WALL-E: Economic Ignorance and the War on Modernity
The Disney-Pixar film WALL-E is an assault on modern civilization, writes Gennady Stolyarov, borne of deep economic and historical ignorance. First, it makes the Marxian assumption that it would be possible for a single corporation to subsume the entire world. Then the movie shows humanity seeking salvation in abandoning a sustainable automatic food production system — which had apparently worked without fail for seven centuries — and suddenly resorting to traditional agriculture.
The creators of WALL-E, sitting in their comfortable Hollywood studios, do a tremendous disservice to the civilization that made their work and high standards of living possible. They glorify a lifestyle that would likely have killed them — and countless others — had it actually been revived.
Comments (97)
While I agree with the subject and the insight behind this article, I don't believe WALL-E should be disqualified as a potentially (keeping true to subjective valuation) classic work of art. Yes, it is economically illiterate, but so are Tolstoy (who happened to be a proponent of his own view of communism) and Dostoievsky in their own ways. But do their mistaken views on some issues require dismissal of the entire work?
On another note, we are not given much back-story into the history of BNL. Is it not possible that they are not a freely competitive business but in fact the government, possessing a monopoly power on the use of force?
The article also explains the absurdity of the notion that all humans behave in an identical, homogeneous manner (ie. Everyone choosing to neglect “healthy habits”). But that’s the point of the movie, its fiction. It’s a plot device. I recently watched an Italian film “Ill Posto” and it portrayed capitalism in a rather poor light (for the sake of fairness, this assertion can be argued against). But I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it was a very tender love story that maintained a distinctly literary flair.
I also believe it to be utterly ridiculous for the author to question (as if an Austrian should ever economically question subjective valuations of individuals) the rationality behind the humans aboard the AXIOM and their decision to “revert” to primitive agricultural techniques. Are we, as believers in subjective valuation, supposed to deem “economically irrational” those who refuse to use technology and certain capital goods?
Once again I wish to make clear, the article is correct in its insight behind the economic fallacies “plaguing” this movie, but has fallen short in critically reviewing WALL-E as a literary work. My point of contention is in using WALL-E as the vehicle for this dive into the wide world of economic fallacies.
Published: July 3, 2008 11:05 PM
Works of art always tend to take a contrarian view to grab and hold viewers attention. They also magnify insignificant details as artists spend their time viewing the world and its absurdities, when life merely zips by for "others". They tend to build their own perfect world in their (idle) minds, and once in a while offer others a glimpse of their worlds through some form of art.
While I'm yet to see the movie, asking artists to stick to reality maybe a bit rich.
Published: July 3, 2008 11:25 PM
Yes, I haven't seen it either and probably won't bother since my kid is still too young.
However I too, noticed how Pixar movies are often talked down in these columns. Certainly the movie is probably not too good and most probably it is right to stress as absurd the fact that all these 3d animations that solely rely for aesthetics on high mechanization of (rendering) tasks take the bias against technology...
But apart from that, it is more interesting for occasional readers like me to read critiques of movies that definitely do support the idea of free enterprise (yes, in spite of reality sometimes) like "the Aviator".
Published: July 4, 2008 3:00 AM
I find much to concur with in Jack Skylarks comment.
Not having seen the movie, I can't really take issue with the article with any authority. But from what I have gathered about the Pixar stable's often subtle (Almost British) approach to humour, I do rather wonder if an ironic or satirical intent escaped the writer?
Jus' wondering aloud .....
Published: July 4, 2008 3:59 AM
I generally agree with pretty much everything in this article, what I would like to point out that terminology can sometimes be very confusing.
Here you use the word "modernity" in a positive sense (technological progress), from where I am coming (Oakeshott, Voegelin etc.) modernity is
used in a negative sense (regression in philosophical thought, social sciences). This movie "criticizes" modernity in the technological sense,
however in the other sense this movie IS modernity, it's very modern, because this sort of nonsense is very characteristically modern. The bouirgois
of 100-200 years ago, however ignorant they were, generally happend to have the right prejudices and would have not accepted such a nonsense.
Published: July 4, 2008 5:58 AM
Excellent review! Haven't seen the movie, but I think it will be much more interesting after reading this review. To the point of this is just art, so you don't need to be so critical, I disagree. I believe that the film can be used to indoctrinate children (and torpid adults). The key is understanding what's going on so you can discuss it with children. Mr. Stolyarov has provided an excellent review to help with that discussion.
Published: July 4, 2008 7:40 AM
"The creators of WALL-E, sitting in their comfortable Hollywood studios, do a tremendous disservice to the civilization that made their work and high standards of living possible."
Of course, Pixar is located in northern California -- not Hollywood -- but more to the point, the founders and employees of Pixar were and remain innovators who developed the entire computer-animation industry. It's pretty offensive for the author of this article to denigrate their achievement with the smear that they are anti-civilization. Regardless of the author's criticisms of the film's story -- and science fiction is generally not a breeding ground for Austrian economic insights -- he is frankly full of himself to issue simple moral condemnations like a second-hand Objectivist.
Published: July 4, 2008 8:45 AM
I saw the movie two days ago, and I agree that "economically speaking" it's a disaster.
It's also completely bogus from a technological point of view, because as is demonstrated _almost_ perfectly by the 700 year stay in space by a system designed to only run for 5, "high" technology is clean and sustainable. The very technology that allowed humans to escape Earth would also have cleaned it up.
The entire "Wall-E" to "Wall-R" robot series is pure plot device, put there for contrast as the Ugly Ducklings.
The story, though, is a blast. As a work of art, it's wonderful. Eve's joy in flying is beautifully rendered, as well as Wall-E's conflict between curiosity and self-preservation.
As far as "Pixar movies are often talked down in these columns", do a quick search of comments about _The Incredables_ and notice how that film was lauded on many fronts.
I agree that B&L was just the government. Just look at the stage where the CEO gives his talk. I've seen that set before, with a different logo.
Published: July 4, 2008 9:06 AM
This shines more light on the old saying that if you're not a socialist when you're young you have no heart. Maybe it's not heart that makes socialists, but propaganda aimed at children.
Research in communications shows that it's very difficult to change a persons world view. We determine our world views early in life. The process is complex, but major influences include family, friends, education and the general culture. Movies such as Wall-e have a strong impact on determining world views because they trigger strong emotions which overpower rational thinking. By itself, Wall-e would have little impact, but it reinforces the socialism taught in public schools and the media.
After years of indoctrination by "art" like Wall-e, it's very difficult to change the minds of young people. Most are convinced that humans are destroying the planet and that corporations are taking over. When you challenge those convictions, young people act like you have lost your mind because everyone knows that they're true. They've heard the same propaganda for a decade; all of their friends agree with it; and it's the only position they see in the media. That many people can't be wrong.
Austrians have a deep devotion to scholarly work, as they should. We tend to dismiss the importance of art and popular culture. But scholarly work reaches very few people. Popular art reaches millions and it's far more dangerous than scholarly work because it comes wrapped in powerful emotions that short ciruits critical reasoning. That's why the fictional work of Garrett is so important.
If Austrian ideas never make it into popular culture, it will never persuade the masses who vote and determine the direction of the state.
Published: July 4, 2008 9:34 AM
I somewhat agree with your argument fundamentalist and I do see a lot of what passes as "entertainment" aimed at children as indoctrination. Perhaps we should begin a campaign to end viewership by those suceptable to socialist doctrines? (sarcasm)
But, that being said, I have come at this film from an understanding of economic truths, so I do see the absurdity in the plot. But I also found beauty in the work.
In my previous post I brought up Tolstoy, and I now ask a question. Are we to deem the writings of Tolstoy as meaningless propaganda (since he was a communist), or are we to look upon the work as a whole and then judge on more than a rigid realism within the economic framework of the book?
Published: July 4, 2008 9:57 AM
I saw this film with my almost-five-year-old. I took away a completely different message. I saw the power of one, a little robot who is anything but "mainstream," go against a controlling corporatist power who had total control over the humans and robots aboard the spaceship. If you remember, there was a holding facility on the Axiom for non-compliant robots. Wall-E is able to bust them out, and they are able to change the course of those aboard the Axiom. It reminds me of people like Ron Paul, myself, and anyone who belieives in liberty, who are discounted and kept under wraps by the "mainstream." I think this movie had a message of "Free yourself from the State/Powers that be/etc. "
I saw the Axiom as the complete fruition of the ideas of Orwell's "1984," Hayek's "Road To Serfdom," and Rand's "Anthem." One robot, who sought to improve his condiditons, i.e. fall in love with another robot, was able to reverse the course of a society towards liberating themselves.
That's what I toook from this film.
Published: July 4, 2008 10:45 AM
I agree that the reviewer is somewhat harsh on the film. That said, films like these do colour the impressions of individuals, and thus may bias them against what (they think is) capitalism or free markets more generally. I have even heard people using Final Fantasy VII as an argument against free-markets (the quasi-state corporation Shinra, in other words - a state itself, for all practical purposes.) It is perhaps the unfortunate choice of the creators to always use a corporation as the tyrant. Why not just a state? They're so much more versed in it. Perhaps they'll disguise themselves as corporations in the future.
Published: July 4, 2008 10:53 AM
Excellent post Salamanca34.
Published: July 4, 2008 11:33 AM
As an ad I keep seeing advises, the masses,
Published: July 4, 2008 1:16 PM
I haven't seen the movie.
It SOUNDS like an allegory of Adam and Eve eating, as it were, of the fruit of knowledge and then being cast from the Garden of Eden, thereafter having to live by the sweat of their toil in the dirt.
With ONE difference: it appears they cast THEMSELVES out rather than someone else doing it to them and, once cast, it appears they somehow enjoy their new penury.
Those who take the biblical account at face value will have great difficulty with this story. Those inclined to reject or invert what they find in the Bible may find this story appealing on that score.
Published: July 4, 2008 2:39 PM
Yes the basic assumptions of the film are socialist.
