WalMart, the great saviour of small format filmmaking...

[chachi]

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

[etimh]

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

This stuff is always cool. "Darth Tater--he's now more chemical than vegetable."

Chewbrocolli. :lol:

Thanks chachi.

Tim

[steve hyde]

What you are pointing out can happen and, unfortunately, does far too often. But there is absolutely nothing inherent in the capitalist system that dicates it must happen. The capitalist system is just an arena. The fairness of the game shouldn't be judged by the integrity of the competitors.

No, Capitalism is not an arena. The marketplace is the arena. Capitalism is a *mode of production*.

To be clear, I don't consider Walmart to be without questionable ethics in certain areas. But, does Walmart really represent all that is wrong with capitalism? I think not. As you pointed out, we live in a society that rewards being ruthless. Perhaps, then, it is the level of ruthlessness that society allows in the game rather than the game, itself.

Okay, "all that is wrong with capitalism". What do you see that is "wrong" with capitalism? I agree that ruthlessness, insensitivity and lack of compassion come from someplace other than the economic mode of production we are discussing here. Capitalism is not the *seed* of injustice. I'm arguing that the capitalist mode of production works to *cultivate* inequality by insuring that there is a division between the haves and have nots. Now this is not to say that have nots have no opportunity to become haves. Clearly they do vis a vis their own ingenuity.
I hear what you guys are saying and your're right. However, the question then becomes: how many success stories can capitalism sustain? If everyone rises up to the status of the capitalist class, who is doing the labor? This my friends is the flaw of the capitalist mode - it requires inequal social relations to be productive. Without a division of labor capitalism cannot exist.

Anyway, I appreciate your kind words regarding myself as a craftsman. I also really appreciate having a nice debate like this. It is refreshing to have an intelligent discussion without someone resorting to name calling, etc.

name calling is an alternative to thinking

Now piss off.

Nice try...

"We live in a society that rewards producers for being ruthless."

Steve - and this is because of capitalism? On the other hand, I would argue that the reason society rewards the ruthless is because of the people who comprise the society, not because of the economic system. If every person avoided stores they perceived as 'ruthless' and was willing to pay higher prices because of that, then whatever incentive there is for producers to act mercilessly would be dismantled. However, your assumption is that people are rational actors when it comes to purchasing. I don't think that's universal enough to warrant the implication that a society favoring ruthless producers exists because of capitalism. Even in other economic modes, people will find alternative sources of goods and services.

I never said capitalism causes ruthlessness. I said capitalism produces and reproduces inequality.
I am always careful to avoid making assumptive causal arguments. That is why I'm trying to advance my argument by pointing to one indisputable fact - that the capitalist mode of production requires an inequal social arrangement. Therefore, I'm not saying that capitalism is the cause of inequality. I am arguing that capitalism works to sustain inequality.

I agree that rational choice theory is not a universal, but there is plenty of evidence (open any economics text book) that suggests rational actors will go for the lowest price. Ruthless producers mask their ruthlessness with expensive public relations campaigns so that rational actors don't have to feel guilty when they engage in exchange relations with a ruthless producer.

No, capitalism is not based on inequality. Accumulation of wealth is a consequence of the vehicle by which capitalism operates. What capitalism operates on (in pure terms) is freedom of choice. In other words, the liberty of people who exercise their rights to make their own decisions about what to make or buy. Demand creates a market, producers compete to supply a product, prices are tied to that balance.

Again, you assume a level playing field. Freedom of choice? What about people who have less choices because their family found themselves on the wrong side of the Atlantic in the 19th century!!! Remember the brilliant quote that Chirs Cortez used as a signature for a while:



"The past is never dead, it is not even past". That my friends, is important to think about.

It seems as though you find something inherently wrong with inequality. I don't, but more to the point, capitalism has the ability to distribute wealth among individuals more justly and fairly than other economic systems because it rewards each individual's ability and effort. Few things provide better incentive to people to sharpen their skills and increase their efforts than profit. Communism, socialism, and feudalism can't do this because people under those economic systems are not permitted to benefit directly from their efforts to enhance productivity and profits.

