Tankie, though if I take the 2-axis politics test I wind up being in the bottom left corner (you have to give some pretty unhinged answers to get top left).
I started out as a techno-libertarian and then lib left, then socdem, then anarchist. There’s been life experiences that have changed my politics.
I guess, though I have extensive critiques of both. I’m probably closest to Cuba, given my Carribean heritage and actually helping the local community outreach program.
While states still exist, I am a Welsh nationalist because independence from the UK is the only way we can stave off English attempts to undermine the senedd and Welsh democracy as a whole.
Welsh nationalism as a short-term project, because the structure of the UK gives ultimate control to the houses of parliament (a largely unelected seat of power), if any form of communism, let alone anarchist communism, is to be successfully built in Wales we must first be free from direct interference by our neighbours.
I realise that I’m using nationalist in a context that you’re probably unfamiliar with.
When I say Welsh nationalism I’m using this definition - “advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.”
As opposed to the definition you’re likely more familiar with -“identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.”
Now for how I Square these two otherwise inconsistent political goals:
It is a complicated process and I don’t doubt that the Welsh nationalist movement may present some hurdles in the long run to the dissolution of state hierarchy. But the way I see it is like this:
UK parliament controls the entire UK, there’s the senedd in Wales and the Scottish parliament but ultimately they only have the power to make minor adjustments to laws (such as change the speed limit slightly).
As such, any revolution that occurs in Wales has to contend not just with the local bourgeois but also from the bourgeois of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Now two possible tactics exist in this situation:
revolution across the whole UK at once.
Or
Wales separates from the UK and then undergoes revolution.
Of the two of those, I believe the latter outcome is more likely to succeed.
And I understand the difference between left wing and right wing nationalism, but it’s kind of weird to be for the identity of Wales and against all governments, given national identities heavily rely on governments to exist.
I think a key place where we are disagreeing is in the nature of Welsh identity. I don’t view it as a national identity but rather a cultural one. Even once all states have been dissolved, Welsh identity will likely persist through our language and traditions.
Yes, but the cultural identity will outlive the national one when the state dissolves, it has millenniums of cultural inertia behind it after all. I don’t forsee any future anti-capitalists getting in the way of, for example, Eisteddfod gatherings or couples exchanging love spoons.
If an anarchist revolution is successful, the dissolution of the state is inevitable.
If a socialist revolution is successful then the eventual dissolution of the state will likely occur in a framework such as Engels’ “withering away of the state”.
Since capitalism cannot sustain itself indefinitely, it is likely that one of these two revolutions will occur (or there will be a backslide into fascism).
Pëtr Kropotkin wrote a lot about possible organisation of anarchist society after the revolution, at this point it’s a meme to recommend reading “the bread book” The Conquest of Bread and I don’t personally recommend starting with it and instead beginning with a pamphlet like Anarchism and Revolution.
The ZAD de Notres-Dame-des-Landes, is a good example of a long running commune that has managed to withstand assault from an external state. But the kinds of large scale anarchism that will do away with the state in its entirety has not yet been attempted.
Revolutionary Catalonia provides a good example of an anarchist project where large scale industrial infrastructure was maintained and could help form the blueprint for decentralised industry. Much ink has been spilled pointing fingers about who was to blame for the sectarian infighting that ultimately led to its collapse, I think a more important question would be “how do we stop something like that happening next time?” A question that I have no clue how to answer.
Anarchist Ukraine - correct me if I’m wrong, but this is about the Mahknovists right? Despite being largely agrarian, they were able to rebuild destroyed infrastructure an astounding rate in the face of multiple invasions and an ongoing civil war. There are rumours of antisemitism within Mahknovshchina but a lot of them come from USSR aligned sources and are hotly debated by different anarchist groups, I don’t know enough about Ukrainian history to know if the accusations are true.
Fair enough on the Zapatistias, I just hear about them a lot from anarchists as a workable example of anarchosocialism.
