegoat the "welfare mother" and we act like these others are some kind of gods walking amongst us.

They're the same jerks as the rest of us. I bet Ben Bernanke gives out some of those blankets with the sleeves for Xmas.

Point of departure: Capitalism

Last weekend we engaged in a rarity by actually venturing to a movie theatre (and of the mall variety, no less). The reason was Michael Moore's latest offering.

Mr. Moore has a knack for blending art film, quasi-documentary, and advertising in a way which makes for enjoyable propaganda. Most people either love or despise him, which I suppose is a testament to the power of his craftsmanship.

I found this film in particular to be well made. He tackles an issue which is both heated and complex. The result is entertaining and approachable. He makes his point on a level which is more often pre-verbal and so rather than feel knocked out, one is left with the impression they have been awoken from slumber.

Having said this, I have to say that I was disappointed with the film's conclusion. The conclusion in the cinematic sense was too abrupt and left this critic desiring more. If this was the first in a series of "buddy/cop" films, maybe I'd understand. In this instance, it comes off as though the filmmaker is heavy on the piss and light on the vinegar. Is he really angered by what Capitalism is doing to his fellow humans? And if so, where is his plan?

The other conclusion with which I was disappointed was what I felt was a passive nod to what might be called Democratic Socialism. IOW, we can keep on with the majoritarian "democracy" and the free(ish) market, we just need to make sure folks get the bare essentials.

In October of 2009, I'm sure that is "radically liberal" by many accounts. I believe this version of "Socialism" will actually be the view of the pragmatic conservative in the coming years. As technology and outsourcing displaces more and more people from being able to work in this country, the pragmatic oligarch will attempt to quell talk of rebellion by placating the masses with (minimalist) social "uplift" programs. Don't believe the hype then or now. These are only going to stave off the inevitable.

True "radicalism" must deal with the "radica" or "root" of the issue. In this sense, radicalism is not as divorced from fundamentalism as the centrist powers that be would have us think. The elites of the Democratic and Republican parties flow back and forth as master chess players may play black one game and white the next. It's just a game, after all, and one in which the deck is stacked most against the players whose strategy is riding on whether they cheer for the reds or the blues.

So while most critics of Mr. Moore's (Socialist) conclusion will come from his political right, I am coming from his left. Socialism (in the ways in which "US Americans" think of it) is too conservative. It is working in the margin and a guarantee that we will just have to fight this battle again almost as soon as we've "won" it. What we need is a wholesale rejection of artificially-imposed rank, class, and other labelling on people; an end to the State (as we know it) and other systems of control which create artificial imbalances in human relations; and an end to the delusions which maintain these institutions in opposition to natural human tendency toward cooperation and positive social interaction such as the "value" of money and the idea of a benevolent and protective "Great White Father."