Yes, indeed, with out a doubt, I see something inherently wrong with inequality. Let me be pefectly clear about that. Let me just say one thing about the American project. For it to be just this assumption must be kept intact: ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL.

Capitalism offers the best opportunity for individual justice for all, not some machiavellian government-enforced orchestration of wealth distribution. Tell me, where is the social justice in theft, or the morality, for that matter? That is, in stealing the wealth of one man to give it to another who did not lift a finger to earn it?

I'm not arguing for a Machiavellian government. I'm making a critique of capitalism. FOr the sake of a focused conversation, I'm not speculating about what would be better. Instead I'm talking about what is wrong with capitalism.

Did I not say "pure" and "doesn't exist"? Capitalism, in the ideal, is not political. Yes, in practice it is a inseparably wound up with the political system. This is not a failing of captitalism, but rather an artifact of government.

Okay!!! capitalism does not exist outside of government. Capitalism exists within and between governed states. You have not acknowledged any of the failings of capitalism. Do you believe that capitalsim is pure and free of flaws??? What flaws do you see in capitalism?

You need to get your facts straight about colonialism and slavery.

Here straighten out this fact for me:

http://retanet.unm.edu/LADB-articles/25763.html


If you want to argue that the invasion of Iraq is not neo-colonialism - we can have that arguement too.

I dispute your premise that capitalism has it's roots in colonialism and slavery. If anything, it was the birth of the industrial revolution that supplied the historical antecedents for capitalism, not slavery. The colonial era in which slavery thrived was characterized by a feudalistic agragrian economy, not a capitalist one.

We still live in a colonial era! If we don't live in a colonial era now, please tell us when the colonial era ended and the era of freedom and true sovereignty began? Colonialism has a new trans-national geography. It is still colonialsm - e.g. owning labor power and natural resources in the places where labor and natural resources are most abundant. However, nobody bothers to call it colonialism anymore. Who cares what it is called - it still acomplishes the same thing: It shirfts the flows of capital into first world territories.

It is true that capitalists took advantage of the market created by the demand for slaves and inhumanely traded in humans and sought to derive profit from such trade. But human rights violations such as you describe have existed throughout history under every political and economic system that has ever existed on a large scale for tens of thousands of years. It was the people of the era and their religious beliefs who were to fault for slavery, not the economic system of capitalism. To claim that such practices gave rise to capitalism is a disengenuous effort to ascribe guilt by association.

The capitalist economies of the 19th century, by the way, were the first to abandon slavery. Slavery wasn't profitable in an industrial society.

I do not follow your logic here for some of the same reasons I stated above.

Of course the conversation goes that way. Communism, socialism, feudalism are all undeniably both political and economic systems. You argued that capitalism is a political sysetm too. I disagree in the ideal, but concede the point in practical terms. The closest thing we have to capitalism are black markets, and after that, mixed economies like that of the US. And neither of those are really all that close to the ideal.

What is the ideal? To maintain a social division?

So if you object to capitalism as a economic and, as you yourself argued, political system, then what would you replace it with economically and politically, and why? It is a fair question.

It is a fair question. It is also a great question. It is one of the most important questions of our time and it was one of the most important questions of the 20th century. However, why should we discuss how to fix capitalism, if we can't even agree on what is wrong with capitalism? I don't see how entertaining this question would make this conversation more productive. If we agreed that capitalism sustains inequality and that inequality is not desirable, then we might be able to move forward with a conversation on post-capitalism (whatever that might be)

Please let's separate the ideal that I described from my question about the practical application of economic and political systems. I don't believe what you say I believe, I think that was pretty clear in my comments that you quoted above, so there's no reason for you to remain baffled. Go ahead and explain post-capitalism, it's characteristics, and why you prefer it.