Most children go to schools dominated by ideas that are socialist (although the word "socialist", let alone "Marxist", is never used) and most people who go to college go to universities dominated by socialist ideas (although even here the word is normally "Critical" - although there is never any critical attack on socialist ideas which are just assumed as starting assumptions the examination of everything from literature to history).
It is true that people who are most receptive to the ideas they have been taught tend to go into "the arts" (such as film making) and that they promote each other and freeze out people who do not share their ideas (few remember that it was the LEFT who started "blacklisting" - way back in the 1930's, what happened in the late 1940's and early 1950's was a half hearted counter attack, a counter attack that collapsed by the 1960's).
However, it is not true that other area of human activity are free of collectivist ideas - or even that most people "grow out" of the ideas they were taught.
Sure most businessmen are not socialists - but they are full of half learned socialist assumptions (stuff that was put into them at early age).
To put it bluntly - the enemy control much of the culture.
The idea that control of the culture would lead to control of everything else goes back a long time before Gramsci.
In the United States alone it goes back to the Bellamy brothers and before them.
"But what do we DO about it?"
I wish I knew.
Published: July 4, 2008 3:50 PM
"It SOUNDS like an allegory of Adam and Eve eating, as it were, of the fruit of knowledge and then being cast from the Garden of Eden, thereafter having to live by the sweat of their toil in the dirt."
I had a feeling it was also, especially since the "female" robot's name was eve (or eeeeevvvvaaa)
And even though I haven't seen the movie myself, the description of the "axiom" spaceship from the article sounds like the humans living under the conditions of Eden (No work, no passions, everything tame, etc.)
On the other hand, maybe it's just some sort of allegory on environmentalism and corporatism as the article (which was great by the way) described.
While I still plan on seeing the movie and probably going to like it, its disappointing to see this genre sliding down to the left. Perhaps this was all the more encouraged since late 2006 when it was perceived the ideas of the left wing establishment triumphed when everyone voted democrats into congress and kicked the republicans out (which was really a result of public disgust of the republicans' war stance)
I wish studios like Pixar would go back to their roots and make movies with glories libertarian themes like Monster's Inc. and A Bug's Life. Salad days...
Published: July 4, 2008 3:55 PM
--
Very little that passes for "science fiction" in the entertainment industry is really definable as science fiction (SF). There are exceptions, but these tend to be few and far between, and people who consider SF to be a significant literary genre jokingly refer to the entertainment industry's intrinsically inconsistent and unworkable stuff - like *WALL-E* - as "sci-fi."
Pronounced "skiffy."
Setting aside consideration of the movie, I'm interested in paragraph 13 of Mr. Stolyanov's essay, where he writes:
"Rather than devoting the precious time bought by the ready availability of food to, say, create art, repair all those broken skyscrapers, or design even better robots, the humans decide to manually dig holes in the ground and grow their food through backbreaking toil that led millions throughout history to die premature deaths. Oh, by the way, the film left that part out."
Which instantly gave me a flashback to P.J. Plauger's 1975 *Analog* short story, "Child of All Ages," a section of which I quote:
=====
"My name is Melissa," she said, adding a nervous grin. "You must be Mrs. Foster." She was all little girl now, squirming the least little bit and kicking one shoe against another. The eyes shone with carefree youth.
May shook herself, slowly recovered. She thought she had seen everything before, until now. The guileless bit was perfect — Melissa looked more like a model eight-year-old than a chronic troublemaker going on, what was it? Fourteen. Fourteen?
"You've been suspended from school for the third time this year, Melissa," she said with professional sternness. May turned on her best Authoritarian Glare, force three.
"Yep," the child said with no trace of contrition. The Glare faded, switched to Sympathetic Understanding.
"Do you want to tell me about it?" May asked softly.
Melissa shrugged.
"What's to say? Old Man M—uh, Mr. Morrisey and I got into an argument again in history class." She giggled. "He had to pull rank on me to win," Straight face.
"Mr. Morrisey has been teaching history for many years," May placated. "Perhaps he felt that he knows more about the subject than you do."
"Morrisey has his head wedged!" May's eyebrows skyrocketed, but the girl ignored the reproach, in her irritation. "Do you know what he was trying to palm off on the class? He was trying to say that the Industrial Revolution in England was a step backward.
"Kids working six, seven days a week in the factories, going fourteen hours at a stretch, all to earn a few pennies a week. That's all he could see! He never thought to ask why they did it if conditions were so bad."
'Well, why did they?" May asked reflerively. She was caught up in the child's enthusiasm.
The girl looked at her pityingly.
"Because it was the best game in town, that's why. If you didn't like the factory, you could try your hand at begging, stealing, or working on a farm. If you got caught begging or stealing in those days, they boiled you in oil. No joke. And farm work." She made a face.
"That was seven days a week of busting your tail from before sunup to after sundown. And what did you have to show for it? In a good year, you got all you could eat; in a bad year you starved. But you worked just as hard on an empty gut as on a full one. Harder.
"At least with a factory job you had money to buy what food there was when the crops failed. That's progress, no matter how you look at it"
May thought for a moment.
"But what about all the children maimed by machinery?" she asked. "What about all the kids whose health was destroyed from breathing dust or stoking fires or not getting enough sun?"
"Ever seen a plowboy after a team of horses walked over him? Ever had sunstroke?' She snorted. "Sure those factories were bad, but everything else was worse. Try to tell that to Old Man Morrisey, though."
"You talk as if you were there," May said with a hint of amusement.
Flatly. "I read a lot."
=====
The people at Pixar have their heads wedged.
Yes, *WALL-E* is eye-candy.
But Mr. Stolyanov is right about that eye-candy being pure brain-rot.
--
Published: July 4, 2008 6:30 PM
--
Very little that passes for "science fiction" in the entertainment industry is really definable as science fiction (SF). There are exceptions, but these tend to be few and far between, and people who consider SF to be a significant literary genre jokingly refer to the entertainment industry's intrinsically inconsistent and unworkable stuff - like *WALL-E* - as "sci-fi."
Pronounced "skiffy."
Setting aside consideration of the movie, I'm interested in paragraph 13 of Mr. Stolyanov's essay, where he writes:
"Rather than devoting the precious time bought by the ready availability of food to, say, create art, repair all those broken skyscrapers, or design even better robots, the humans decide to manually dig holes in the ground and grow their food through backbreaking toil that led millions throughout history to die premature deaths. Oh, by the way, the film left that part out."
Which instantly gave me a flashback to P.J. Plauger's 1975 *Analog* short story, "Child of All Ages," a section of which I quote:
=====
"My name is Melissa," she said, adding a nervous grin. "You must be Mrs. Foster." She was all little girl now, squirming the least little bit and kicking one shoe against another. The eyes shone with carefree youth.
May shook herself, slowly recovered. She thought she had seen everything before, until now. The guileless bit was perfect — Melissa looked more like a model eight-year-old than a chronic troublemaker going on, what was it? Fourteen. Fourteen?
"You've been suspended from school for the third time this year, Melissa," she said with professional sternness. May turned on her best Authoritarian Glare, force three.
"Yep," the child said with no trace of contrition. The Glare faded, switched to Sympathetic Understanding.
"Do you want to tell me about it?" May asked softly.
Melissa shrugged.
"What's to say? Old Man M—uh, Mr. Morrisey and I got into an argument again in history class." She giggled. "He had to pull rank on me to win," Straight face.
"Mr. Morrisey has been teaching history for many years," May placated. "Perhaps he felt that he knows more about the subject than you do."
"Morrisey has his head wedged!" May's eyebrows skyrocketed, but the girl ignored the reproach, in her irritation. "Do you know what he was trying to palm off on the class? He was trying to say that the Industrial Revolution in England was a step backward.
"Kids working six, seven days a week in the factories, going fourteen hours at a stretch, all to earn a few pennies a week. That's all he could see! He never thought to ask why they did it if conditions were so bad."
'Well, why did they?" May asked reflerively. She was caught up in the child's enthusiasm.
The girl looked at her pityingly.
"Because it was the best game in town, that's why. If you didn't like the factory, you could try your hand at begging, stealing, or working on a farm. If you got caught begging or stealing in those days, they boiled you in oil. No joke. And farm work." She made a face.
"That was seven days a week of busting your tail from before sunup to after sundown. And what did you have to show for it? In a good year, you got all you could eat; in a bad year you starved. But you worked just as hard on an empty gut as on a full one. Harder.
"At least with a factory job you had money to buy what food there was when the crops failed. That's progress, no matter how you look at it"
May thought for a moment.
"But what about all the children maimed by machinery?" she asked. "What about all the kids whose health was destroyed from breathing dust or stoking fires or not getting enough sun?"
"Ever seen a plowboy after a team of horses walked over him? Ever had sunstroke?' She snorted. "Sure those factories were bad, but everything else was worse. Try to tell that to Old Man Morrisey, though."
"You talk as if you were there," May said with a hint of amusement.
Flatly. "I read a lot."
=====
The people at Pixar have their heads wedged.
Yes, *WALL-E* is eye-candy.
But Mr. Stolyanov is right about that eye-candy being pure brain-rot.
--
Published: July 4, 2008 6:31 PM
paul marks says:
"few remember that it was the LEFT who started "blacklisting" - way back in the 1930's..."
could you please elaborate?
Published: July 4, 2008 9:51 PM
I wish everyone would stick close to the nature of the movie rather than repeating libertarian cultural critiques that have very little to do with the subject itself.
I want to also make one point about the AXIOM is terms of the movie. First, WALL-E is about the individual, it has a main character who has his own motives and agendas. Yes, there is a ship whose passengers live in a unrealistic communist state. But this is meant to be looked down upon and is laughed at by the audience. The humans are in a state of ignorance and we (as the audience) are amused and are meant to take it in a lighthearted way.
About the end of the movie, where the humans begin to employ "primitive" agricultural techniques, in the absense of force should we (as libertarians) condemn the use of "outdated" measures. Perhaps the colony of humans find it more subjectively satisfying to plant food than to have it magically appear (in a cup no less).