And yeah I actually don’t know a lot about anarchist Catalonia, just that it’s basically the biggest example of anarchism on a society-wide level. Was actually goading you for more information lol.
Mahknovists
Yes, them. Also don’t know much about them. I know far more about the Menshevik territories in Georgia and Russia, which were democratic socialist and not anarchist, and even more forgotten about.
your effort was commendable, don’t let this moron ruin it. I myself have saved your sources to read later, it was very enlightening. Thank you for your posting rat-salute-2
Oh, this is the popular conception of anarchy as a political project, but doesn’t really reflect anarchist thought much at all.
Anarchy is the project of volentary, participatory, and minimally coercive government. You can’t really have “no government” in any largish group of people. What you can do is structure that government to have the least amount of heirarchy and control with the greatest amount of participation.
Counter to popular conception, this actually means a lot of rules, just rules that everyone has a say in making. The goal will be that the rules serve to protect and promote wellbeing while having the minimum impact onthe choices people have available,
How can you have communism without a state forcing everyone to surrender their property?
If private property exists, that’s not communism. But to enforce communism you need a state so that’s not anarchy.
I believe anarchy and communism are polar opposites, and cannot co-exist. You’re either for anarchy (which ultimately leads to individualism and capitalism) or communism, which requires a huge controlling state to exist.
Private property will not exist under anarchism, since private property (read the means of production) will be placed into the collective hands of those who need it.
anarchy (which ultimately leads to individualism and capitalism)
Capitalism requires the maintenance of involuntary hierarchies (like that between the owner and worker) and thus is antithetical to anarchism.
I believe anarchy and communism are polar opposites,
The ultimate goal of communism is the dissolution of state, this is something even MLs agree on.
"Engels suggested to Bebel that all chatter about the state be dropped altogether, that the word “state” be eliminated from the programme altogether and the word “community” substituted for it. Engels even declared that the Commune was long a state in the proper sense of the word. Yet Marx even spoke of the “future state in communist society”, i.e., he would seem to recognize the need for the state even under communism.
But such a view would be fundamentally wrong. A closer examination shows that Marx’s and Engels’ views on the state and its withering away were completely identical, and that Marx’s expression quoted above refers to the state in the process of withering away."
If you wouldn’t mind me making an assumption, it appears that you have very little knowledge of anarchism’s philosophical framework. I can give you some reading suggestions if you’d like.
You’re right, I don’t have much knowledge of anarchism’s philosophical framework, but I do know that the definition of the word means that there is no authority.
In an anarchist society, what’s to stop me from accumulating wealth?
Furthermore, what would stop me from entering into voluntary contracts with others who agree to do labour in exchange for money?
Ultimately I think that without some authority (almost certainly a state) enforcing communism, the relationships we currently experience under capitalism will naturally reoccur. And (if my limited understanding of anarchy is correct, which I admit it might not be), under anarchism there can be no such authority preventing capitalism from happening.
Communism always needs to be enforced, it doesn’t happen naturally. Capitalism does. That’s why I don’t think communism can exist along with anarchy.
Communism always needs to be enforced, it doesn’t happen naturally. Capitalism does. That’s why I don’t think communism can exist along with anarchy.
Capitalism also has to be enforced.
What do you think all those counter revolutionary insurgencies like the bay of pigs invasion are?
Or the state crackdowns on communist groups like the red scare?
Capitalism is not a natural state that things can revert to, it is a system that needs to be imposed.
You’re right, I don’t have much knowledge of anarchism’s philosophical framework, but I do know that the definition of the word means that there is no authority.
Anarchism is the absence of involuntary hierarchies such as the state. Authority and authoritarianism is meaningless in drawing a dividing line between ideologies because every socioeconomic framework needs to defend itself from being undermined one way or another. A good place to get started on this matter would be On Authority by Friedrich Engels.
