Stuff happens
Mark Zuber, a parent of a child at Big Sky High School in Missoula, had a stronger reaction when a teacher showed the video to his daughter last year. "There was not one positive thing about capitalism in the whole thing," Mr. Zuber said. New York TimesI stumbled onto this film in yesterday's New York Times and was amazed by it's incredible coherence and power of synthesis.
Annie Leonard
presents "The
Story of Stuff"
Now,
what amazes me and, as a child of 1950s America, pleases me even more,
is that this film is a viral hit all over the USA... because the parent
in Montana that complained that the message of the film is
anticapitalist is absolutely right... it certainly is anticapitalist.
In fact this video is one of the shortest, clearest, encapsulated and most brutally lucid devastations of capitalism since Marx and Engels whipped out the "Communist Manifesto" way back in 1848. Again, let me emphasize that more than its exceptional brilliance of exposition, I am impressed by its wide success and acceptance.
Now, I have no doubt that there are many among the good and the great that manage our affairs and guide our destinies who would rather make money than breathe and I wonder and shudder to think what mischief they are going to come up with to put a stop to all this nonsense.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
In fact this video is one of the shortest, clearest, encapsulated and most brutally lucid devastations of capitalism since Marx and Engels whipped out the "Communist Manifesto" way back in 1848. Again, let me emphasize that more than its exceptional brilliance of exposition, I am impressed by its wide success and acceptance.
So far, six million people have viewed the film at its site, storyofstuff.com, and millions more have seen it on YouTube. More than 7,000 schools, churches and others have ordered a DVD version, and hundreds of teachers have written Ms. Leonard to say they have assigned students to view it on the Web. New York TimesYou can see why the right wing is constantly making fun of ecology, global warming and the plight of baby seals and polar bears etc. They can see the writing on the wall. Environmentalism is the wedge that is opening people's consciousness and creating a mass movement of a new and oppressed social class, which I would call "the breathing class". Because, yes, breathing has finally come into contradiction with our economic system.
Now, I have no doubt that there are many among the good and the great that manage our affairs and guide our destinies who would rather make money than breathe and I wonder and shudder to think what mischief they are going to come up with to put a stop to all this nonsense.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Advertisement
I can understand why a rabid free market capitalist might have an issue or two with this video. The good news the cries of foul are being ignored.
Thanks for posting this David.
May 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this David. What a hoot!!!
May 12, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Manifesto is not really that good a devastation of, well, anything except the ideals it tried to promote. Capital is far, far better but it fails *cough* slightly short on the "lucidity" constraint.
I posted this on another topic, but it is apropos here, too:
May 12, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The video is fun, though, in a manner of speaking. I can see the entertainment value of it; and ultimately it might make my job easier.
May 12, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem is allowing government to pass regulations which require even a nodding acquaintance with science or technology. There is much more info at the link, including a chart showing dust concentrations measured in other cities and countries.
May 12, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That's reason enough to stay out of California. I had no idea. You should do a blog on this.
May 13, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting times.
May 12, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The video is anti-consumerist/pro-environment, not necessarily anti-capitalist in the abstract, but it's certainly a devastating critique of our modern capitalist system (wage-slave, polluting, corporate/government complex, global exploitation, IMF-imperial domination, etc.). And it doesn't even address the square-peg/round-hole conflict between democratic ideals and unbridled capitalism. Yes, the breathing class (gasp). Concise, with deadly aim.
I'm amazed and thrilled that they show this in any schools. Tying it to the environment and health of the planet and people is not just appropriate rationally but very smart politically (that is where youth movement is at). Perhaps in some cases, kids will learn some of this and even educate their parents. Great video, Mr. Seaton. Thank you for sharing. You play well with others. Another gold star.
May 13, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Capitalism is not inherently bad.
It becomes troublesome when it's intertwined with a political scheme and inappropriately influences that scheme. It has to remain strictly subordinate. Where that isn't the case you end up with what we are presntly experiencing.