All in all, I think most of you need to see the movie before you pass judgement. It's not a libertarian film (by any means) but I don't think its fair to label it "socialist propaganda". But I'll let each individual be their own judge.
Published: July 4, 2008 10:50 PM
Jack Skylark: "Are we to deem the writings of Tolstoy as meaningless propaganda (since he was a communist), or are we to look upon the work as a whole and then judge on more than a rigid realism within the economic framework of the book?"
I think you can appreciate the art while disagreeing with the message. I don't want to stop leftist artist from doing their work. I would like to see libertarians take up the fiction work of Garrett and Rand. I would like to see more balance among libertarians with as much emphasis on art as on scholarship.
Published: July 4, 2008 11:09 PM
You got it spot on fundamentalist. Thats exactly how I feel. You were able to sum up my thoughts rather nicely. Thank you.
Published: July 4, 2008 11:44 PM
Oh dear. Some people really should look at what Kevin Carson has brought out in this area.
'...grow their food through backbreaking toil that led millions throughout history to die premature deaths... Virtually no one today who romanticizes the "good old days" of traditional agriculture recognizes how nasty, brutish, and short life under such conditions had been for millennia' is nonsense. It only does that when you have to do far more work to deliver a surplus to others, in rent or tax, maybe forced labour. Of course, you can still starve if there's not enough land - but that also applies if you go into industrial work (see below, replying to SJ_Doc).
"Once the first industrial factories opened - with their long hours, dangerous equipment, and meager pay - people flocked to them in droves, because the factory conditions (including the sanitation provided and wages paid) were greatly preferable to those of toiling virtually all day on the traditional farm" is also nonsense. We actually have historical records to show this; they generally went into factories because they were deprived of rural opportunities, as in the English Enclosures, Irish evictions and (Scottish) Highland clearances. We know that when the opportunities remained they stayed away in droves, as in the natural experiment when Lord Lever started a fish processing factory at Leverburgh on the island (peninsula, actually) of Lewis. And, of course, those that left through hardship were facing additional burdens from outside.
SJ_Doc quoted:
"...And farm work... That was seven days a week of busting your tail from before sunup to after sundown. And what did you have to show for it? In a good year, you got all you could eat; in a bad year you starved. But you worked just as hard on an empty gut as on a full one. Harder.
"At least with a factory job you had money to buy what food there was when the crops failed. That's progress, no matter how you look at it."
That's only once additional burdens have been thrown on the rural sector, of course. Think that through. When people went into factories, they did nothing to increase food production on the land they had left (industrialisation didn't help there until artificial fertilisers came in, though from the early 19th century it helped new lands open up from better transport). The argument that factory life was better amounts to saying, "let's make life harder on the farm" (and wasn't true anyway, until better sanitation etc. really did arrive after the mid 19th century). To the extent that industrial workers got better food security, it was from throwing the burden on those remaining on the land. That is, without industrial products to buy with cash, landlords and governments would have had nothing to gain from raising rents and taxes. The products of factories and the needs of industrial workers were what raised the workload of rural workers, just to keep them fed. (Google Nassau Senior's work on wages to see what "wages" involved, and pay particular attention to his insights about the usual case where industrialisation had no effect on wages and the two special cases where things could get worse.)
Basically, people shouldn't trot out this recycled prejudice as fact without doing their homework, let alone have the chutzpah to accuse others of romanticising.
Published: July 5, 2008 12:21 AM
What I think is important to recognize is that if this movie is indeed a message film, and not just a sci-fi film that uses a particular setting to its advantage, that we realize that the message isn't really anti-capitalist. Going into this movie, I expected the old environmentalist message but didn't get it. BnL's role in the film portrayed what is worst about corporatism: the loss of individuality. As others have pointed out, Buy N Large had become so powerful and influential because of the collusion of big business and big government. No, there isn't trash piling up everywhere or real atmospheric damage, but if such a corporation were ever to become the world government, a complete lack of respect for property rights would most likely follow which would lead to real pollution issues.
Arguing whether the movie's setting is really possible, though, is pointless. These are plot devices used to present an excellent story.
This article is incredibly short-sighted and it seems as though the author didn't bother to look at this movie with the least bit of objectivity.
Published: July 5, 2008 12:46 AM
rubbish
Published: July 5, 2008 1:04 AM
rubbish
Published: July 5, 2008 1:05 AM
to pm lawrence:
i know we've been down this route before, but until you can prove that the interests that evicted landless peasants from the commons were the same interests that owned the city factories, then there's no smoking gun (in fact, from memory the urban industrialists were generally opponents of the landed gentry).
without the urban industrial jobs, the evicted would faced starvation, much as is happening in zimbabwe nowadays.
as regards the lord lever saga; it's no wonder the locals stayed away, his was some sort of society planned exclusively along his lines, when locals were more focussed on land redistribution. i can't see it sheds light on the industrial revolution. he should have stuck to soap, but utopian experiments seem to attract nutters like moths to the flame.
Published: July 5, 2008 1:08 AM
Hey Nick Hibbeler, is it even possible to look at a film strip objectively? If the writer were "objective" he would only need to say he saw images being rapidly projected on a screen.
Point being, you yourself only made subjective observations; The variable thoughts and emotions which occurred whilst you watching the motion picture. All of your points were mere speculation on a speculative science fiction movie. Is there really anyway of looking at it 'objectively'?
True, as Mises said, we should try to act rationally, but it doesn't mean we should ignore our subjective desires which could be argued to be what compels one to act.
The only problem I have is when a person tries to disguise their variable feelings with the mantra of being objective. Stating opinion as fact, a thing that happens a lot when interpreting arts.
"This is a particularly rational brand [of cigarette]" - Carson ; Mozart was a Red by Murray Rothbard
Published: July 5, 2008 3:52 AM
Newson wrote "...until you can prove that the interests that evicted landless peasants from the commons were the same interests that owned the city factories, then there's no smoking gun (in fact, from memory the urban industrialists were generally opponents of the landed gentry)."
Actually, Kevin Carson has come up with some material that points that way, though I agree that these interests were usually opposed. But we don't need a smoking gun, because we would only need that if we wanted to show that British peasants were driven out in order to get them into mines and factories. We only need to see what the historical record shows, that they were driven out and that the remaining ones each had to work harder to feed workers in mines and factories (until the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws, which switched food shortages to continental Europe in the short term until new lands came on stream). We don't need to find any agenda to set up industrialisation. Peasants simply wouldn't have had to work so hard without industrialisation unless Britain had started to maintain armed forces and servant classes at continental levels, which would have made a different driver for evictions. The record clearly shows that it was not all pull to better conditions, and that conditions on the land were partly worse precisely because other sectors flourished.
"...without the urban industrial jobs, the evicted would faced starvation, much as is happening in zimbabwe nowadays." Certainly. In fact, that is precisely what happened after the earlier (Tudor) round of Enclosures. Only, in the later round, if there had been no work in mines and factories, that would have choked off effective demand for food as a cash crop and there would have been far fewer evictions; my guess is, hardly any. (The earlier round was driven by switching from arable cultivation to sheep, to provide wool for the cash export market - and that didn't choke off from having beggars around instead of industrial workers.)
There were also peace dividends after the Wars of the Roses and the Jacobite Rebellions, which reduced the need to maintain tenantry in England and Scotland as pools of recruits, and in Ireland reduced the need to keep potential rebels settled on land (they had been forced into arable cultivation and out of pastoral lifestyles for that reason as much as any in the first place - see Spenser on Ireland).
"...as regards the lord lever saga; it's no wonder the locals stayed away, his was some sort of society planned exclusively along his lines, when locals were more focussed on land redistribution." He certainly had social engineering in mind, but the fact remains that he started with a fish processing factory that simply offered work - and there were too few takers (he had missed the boat on the Highland - and island - Clearances).
I should add that this isn't simply a capitalism thing. Gennady Stolyarov II wrote 'I for one have seen a semblance of these "good old days," having spent summers as a child with my maternal grandparents in a remote Belarusian village - where little had changed since the 1917 socialist revolution. Those extolling the virtues of traditional farm life never mention the perpetual manual labor, lack of sanitation, lack of health care, and widespread inclinations toward alcoholism.' But this completely leaves out the role of the USSR in failing to improve sanitation and health care, and in causing the work load by making the farms provide for everybody else. There is actually some literature around on the problems Lenin faced after the peasants were given their own land; they responded by cutting back on production for the towns and reducing their work load. Lenin put the work load back, and Stalin did much more than just that. As for "widespread inclinations toward alcoholism", well, that is both cultural and if I may say so a sane response to the USSR.
Published: July 5, 2008 4:30 AM
pm lawrence says:
"We only need to see what the historical record shows, that they were driven out and that the remaining ones each had to work harder to feed workers in mines and factories (until the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws, which switched food shortages to continental Europe in the short term until new lands came on stream). We don't need to find any agenda to set up industrialisation. Peasants simply wouldn't have had to work so hard without industrialisation..."
first: i simply don't accept your contention that peasants had to work harder to feed mine and factory workers. why would that be? it seems to imply that there had previously been excess leisure time. or that they acted altruistically.
second: the fact that repeal of the corn laws had effects on other trading nations is neither here nor there. countries pursue their own agendas, and if other parties are discomfited, so what? political economy is a domestic art. if the brits were better off for seeing off restrictive trade practices, i don't see them worrying about french peasants for one instant (both merrily having traded cannonballs over the centuries).
Published: July 5, 2008 5:32 AM
to pm lawrence:
i know where kevin carson stands on the industrial revolution; i don't agree with him.
i lifted the following quote from an article which shows the partial way the industrial revolution has been presented (http://mises.org/story/2443)
"Lord Shaftesbury, asked by Thorold Rogers why he had not sought to extend protective legislation to children in the fields when he knew that their work "was to the full as physically injurious" as premature labor in the factories, replied that it was a question of practical politics, and that, if he had sought the emancipation of all, he would have obtained the support of no party at all."
Published: July 5, 2008 6:27 AM
Newson asks "first: i simply don't accept your contention that peasants had to work harder to feed mine and factory workers. why would that be?"
Because there were just as many mouths to feed - in fact, slightly more, from population growth - and fewer hands to grow the food (even with labour saving devices like threshing machines that allowed farmers to have fewer workers for that phase).
"it seems to imply that there had previously been excess leisure time. or that they acted altruistically." Not entirely. There had also been a large military and naval establishment to maintain, particularly during the Napoleonic Wars. But there had been more leisure time, outside the busy seasons.
There is a misunderstanding when you ask "second: the fact that repeal of the corn laws had effects on other trading nations is neither here nor there. countries pursue their own agendas, and if other parties are discomfited, so what?" The point wasn't that the Repeal of the Corn Laws had effects elsewhere (though it did) but that before that happened, industrial workers could only be fed by British farm work and workers (ignoring for the moment the effect of sugar imports, as that didn't change materially over the period either side of industrialisation). This is what made a zero sum for food, so peasants had to work harder. If there never had been any Corn Laws, increases in the number of miners and factory workers would have had much less effect on food prices - so there would have been less pressure to grow cash food crops. Cash food crops are net, after rural workers' subsistence, so there would have been less pressure on the landlords' part to reduce the number of rural mouths to feed. (This is one area where their interests and the industrialists' diverged - the latter wanted repeal and the former didn't).
"i know where kevin carson stands on the industrial revolution; i don't agree with him... i lifted the following quote from an article which shows the partial way the industrial revolution has been presented (http://mises.org/story/2443)..."
But that doesn't address the materials he found that show that at least some people at the time knew very well that, given the opportunity to be self sustaining in rural work, few "freely" chose to give that up and go into mines and factories. It only addresses whether particular work was hard compared to other particular work. But that wasn't in question, the question was how much work had to be done on the land to support oneself, as opposed to how much work had to be done on the land to support oneself and carry burdens that physically fed other people (mediated through rent and tax). I have no doubt that a peasant child on an overworked (in the sense of producing a large surplus) farm would also be overworked.
Published: July 5, 2008 8:25 AM
We are taking our children to see the movie tomorrow. They are 11- and 8-year-old boys.
They will not take any message away from the movie. They will simply enjoy it.
My 8-year-old will probably remark about how cute WALL-E and Eve are.
I agree wholeheartedly with Austrian economics but for the love of God, please stop overanalyzing this movie.
There will be no adult schoolteacher there after the movie to tell the children what to think abut the movie.
Published: July 5, 2008 8:52 AM
PM Lawrence: "industrial workers could only be fed by British farm work and workers ...This is what made a zero sum for food, so peasants had to work harder."
I see your point, but the increased demand for food from factory workers, and the larger population, was offset to a large degree by increased productivity from new farming methods and crops brought over from the Dutch.
Also, the beginning of industrialization in England had to fight a very ancient attitude against working for another person. Until industrialization, working for wages was considered very close to being a slave, or a servant at best. It was very destructive to a man's pride and many men would choose to earn less in his own business or farm than submit to the humility of working for someone else. In other words, it wasn't always a purely economic choice. Of course the enclosures gave some men no choice.
Published: July 5, 2008 9:04 AM
Newson, Have you read Mises's take on the industrial revolution in Human Action? It's very good!
Published: July 5, 2008 9:08 AM
Though the article is an interesting and informative read, it is unfair to simply analyze the film's setting and backstory, as that is not what makes a film's theme or message. A message is derived from what the characters DO; how they react to the setting they are in. The destruction of the planet is taken as a given, and the film is built off of that, so what ultimately matters is how the characters respond to the setting. I personally believe there is actually an anti-environmental-hysteria message. The film suggests that no matter how much we screw up Earth, it will fix itself, as opposed to the characters fighting against an 'evil corporation' to 'save the planet.' The planet saves itself, without man's help, and the humans don't return to Earth pledging to never use technology again.
But even if you do think the back story is important, I agree with Jack Skylar that we should remember that the film does not ever talk about how the conditions came to exist. I for one did not think that BnL became the only corporation, simply a very big one that offered its customers a ride off planet during the cleaning of the planet. Although Nick above gives a good suggestion as to how BnL became the government and thus had no care for property rights.
The above points apply to the conditions of humans aboard the AXIOM as well. We are not told how humanity could let itself become so pathetic, but it is taken as matter of fact and used to promote the ultimate story: WALL-E, a robot, is literally the last person alive, and whomever he interacts with turns human. This is the basis of the movie, and I don't think PIXAR expects anyone to believe that humans will become machines.
It's also unfair to analyze this movie's back story so critically and then neglect to mention the anti-authoritarian message. The film is about what makes humans human: curiosity and self-determination. The robots rebel against their directive, the Captain rebels against his orders, etc. We can certainly celebrate that aspect of the film.
Published: July 5, 2008 9:53 AM
P.M.Lawrence: "the question was how much work had to be done on the land to support oneself, as opposed to how much work had to be done on the land to support oneself and carry burdens that physically fed other people (mediated through rent and tax)."
You are ignoring the division of labor specialization. Did these peasant farmer work in the nude, or did they trade for clothing produced by others? Did they build their own tools from scratch, or did they trade for ready made tools?
You are in error assuming that the output production of factory goods was not demanded, was not separately subjectively valued. You have fallen victim to the Marxist Labor Theory of Value that "food" production is somehow objectively more valuable per marginal unit of production than that of the marginal unit of factory goods production.
This results in your wrong conclusion that specialization and the division of labor result in net poverty (having to work harder to maintain levels of production output), when the opposite is true. Sure we can speculate that people would have preferred to be farmers working the land just as we may speculate that service workers today would prefer to make their livings as highly paid professional athletes. But we would expect only the most productive farmers to keep working as farmers as their marginal output was more competitive, was producing more output per acre, making the marginal price for less productive farmers not worth their efforts. Thus, it was better for them to seek employment elsewhere in the factories. If farming were not producing vast surpluses, then it would have paid higher wages for extra surplus marginal farming production compared to factory wages. And any of that "harder work" would have been rewarded at "overtime" wage rates, assuming a free market and prices existing for food and factory goods. And that overtime wage rate for farm production would only exist for any length of time if the conditions of working on a farm were far more stressful than working in a factory, or vice versa, factory wages may have been higher to compensate for risks and conditions of that employment.
Your line of reasoning holds no merit whatsoever, unless you were to assume non voluntary trade assumptions, if were to hold assumptions that labor decisions were compelled by force and slavery, and not a free market.
Published: July 5, 2008 10:07 AM
P.M.Lawrence: "the question was how much work had to be done on the land to support oneself, as opposed to how much work had to be done on the land to support oneself and carry burdens that physically fed other people (mediated through rent and tax)."
You are ignoring the division of labor specialization. Did these peasant farmer work in the nude, or did they trade for clothing produced by others? Did they build their own tools from scratch, or did they trade for ready made tools?
You are in error assuming that the output production of factory goods was not demanded, was not separately subjectively valued. You have fallen victim to the Marxist Labor Theory of Value that "food" production is somehow objectively more valuable per marginal unit of production than that of the marginal unit of factory goods production.
This results in your wrong conclusion that specialization and the division of labor result in net poverty (having to work harder to maintain levels of production output), when the opposite is true. Sure we can speculate that people would have preferred to be farmers working the land just as we may speculate that service workers today would prefer to make their livings as highly paid professional athletes. But we would expect only the most productive farmers to keep working as farmers as their marginal output was more competitive, was producing more output per acre, making the marginal price for less productive farmers not worth their efforts. Thus, it was better for them to seek employment elsewhere in the factories. If farming were not producing vast surpluses, then it would have paid higher wages for extra surplus marginal farming production compared to factory wages. And any of that "harder work" would have been rewarded at "overtime" wage rates, assuming a free market and prices existing for food and factory goods. And that overtime wage rate for farm production would only exist for any length of time if the conditions of working on a farm were far more stressful than working in a factory, or vice versa, factory wages may have been higher to compensate for risks and conditions of that employment.
Your line of reasoning holds no merit whatsoever, unless you were to assume non voluntary trade assumptions, if were to hold assumptions that labor decisions were compelled by force and slavery, and not a free market.
Published: July 5, 2008 10:09 AM
pm lawrence says:
"The point wasn't that the Repeal of the Corn Laws had effects elsewhere (though it did) but that before that happened, industrial workers could only be fed by British farm work and workers (ignoring for the moment the effect of sugar imports, as that didn't change materially over the period either side of industrialisation). This is what made a zero sum for food, so peasants had to work harder."
and so we arrive at the point of disagreement. how can you establish that it is the peasants that suffer to provide the surplus food for the city workers, and not the greater productivity from the rationalization of small plots into larger ones? or perhaps the technical innovations? your conclusion is entirely speculative. and counterintuitive, to boot. it strains credibility to imagine somehow peasants withholding services (accumulating leisure) prior to the enclosures.
besides, as malthus had quite correctly concluded (at least correctly till the i.r.), populations swell continuously until constrained by the horsemen of the apocalypse. free time in those days quickly turned wives pregnant, and with extra mouths to feed, goodbye leisure.
Published: July 5, 2008 10:32 AM
Yay! Rtr's back! :P
Published: July 5, 2008 10:34 AM
to fundamentalist:
yes, i have read it, and agree with it.
much of the i.r. bad press seems to have come from the strong influence the sadler report into child labour in the factory system had on the public pysche, and on later historians' interpretations. i found it amusing what engels had to say on this study:
"...emphatically partisan, composed by strong enemies of the factory system for party ends. … Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."
Published: July 5, 2008 10:59 AM
Spoiler warning.