The bay of pigs invasion and the red scare were attempts to stop communist ideology from spreading. This was done in order to perpetuate and protect the status quo in the USA for geopolitical reasons, but is not necessary for capitalism to function. Many nations start conflicts with each other because of a difference in ideology, and a perceived need to contain or counteract the ideology of the other nation, and this is not limited to capitalist societies. The USSR for example engaged in many conflicts with its neighbors in an attempt to export the revolution and spread its influence. Yet I wouldn’t say these conflicts were necessary for communism to function as a system, any more than the conflicts capitalist countries engaged in were necessary for capitalism to work.
I disagree that capitalism is not a natural state that things can revert to. I believe that if you were to take a random sample of humanity, wipe their memories and drop them on an alien world, capitalism would happen. Not because there’s a “system” making it happen, but because that’s just what people do.
I appreciate the recommendations. I’ll check out Pëtr Kropotkin.
If capitalism is the natural way for civilisation to organise itself, how come it took until the 1700s to become a widespread ideology? Humans have been around for a hell of a lot longer than that.
For real, sitting here flabbergasted by this claim. I think it is interesting though, it highlights a very specific isolated Western dominated historical worldview to assume capitalism is naturally occurring. I demand more anthropology in school!
People on the star trek forum with a historical timeline more in line with the people thinking the world is 6000 years old and defending private property picard
I believe that if you were to take a random sample of humanity, wipe their memories and drop them on an alien world, capitalism would happen
Let’s think about that claim a little more carefully, why didn’t the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Arabs, the Sumerians, the Ancient Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Maya, or the Inca develop capitalism
Why did it take 5,000 years after recorded history began for capitalism to emerge if it’s such a “natural phenomenon”
This was done in order to perpetuate and protect the status quo in the USA for geopolitical reasons, but is not necessary for capitalism to function
You really don’t see the contradiction in your claim? Let me spell it out; the “status quo” of the USA IS capitalism
So, I’m not an anarchist any more, but just to throw in a few odds and ends:
In the socialist conception of things, the state is the network of social forces that separates classes. Things like cops, or parliament are big obvious parts of “the state”, but things like CNN or Microsoft are too, despite being in private hands. In your hypothetical, the apparatus you use to accumulate wealth is “the state”.
A part of this reading is that it requires active effort to maintain the state. To take an example, let’s say your method of wealth accumulation was by becoming a landlord. You own the land and dwellings that people shelter in. Cool.
What makes this “yours” and not the tenants? Well, you paid for it, yes, but unless you spend all your time debating your tenants about the philosophy of ownership, you’re going to need enforcers. Enforcers who take your claims of ownership seriously. And this gets more and more necessary as you get more land and more tenants. You’re not going to fight ten tenants yourself to extract rent, let alone 10,000. After all, one would expect a slave to try to escape even if you rightfully paid for them, why not housing or food or anything else people need to live.
In most strains of anarchism, hoarding property so you can exploit your fellow man is violence, just as in liberalism walking across an empty bit of lawn that someone owns is violent.
But then, this isn’t really my beliefs any more, so um… idk, I hope it helps
How are Microsoft and CNN part of the state? Aren’t they just providing a service in exchange for money, in the same way a farmer, an actor or a mechanic does?
Your landlord example is interesting, and does illustrate how a state may be necessary to enforce private ownership, which is something I hadn’t considered about capitalism before. I suppose the landlord could pay private militia to enforce their ownership claims over the land, but at that point the landlord is basically a warlord and realistically wouldn’t need to pay for the land in the first place. The libertarian idea that everyone would voluntarily respect private property rights now seems as absurd as the communist idea that everyone would voluntarily share all property.
I don’t quite see how hoarding property could be considered violent, assuming it was acquired peacefully. Using what you’ve acquired to gain materially is not necessarily exploitative if those gains come from voluntary exchange of goods and labour. If someone wants to clean my windows in exchange for some money, I don’t see how it can be violent to enable that transaction. No one’s being forced to do anything in that scenario.
