MovieChat Forums > The Century of the Self (2002) Discussion > Anyone find propoganda in this documenta...

Anyone find propoganda in this documentary?

posted 17 years ago by bbagnall
38 replies | jump to latest

I had the feeling the documentary was pro-Socialist and anti-business in the way they presented things. The music was suddenly very uplifting when they began talking about The New Deal under Roosevelt. Also the narrator says something about how Roosevelt encouraged active members in his democracy (whatever that means) but under Capitalism they wanted passive consumers. (Aren't consumers active when they go out and buy things?) It just seems like a tenuous comparison that seems to imply somehow your vote is somehow more important in a Socialist paradise.

I think the makers of this doc (and the BBC in general) need to read a lot more Milton Friedman before attacking Laissez Faire free markets again.

[–] Villemar 16 years ago

By bringing up the specter of socialism in your post you pretty much invalidate any argument you might have. Its kind of like bring up Hitler in a political discussion. It equals Instant Fail.

[–] PrimeMinisterOfSinister 16 years ago

I beg to differ. A lot of die hard commies in former commie states for sure.
Take a look at the all the Scandinavian states, Sweden foremost. They are pretty by any means socialistic, large taxes, welfare, all governed by right-centre parties. But I would say fairly protectionist about their own businesses. I would hardly call them a bad place to live. Certain socialistic policies are not dead.

Americans equate communism and socialism, "We are hate Ruskies, goddamn godless commies and their agitprop!" argument doesn't stand for all the time.

I would dismiss half the things said in this documentary, but the link between psychology and big business is very tangible.
And who says stereotypes are a fallacy? As we have seen new methods have been developed to easily categorise populations in the 80's by methods of "Lifestyles and Values". They can safely put anyone in a basket now. All you need is to ask a few questions. You're a jock or a goth, or an artist, or a geek. Then sell you stuff accordingly. You can't sell goths much mainstream music, but they need the hair spray and black nail polish.

[–] Villemar 16 years ago

Correct, here in the states the word socialism is an absolute perjorative, and any time I see it in a thread it is usually used as a flame. Its not like most posters who throw this word around actually read Marx or anything.

I re-watched this series last night and it is still just as powerful and transformative. One thing I had forgotten was the role of Mark Penn in the Clinton White House...I had forgotten he was Hillary Clinton's campaign manager this past Spring...what a disaster that would have been, and it explains some of her apparently crazy antics during the nomination process!

I think the good news about the view of the self that is in place right now is that more people are aware of and distrustful of marketing and advertising,especially among the young, especially with the rise of the internet and DVR's (to filter out ads), file sharing, etc. We have a tremendous way to go but its a start.

[–] Unicorn-9 15 years ago

"Correct, here in the states the word socialism is an absolute perjorative, and any time I see it in a thread it is usually used as a flame. Its not like most posters who throw this word around actually read Marx or anything."

You don't need to read Marx to realise that socialism is an absolute disaster: you can just look at the damage it's done to every country where it's been imposed over the last few decades. Surely it's no longer possible for any reasonably intelligent and rational person to promote socialism with a straight face?

[–] Villemar 15 years ago

"Socalism" is just a toxic word that right-wingers throw at anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun. Its become meaningless. By the modern, hysterical definition of socialism, we have dangerous socialist organizations here in the U.S. For example, take the scary socialist United States military. Or the socialist police and socialist fire departments. The socialist National Park Service. The socialist Interstate Highway System, etc.

So the term is become so misused as to become useless. And yes, you should read Marx if you want to know what you're talking about before you bandy about that word hysterically like most right wing jackasses do on a daily basis.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyDoe67 13 years ago

Wonder how bbagnall feels about laissez faire markets today...

Why?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyDoe67 13 years ago

1. It means government doesn`t intervene(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire), i.e. no government monopoly on the means of exchange(i.e. money, and the manipulation that goes along with it), no Fannie May/Freddie Mac, no bailing out of companies that produce/sell products people don`t want or just have a bad business model etc(this is just the tip of the iceberg). Ergo laissez faire = no regulation of trade, just a ban on the initiation of force/coercion etc, i.e. the non-aggression principle/voluntaryism.

2. Som of he reasons are mentioned in "1.", i.e. government intervention, which gives perverse incentives that distorts the market.

3. Why, i.e. we don`t have "Laissez Faire free markets", so there`s no need to get defencive when someone ataacks corporatism/nationalism/protectionism/collectivism etc.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyDoe67 13 years ago

@JohnnyDoe67 - I'm somewhat confused with what you wrote under 3...Don't get what is your view....

We don`t have laissez-faire, i.e. we have a government that intervene alot.

and why you put so much -isms together.

-isms are short for how society is put together and who runs it, i.e. corporatism = special interest groups control government and they then have the "right" to initiate force via the government. Nationalism = a nation state using force/coercion against other nation states to get ahead. Protectionism = nation states who who "protect" some of their special interest groups. Collectivism = a society where larger groups of people are allowed to run over individual liberty/sovereignity.