I want an economic mode of production that at the very least reverses the growing gap between the richist 10% and the poorest 10%. I'm not an economist. I hope one emerges with a keen sense of social justice and influences the worlds policy makers to shift trans-national trade practices towards some humane mode of production. I'll pay attention to that and discuss that mode of production with people I know and on filmmaking forums....

Yes, I based my final comment on the ideal conceptualization of capitalism, ignoring the fact that we really have a mixed economy with a lot of government control. Even in a mixed economy, though, it still affords me greater opportunity than the alternatives.

Racism is a problem. Capitalism is not the cause, nor does it particularly sustain it. It is a symptom of a much deeper social problem, and it is people's attitudes that sustain it, regardless of the economic and political system that obtains. I'm all for eradicating racism, as I find it personally and socially repugnant.

Again, I was not arguing that capitalism causes racism. Instead I was using racism as evidence that the marketplace is not a level playing field. The fact that the marketplace is not a level playing field problematizes your argument that "freedom of choice" creates a fair and balanced market.

I don't agree with the labor theory of value or the immutability of class. Value is based on choice and need, on supply and demand. And government tinkering, regretably. You can say that you think the "gap" is widening all you want, but the general standard of living all over the world is improving too, and that is being fueled by capitalism.

Look, I don't think standards of living are improving "all over the world" perhaps in isolated pockets. The "gap" widening is a fact. It is a fact in the United States and it is a fact world wide. I'm arguing capitalism is encouraging the widening of this gap.

Please, don't take my word for it:

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/

http://www.census.gov/

Decide for yourself.


Look, I have tried to focus my argument on one fact: Capitalism relies on inequal divisions of labor. I'm critical of the capitalist mode of production explicitly for this reason. I believe inequality is antithetical to social justice.

respectfully,

Steve

[steve hyde]

...one more thing. When I say produces and reproduces inequality, I'm not talking about origins. I'm not saying inequality started with capitalism. I'm saying capitalism supports the production and reproduction of inequal social relations.

Steve

[MovieStuff]

Steve-

There are people happy to be working on railroads. There are those that are happy to be farmers. There are those that are happy to be CEOs. People that work in stores like Walmart aren't necessarily disgruntled, unhappy, bitter people that feel repressed by the system. Many know perfectly well their limitations and abilities and enjoy life for what it is, not what it could be. Thus, when you ask:

how many success stories can capitalism sustain?

The answer is all of them.

"Success" isn't measured by who has earned the most money but, rather, by who is happiest with the money they have earned. I feel that you are focusing on how capitalism is abused, as if it defines the capitalist concept. But people that want more can work harder to get more. How hard they have to work is based on what they have to offer to the market place. If what they have is unique, then they might not have to work as hard. If what they have is common, then they won't get top dollar. That's what makes capitalism work and also what really defines the "haves" and the "have nots". Otherwise there is no progress because there would be no incentive to excel or offer something new and different. Why bother when there is no reward for doing better?

Roger

[steve hyde]

Steve-

There are people happy to be working on railroads. There are those that are happy to be farmers. There are those that are happy to be CEOs. People that work in stores like Walmart aren't necessarily disgruntled, unhappy, bitter people that feel repressed by the system. Many know perfectly well their limitations and abilities and enjoy life for what it is, not what it could be. Thus, when you ask:

how many success stories can capitalism sustain?

The answer is all of them.

"Success" isn't measured by who has earned the most money but, rather, by who is happiest with the money they have earned. I feel that you are focusing on how capitalism is abused, as if it defines the capitalist concept. But people that want more can work harder to get more. How hard they have to work is based on what they have to offer to the market place. If what they have is unique, then they might not have to work as hard. If what they have is common, then they won't get top dollar. That's what makes capitalism work and also what really defines the "haves" and the "have nots". Otherwise there is no progress because there would be no incentive to excel or offer something new and different. Why bother when there is no reward for doing better?

Roger

.....a gentle way of saying inequality is okay. It is true that not all slaves actually wanted/want their freedom. They were/are frightened of the unknown. What are the alternatives??