How are Microsoft and CNN part of the state? Aren’t they just providing a service in exchange for money, in the same way a farmer, an actor or a mechanic does?
Obviously we’re talking about different ideas here. Microsoft, for instance, pays for enforcement of copyright (a relatively modern invention) and gets profits from that enforcement (e.g. through corporate deals, sponsorships, software ecosystems etc), which maintains class character. The owners of Microsoft sit around and do nothing (hypothetically), and the systems surrounding them (“the state”) funnel money up to them, that money being a representation of the power and labour of people buying and using Microsoft products (often without choice; I don’t get to choose which OS my workplace uses, for instance, but I also play video games which can be jank with various linux OSes etc etc). It is in Microsoft’s best interests to maintain this class character of society, thus they will lobby the government to defend their interests, fund op-eds to say “tech workers unionising is bad, actually”, pay for private security, bankroll candidates in local sherriffs elections etc etc. The fact that they are privately owned and the money and power are “private” only really explains where the money/power goes, it doesn’t explain Microsoft’s behaviour. The same with CNN except with different specifics.
I do know a couple of leftists that complain about using the word “state” for this, since it has a different definition in common parlance (usually equivalent to the government or nation-state), so it could just be semantics. But if you’re talking to a left anarchist about states, that’s what they mean. I also realise that this means that your local fish and chips shop owner is a part of “the state”, but the municipal work guy who fills in potholes for the city council isn’t, at least in that conception. I’m not really going to argue these points, just hopefully building some understanding to what anarchists (except ancaps) mean when they talk about the state.
Most people aren’t washing windows for the love of washing windows. Perhaps it would be true if all their needs were met (say, food security, housing etc etc), then your window washing friend taking money to wash windows so he can buy warhammer miniatures or something. Erm… What follows isn’t an argument, but more just a scenario to explain the view. Again, I’m not super interested in arguing the point.
Imagine there is a village where everyone is hungry except one person. That one person owns all the grain. How he acquired the grain is irrelevant, what matters now is he has all the grain in a legal sense. Maybe he inherited from its previous owner. “Give me everything you own, and I will feed you”, he says. The villagers balk. It is a long journey to the nearest town, too long for many of them for they have been hungry for a while. Some of them give up their homes in exchange for grain. They continue living there, but agree to pay future rent. For the others, the situation becomes more dire as the days pass. People are rapidly losing weight, trying to fill their stomachs with a mixture of sawdust and water. The grain lord ups the ante “Give me everything you produce in the future, as well as everything you own right now.” Again the villagers balk, but some people sell themselves into more explicit serfdom than the people from before. and so on and so on until the villagers are selling their firstborns to the grain lord who haven’t even been born yet. I got bored of writing this. At some point or another, the villagers just take the grain and fight off the lord if he tries to stop them. His property hoarding requires violence to maintain regardless of how he acquired that property, unless you consider violence against property to be worse than violence against people (which, uh… idk). Ergo, it is violent.
The point being that in this scenario, everything is “freely” given, in a legalistic sense, but is extremely exploitative in any other sense. The right libertarian viewing this as just is… Well, most people don’t act like this in their personal lives. If a friend or member of their community is hungry and they have lots of food to share, they will share it quite freely. It is the state (in the anarchist’s view) that obfuscates our local community relationships where we see ourselves as so separate that would not give spare food someone in our communities if they were hungry (that said, our cities are very large, something about urbanist critique here). Like, my loser brother who fucks up everything is still welcome to share my pot roast tonight, though I’m probably not going to invest in any of his ventures per se.
I think, also, that while anarchists view the hoarding as violent, they also view the source of all capital as violent as well. For instance, would Standard Oil or US Steel have been as profitable or even have existed if the United States’ land had never been violently appropriated from the native societies that already existed there? A lot of the initial wealth even before the colonial era was squatted on by descendants of warlords who ran what we’d call “protection rackets” (feudalism). How much of any of the wealth that exists is “legitimate”?
