Frank Miller completely loses the plot

[the G-man]

Imagine in 500 years time a bunch of protestors in Osama Bin Laden masks? (And I know V in the film was fighting a cruel dictatorship

Hell, we already have all the morons in Che shirts and that was only about fifty years ago.

[Captaindemotion]

More from Moore:

http://www.honestpublishing.com/news...-and-politics/

Well, Frank Miller is someone whose work I’ve barely looked at for the past twenty years. I thought the Sin City stuff was unreconstructed misogyny, 300 appeared to be wildly ahistoric, homophobic and just completely misguided. I think that there has probably been a rather unpleasant sensibility apparent in Frank Miller’s work for quite a long time. Since I don’t have anything to do with the comics industry, I don’t have anything to do with the people in it. I heard about the latest outpourings regarding the Occupy movement. It’s about what I’d expect from him. It’s always seemed to me that the majority of the comics field, if you had to place them politically, you’d have to say centre-right. That would be as far towards the liberal end of the spectrum as they would go. I’ve never been in any way, I don’t even know if I’m centre-left. I’ve been outspoken about that since the beginning of my career. So yes I think it would be fair to say that me and Frank Miller have diametrically opposing views upon all sorts of things, but certainly upon the Occupy movement.

As far as I can see, the Occupy movement is just ordinary people reclaiming rights which should always have been theirs. I can’t think of any reason why as a population we should be expected to stand by and see a gross reduction in the living standards of ourselves and our kids, possibly for generations, when the people who have got us into this have been rewarded for it; they’ve certainly not been punished in any way because they’re too big to fail. I think that the Occupy movement is, in one sense, the public saying that they should be the ones to decide who’s too big to fail. It’s a completely justified howl of moral outrage and it seems to be handled in a very intelligent, non-violent way, which is probably another reason why Frank Miller would be less than pleased with it. I’m sure if it had been a bunch of young, sociopathic vigilantes with Batman make-up on their faces, he’d be more in favour of it. We would definitely have to agree to differ on that one.
What do you think needs to change in our political system?
Everything. I believe that what’s needed is a radical solution, by which I mean from the roots upwards. Our entire political thinking seems to me to be based upon medieval precepts. These things, they didn’t work particularly well five or six hundred years ago. Their slightly modified forms are not adequate at all for the rapidly changing territory of the 21st Century.
We need to overhaul the way that we think about money, we need to overhaul the way that we think about who’s running the show. As an anarchist, I believe that power should be given to the people, to the people whose lives this is actually affecting. It’s no longer good enough to have a group of people who are controlling our destinies. The only reason they have the power is because they control the currency. They have no moral authority and, indeed, they show the opposite of moral authority.

[Davros]

the G-man wrote:

---

Hell, we already have all the morons in Che shirts and that was only about fifty years ago.

Che is hardly an apt comparison with Bin Laden.

the G-man wrote:

---

Why is it liberals trust them with everything but public safety?

People peacefully sitting down on a university commons are not a threat to anybody's safety.

[Sci]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

More from Moore:
<SNIP>

Knew there was a reason I always liked Watchmen more than The Dark Knight Returns.

Davros wrote:

---

Che is hardly an apt comparison with Bin Laden.

No, he really is. He may have started out as a man who cared about people and wanted to end economic inequality, but in the end, the guy was presiding over the executions of hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba.

[The Borgified Corpse]

the G-man wrote:

---

Also, in order to truly discuss Miller's post, one must be able to discuss the OWS movement itself: it's goals, its tactics, its membership. All of which means that this entire thread can-and will-easily be about nothing but politics and current events. Are the mods prepared for, and willing to allow, that?

Apparantly yes. That surprises me for this forum.

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

One doesn't have to be against corporations and capitalism to think that executives paying themselves bonusses at a time when other people's standars of living is failing is obscene

Particularly since a lot of it is money that they didn't earn. If these businesses were truly allowed to succeed or fail on their own, then it would be one thing. However, so many of them have gotten government bailouts, OUR money, yet we don't see a dime of benefit from it. I'm far from a Marxist, but considering how much public money has gone into these private corporations, I would say it's only fair that the people seize a portion of their assets for compensation.

[stj]

The notion that at the end Che was presiding over the executions of "hundreds" of political prisoners sounds like mad dog right wing propaganda. A quick glance at the Wikipedia page cites Amnesty International as estimating less than three hundred political executions up til 1987! Long after Che left the Cuban government I might add. The number of executions taking place within the revolutionary period is unknown but not at all the "end," falsifying the implication of inevitable development of Communist tyranny.