The humans on the Axiom were kept docile by the robots who were following their last orders from earth. BNL failed to cleanup the earth and gave an order never to return. The robots understood that order to mean keep the humans in their static lifestyle which was supposed to last just a few years. The way the robots react to the captain trying to overcome their conditioning shows that they were intentionally keeping the humans fat and compliant. The automatic machinery of the ship eliminated the need for economic growth. It's not explained but you have to assume it used solar, fusion or some other renewable energy source. As long as the machines didn't break down the humans were happy enough not to ask any questions or demand more.
That's why there was no progress for 700 years.
Published: July 5, 2008 12:37 PM
Saw the movie, agree with the original article...with one addition: Aboard the AXIOM, massive volumes of "trash" are periodically vented to space, along with a big room-full of air.
This is childishness of a special kind, even for a kid's movie. Air & material would hardly be dumped from a self-contained space station/ship.
Pixar's creations seem to celebrate fashionable themes. Sometimes these fashions parallel timeless themes like friendship and honor, but as noted in the underlying article, WALL-E shades over into cultural Marxism.
Too bad...as a Pixar movie, this one is far from Toy Story.
Published: July 5, 2008 1:01 PM
From the article:
"The film blatantly conveys environmentalist, anticapitalist, and antitechnological propaganda "
Sorry, but this guy is an idiot. As a left-libertarian, what I saw on board the cruise ship was the very essence of the nanny state - fat, stupid and desensitized people who mindless follow the paths laid out for them by the robots, forgetting their own past all while being taken care of, cradle to grave for generations by the robots. The only become free when they turn off the "Auto pilot" and its minions and leave the "cruise ship" to strike out on their own at the end and work together to create a new society from the ashes of the one that was destroyed. Their new home is not a paradise but literally a garbage dump and the former lazy humans have to work hard, cooperate and trade in order to fully live their lives.
In short, people become fufilled not by staying in the nanny state of the cruise ship, but by working together, without being told what to do by the agents of that state - autopilot and the other service bots.
How much more libertarian can you get?
Sound like someone saw garbage and a polluted planet and immediately went into knee-jerk anti-environmentalist mode, rather than watching the film.
And it further sounds like a great many people who haven't seen the film in this list have done the same thing.
Also, get over your persecution complex, its a movie about robots. It will be used to sell nice WALL*E toys. How much more capitalistic do you want?
Published: July 5, 2008 1:56 PM
From the article:
"The film blatantly conveys environmentalist, anticapitalist, and antitechnological propaganda "
Sorry, but this guy is an idiot. As a left-libertarian, what I saw on board the cruise ship was the very essence of the nanny state - fat, stupid and desensitized people who mindless follow the paths laid out for them by the robots, forgetting their own past all while being taken care of, cradle to grave for generations by the robots. The only become free when they turn off the "Auto pilot" and its minions and leave the "cruise ship" to strike out on their own at the end and work together to create a new society from the ashes of the one that was destroyed. Their new home is not a paradise but literally a garbage dump and the former lazy humans have to work hard, cooperate and trade in order to fully live their lives.
In short, people become fufilled not by staying in the nanny state of the cruise ship, but by working together, without being told what to do by the agents of that state - autopilot and the other service bots.
How much more libertarian can you get?
Sound like someone saw garbage and a polluted planet and immediately went into knee-jerk anti-environmentalist mode, rather than watching the film.
And it further sounds like a great many people who haven't seen the film in this list have done the same thing.
Also, get over your persecution complex, its a movie about robots. It will be used to sell nice WALL*E toys. How much more capitalistic do you want?
Published: July 5, 2008 1:58 PM
I have just two simple questions for you. You should have some honest answers before you start finding drawbacks in the theme of WALL-E and flaws in the mini-plot around Axiom/BNL. The questions are -
1) Where and how did you recycle your last computer monitor ? Do you know where it is and who was the person in the third world country who had to deal with the environmental/health hazards of recycling?
2) Have you been to countries whose heavy manufacturing industries support global economy ? Have you spent days/weeks/years breathing the air to finally have some chronic respiratory problems.
If you are sitting in an air-conditioned office surrounded by lush green lawns, than it is very easy to find issues and drawbacks in the theme of WALL-E.
Thank you for allowing me to post my comments.
Avid.
Published: July 5, 2008 2:15 PM
Avid Reader: "Thank you for allowing me to post my comments."
No, thank you. The better the questions, the better the answers. The better the comments, the better the popcorn.
Avid Reader: "I have just two simple questions for you."
/Slaps hand on buzzer. What is one plus two?
Avid Reader: "The questions are -"
Drum Roll please ...
Avid Reader: "1) Where and how did you recycle your last computer monitor ? Do you know where it is and who was the person in the third world country who had to deal with the environmental/health hazards of recycling?"
Yes. And Yes. Does this mean I can have my missing sock back now?
Avid Reader: "2) Have you been to countries whose heavy manufacturing industries support global economy ? Have you spent days/weeks/years breathing the air to finally have some chronic respiratory problems."
Yes. And Yes. Can't ... Stop ... Doing ... the ... Breathing. And yet she still somehow wrote, had the time, and produced, had the time, the coal miner's daughter honky tonk girl song(s).
Avid Reader: "If you are sitting in an air-conditioned office surrounded by lush green lawns, than it is very easy to find issues and drawbacks in the theme of WALL-E."
And? Would you prefer it, if it were harder? A desert is to be objectively preferred to an oasis? Theme Schmeme. What are you trying to say?
Avid Reader: "Thank you for allowing me to post my comments."
Likewise.
Avid Reader: "Avid."
Likewise.
Published: July 5, 2008 8:17 PM
mike says:
"As a left-libertarian, what I saw on board the cruise ship was the very essence of the nanny state..."
maybe it's just that i grew up in a different country, but i don't get "left-libertarian". it seems a contradiction in terms. left, to me, means aversion to private property in favour of coerced collective ownership.
Published: July 5, 2008 10:16 PM
actually it's newson, though the cryptic "n" does have its appeal.
Published: July 5, 2008 10:23 PM
Fundamentalist wrote "I see your point, but the increased demand for food from factory workers, and the larger population, was offset to a large degree by increased productivity from new farming methods and crops brought over from the Dutch."
Leaving aside just where new crops and methods came from, there are two reasons why this didn't help particularly. It preceded industrialisation, and to a large extent the gains had washed out from population growth. And, it increased the productivity of land a lot, but not labour very much. That is, switching a field from wheat to turnips gave you more food from that field, but switching a worker from ploughing/sowing/reaping/threshing wheat to ploughing/sowing/digging the same amount of food in turnips actually took more work.
"Also, the beginning of industrialization in England had to fight a very ancient attitude against working for another person. Until industrialization, working for wages was considered very close to being a slave, or a servant at best. It was very destructive to a man's pride and many men would choose to earn less in his own business or farm than submit to the humility of working for someone else. In other words, it wasn't always a purely economic choice."
That is an accurate description of how the classical Greeks looked at it - only, there was no such prejudice against work as a servant in Europe two plus centuries ago, including in Britain. However, that was generally looked on as a phase in early life that allowed people to set themselves up ("servant classes" didn't mean servants but classes from which servants were drawn). In fact, it was looked on as good work, since board and lodging was provided and cash wages were free and clear, indeed often the major single source of cash income for the servant's family, which means the servant's parents and siblings, not spouse and children. So there was a quite justified objection to wage labour with no prospects, but it was the "no prospects" part not the "wage labour" part that caused the difficulty.
Rtr mistakenly supposes that I am "...ignoring the division of labor specialization. Did these peasant farmer work in the nude, or did they trade for clothing produced by others? Did they build their own tools from scratch, or did they trade for ready made tools?"
Not at all. I merely pointed out that the needs of the peasants themselves weren't what made them produce a surplus for sale. They also had to produce even more, to cover rent, tithes and (usually indirect) taxes. I never suggested that they would retreat into complete domestic autarky - although, as it happens, the few that could after late 19th century reforms moved a long way in that direction.
He also mistakenly supposes that I am '...in error assuming that the output production of factory goods was not demanded, was not separately subjectively valued.'
I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the rural sector had to do more than it would have chosen on its own. See just above, and also my mention of the natural experiment in Russia after land reform, when peasants cut back on production until Lenin, shall we say, dissuaded them.
Rtr, without taking the trouble to enquire, jumps to the conclusion that I '...have fallen victim to the Marxist Labor Theory of Value that "food" production is somehow objectively more valuable per marginal unit of production than that of the marginal unit of factory goods production.' I believe no such thing, though I do agree with Nassau Senior that when food supply is a constraint, a lower bound, it flows through to everything else (see also Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
So he is speculating on a spurious basis when he infers - incorrectly - that "This results in your wrong conclusion that specialization and the division of labor result in net poverty (having to work harder to maintain levels of production output), when the opposite is true." Considering that I said nothing at all about specialisation and the division of labour, or net poverty, he has completely missed the point. The point was that a smaller rural sector had to work harder to feed the mouths that became otherwise engaged. Of course net wealth increased - only, the market distortions like evictions falling on the rural sector meant that they weren't making the choices. The remainder became worse off than earlier generations had been.
"Sure we can speculate that people would have preferred to be farmers working the land just as we may speculate that service workers today would prefer to make their livings as highly paid professional athletes. But we would expect only the most productive farmers to keep working as farmers as their marginal output was more competitive, was producing more output per acre, making the marginal price for less productive farmers not worth their efforts." Actually, the latter sentence is the speculation. As for the former sentence, the actual recorded fact is that peasants were driven off land. We don't have to speculate about whether they would have chosen to stay, we only have to note that they weren't allowed to. That is, we don't have to use their frame of mind at all, we can see that there were fewer left to feed about the same number. And evictions didn't relate to labour productivity; the Highland Clearances replaced people with sheep, which is to say, capital.
'Thus, it was better for them to seek employment elsewhere in the factories. If farming were not producing vast surpluses, then it would have paid higher wages for extra surplus marginal farming production compared to factory wages. And any of that "harder work" would have been rewarded at "overtime" wage rates, assuming a free market and prices existing for food and factory goods.'