Again, I don’t really follow this political view anymore, so I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty of arguing any of these points. These scenarios are just for helping get into the mindset of anarchism. If you want a decent primer to the different forms property and ownership can take, you could read Debt: The First 5000 Years which has very accessible anthropological discussion of many different societies throughout history (including free market arguments in the first Islamic Empire).
your questions presume the existence of money^[1] and capital which can be held in private hands. by the time the state withers away, both will necessarily have been eliminated along with class distinctions. as capital is pure under the domain of the administrative apparatus and under democratic control, it cannot be used to accumulate wealth in the sense of the term as we understand it under capitalism.
can someone decide to accumulate currency? absolutely. what good does it do them? not a whit - once capital passes entirely into the public domain, the function of currency is no longer to denominate the flows of capital but rather merely to facilitate trade, as it was before capitalism, and will again be after it.
the unique part, that which has never happened before, is the social productive capacity of the whole society will lay entirely within the hands of the public at large - ie the ability to organize production without the interposition of private individuals, except where the production itself involves them materially.
[1]: money is distinguished from currency by the MCM’ relation, whereby money is turned into commodities through the process of production and the sale of said commodities becomes new money - ie profit. currencies by way of contrast have existed in many forms and for many purposes - I recommend David Graeber’s Debt for a survey.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I hadn’t considered the difference between money and currency before. Maybe I still don’t fully understand it because I still think there would be an advantage to hoarding currency in any system where others are prepared to exchange goods or labour for that currency.
Trade would surely still occur, and it would be possible to profit from said trade. That profit would enable the trader to live a more luxurious life than those who make less or no profit, because he would be able to acquire more goods and have more work done for him by spending the profit. Consumerism would happen.
Even in a post-scarciry world I think we’d still have Ferengi.
I appreciate the reading recommendations. These are some fascinating ideas to understand for sure.
think about a village that treats a particular kind of wood used in ritual ceremonies - like weddings and funerals - as a kind of currency. the person who bears that currency has a kind of ritual power but it’s limited in scope. a young man who trades years of labor to acquire a single stave can burn it in order to declare his worthiness to marry a woman of the tribe. if one person simply “buys up” all of the available supply… how? it’s a ritual item - they’re literally not for sale in the traditional sense. that is, it’s not money because it’s not a commodity.
another kind of currency is IOUs issued by a particular person - they’re only valuable to you if getting a favor done by that person carries some kind of significance to you. that is, they can be traded like commodities within a community but hold no value outside of it.
I see. In that case, I think the development of money is inevitable. People will want a standardized token of value that is universally accepted. If there is no state, something like gold or bitcoin will meet that need. Something rare but commoditized and fungible will inevitably become the standard unit of account that represents value, and a free market will mean that goods and services naturally find their own price.
People will want a standardized token of value that is universally accepted.
why? this is not how commerce was done for most of human history. to get to a single fungible token, whether it has inherent value (ie a system in which cash is rare and the system itself unstable) or it represents debt (historically more common and stable), we have to presuppose a state whereby one class exerts it’s dominance over another class because both the issuance of currency and the tax must be tightly controlled. but the extant state in our hypothetical is the dictatorship of the proletariat, after class divisions have been erased.
Why does the existence of currency presuppose a state? Let alone one that involves class dominance? People can easily trade precious metals or crypto without the existence of a state, because these things don’t need to be issued in order to represent value.