You are right though, some people want to break rocks for the railroad to support their families. It makes them feel dignified.

I choose to stand for something different. Rather than making accomodationist arguments in defense of capitalism, I chose to argue for alternatives..

You guys are acting like capitalism is free of flaws. I'd be satisfied just to hear someone arguing in favor of capitalism to admit to one or two of them.

I could argue the virtues of capitalism for pages and pages because there are many, but as I said above - that isn't what I stand for.

The importance of the virtues for the few do not outweigh the importance of reversing the suffering of the masses.

Steve

[steve hyde]

....and we could bring this conversation back to filmmaking. What are the virtues of high-concept studio productions and what are the virtues of truly independent cinema?

Why independently produce? Shouldn't everyone strive to make high-concept studio films?

It comes down to creative control and cultural diveresity for indie works and cultural hegemony and cultural homogenization for studio works.

What do you guys stand for?

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

"For it to be just this assumption must be kept intact: ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL."

And it's not the role of government to force people into 'equal' jobs. What do you define as equality? Based on your posts about the 'gap widening,' it seems like you mean economic equality. People will never be equal in terms of purchasing power. How is it possible? Some jobs simply require more skill and talent than others. There will always be people who wash dishes, clean toilets, and stock store shelves.

Independent production vs. studio production. I personally like films where the treatment has independent origins but the execution uses Hollywood actors and crew. This has the benefit of providing a well-funded production with competent actors, but the story can be more innovative than if seven or eight Hollywood scripts hashed it out. Of course, purely independent productions can be excellent. However, they are frequently crippled by technical issues or sub-par acting (not to say that every Hollywood actor is great or every independent/low-budget actor is bad - sometimes it's the opposite, but with well-known [competent] actors, a certain degree of talent is usually ensured.)

[MovieStuff]

.....a gentle way of saying inequality is okay.

No a realistic way to say that not everyone is the same, though they may have the same rights to succeed or fail on their own accord.

It is true that not all slaves actually wanted/want their freedom. They were/are frightened of the unknown. What are the alternatives??

Slavery is a non-issue relative to this discussion, Steve. Come on.

I choose to stand for something different. Rather than making accomodationist arguments in defense of capitalism, I chose to argue for alternatives..

Respectfully, I see you argue but I don't see any alternatives being promoted. Capitalism is a competition, a race. You basically keep saying that the race is too hard on some of those involved because others with more assets take advantage of their lead position. It's supposed to be hard. If it was easy, then there would be no competition and no progress. And rather than just being accomodating to the idea of capitalism, I am actually embracing it. I make no excuses for it at all. It works wonderfully.

You guys are acting like capitalism is free of flaws.

Of course not. Any system can be abused. Nothing is fale safe. If you re-read my previous posts, I am the first to admit that the system can be monkeyed with. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to prevent it other than changes in social values. You can't change the game, you can only educate the players in the game. If you have an alternate game that you'd like to propose, I'm all ears!

Roger

[steve hyde]

.....a gentle way of saying inequality is okay.

No a realistic way to say that not everyone is the same, though they may have the same rights to succeed or fail on their own accord.

It is true that not all slaves actually wanted/want their freedom. They were/are frightened of the unknown. What are the alternatives??

Slavery is a non-issue relative to this discussion, Steve. Come on.

I choose to stand for something different. Rather than making accomodationist arguments in defense of capitalism, I chose to argue for alternatives..

Respectfully, I see you argue but I don't see any alternatives being promoted. Capitalism is a competition, a race. You basically keep saying that the race is too hard on some of those involved because others with more assets take advantage of their lead position. It's supposed to be hard. If it was easy, then there would be no competition and no progress. And rather than just being accomodating to the idea of capitalism, I am actually embracing it. I make no excuses for it at all. It works wonderfully.

You guys are acting like capitalism is free of flaws.