Where to begin on this. Mostly, they weren't given the option, they were evicted. And labour wasn't the bottleneck on farm production, except at peak seasons (which was why threshing machines were brought in). Land was the bottleneck. If you put more labour on improved land, beyond a certain point you don't grow more - and they had reached that point. It made perfect economic sense to downsize the numbers on the farms and work the rest harder, because wages (including in kind) had a base level per person; lower numbers meant a lower total overhead to cover that. As the Tudor Enclosures showed, the rationale for eviction applied whether there were factories for the displaced to go to or not. (There's an externality here, by the way, "vagrancy costs".)
He finishes by claiming - without even correctly stating my reasoning - that "Your line of reasoning holds no merit whatsoever, unless you were to assume non voluntary trade assumptions, if were to hold assumptions that labor decisions were compelled by force and slavery, and not a free market."
As it happens, the whole object of the exercise was to bring out and show the distortions that really were there. There's no assuming going on on my part, it is Rtr who is assuming that there were no distortions. To take but one, Scottish clan lands were appropriated by clan chiefs, who then evicted clansmen. This is not a free market at work.
Newson (rather more open mindedly) continues "...and so we arrive at the point of disagreement. how can you establish that it is the peasants that suffer to provide the surplus food for the city workers, and not the greater productivity from the rationalization of small plots into larger ones? or perhaps the technical innovations? your conclusion is entirely speculative. and counterintuitive, to boot. it strains credibility to imagine somehow peasants withholding services (accumulating leisure) prior to the enclosures."
Like I said, I'm not speculating, I'm drawing on what happened. We know that life on farms was hard - it was my critics who brought that out. So the question is, what made it hard? As it happens there are enough natural experiments on record that we can see times when it was not hard. For instance, after the effects of the Tudor Enclosures washed out, up until the Civil Wars, English peasants experienced the effects of New World silver inflation. Real rents and taxes fell (though tithes didn't, as they were in kind). I'm not going to quote verbatim from Buchan's Cromwell on this, but he summarises the consensus that there was a Golden Age for peasants on the eve of the Civil Wars. That provides a control. Fast forward to the 18th century, and you see more Enclosures, more evictions, fewer independent resources for the remaining peasants and more work for them per head to work the land fully. There's your natural experiment. Oh, and "rationalising farms" doesn't, in and of itself, boost land productivity, that sort of thing pays by boosting labour productivity so you can cut the workforce for the same amount of production (demand for food being inelastic, and mop up jobs opening up, total food production didn't change much in the short term).
"...besides, as malthus had quite correctly concluded (at least correctly till the i.r.), populations swell continuously until constrained by the horsemen of the apocalypse. free time in those days quickly turned wives pregnant, and with extra mouths to feed, goodbye leisure."
Well, no. As Mao Tse Tung remarked, each new mouth brings a new pair of hands. For a given set of techniques, and a given amount of land, working harder won't grow more. So Malthusian constraints didn't show as more work per person but as less food per person (you don't see starving people in third world countries working harder, just starving more). New techniques, and more particularly new crops, allowed more work to produce more - but as Malthus pointed out, those came on stream slowly (basically, each innovation was a one off). By the way, none of these agricultural land productivity improvements owed anything to industrialisation until chemical fertilisers came in in the late 19th century. Industrialisation did improve transport, allowing new lands to come on stream, and created labour productivity improvements, which also helped total food production once those new lands had been opened up (because labour was the bottleneck there), but it didn't boost food production on old lands, it rested on the boosts from new crops etc. itself.
Published: July 6, 2008 3:52 AM
to pm lawrence:
your argument has flipped. first you introduce the hard work theme - "This is what made a zero sum for food, so peasants had to work harder."
then, when i express skepticism about peasants withholding labour, it changes to hunger -
"As Mao Tse Tung remarked, each new mouth brings a new pair of hands. For a given set of techniques, and a given amount of land, working harder won't grow more. So Malthusian constraints didn't show as more work per person but as less food per person (you don't see starving people in third world countries working harder, just starving more)."
much as i find mao's epithets amusing, i don't think he had much insight into the farming life (great leap forward, sparrow hunt etc.)
babies are net food consumers, soaking up the labour of either mother, or other family members who could otherwise be involved in immediately productive chores. indeed the "payoff" point, in terms of what children consume to what they produce, was years away from birth, even in the dark ages.
to be perfectly candid, i don't believe in any golden age for peasants prior to the industrial revolution, for the reason already mentioned. extra mouths always followed "good times" in short order, and then the culling through pestilence, famine etc.
with respect, there must have been productivity improvements you're overlooking. if there were fewer peasants working the land, and the food output remained static, and hard work under land-constrained conditions will not increase production, and yet the national population didn't drop, then necessarily productivity improved.
there's no other way out of the rebus.
Published: July 6, 2008 7:07 AM
Agree with you Gennady regarding the opening scenes and the underlying premisr, however I found the movie to be visually stunning, dramatically interesting, and with a surprisingly profound anti-state, pro-liberty message, I blogged about it here;
http://libertyguys.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/disney-pixars-wall-e-breathtaking-maddening/
Published: July 6, 2008 7:37 AM
Agree with you Gennady regarding the opening scenes and the underlying premise, however I found the movie to be visually stunning, dramatically interesting, and with a surprisingly profound anti-state, pro-liberty message, I blogged about it here;
http://libertyguys.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/disney-pixars-wall-e-breathtaking-maddening/
Published: July 6, 2008 7:38 AM
Since the WALL-E critique was ended with a shout out to all thinking people to recognize the film for what the critic interpreted it to mean, let me just say that as a "thinking person", perhaps Gennady Stolyarov II is not able to enjoy the film on the level it should be enjoyed at, which would maybe be entertainment and beyond that, sci-fi social fiction. Audiences are smarter than you think. Now if you think that kids are not smart enough to see the economic misrepresentations in the film, again maybe it wasn't meant to be aimed at kids in the hope that they would digest it that way. Or do you think the writers were trying to brainwash the kids with propaganda? After all kids are impressionable aren't they? Somehow I don't see a threat that kids are going to come out of the theater retaining the inaccuracies of the film. You, Gennady Stolyarov II even pointed that out. So my point is, what is your point in trashing WALL-E as being propaganda when that concept is lost through the entertainment value? Oh wait, wait one second. I see where you're going with this. Since kids can't see this outright, on a subliminal level the entertainment value masks the true intentions of the film which is to fill kids' heads with false perceptions that will be ingrained in their heads so as to remain instilled in them and therefore hardwire them to never be swayed back to the true realities of our economic history. Give me a break! Although, the kids in the theater did seem to be a sponge ready to soak up these elements within the film, especially that infant who at some point stopped making baby sounds long enough to fall asleep. I think to counter this you need to give your kids a good talking to and I'd recommend making them read George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' at least five times to hopefully counter what they may experience if they see WALL-E with your friends kids. One last thought. Kids in America are not usually subject to the same conditions other kids in communist countries experience while growing up. Where a child lives might determine what they absorb more than a movie would. But then, maybe WALL-E isn't shown in certain countries. America may have it's various social problems, but the weight you place upon this film doesn't make or brake any of them. I would say that's where parents come in. I would suggest watching Disney Pixar's WALL-E without trying to observe all kinds of inaccurate social connotations, and maybe you'll enjoy the film more; that is if you can drop the philosophical and economical glasses long enough to do that. Opps, that was more than one thought... sorry.
Published: July 6, 2008 3:10 PM
Since the WALL-E critique was ended with a shout out to all thinking people to recognize the film for what the critic interpreted it to mean, let me just say that as a "thinking person", perhaps Gennady Stolyarov II is not able to enjoy the film on the level it should be enjoyed at, which would maybe be entertainment and beyond that, sci-fi social fiction. Audiences are smarter than you think. Now if you think that kids are not smart enough to see the economic misrepresentations in the film, again maybe it wasn't meant to be aimed at kids in the hope that they would digest it that way. Or do you think the writers were trying to brainwash the kids with propaganda? After all kids are impressionable aren't they? Somehow I don't see a threat that kids are going to come out of the theater retaining the inaccuracies of the film. You, Gennady Stolyarov II even pointed that out. So my point is, what is your point in trashing WALL-E as being propaganda when that concept is lost through the entertainment value? Oh wait, wait one second. I see where you're going with this. Since kids can't see this outright, on a subliminal level the entertainment value masks the true intentions of the film which is to fill kids' heads with false perceptions that will be ingrained in their heads so as to remain instilled in them and therefore hardwire them to never be swayed back to the true realities of our economic history. Give me a break! Although, the kids in the theater did seem to be a sponge ready to soak up these elements within the film, especially that infant who at some point stopped making baby sounds long enough to fall asleep. I think to counter this you need to give your kids a good talking to and I'd recommend making them read George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' at least five times to hopefully counter what they may experience if they see WALL-E with your friends kids. One last thought. Kids in America are not usually subject to the same conditions other kids in communist countries experience while growing up. Where a child lives might determine what they absorb more than a movie would. But then, maybe WALL-E isn't shown in certain countries. America may have it's various social problems, but the weight you place upon this film doesn't make or brake any of them. I would say that's where parents come in. I would suggest watching Disney Pixar's WALL-E without trying to observe all kinds of inaccurate social connotations, and maybe you'll enjoy the film more; that is if you can drop the philosophical and economical glasses long enough to do that. Opps, that was more than one thought... sorry.
Published: July 6, 2008 3:16 PM
Stolyarov = Scrooge.
Published: July 6, 2008 3:18 PM
P.M.Lawrence: "I merely pointed out that the rural sector had to do more than it would have chosen on its own."