Same thing that would stop you from pulling your pants down and sitting on a friend’s carpet or unplugging their TV and walking off with it
You do not understand what words like anarchy, communism or capitalism mean
Capitalism is not a natural occurrence, it requires a state to function, planning, control and above all violence; no capitalist would honor a contract if there weren’t courts to enforce them, no capitalist would feel secure if there weren’t state agents protecting their property, no capitalist in history would’ve been able to create foreign markets without European armies conquering the world
You fundamentally do not understand the depth and scope of these discussions, you read a definition in Webster and you think you know about the way the world works? But you can’t even see the obvious facts right in front of your face
Anarchism is rooted in the identification of and opposition to unjust hierarchies and how they may be opposed and dismantled most efficiently. This is a leftist tradition, unlike what Westerners are usually taught in school (or by pop culture), where anarchists just vaguely oppose authority and rules and want “chaos”. As such, anarchists identify the system of capitalism as the primary engine of unjust hierarchy and tend to bring a class analysis to their work, which includes union organizing, mutual aid work, and direct action to oppose the police state
how can you have private property without a state forcing everyone to respect that your name is written on a piece of paper that says it’s yours? we are social beings. in situations where authority collapses, as in natural disasters, the collapse of property relations soon follows.
the right-libertarian misconception that property is a natural, fundamental law that pre-exists all of human society is a fantasy – you are not going to hoard your 50 acres of farmland for yourself while your neighbors starve just because you have a large gun collection. And the right-libertarian solution to this obvious problem is that they would simply create the state again, but with them at the top, by hiring mercenaries to shoot anyone who climbs the fence. That is what the state is at its core: maintenance of property relations. Communism and anarchism aren’t opposites, but synonyms.
Old school left center. We shouldn’t leave anyone behind and help those who can’t help themselves. If they can but they won’t… Well that’s a valid personal choice too but the society shouldn’t shoulder that burden.
Woman’s rights I thought we fixed those but looking at that vid from that Spanish female reporter who got slapped on the ass mid interview I guess there is some work still left to be done there.
Lgbtqi+. If you need that much letters and still can’t come up with a catchy sounding word you’re doing something wrong. But seriously, we’re all equal, be what you are, I’m cool. I do think we’re making this bigger then it really is. We’re overexposing it. Gays have been accepted for a long time in the society. But this focus on all issues be it gender, sexual orientation, transsexualism have resulted in a snap reaction to the other side by a big portion of our societies. I think it’s clear that yes, there’s something there which must be addressed and also yes, the way the “activists” are putting it in the spotlight and are playing the shame game results in an exact opposite reaction. Which results in conflict and bullshit like we’ve seen with ms. Harry Potter. Was it understandable, her pov, knowing what’s she’s been through? Most certainly yes. Is she wrong? Maybe. Possibly. I think so. Was the whole moronic reaction warranted? Most certainly not. Her pov should’ve started a discussion, you know, like grown ups do. What we got instead was a witch hunt, an inquisition. People shouting and a cussing and excluding others.
Wasn’t the whole point of lgtbqi+ inclusion? And how do we accomplish that? By exclusion? That doesn’t seem right. That sounds stupid. That sounds like repeating the same errors.
We live in a global society. We should accept and respect each other. Also the ones we don’t agree with. Sometimes it seems we crave for conflict instead of coexistence. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.
Lastly I firmly believe in decriminalisation of all drugs. Why? We’re fighting a drugs war for as long as I can remember. A part of society craves for this stuff. Be it old school cigarettes, alcohol, narcotics, uppers, downers, etc. I say: let them. Slap a tax on it, regulate it so we’re sure there’s no bullshit in it and let it go.
Bad for health? Looking at our society I see our industry spewing out all kinds of shit, dumping it in the environment. I see insecticides everywhere killing insects and us slowly.
A percentage of society will always be addicted. Legal or illegal. We can’t counter it. But we can counter a lot of the criminal activities surrounding it by legalising it all.
And I would like to add that NO GOVERNMENT EVER has any say about what goes on in one’s body. Abortion is always awful and always leaves a psychological mark. But sometimes it’s necessary.
I used to think like you, but paradox of tolerance my man. You absolutely cannot accept bigots in your society or they WILL ruin it. Not might. Will.
Also saying the minorities need to pull back on the messaging is victim blaming. They wouldn’t need to do it at all if there wasn’t a force to be fighting against. What would you propose they do instead? Just say “oh you can oppress us for now until you feel ready to accept us.”?
It is a complete reboot though isn’t it? The original show on Netflix isn’t part of the canon of this one? If so then I don’t really get their complaint.
A tonne of the same cast are returning. Bernthal is still the Punisher, D’Onofrio is still Kingpin… no, this is a calculated decision to pay the workers less.
Same actors != not a reboot. Iirc they’re going to have gal gadot as Wonder Woman again but are rebooting her character so the 2 previous movies are not canon, didn’t happen.
If they’re making a new series that has literally nothing to do with the previous one, zero connection to anything that happened in it, how is it not a reboot? Should they use different actors just to justify it being a reboot?
I am fully in agreement with you, although I can see why you and others didn’t take that from my initial comment. The calculated decision I referred to was Disney’s cynical claim that this is a reboot. They’re shafting workers, we can all see it.
Even if they wipe the continuity, which is still very unclear, is it really fair to call it a “complete reboot” when they’re using the same cast for the most prominent roles?
Basically Disney is keeping a lot of the same creatives behind the original Daredevil, but intend to use season 1 pay rates because they tacked, ‘Born Again’ on to the title.
Pretty gross penny pinching from one of the wealthiest media corporations in the world.
Yeah, look at any of the Disney channel series, they all change the name slightly to reset the season and avoid union required pay increases. One example: The Suite Life… which was split into 2-3 season series.
"But the system is broken. Audiences are dumber. Normal people don’t go through reviews like they used to. Rotten Tomatoes is something the studios can game. So they do.”
"The spiders belong to the Roddenberryus genus … "
I admire the naming commitment. I’m not scared of spiders, but I do have moments. Like the first time I saw a huge golden orb-weaver in my yard. I contacted college entomology departments, certain that spider was a bizarre mutation, likely due to human irresponsibility. I thought I was living a Saturday afternoon creature feature. An entomologist was kind enough to respond, and informed me that the spider was common and not a threat to humans.
I disliked Avatar in theaters, but chalked it up to wearing glasses and seeing it in 3D. I figured with the colors desaturated and the uncomfortable double glasses set up that I just made a poor choice of format.
About 4 years ago I decided to rewatch Avatar at home without the 3D gimmick.
It was worse. Everyone acts in ways that seem to serve the plot not their motivations. The heroes were all devoid of personality and a rigid unsmiling caricature of duty and honor that there was nothing likeable about them. Jake Sully has no personality other than being mystified by the world. The tall smurfs just stare longingly, tell Jake he’s dumb and sigh about the importance of the Earth.
The villains were so over the top on their moustache twirling I liked their bravado so much more than the heroes. After an hour of Smurfs telling us trees are very important in a condescending way, I wasn’t against blowing up a tree.
The battle at the end made no sense. Why the space faring race didn’t just drop a some rocks on the site is baffling to me. Why didn’t they use their range and technology advantage? They just ran as close as possible to people with spears.
I think it’s just a little too heavy handed for me, and feels like many aspects of the plot weren’t thought out.
Jake Sully has no personality other than being mystified by the world.
Agree, and his purpose is to introduce us to the alien world. Him becoming a leader is one aspect that didnt sit right with me. He didn’t earn enough goodwill to do that. Its just trust the superior humanoid, because he did something my great grandfather did.
The only good thing about this Avatar was a decent videogame tie-in.
It’s pretty clear what’s going on here - they deliberately made the blandest, most derivative story they could, so you can turn off your brain. I guess that might work for porn films and to some degree for normal movies too, but I can’t get behind using blandness so excessively.
The CGI ain’t saving that. (I don’t even like those aliens personally.) I find that this thing and the sequel being the most grossing films of all time, to be an insult to filmmaking and especially storytelling.
Seems like alot of people agree with your take. Despite its flaws, viewers found it and the sequel entertaining. I can’t see it working as a novel though.
When Avatar first came out, a friend of mine described it as “Pocahontas with a tech demo” and I’ve had a hard time enjoying it since. The story is really similar.
quarks
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.