If you want peace, prepare for war
If I had the analysis and writing skills equal to those in Metaphilm (which I notice has a new essay out, "V for Vindictive"), I would write a word about "The Punisher",
the 2004 actioner starring Tom Jane as the Marvel comic book character
that my wife once asked me if that's all that this character does, goes
around killing people. (Apparently "Thomas" sounds too wussy for a name
of a big action hero, something more suitable for "Thomas, make sure
that you wear your gloves so that you won't catch cold!")
I first watched this movie on the Movie Network on my own (I am a big boy and not at all scared) and then with my wife when she wanted to see it. On the second viewing, I had a vague feeling that there is much more in this movie than initially meets the eye, but I couldn't really put it in words. It seemed obvious to me that this movie is an allegory of anarcho-capitalism, that is, a society where law and order are not provided by the state, but in which individuals must forge their own law and order. (The hero even talks about "natural justice", just like libertarians.) With their power unchecked, criminal gangs do whatever they want and the inefficient police will not do anything to stop them. These criminal gangs operate internally not much differently from multinational corporations, and in the movie, symbols of money and corporatism constantly abound whenever the villains are shown.
The reading of the movie as an allegory of anarcho-capitalism would also explain the seemingly nonsensical scenes where two superassassins hired by the movie's main villain come after the hero, who symbolizes the average American working man whose livelihood is threatened by globalization. The first assassin is a big and muscular Russian who doesn't speak at all, obviously symbolizing the new insignificant role of Russia who is still big and strong but who has completely lost its voice after the collapse of Soviet Union and the total hegemony of the United States. The second assassin symbolizes Latin America, and he can not only speak but also sing eloquently, alluring the hero to forget his defenses and accept his presence before this wily assassin shows his true colours. Russia and Latin America are of course currently two places that in practice are much closer to anarcho-capitalism than the Western countries, so that multinational corporations consider them fertile places to operate in, so it is appropriate that the corporate villain would hire them to do his dirty work.
But this is about as far as my observational skills go, so perhaps my readers could point out similar connections and between-the-lines messages in this movie that I missed. For example, there just has to be subtext and symbolism in the faux-torture scene where the hero was grilling a steak instead of the comic relief petty criminal, perhaps something about the inherent connection of male propensity to violence and eating meat. The hero's housemates might also be important symbols of various victims of globalization, since they seemed to be kind of rootless cosmopolitans who had pretty much lost their identity, roots and even their future.
I first watched this movie on the Movie Network on my own (I am a big boy and not at all scared) and then with my wife when she wanted to see it. On the second viewing, I had a vague feeling that there is much more in this movie than initially meets the eye, but I couldn't really put it in words. It seemed obvious to me that this movie is an allegory of anarcho-capitalism, that is, a society where law and order are not provided by the state, but in which individuals must forge their own law and order. (The hero even talks about "natural justice", just like libertarians.) With their power unchecked, criminal gangs do whatever they want and the inefficient police will not do anything to stop them. These criminal gangs operate internally not much differently from multinational corporations, and in the movie, symbols of money and corporatism constantly abound whenever the villains are shown.
The reading of the movie as an allegory of anarcho-capitalism would also explain the seemingly nonsensical scenes where two superassassins hired by the movie's main villain come after the hero, who symbolizes the average American working man whose livelihood is threatened by globalization. The first assassin is a big and muscular Russian who doesn't speak at all, obviously symbolizing the new insignificant role of Russia who is still big and strong but who has completely lost its voice after the collapse of Soviet Union and the total hegemony of the United States. The second assassin symbolizes Latin America, and he can not only speak but also sing eloquently, alluring the hero to forget his defenses and accept his presence before this wily assassin shows his true colours. Russia and Latin America are of course currently two places that in practice are much closer to anarcho-capitalism than the Western countries, so that multinational corporations consider them fertile places to operate in, so it is appropriate that the corporate villain would hire them to do his dirty work.
But this is about as far as my observational skills go, so perhaps my readers could point out similar connections and between-the-lines messages in this movie that I missed. For example, there just has to be subtext and symbolism in the faux-torture scene where the hero was grilling a steak instead of the comic relief petty criminal, perhaps something about the inherent connection of male propensity to violence and eating meat. The hero's housemates might also be important symbols of various victims of globalization, since they seemed to be kind of rootless cosmopolitans who had pretty much lost their identity, roots and even their future.
Hmmm, I have a few points about this. For one thing, the anarcho-capitalist theories that I'm familiar with don't call for a society "in which individuals must forge their own law and order"--rather, they call for law and order to be provided by organisations which people deal with on a voluntary rather than compulsory basis. I do suppose that critics of anarcho-capitalism would argue that it would break down to a situation in which individuals fend for themselves.
Also, I don't think that big multinational corporations have anything in particular to do with anarcho-capitalism. They would probably still exist, but they already exist under the status quo and are doing quite well. They have a lot of influence in the government. I suppose, again, that critics would argue that big corporations would become much more powerful.
Those are essentially quibbles, but my main point is that I don't understand at all the claim that "Russia and Latin America are of course currently two places that in practice are much closer to anarcho-capitalism than the Western countries". Russia and all the Latin American countries I can think of have always been in the grip of powerful states, often despotic ones. What does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism? I can see where an anti-AC critic could argue that anarcho-capitalism will eventually result indirectly in a despotic government. But a despotic government is, by definition, not anarcho-capitalism itself. That being the case, I don't see how Russia and Latin America are at all close to anarcho-capitalism.
Posted by Otto Kerner | 2:04 AM