That just doesn't make sense on economic grounds. You are again making non free market assumptions, which is fine from an analysis perspective, as long as you demonstrate such. The rural market choice to produce surplus output *in spite of* its always existing preference of less work for more reward, or they were compelled by violence. Compelling by violence does not generally increase the productivity per acre, as can be seen by per acre farming productivity results from many socialist and communist countries. Violence doesn't magically increase productivity. It begs credulity that more people can be supported by less farmers (by definition of more people subsisting as factory laborers), without there necessarily being an increase in farming productivity.
However, you are abusing words that denote free market voluntary *choices* (which are always constrained). If they didn't choose to till the land, then they would have voluntarily left the profession of farming, which is exactly what happened with the industrial revolution.
P.M.Lawrence: "They also had to produce even more, to cover rent, tithes and (usually indirect) taxes"
Well taxes aren't voluntary free market institutions, so we can ignore those. Landlords could only charge more rent if productivity increases alone afforded that possibility. And indeed increased marginal productivity makes the land more valuable, is a win-win for both landlord and farmer.
P.M.Lawrence: "Considering that I said nothing at all about specialisation and the division of labour, or net poverty,"
Yes you did. You said farmers had to work harder for the same output. Working more for less or the same output is worse off than working the same for the same output or working less for more output. By definition of productivity, people would be working less for more output or the same for more output or less for the same output. This is the opposite of "harder".
P.M.Lawrence: "The remainder became worse off than earlier generations had been."
How would you be "worse off" if you no longer had to grow your own food but could instead rely upon the marginally more competitive surplus of fewer farmers to produce enough food for all, and instead concentrate on other pursuits? It's win-win, society is net wealthier. This is no different than making claims people are worse off because they can't do what they want to do because of competition, people are worse off because they can't make their livings as professional athletes rather than service workers. I could be Wimbledon champion if only the tennis players better than me weren't allowed to compete! But all the viewers of the event would be worse off as they only got to experience poorer quality play, poorer quality entertainment.
P.M.Lawrence: "we can see that there were fewer left to feed about the same number."
Which could only occur if fewer people farming actually could feed everyone by increases in labor productivity. Otherwise excess food production would only be wastefully rotting, and adding to the supply of food which would be bringing the prices for food production down, thus causing all farmers to be poorer rather than everyone being richer by producing other stuff such as factory goods. Society no longer produces just food, but now produces food *AND* factory goods. This is win-win for everybody.
P.M.Lawrence: "Mostly, they weren't given the option, they were evicted."
That's a *good* thing. Land owners were behaving as good entrepreneurs, doing them a favor saving them wasting their efforts on unnecessary duplicating output. Just like I'm synthetically "evicted" from competing in the Wimbledon tournament. Those less efficient farmers would be strictly economically *better off* working in the factories, just as those more efficient remain farmers would be strictly economically better off with unnecessary surplus production from those less marginally efficient farmers. It's win-win. And win-win-win when you include the land owners who can now charge higher rents for more marginally productive land, or use the land saved on producing food for other uses, such as your sheep herding example.
P.M.Lawrence: "it is Rtr who is assuming that there were no distortions. To take but one, Scottish clan lands were appropriated by clan chiefs, who then evicted clansmen. This is not a free market at work."
So a more free market would have benefited everybody, would have made everybody better off, would have mode society net wealthier. It was only anti-free market, anti-capitalism distortions which were causing people to be poorer than they otherwise would have been.
Published: July 6, 2008 3:34 PM
to rtr:
weren't you writing a book?
Published: July 6, 2008 8:19 PM
to paul marks:
perhaps it's all those george clooney movies i've been watching, but i recall nothing of the "blacklisting" by the hollywood left.
Published: July 6, 2008 8:23 PM
newson: "to rtr:weren't you writing a book?"
Strict Barter: The Epistemological and Economic Implications of Trade, or something like that. I estimate I only have about two thirds of the demonstrations I'm looking for, though they are of course exhibited and marked "out there" on the internet (the so-called 99 independent NP quality demonstrations :P), just in case any others were to independently accidentally stumble upon the methodology. It tends to be simultaneously written with various disparate free wheeling intellectual sparing. So maybe hopefully done in another three of four years. Then a year or two to tie the book together. But currently it just doesn't feel like I'm done discovering and ready to work on mere summarization yet.
Published: July 6, 2008 10:25 PM
We just got back from seeing the film. I fully expected a not-so-subliminal global warming panic attack and was pleasantly surprised to the contrary. Yes, the premise of the trash filled world and the pitiful humans on the Axiom were ridiculous, but as others have pointed out, they were artistic devices to create a setting for the premise of the story.
The creators threw in some funny jabs at corporatism and overt consumerism (which is odd considering those are the sources of their considerable wealth), and there was a definite anti-environmentalist smack. But the overriding theme was one of liberty, self-determination, love, and the power of good to overcome evil. Most importantly, no overt socialist/collectivist/global warming messages that I could see. It's safe for kids and susceptible adults.
A charming movie.
Published: July 6, 2008 11:29 PM
girl we apple german ibm this elephant ugly boat
Published: July 7, 2008 3:15 AM
usa ocean joke water all student
Published: July 7, 2008 7:00 AM
I wish everyone would stick close to the nature of the movie rather than repeating libertarian cultural critiques that have very little to do with the subject itself.
I wish you would stop telling people what to do, say and think.
In any event, I have seen the movie.
It is a message movie. It is a rather blunt one. Ham-fisted. Subtle as the proverbial ton of bricks.
But its message is not about economics per se. (It has economic assumptions and implications, of course, but that's because economics is the study of all of our practical, material world.)
The overt message is the fad du jour -- environmentalism. The MacGuffin in the movie is a plant -- the sole plant that has ever been found to exist on planet earth 700 years after all humans evacuated. I even think the plant in question is a soy bean plant, for the love of God.
The message is that we are burying the planet in garbage. Wall-E is a garbage-cleaning robot.
Anyway, the meta-message is a little more subtle. And it's more freedom-oriented and therefore laudable. This meta-message is addressed in the second half of the movie, when we meet the humans living in space.
Life onboard the AXIOM is Brave New World. Babies are raised in incubators. People are fed constant electronic entertainment. Robots do everything. Everyone lives on levitating recliners, wearing zip-up tracksuits, such that they all are morbidly obese and incapable of walking. It is a hellish prison, made more insidious by the fact that it is a nice, all-too-comfortable place to live. The people in the prison don't know it's a prison. They literally think it's an endless all-you-can-eat cruise.
Brave New World is the reality of modern, post-WWII socialism. It is the scientific socialism we live with today. Socialism has not come to America by looking like 1984 or Eastern Europe. It has succeeded by mimicking the aesthetics of free enterprise. The all-encompassing, global government in Wall-E is nominally a discount retailer. (BNL, aka Buy 'n Large, is Wal*Mart, obviously.)
So, the hero of the movie is the libertarian, loner individual. He almost dies, symbolically, in Act III, but the way the filmmakers expressed this death is very interesting -- the robot temporarily loses his individuality. After he is severely damaged and repaired, he becomes a shell, a mechanical automaton, a mere machine that resumes work without any warmth or curiosity. Then, a robot-kiss from Eve restores him to his quirky, defiant self, complete with a genuine personality and free will.
The other hero is the AXIOM's captain, who smashes the technological, corporatist state. Literally smashes it -- the scientific, corporatist state onboard the AXIOM is run by a computer (that has a flat, machine-like voice and a red eye that is exactly like the HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey). He casts off his floating Barc-a-lounger and walks, for the first time in his life, and sets a new course, a free man.
So, the movie is mixed in terms of libertarianism. On the one hand, it's cheap, environmental hysteria-mongering in the tradition of Al Gore. But on the other, it portrays the state as unequivocally evil -- it provides all physical comforts and creates an apparent paradise, as long as you submit to slavery by never asking the big questions or challenging the system as a whole.
Published: July 7, 2008 9:43 AM
Star Wars, The Phantom Menace was reviewed on this site and lauded for its economic brilliance(see Mark Thorntons review). But,... but.... that did not make it a good movie, in fact, it was really, really bad. I watch movies to be entertained and that's it. Wall-E was entertaining.
Published: July 7, 2008 10:48 AM
I just took my kid to see "Kung Fu Panda" this weekend, and now I'm wondering what kind of subversive socialist ideology I unwittingly exposed him to. It did take place in China, after all!
Seriously, some of you need to get a little bit of a grip. A person's political ideology/philosophy is hardly set in stone by a film they saw when they were a young child. It's a bit more complex than that, isn't it?
I haven't seen "Wall-E." Does the film condemn technology per se, or just how certain organizations use some applications of certain kinds of technology? Does the film try to claim that FREE MARKET capitalism has laid the Earth to waste? If it doesn't, why assume that it does make that claim? Perhaps one could just as easily make the inference that state-socialism combined with government-protected big business is responsible for the ruin? Or perhaps various state-run enterprises were responsible? (I seem to recall that the Soviet regime's attempt at running a nuclear power plant met with a fair amount of wide-scale disaster.)
Patrick Ford at The American Conservative's blog had an interesting take on this movie that addresses some of the concerns expressed by some conservatives that appear somewhat similar to those of this article's author, and he reached somewhat different conclusions:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/06/30/wall-es-conservative-critics/
Here's a snippet:
"In the film, it becomes clear that mass consumerism is not just the product of big business, but of big business wedded with big government. In fact, the two are indistinguishable in WALL-E’s future. The government unilaterally provided it’s citizens with everything they needed, and this lack of variety led to Earth’s downfall."
Did Patrick Ford see a completely different movie than Mr. Stolyarov? I guess I'll just have to see for myself. But judging from the two very different responses, it seems as though there is some room for interpretation.
Published: July 7, 2008 11:41 AM
england dog are mail right busy elephant house
Published: July 7, 2008 12:54 PM
Regardless of entertainment value, Hollywierd is the world's biggest propoganda machine.
Published: July 7, 2008 12:57 PM
Regardless of entertainment value, Hollywierd is the world's biggest propoganda machine.