Of course not. Any system can be abused. Nothing is fale safe. If you re-read my previous posts, I am the first to admit that the system can be monkeyed with. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to prevent it other than changes in social values. You can't change the game, you can only educate the players in the game. If you have an alternate game that you'd like to propose, I'm all ears!

Roger

First off for the sake of conversation I explicitly said that it is a waste of time to discuss alternatives when there is no agreement on the problem.
Can we agree on that? I'll say it again: I"M NOT PROMOTING ALTERNATIVES HERE.

I am however interested in discussing alternatives. I'm still waiting.....

You say that slavery is a non-issue to this discussion after I unpacked my reasoning for using slavery as an example - then you don't bother justifying your reasoning. Do you have any? Tell me why it is a non-issue, or just ignore it like you have done to the rest of my good points.

I can only assume you choose to brush slavery off as some relic of the past that is somehow detached from the inequalities of today. Roger. Come on.

I ask you to point out flaws with the hopes that we can come to the needed agreement so that we can discuss alternatives and you say:
every system can be abused? With all due respect this is not a pointed answer to the question that I specifically raised so that we could resolve the impasse in this argument. Again, the question is what are one or two flaws of the capitalist mode of production??....

we may learn something new after all of this. Or maybe not.

Respectfully,

Steve

[steve hyde]

"For it to be just this assumption must be kept intact: ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL."

And it's not the role of government to force people into 'equal' jobs. What do you define as equality? Based on your posts about the 'gap widening,' it seems like you mean economic equality. People will never be equal in terms of purchasing power. How is it possible? Some jobs simply require more skill and talent than others. There will always be people who wash dishes, clean toilets, and stock store shelves.

Independent production vs. studio production. I personally like films where the treatment has independent origins but the execution uses Hollywood actors and crew. This has the benefit of providing a well-funded production with competent actors, but the story can be more innovative than if seven or eight Hollywood scripts hashed it out. Of course, purely independent productions can be excellent. However, they are frequently crippled by technical issues or sub-par acting (not to say that every Hollywood actor is great or every independent/low-budget actor is bad - sometimes it's the opposite, but with well-known [competent] actors, a certain degree of talent is usually ensured.)

Evan,

I have not argued that the government is responsible for creating jobs. I'm not a communist. I am specifically talking about the growing economic disparity between the rich and the poor and I am saying that capitalism is promoting the growth of the gap.

Evan, you are NOT reading what I said - you are reading what you think I should have said.

I'm trying to prove that inequality is endemic to capitalism. The reason nobody is proving that I am wrong about that is because nobody can find any evidence to prove that I'm wrong. I wish somebody would so that I could just join the club and then everything would be a-ok. 8O

You made some interesting points about film production. I don't doubt that you are right about that....

[MovieStuff]

First off for the sake of conversation I explicitly said that it is a waste of time to discuss alternatives when there is no agreement on the problem.
Can we agree on that? I'll say it again: I"M NOT PROMOTING ALTERNATIVES HERE.

Oh. I thought you were. You had previously written:

I choose to stand for something different. Rather than making accomodationist arguments in defense of capitalism, I chose to argue for alternatives.

My mistake. I thought you were trying to promote an alternative rather than just critique something that you don't agree with.

I am however interested in discussing alternatives. I'm still waiting.....

Actually, I think we're waiting on you! No one else here really has a problem with honest capitalism.

You say that slavery is a non-issue to this discussion after I unpacked my reasoning for using slavery as an example - then you don't bother justifying your reasoning. Do you have any?

Slavery has as much relevance to modern capitalism as the original 1950s Univac does with computers today. Not being obtuse. I just don't see the connection.

Roger

[steve hyde]

First off for the sake of conversation I explicitly said that it is a waste of time to discuss alternatives when there is no agreement on the problem.
Can we agree on that? I'll say it again: I"M NOT PROMOTING ALTERNATIVES HERE.

Oh. I thought you were. You had previously written:

I choose to stand for something different. Rather than making accomodationist arguments in defense of capitalism, I chose to argue for alternatives.