Now, what bbagnall said (after some, what I would characterise as right wing/conservative statements) is:
"I think the makers of this doc (and the BBC in general) need to read a lot more Milton Friedman before attacking Laissez Faire free markets again."

So I asked how he (bbagnall) feels about laissez faire markets today... now that we know that reason for 2008 financial crisis was not enough regulation.

Hope this clears it up.

No of course not, regulation of trade/commerce will never solve any problems, only create more/bigger problems. Try listening to Ron Paul in the future.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyDoe67 13 years ago

Well, I see now that you are of conservative convictions.

No, conservatives are in the upper right in a political spectrum(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum, I`m in the lower middle - lower right.

Since I'm not from USA,

Neither am I, I`m norwegian, but that doesn`t change the fact that the political system is more or less the same throughout the world, i.e. nation states where statism/collectivism/corporatism/central planning etc are descriptive of how they`re run/organized.

I have no intention on listening to foreign politician

Ron Paul(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) is not your average politician/republican, he`s more of a libertarian(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism).

(we have more than enough of those here) let alone Republican one.

A republican, at least in the US where there are only two dominant political parties, comprise of alot of different political views, i.e. both conservatives/libertarians are on the right, but they only share the view of economic liberty, not cultural liberty, i.e. libertarians want both cultural/economic liberty, republicans only want economic liberty.

So let's agree to disagree.

Why, isn`t it blatantly obvious that there aren`t any "Laissez Faire free markets" on the planet?

You remain right-winged while I remain realist. :)

No, I`m in fact closer to the center in the political spectrum than the right, so perhaps it would be better yo say that you`re more culturally conservative(upper part of the political spectrum) than I am?

On this forum(http://mises.org/Community/forums/TopicsActive.aspx?ForumID=) you can find people who are proponents of laissez-faire/voluntaryism/non-aggression etc.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyDoe67 13 years ago

First of all, political left, center and right in any way (economic, cultural, social, historical...) is fluctuant in both time and space. This means that same views are right in one country while leftist in another. Also, this applies to same views in same country over different periods of time.

No, 100 % economic collectivism is 100 % economic collectivism no matter what, 100 % economic individualism is 100 % economic individualism no matter what, 100 % cultural collectivism is 100 % cultural collectivism no matter what, 100 % cultural individualism is 100 % cultural individualism no matter what etc.

So me calling you right-winged was under assumption that you were from USA. I would consider myself left-center in my country. Don't really care about your views...I'll get to my reason in 3rd point.

Second, of course there are no "laissez faire free markets". Bcz laisse faire market means the same as free market. And also bcz humanity has not yet had society with any pure system - it's always mixed.

Never had an organized society with free trade, but we used to have an anarchy.

Sometimes it's more free, sometimes it's more controlled, but always mixed.

Ergo it`s ridiculous to claim it`s the the free market/laissez-faire that causes the financial problems, when the market/society is regulated/controlled to a large extent.

So when OP said "laissez faire free markets" I was assuming that he meant more free then controlled.

There are no degrees of freedom, either we have freedom or we don`t? Regulations on the other hand come in different degrees, i.e. more/less regulation.

Third, most important and last for myself in this discussion, I only wanted to comment on OP's view that deregulation is the way to go. I feel that financial crisis of 2008 showed what happens with the kind of deregulation OP propagates (when it's left to business to regulate itself).

But regulation(terms in business transactions) ain`t left to the private sector(the parties involved in the transactions), special interest groups get to use government to coerce their counterparts so the SIGs get their way, which creates distortions in the markets, which leads to problems.

I feel my point was well made in part of my comment to OP and your question "Why?". If you disagree, that is your right. But I feel I explained my position on deregulation well enough. And I do not really need to have discussion over political views on imdb forum.

Point is this/that mix of regulation creates problems no matter what, and to blame/mention/talk about "laissez-faire"/"free markets" when we don`t have "laissez-faire"/"free markets" is rdiculous.

[–] Det_McNulty 11 years ago

He was observing how both were forms of propaganda, even though they were being pitched against each other. Roosevelt's idea of 'active democracy' was just as much propaganda as the way in which corporations use advertising. Ultimately, both were portrayed as entities of propaganda and this is something that I believe to be accurate. This reveals Curtis' mistrust of all the institutions of power. Manufacturing of consent.

"It's all in the beans ... and I'm just full of beans."

[–] clemphotography 10 years ago

interesting point of view considering Adam Curtis is a self confessed Libertarian.

People often accuse me of being a lefty. That's complete rubbish. If you look at The Century of the Self, what I'm arguing is something very close to a neo-conservative position because I'm saying that, with the rise of individualism, you tend to get the corrosion of the other idea of social bonds and communal networks, because everyone is on their own. Well, that's what the neo-conservatives argue, domestically...If you ask me what my politics are, I'm very much a creature of my time. I don't really have any. I change my mind over different issues, but I am much more fond of a libertarian view. I have a more libertarian tendency...[1]

He's just being critical of things that has happened throughout history. The danger is when you subscribe to an ideology you fail to see what is right in front of you.