The Motorcycle Diaries
The fiancee and I watched The Motorcycle Diaries the other night. Really great movie, and somehow I failed to realize (not having read any background on the movie, not even the box cover) that this was Che Guevara we were talking about here, not some other random guy named Guevara who just happened to be driving around Latin America, getting pissed off about poverty and declaring that you can't have a revolution without guns. Felt a little stupid when I figured that out.
Watching it gave me a weird feeling, a feeling I've only had once before, and that was when I read Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. The film and book are both strange little time capsules; a message in a bottle from when communism was a philosophy that a lot of people took seriously and genuinely believed would solve the problem of the haves and have-nots.
I mean, you can't dismiss the fundamental idea. The economic imbalance in the world today is just ridiculous. We're taught when we're children that it's nice to share, but as we grow up we somehow forget that lesson. Bill Gates is worth, what, $28 billion at the time of this writing? Not to single him out or anything, and certainly he gives plenty away to charity, it's just bizarre that the limited resources that are available in this world can be concentrated in the hands of so few people. Makes a certain amount of sense to divide that pie up a little more fairly, doesn't it?
But then, on the other hand, communism sure hasn't been a raging success in the countries that have experimented with it. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba...all have ended up as dictatorships or oligarchies, and all more or less totalitarian. That's the thing that doesn't make sense to me, although after reading Catalonia I suppose it's not so mysterious--the Soviet Union actually undermined communists in other countries in order to promote socialism within the USSR.
It seems to me that the fundamental philosophy of communism is more suited to a true free democracy than any other economic system. Communism divides wealth equally among all; democracy does the same with political power. Why, then, instead of communist democracies and capitalist dictatorships, did we end up with communist dictatorships and capitalist democracies?
I suppose it comes down to human failure and inability to live up to ideals. What's particularly interesting (albeit sad and disappointing) is that you'd think these countries would have had a grace period, after their respective revolutions, when things would have been relatively democratic. You'd think that the lust for power would eventually undermine utopia, but you'd think that it would work for a while.
In each one of these cases, though, an autocratic ruler took over right from the start or just barely after (Mao, Fidel, Stalin, etc.). You'd think even just one of them would have been run by someone who could walk the walk, but no.
Maybe really what this tells us is that anyone with the force of ego necessary to overthrow a government is never going to give a rat's ass about anybody other than themselves. Say what they will while they're rallying the peasants to the cause, once they take the throne they're going to be as bad as their predecessors.
The meek shall inherit the earth, they say, but the cocky are going slap the meek around quite a bit in the meanwhile.
I'm certainly not anti-capitalist, I get the whole deal about the efficiency of the free market, etc. etc., but it just seems to me that there's got to be some middle ground between completely screwing the poor and completely removing the incentive to innovate.
Maybe the Scandinavians have it figured out--be capitalist, but tax the living crap out of everything. I guess I have the impression that the Scandinavian countries are doing really well, but that's not based on any actual numbers or anything.
Ah, well. If you haven't seen The Motorcycle Diaries or read Homage to Catalonia, I really do recommend them. There's an issue there that nobody really talks or thinks about in American public life anymore, and I think it's strange that we don't.
Watching it gave me a weird feeling, a feeling I've only had once before, and that was when I read Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. The film and book are both strange little time capsules; a message in a bottle from when communism was a philosophy that a lot of people took seriously and genuinely believed would solve the problem of the haves and have-nots.
I mean, you can't dismiss the fundamental idea. The economic imbalance in the world today is just ridiculous. We're taught when we're children that it's nice to share, but as we grow up we somehow forget that lesson. Bill Gates is worth, what, $28 billion at the time of this writing? Not to single him out or anything, and certainly he gives plenty away to charity, it's just bizarre that the limited resources that are available in this world can be concentrated in the hands of so few people. Makes a certain amount of sense to divide that pie up a little more fairly, doesn't it?
But then, on the other hand, communism sure hasn't been a raging success in the countries that have experimented with it. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba...all have ended up as dictatorships or oligarchies, and all more or less totalitarian. That's the thing that doesn't make sense to me, although after reading Catalonia I suppose it's not so mysterious--the Soviet Union actually undermined communists in other countries in order to promote socialism within the USSR.
It seems to me that the fundamental philosophy of communism is more suited to a true free democracy than any other economic system. Communism divides wealth equally among all; democracy does the same with political power. Why, then, instead of communist democracies and capitalist dictatorships, did we end up with communist dictatorships and capitalist democracies?
I suppose it comes down to human failure and inability to live up to ideals. What's particularly interesting (albeit sad and disappointing) is that you'd think these countries would have had a grace period, after their respective revolutions, when things would have been relatively democratic. You'd think that the lust for power would eventually undermine utopia, but you'd think that it would work for a while.
In each one of these cases, though, an autocratic ruler took over right from the start or just barely after (Mao, Fidel, Stalin, etc.). You'd think even just one of them would have been run by someone who could walk the walk, but no.
Maybe really what this tells us is that anyone with the force of ego necessary to overthrow a government is never going to give a rat's ass about anybody other than themselves. Say what they will while they're rallying the peasants to the cause, once they take the throne they're going to be as bad as their predecessors.
The meek shall inherit the earth, they say, but the cocky are going slap the meek around quite a bit in the meanwhile.
I'm certainly not anti-capitalist, I get the whole deal about the efficiency of the free market, etc. etc., but it just seems to me that there's got to be some middle ground between completely screwing the poor and completely removing the incentive to innovate.
Maybe the Scandinavians have it figured out--be capitalist, but tax the living crap out of everything. I guess I have the impression that the Scandinavian countries are doing really well, but that's not based on any actual numbers or anything.
Ah, well. If you haven't seen The Motorcycle Diaries or read Homage to Catalonia, I really do recommend them. There's an issue there that nobody really talks or thinks about in American public life anymore, and I think it's strange that we don't.
posted by at 2:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home