Published: July 7, 2008 12:58 PM
Regardless of entertainment value, Hollywierd is the world's biggest propoganda machine.
Published: July 7, 2008 1:00 PM
Regardless of entertainment value, Hollywierd is the world's biggest propoganda machine.
Published: July 7, 2008 1:01 PM
Magnus: "I wish everyone would stick close to the nature of the movie rather than repeating libertarian cultural critiques that have very little to do with the subject itself."
I asked people to stick to topic because it is very difficult for me to follow the flow of argument due to the layout of the comment section of the Mises website. When I was “telling people what to do and think”, I was merely putting forward a proposal which I hoped would be voluntarily accepted. This, of course, is a handicap on my part, and I ask as a favor to myself that only the topic would be discussed (this means that it does no good to talk about thermodynamics in a debate concerning metaphysics).
As far as WALL-E is concerned, I disagree that the central message is environmentalism. It is more, in my eyes, a warning against government and I believe can be called a very anarchist film. In the first fifteen minutes of the film we are greeted with the destruction caused directly by a purely command economy. I find it peculiar that other Austrians did not instantly see the blueprint Zwangswirtschaft (German for “compulsory economy”) system personified in the BNL Corporation. With the monopoly power over the use of force as well as a nationalized economic base, property rights (in the pure sense) were completely trampled. To the common layman a trashed earth may be synonymous with free enterprise and libertarian ideals but this film does not set out to provide explanation but to tell a story.
I’ll respond more later.
Published: July 7, 2008 10:41 PM
Hi Fundamentalist,
I see you recommend Rand's fiction. Do you also recommend reading her non-fiction about capitalism, selfishness, for the new intellectual, etc.?
Thanks.
Published: July 8, 2008 6:24 AM
IMHO, I haven't read too much Rand, just her fiction and a compilation of columns. I like most of what I have read, but disagree with some things, like her take on selfishness. I haven't read anyone I agree with completely. Although the only thing I have found I disagree with Mises on is his attitude toward religion and that changed in his later life.
In mentioning Rand, I was mostly recommending that libertarians follow her approach in putting her ideas into fiction. I think her fiction has probably helped convert more people to libertarian thought than all of her non-fiction.
Published: July 8, 2008 8:11 AM
I disagree that the central message is environmentalism. It is more, in my eyes, a warning against government and I believe can be called a very anarchist film. In the first fifteen minutes of the film we are greeted with the destruction caused directly by a purely command economy.
My point was not that environmentalism is the "central" message, but rather that it is merely the film's most conspicuous, overt message.
There is a meta-message, a slightly hidden one, one that, as I said, is more subtle, even if it is perhaps more important. That less overt message is the one you referred to -- the danger of crony, state capitalism, the fusion of business and government.
This economic message is not as obvious as the one about the biological need to protect plants.
It is not at all clear, I think, to the average moviegoer that the movie condemns the practice of a command economy. In the popular mind, a command economy is the old Soviet Union. It is Eastern Europe. It is China in the 1950s. It is North Korea. In short, something right out of 1984 (which most people only remember because it was copied in Ridley Scott's famous commercial for the Macintosh computer.) This version of socialism is portrayed as a consumer nightmare. Nothing on the shelves. No convenience. No nice, new clothes. Everything gray.
This is not the command economy of Wall-E (nor of contemporary America, incidentally). Here, we see the Brave New World version of socialism. It is a consumer paradise (at least superficially). There are no problems of food shortages, just the opposite -- too much food and an obese population. Too many conveniences, not too few. Not a stern military-style commander with goose-stepping armies on parade, but a smiling, cheesy CEO, standing behind a presidential podium emblazoned with a retailer's logo instead of an eagle.
I agree that this part of Wall-E is a condemnation of fascism, and one I agree with, of course. But it is a somewhat hidden message, because I do not believe the general public recognizes this as fascism.
Published: July 8, 2008 8:26 AM
Thanks again, Fundamentalist.
Published: July 8, 2008 10:51 AM
You hit the nail on the head, magnus. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you posted.
Published: July 8, 2008 1:32 PM
No. It's about capitalism. Even more offensive, it's about greed and selfishness. And why they're wrong. Don't pretend this is about someone else. This film is directed at the American consumer. It is saying: You are disgusting and evil.
We're done arguing. With the democrats in complete control, we will begin the dismantling of capitalism in America.
Published: July 8, 2008 10:18 PM
I found this blog looking for someone, anyone, who found Wall E to be undeserving of the unrelenting praise that is has received. I agree with all points made in the blog, but I simply yearn for the interesting characters, funny dialog and sheer entertainment of Toy Story and The Incredibles! I found Wall E to be tiresome, boring and way too heavy handed in its message.
Published: July 9, 2008 9:26 AM
Testing (to see if it's me or my links keeping things from being posted).
Published: July 9, 2008 10:13 PM
I think you missed the point entirely.
First, if you compare this world view to THX, 1984, or other fictional works (Neil Stevenson comes to mind), then a world view like this isn't far off the mark. One could consider this a "what if," were it not for my second point:
It's a frackin' cartoon. It's an imaginative work. It's cleverly done. It's an engaging storyline. It's FICTION. Why does it have to be propaganda?
Published: July 10, 2008 4:55 PM
I guess to me, I saw the station as sort of a "Brave New World" crowds CAN be brainwashed into complacency, boredom, and lethargy.
There are some inconsistencies, yes. And in most movies those praxeologically unsound problems would have bothered me. (In addition to the biological ones -- like how did those people learn to walk again after 700 years of devolving bone mass, etc.)
But unlike other movies (like Robots for instances which was blatantly a Marxian fairy tale.) the economic illiteracy isn't their to indoctrinate, and isn't the point.
The point is individualism. 1 person -- following his own dreams (even if it's a Robot) can make a difference.
But the point of the movie is that 1 person can make a difference.
Lets give Pixar the benefit of the doubt. They've made some blatently libertarian, pro-market movies in the past (A Bugs Life, Monsters Inc, Incredibles, Ratatuie)
Tracy
Published: July 11, 2008 1:17 AM
It's an imaginative work. It's cleverly done. It's an engaging storyline. It's FICTION. Why does it have to be propaganda?
Why do you believe that fiction can't be propaganda?
If you read Edward Bernays' classic text, Propaganda, you'll find that he includes in his definition any form of communication that has the ability to persuade.
Bernays knew what he was talking about, too. He was a major figure in the engineering of public opinion for the White House, made bacon and eggs a common American breakfast, and helped engineer the overthrow of the government of Guatemala for the benefit of the United Fruit Company (aka Chiquita Brands International).
He believed that fiction can be an excellent vehicle for propaganda, because one feature of propaganda is that it is less effective the more overt it is.
Published: July 11, 2008 8:10 AM
Since this blog won't post my rebuttal, Kevin Carson is going to.
Published: July 12, 2008 12:33 AM
Rebuttal.
Published: July 15, 2008 1:47 AM
While I do not agree with Mr.Carson or P.M. Lawrence on quite a bit, including the assumptions about the choices between work on farms and factory with the farm winning out, (especially when trying to apply his theory to the American landscape as opposed to the British) it should be obvious to anyone that the enclosure acts DID indeed theft land and herd people into positions they otherwise would not have chosen. Any defense of these acts is abysmally statist in nature.
I do think it is far fetched to say when the writers of this movie conjured up the story they were thinking about the neo-mercantilist partnership of business and state. It is not a popular analysis of market ills to blame states interference with market process, but to blame legitimate business practices. I also cannot see how anyone would come to the conclusion that the movie is not equally following popular economic ignorance about environment and legitimate business (and property rights). It is the same vulgar blindness to state intervention that the "vulgar libertarian" is guilty of and it is exceptionally pervasive in the western world. That the makers of WALL-E had any of these free market critiques presented here or elsewhere in mind I find highly doubtful. So I do not think it is so wise to defend the film, at least no more so than zealously berating it.
If you REALLY want to find a true piece of child propaganda look no further than a particularly Marxist segment in "Ant Bully"
Published: July 15, 2008 9:24 AM
American Spectator has an interesting review of the movie on its web site today.
Published: July 15, 2008 12:53 PM
thorsmitersaw: "it should be obvious to anyone that the enclosure acts DID indeed theft land and herd people into positions they otherwise would not have chosen."
No, Enclosure was turning socialist common land into private property. Sure, there may be some complaints that privatization didn't occur fairly (large land owners were entitled by monarchy political bequething), but there is no doubt enclosure privatization led to increased productivity. If there was any theft of land, it was giant land tracts being awarded by the King to become manor estates.
A quick overview can be gleaned at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
"commons (a piece of land owned by one person, but over which other people could exercise certain traditional rights, such as allowing their livestock to graze upon it),"
So if you want to complain that walking my dog on your lawn to do "his business" is a theft of my rights, maybe we could work out a compensation plan that let's you pay me for all the free fertilizer your lawn receives. :P
Obviously that's not efficient for specialized division of labor or increasing productivity gains.
"The focus shifted to implementation of new agricultural techniques, including fertilizer, new crops, and crop rotation, all of which greatly increased the profitability of large-scale farms."
Marginal per acre productivity drastically increased. Those are productivity gains from privatization of property overcoming the so-called "tragedy of the commons" independent of technology gains from the Industrial Revolution.
"In 1515, conversion from arable to pasture became an offence."
Relatively more profitable sheep pasturing was being artificially restricted by government interference. It's similar to the American story of cattle ranchers versus farmers, with the distinct difference that American farmers favored enclosure while cattle ranchers favored commons; in England sheep herders favored enclosure while the farmers there favored commons. It's classic economic and political instability caused by ill defined individual property rights. This was back and forth rent seeking political warfare for centuries, with the Tudors originally in favor of the commons so as to quell vagrancy and rebellion. All sides avoided a free market solution economic solution.
"Both economic and social factors drove the enclosure movement. In particular, the demand for land in the seventeenth century, increasing regional specialisation, engro