The general quality of the gusano writing on Cuba is illustrated by the claim that some Cuban is the political prisoner held the longest worldwide, at thirty years. I would nominate Leonard Peltier myself. The rebuttal from the right winger (overt or crypto,) would of course be, but Peltier is not a political prisoner! But, then, is everyone really a political prisoner the gusanos say is? And how many of them are guilty of things that would be illegal under pretty much any legal system? And how does this compare to the murders by Colombian death squads and Mexican federales who are being supported by the US government?

Equating bin Laden and Che is a fine, fine example of Newspeak, proving that worshipping the thuggish Orwell damages your mind.

[Davros]

Sci wrote:

---

No, he really is. He may have started out as a man who cared about people and wanted to end economic inequality, but in the end, the guy was presiding over the executions of hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba.

That would still make him a better person than not only Bin Laden but the dictator Batista who he helped overthrow and many of the other despots we have supported.

[the G-man]

Sci wrote:

---

Knew there was a reason I always liked Watchmen more than The Dark Knight Returns.

No, he really is. He may have started out as a man who cared about people and wanted to end economic inequality, but in the end, the guy was presiding over the executions of hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba.

Yeah, people need to get over idea that their politics require them to turn a blind eye to what a bastard Che (and Castro for that matter) was.

Even if you believe that their predecessors were bad guys too and even if you support a more socialist style of government, that doesn't require you to blindly support these two, any more than aversion to bigotry against Islam requires you to support Bin Laden.

[Davros]

the G-man wrote:

---

Yeah, people need to get over idea that their politics require them to turn a blind eye to what a bastard Che (and Castro for that matter) was.

Even if you believe that their predecessors were bad guys too and even if you support a more socialist style of government, that doesn't require you to blindly support these two, any more than aversion to bigotry against Islam requires you to support Bin Laden.

I never claimed Che was a saint or even a nice guy, just that he wasn't as bad as Bin Laden or Batista. Learn the difference.

[the G-man]

True, he was unable to kill as many people as Bin Laden but not really for lack of trying. More for lack of opportunity.

[Davros]

the G-man wrote:

---

True, he was unable to kill as many people as Bin Laden but not really for lack of trying. More for lack of opportunity.

No, more of a lack of trying.

[Sci]

Davros wrote:

---

No, more of a lack of trying.

Whether or not you think Che or bin Ladin are guilty of equivalent crimes, the basic principle -- that people who did horrible things or fought for oppressive causes can later be lionized as somehow good or heroic by subsequent political movements -- remains an apt comparison. The question is not "Was Che as bad as bin Ladin?" The question was, "Did Che commit atrocities or fight for an oppressive cause, and was that fact later whitewashed to create a heroic image?" The answer is yes, and yes -- just as happened with Guy Fawkes and the same could, in theory, happen with bin Ladin.

[stj]

^^^And Frank Miller sees Occupy Wall Street as fighting for an oppressive cause. He displays every bit as much logic in thinking so as you do in seeing Che's cause as oppressive because the simple truth is that you both share much of the same reasoning behing your antiCommunism. In fact, he's ahead of you, being much more consistent. Communism in Cuba after the revolution has been much less violent than ordinary capitalist business as usual in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean. What you're really saying is that you approve of the Tonton Macoutes and Colombian death squads.

[Sci]

stj wrote:

---

^^^And Frank Miller sees Occupy Wall Street as fighting for an oppressive cause. He displays every bit as much logic in thinking so as you do in seeing Che's cause as oppressive because the simple truth is that you both share much of the same reasoning behing your antiCommunism. In fact, he's ahead of you, being much more consistent. Communism in Cuba after the revolution has been much less violent than ordinary capitalist business as usual in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean. What you're really saying is that you approve of the Tonton Macoutes and Colombian death squads.

Condemning one system's abuses is not the same thing as condoning its rival's abuses. Believe it or not, it's not an "either-or" choice. I'm perfectly happy to condemn communism and capitalism.

[the G-man]

Sci wrote:

---

Whether or not you think Che or bin Ladin are guilty of equivalent crimes, the basic principle -- that people who did horrible things or fought for oppressive causes can later be lionized as somehow good or heroic by subsequent political movements -- remains an apt comparison. The question is not "Was Che as bad as bin Ladin?" The question was, "Did Che commit atrocities or fight for an oppressive cause, and was that fact later whitewashed to create a heroic image?" The answer is yes, and yes -- just as happened with Guy Fawkes and the same could, in theory, happen with bin Ladin.

In fact, to play devil's advocate, one could legitimately argue that Bin Laden is actually more admirable than Che.

Bin Laden, to borrow an argument some have made, saw himself as a freedom fighter attacking an outside enemy (western society) attempting to subjugate the Muslim world. He was attacking an invader, that argument goes.

Che was killing his own people, largely in an attempt to suppress opposition.

But Che looks better on a t-shirt so I guess he's more "moral"