My mistake. I thought you were trying to promote an alternative rather than just critique something that you don't agree with.

Look - guilty as charged if you want to point out me getting ahead of myself. That is fine. I do want to discuss alternatives. The salient question above is : do you argree that we have to agree on what the problem is before we can productively discuss alternatives? - because the whole point of having an alternative, in this case, is to fix something that is unjust. What is unjust? You say nothing......Are you saying nothing?

I am however interested in discussing alternatives. I'm still waiting.....

Actually, I think we're waiting on you! No one else here really has a problem with honest capitalism.

I'd be really interested to hear your definition of "honest capitalism." I think you are on to something worth talking about. However, you also open a can of worms because you have to also define dishonest capitalism. And when you go there -we get to talk about the regulation of capitalism and that will take us into protectionist territory....Go fo it. I'd love to learn more about "honest capitalism".

You say that slavery is a non-issue to this discussion after I unpacked my reasoning for using slavery as an example - then you don't bother justifying your reasoning. Do you have any?

Slavery has as much relevance to modern capitalism as the original 1950s Univac does with computers today. Not being obtuse. I just don't see the connection.

Roger

...you might need to update the books on your shelf.. or at least give some reasons for believing what you believe. Frankly your off-handed rebuttals are just plain boring.

Steve

[MovieStuff]

The salient question above is : do you argree that we have to agree on what the problem is before we can productively discuss alternatives? - because the whole point of having an alternative, in this case, is to fix something that is unjust. What is unjust? You say nothing......Are you saying nothing?

Not at all. While I, personally, do not believe that capitalism is inherenty flawed or promotes or cultivates inequality, I do recognize that inequality does exist and that things happen that are unfair but see that as the result of human greed, not capitalism, itself. You do not agree that capitalism is an arena, which is fine. But it seems you want me to agree that capitalism is inherently flawed so that we can then discuss what the flaw is. Why should I adopt the validity of an idea that I don't believe to be true just for the sake of a discussion where the main promoter of the idea has nothing else to offer as an alternative? It is really up to you to convince me of the validity of your concept, not the other way around. Simply pointing out that the man is fat doesn't really address why he's fat nor does it validate the idea that all men will be fat. It only signifies that men can get fat, if they gorge themselves.

I'd be really interested to hear your definition of "honest capitalism."

Sure:

http://www.moviestuff.tv ;)

I think you are on to something worth talking about. However, you also open a can of worms because you have to also define dishonest capitalism.

Microsoft

Slavery has as much relevance to modern capitalism as the original 1950s Univac does with computers today. Not being obtuse. I just don't see the connection.

..you might need to update the books on your shelf.. or at least give some reasons for believing what you believe. Frankly your off-handed rebuttals are just plain boring.

Sorry. But thanks for recognizing them as rebuttals; offhanded or otherwise.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

I'm trying to prove that inequality is endemic to capitalism. The reason nobody is proving that I am wrong about that is because nobody can find any evidence to prove that I'm wrong.

I just notice this. Steve, perhaps you need to read up on your use of the word "endemic".

From Meriam dictionary:

Main Entry: 1en·dem·ic
Pronunciation: en-'de-mik, in-
Function: adjective
Etymology: French endémique, from endémie endemic disease, from Greek endEmia action of dwelling, from endEmos endemic, from en in + dEmos people, populace -- more at DEMAGOGUE
1 a : belonging or native to a particular people or country b : characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment <problems endemic to translation> <the self-indulgence endemic in the film industry>

No one has to prove you wrong because, in essence, no one is arguing with you about the meaning. Inequality does exist in capitalism. No one is saying that it doesn't. But, even by definition, inequality is not created by capitalism nor cultivated by capitalism. Again, you are simply saying over and over that you see inequality in capitalism. So do I sometimes. What is it that we are supposed to prove you wrong about? More to the point, what are you trying to convince us of?

Roger