To join study groups that will be discussing this topic, contact us
: ICWP@anonymousspeech.com


Movie Review: THE BUTLER

The movie was based on the life of Eugene Allen, a White House butler from 1952 to 1986; however, this was only the idea for the movie. Screenwriter, Danny Strong, had a bigger purpose and message to convey. The movie was a quick look at history, simply recreating highlights as taught in American schools. The main character Cecil (Forest Whitaker) was a butler living through historic times without paying much attention to things outside of his own personal life. Cecil, who made it a point not to question or challenge the status quo, is provided with a son, Louis (David Oyelowo) who is active in the civil rights movement. Cecil's life is told in parallel to his son's more interesting life of struggle.
However, the story line is almost comical as both father and son seem to be in the middle of every civil rights landmark event making the "based on a true story" unbelievable. Even worse was that the movie had racist and sexist stereotypes throughout. It portrayed a black middle class family riddled with alcoholism, infidelity, and poor communication skills. The older son, Louis, was portrayed as the "bad" son early on in the movie, giving his younger brother pornographic magazines, being ashamed of his father, and costing his family worry and money for his activism. Cecil eventually says that every gray hair he has been caused by his son Louis.
Louis is involved in the Freedom Riders Movement, is jailed with MLK, Jr., joins the Black Panthers, is a candidate for some government position, and then is leading antiapartheid protests. This is in contrast to his father Cecil who took pride in working at the White House. Various scenes illustrate how different presidents ask Cecil a pointed civil rights-related question and then seem inspired by Cecil's uninspiring answers to follow through with a reform. The scenes make it seem like change is coming from a President's individual and personal decisions, and not from outside pressures such as the masses fighting back against a racist system or international pressures that force the ruling class to decrease overt racism, especially after WWII.
The worst part about the movie is that it suggests that conditions for blacks have improved through the period included in the movie. However, black people are worse off today than they were in the 1960's but it is harder to see. Racism continues, but is now covert. It would take another full article to give the statistics to support this argument, but it's worth mentioning one: 1 in every 3 black men are in the confines of the criminal justice system.
The movie also misleads us to believe that the options available to changing race relations are reform movements such as those that Louis breezes through (pacifism, violent militant reform struggle, electoral politics, or protests) or through exemplar submissiveness that somehow eliminates racist stereotypes. However, we have a third alternative that was not presented. The masses can organize not only against racism or for dead end reforms that ultimately don't change a thing, but against capitalism, the root of the problem.
To do this, the masses need a vision of a world without borders, without the need for money, without production for exchange. The masses need the vision of a communist society. No law will ever eliminate capitalism and capitalist exploitation—THE ONLY SOLUTION IS COMMUNIST REVOLUTION.

We all know that capitalism's trillion-dollar entertainment industry is designed to sell, in one way or another. Among the items for sale are some products we "just can't live without," a patriotic vision, or the ruling class's racist and sexist ideas of the "other" among our class brothers and sisters.
"Others," in this case, would be workers of genders, ethnicities, etc., that are different from our own. The bosses use this approach to attack our class unity by convincing us that we are more different than similar. This is against our class interest because it blocks us from understanding that we have a common enemy and that we are one class. Certainly, capitalist entertainment creates a fantasy world some enter in hopes of escaping capitalism's painful reality. Just as certain, it is a fantasy world the bosses create to confuse us and discourage a clear understanding of what they're really doing.

How Is Communist Entertainment Different?
Will there be a place for entertainment as we know it under communism? Yes…and no. Just as capitalist entertainment advances the rulers' interests, so shall we use communist entertainment to advance ours. We will still have movies, music, literature, etc., but we will also organize more collective activities – like hiking, camping, dancing, poetry readings, concerts, communist schools. Doesn't that sound more enjoyable and constructive than sitting around a TV or staring at a large screen in a dark room with a sticky floor?
We may still choose to have television programming, but, as with all other entertainment outlets, it will no longer push racism, sexism, and patriotism. Nor will it glorify lawyers, cops, drug dealers, murderers, and wealth. Instead, we will use these media to engage and inspire society. We will inspire people to commit to a communist vision, or deepen theirs, with information and inspiring examples from our class's rich history of struggle. Everyone will be expected to engage in a discourse – a collective on-going discussion and analysis – of how to strengthen and improve society, spread our revolutionary ideas and be better communists, and how to develop to our fullest potential as human beings; entertainment sources will function to these ends.

In the September 5th, 2013 edition of Red Flag the article "We can't eat money" appeared. Without a doubt this article shows the brilliant talent that the writer has. I should make clear, the article had very good content, for certain mentalities, but not for the masses in general.
The article requires certain understanding that the majority of workers lack. It is not accessible, inasmuch that it mentions psychological theories, symbiotic relationships and homeostasis. I do not deny that the article details briefly its content in a praiseworthy fashion but nevertheless it is incomprehensible to many.
We need to elevate the political understanding of the masses and here is where I suggest that we need to make every effort possible to put articles in the simplest fashion, so they can be easier to understand and assimilate. To this I should add, workers cannot be convinced with theory. Practice is urgent.
Marxist theoreticians criticized mechanical learning and the simple repetition of formulas. We should not forget that everyone tries to understand the world as he or she can, with whatever means are at their disposal. Often times fear and ignorance pay homage to falsehoods. Here for example, religion and pseudo revolutionaries need to be mentioned.
Revolutionary theory needs to be a guide for action--to fight for the liberation of the working class, to struggle against pacifism and utilize the written means of agitation and propaganda, written in more popular language and tied to workers' struggles.

—a Red Flag reader

Next Article