The governance of this country and all of our political process is inordinately a function of capitalism and has become only nominally a function of democracy. There is very little legislation anymore where the primary focus isn't about money. This is undeniably a bad idea with the results being far from what was intended. Having changed the principal factor guiding so much of what our government does it isn't very realistic to have an expectation of something different.
The remedy is simple. Citizens have to make a lot of noise and raise a stink about everything by incessantly complaining to our representaives.
May 13, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Kervick Manifesto
Capitalism is a political scheme.
Wealth is interchangeable with power over others. They are effectively the same thing.
Those who possess great wealth have special interests and desires that are not shared by those who do not possess great wealth.
Human beings form coalitions to protect and advance their common interests. They form those coalitions continually and spontaneously.
Everybody wants to rule the word. Whether their preferences are good or bad, base or noble, they seek to reform the world after their own interests and desires, and will work to exert influence on the world to a degree roughly matching their potential to exert such influence - i.e. roughly matching their power.
Thus, no system can ever be created that allows for the concentrated accumulation of vast private wealth, but in which the possessors of that wealth remain politically subordinate.
A self-governing democratic system is a system in which all members of society have roughly equal influence over the future direction of that society. Creating and sustaining such a system requires creating and sustaining a balance of power among the members of the society.
Thus, creating and sustaining a democratic society depends on the preservation of a balance of wealth among the society's members.
May 13, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not possible. An equal distribution of wealth is a non-equilibrium state. If you divided all wealth equally among society's members, some would choose to spend on consumption, some to save, some to borrow, some to invest in wealth producing assets. Within a year you would have paupers and billionaires.
About the best that can be done are progressive income taxes and inheiritance taxes, which could be reasonably effective at controlling excessive wealth accumulation. Hereditary wealth should be especially controlled. Unfortunately, the progressivity of these taxes has moved down into the middle class in order to maximize revenue generation, instead of being applied mainly to the upper classes to minimize excessive wealth accumulation.
Lastly, even were wealth distributed equally on some permanent basis, the decision making process about how it is controlled and used requires an executive function, e.g. when, where, and how to build a $2 billion semiconductor manufacturing plant. Therefore, some members of society would have greater control over the use of wealth than others, e.g. the class of members known as "politicians". With this control comes the ability to divert some wealth to their own ends.
May 13, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, balances of wealth and and other kinds of power tend naturally away from balance. Though social institutions and traditions can help, balance is not automatic and self-perpetuating. Preserving it requires constant vigilance and energetic political maintenance and intervention.
Taxation isn't the only mechanism. There are many other laws we could pass that would help redistribute wealth once inequalities arise, and prevent great disparities for arising in the first place, including laws governing the salary structures within private businesses.
And yes, I agree that any complex society has to have representative and executive institutions of governance that give some more control over decision-making than others, and that they will naturally tend to use that power to further their own interests. That was no less true of the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union than it is in democracy. The only check on the power of elites is solidarity. The weaker elements in society can form large coalitions to consolidate their power, act in concert, advance those of their interests that are common and offset through the weight of sheer numbers the preponderance of power possessed by the elites relative to smaller groups.
What I would like to see more of in American life is a frank and guilt-free acknowledgment of the fact that vigilant restoration and preservation of the balance of political power - which includes economic power - is a necessary and morally legitimate function of durable democratic governance. We really need to help people get over the fatalistic, slavish and superstitious belief that whatever wealth anybody happens to have as a result of unregulated exchange is wealth they are entitled to have, and that any system that attempts to take it away from them, or prevent them from acquiring it in the first place, is wrong and evil.
May 13, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Balance doesn't necessarily mean equal distribution, just that it isn't unjust or weighted more to special interests over the common interest. We will always have a stratified society, but only when we design a system that supports the base of the pyramid will we see the selfishness of those who gravitate toward the apex start to be mitigated or even self-regulated.
May 13, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I said.
May 14, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink