Showing posts with label it's a wonderful life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label it's a wonderful life. Show all posts

Monday, May 9, 2011

Not a Wonderful Life: Today's Democrats and Republicans Are Yesterday's Brown Shirts

Both Democrats and Republicans harass me when I question either. Obama's brown shirted followers have repeatedly called me names such as "racist." As The New York Sun reported in 2008, several of Obama's followers maliciously reported my blog as spam, causing Google to shut it down for a number of days.In a parallel display of rigid intolerance, today a GOP supporter called me names for writing earlier that, absent a Paul, Johnson or other small government 2012 presidential nominee, I would vote Libertarian in the hopes of a split government.  The Republican response is as authoritarian as the Democratic one. 

To quote History Learning.com, one week before the 1932 election Hitler burned down the Reichstag, the German parliament. He convinced President Hindenburg to give him an emergency powers law more extreme than those that the Patriot Act grants the American president: the Law for the Protection of the People and the State. Hitler had claimed that communists had burned down the Reichstag, and he blamed Marianus van der Lubbe for doing so.   The law banned the Communists and Socialists from taking part in the 1932 election, ensuring a Nazi election victory.  The storm troopers (Sturmabteilung, SA, or brown shirts) beat up Hitler's opponents.  Because a majority, of Germans had voted against Hitler (which was his reason for forestalling an open election in 1932), Hitler had to use intimidation to maintain power.

The Democrats and Republicans do not need to burn down Congress because there is already a one party system in the United States.  The Stalinist mass media has done Obama's and Romney's brown shirting for them.   As Georg Lukacs has pointed out, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and today's America share similarities. Their governments reflect national socialist forms.  Due to the propaganda of The New York Times and left wing academics, students are taught that Hitler's system was fascism rather than National Socialism.  In fact, today's Sweden has a nationalist socialist system, as does the US to a lesser degree.  Hitler's National Socialism was conceptually similar to Stalin's socialism in one country, and both were similar to Theodore Roosevelt's Progressivism.  Both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt aimed to cartelize American industry; the American system under Roosevelt's National Recovery Act, had the Supreme Court not declared it unconstitutional, would have been more like Mussolini's fascism than Hitler's or Stalin's system, but it would have hastened the long term trend toward centralization of power.

The centralization of the monetary system and Wall Street's control of the legacy media have shored up America's socialism in one country.  Today, an elite led by George Soros and Barack Obama increasingly favor an internationalist socialism to a nationalist one. Obama and his backers at The New York Times may be more like Trotsky than Stalin, to the distaste of Stalinists like Donald Trump. The system has guaranteed the transfer of wealth from  productive and innovative Americans to Wall Street and government, accelerating the 19th century's gradual trend toward centralization.  The 19th century trend would not have occurred to the same degree without the Civil War and state subsidies to the railroads.  Centralization permitted economic gains for less than a century, but did so by quelling twin innovative engines: laissez faire capitalism and decentralized government. 

Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, which I showed to my senior seminar class yesterday,  implies that concentrated wealth is potentially totalitarian. As Uncle Billy says to Mr. Potter before he hands him the $8,000 meant for deposit in Mr. Potter's bank, "Not every heel was in Japan and Germany." 

What is remarkable about the American descent into national socialism is not that The New York Times supports it.  Wall Street, starting with the Ochs Sulzbergers and Rupert Murdoch, owns the media, and its writers and reporters are the products of America's elite socialist-in-one-country cum internationalist socialist education system.  What is remarkable is that apparently a majority of Americans support a system that has harmed them economically, and that has reduced the growth in their standard of living so that they are earning less than one half of what they would have earned under laisser faire.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Final Exam on Success: It's a Wonderful Life

I teach a senior seminar at Brooklyn College. The course concerns success. Here is the final exam. 



http://youtu.be/HC1HT3UjyDA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3sZy7IVRiw

George Baily (Jimmy Stewart) has ambitions that sound like Howard Roark's. But Mary Hatch (Donna Reed) has other plans for George. Life events, not Mary, thwart George's ambitions. Moreover, George's motivation to prevent villainous Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore) from taking control of the Bailey family's business, a Building and Loan, motivates him to stay in Bedford Falls and prevent its becoming Pottersville.

I have sometimes thought that Potter represents an American brand of totalitarianism. Notice that while George's younger brother Harry goes to war and wins the Congressional Medal of Honor, George stays at home and fights "the Battle of Bedford Falls" because of his bad ear, which he got by saving his brother's life years before.

Questions for your final. What is George Bailey's theory of success? Is there a divergence between what he thinks success is consciously and what he really believes success to be? Is he afraid of success, as Mr. Potter says at one point? Is he conflicted, as between the (a) Hamiltonian view of success, represented by Franklin and The Millionaire Next Door and (b) the Jeffersonian view of success, represented by Thoreau? Clearly he is not identical to Thoreau because of his commitment to his town, but the film presents a tension between materialism (Hamilton) and the small town American way of life (Jefferson). Potter says that George is worth more dead than alive. But Clarence the angel shows George that he's "the richest man in town."

Is Bailey a communitarian version of Howard Roark, who does what he believes (which involves family and community) while sacrificing superficial success? Or is he a coward, who stays at home, "a warped, frustrated young man" as Mr. Potter puts it in the above clip?

What is the role of community in success? Is the small town American community, so important in the 19th century, an impossible ideal today, even in Frank Capra's day (Capra directed this film) a thing of the past?

A few points about the film. The American Film Institute has ranked it the 11th best film of all time and the number one most inspiring film of all time. AFI has ranked Mr. Potter, played by Lionel Barrymore (Drew Barrymore's great uncle) the sixth best villain in American film history.

When It's a Wonderful Life was released, it was a bust at the box office. Frank Capra was famous for cornball movies, and some have called his movies "Capra corn." The movie was forgotten, and the studio forgot to renew its copyright. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the television stations realized that there was no copyright, and they played it repeatedly during Christmas season without having to pay the studio. The film caught on through the repeated exposure and has become wildly popular. Many people have seen it so many times that they can't watch it. In Palo Alto, California, there's a movie theater that plays it every Christmas and the audience speaks the lines along with the actors. About ten years ago, the studio realized that although the film's copyright had lapsed, they could copyright the sound track. So it is now only played on NBC twice each year, once on Christmas eve.

Jimmy Stewart, the hero, said before he died that this was his favorite role. The villain, Lionel Barrymore, was confined to a wheel chair in the 1930s because of arthritis and an accident. He had won the Academy Award in 1931. In the 1930s he was famous for playing Scrooge on the radio. This role is a kind of reversal of Scrooge. In "A Christmas Carol" Scrooge is the villain who is shown his past, present and future and then becomes a good guy. In this film the villain, Mr. Potter, does not change but the good guy, George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) is shown what the world would be without him and realizes that he is really a success, that his is a wonderful life.

Is Clarence the Angel doing George Bailey a favor, or is he feeding George Bailey opium?