MAOIST.WS
Maoist Information Web Site
Maoist movie reviews
"Terminator Salvation" raises questions about materialism
Terminator Salvation
Directed by McG
The Halcyon Company, IMF Internationale Medien und Film GmbH & Co.
Produktions KG, Intermedia Films, Lin Pictures, T Asset Acquisition
Company
PG-13
115 minutes
2009
Reviewed May 2009
This is the fourth movie in the "Terminator" series. Before
"Salvation," hero of the future John Connor was last seen starting to
coordinate the response to the rebellious military artificial
intelligence system Skynet from a U.$. military base in the
mountains. Christian Bale plays the John Connor who has become the
hardened leader he was destined to be, in "Salvation."
As if to spite MIWS's article on
"Matrix" as a counterrevolutionary story, narration at the end of
"Terminator Salvation" obliquely likens Skynet to al-Qaeda as a
resilient alleged "global network," al-Qaeda being a symbol for any
Islamic Third World resistance to U.$. imperialism. The Soviet Union,
which existed when the original "Terminator" movie (1984) was
released, is no longer. For this writer, what potential the
"Terminator" movie series might have had for inspiring opposition to
U.$. militarism today was lost at that moment. There were already too
many people fantasizing about Muslim Third World nations as First
World nations with menacing leaders, or Third World nations as having
uncanny abilities. There is even a multiracial Amerikan-nationalist
angle in "Terminator Salvation." Provoking neither warmongering nor
economic nationalism, the Disney artificial-intelligence-related
movie "Tron" (1982) about inventors and scientists chafing at
corporate misuse of their creations is looking better than ever.
Another movie seeming to use robots to evoke fear of a threat from
the Middle East is "Transformers" (2007). "Transformers" departs from
the common theme of cybernetic revolt in science fiction by having
robots be literally aliens from outer space. In the "Terminator"
series, the machines arose from the U.$. military. That is a plus
relative to "Transformers," but this writer does not expect the
effect of "Terminator Salvation" to be different from that of "Red Dawn" (1984).
Controlling much technology, First Worlders have the luxury to
fantasize about destroying technology. Exploited as whole nations,
the Third World suffers from technology deprivation. Current wars
aside, luddism has no place in the contemporary world except as a
form of reaction. Luddism can be connected to fears of offshoring,
outsourcing, and foreign technical proficiency, defending First World
unproductive sector jobs supposedly threatened by things like self
checkout units at grocery stores and automatic programming tools,
anxiety about the socialization of production as a threat to Liberal
individualism, and obscuring the fact that First Worlders benefit
from technology at the expense of Third World workers. In the 1960s,
the Amerikan middle class was whining about lost bank clerk jobs due
to computers. If robots start taking over elder care, check back with
MIWS then.
MIWS's past discussion of artificial intelligence has been criticized
as being too influenced by science fiction or too oriented toward
science fiction fans. Since these critics have not suggested where
the inspiration, outside their own ideas and personality/style, for
scientific-communist ideas should come from in the English language
other than social-democratic/Trotskyist circles, intelligence
circles, gossip networks and cop-led "youth" circles already
selecting for certain kinds of people, and the critics are the type
to not deal with the substance of what MIWS says (but rather to focus
on style), it is hard to understand what the complaint is about. Most
English-speaking homes with children do not have "The Battle of
Algiers" or "Reds" on the shelf. Not "The Spook Who Sat by the Door."
Not "Week End "(1967). (And for that matter, not "Metropolis" (1927),
though it is a science fiction movie. Other sci-fi movies are more
likely to be seen; books are more likely to be read.) And, going to a
demonstration in the First World is usually not connected to
necessity giving rise to a scientific practice. Where is the
stimulation for the development of materialist thinking to be found
in culture, "The Hills"? "America's Next Top Model"? Postmodern
literary movements? Even people who pick up literature at a
demonstration are receptive to the content to varying degrees.
Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke weren't just science fiction
writers. They were scientists themselves at one point, and Asimov is
particularly known for popularizing science. Many scientists are
science fiction fans. Science fiction is one of the few contexts in
First World culture in which one could expect a materialist impulse
to arise. Polytheistic culture worshipping the self-expressive
individual, the Dalai Lama and Pink all at the same time is less
suitable, so communists have to make use of other things in the First
World superstructure, the whole of which is tainted by imperialist
exploitation. It's not just science fiction that is impure. Science
fiction has a role to play where people yet lack scientific knowledge
and skills. People putting down both religion in the Third World and
science fiction put the communist movement in a difficult situation.
There will be advances in the Third World even in the midst of
religion, even if so-called communists don't recognize it. The First
World is lacking in progressive conditions. Other things will give
rise to revolutionary communists in the First World, who will be
faced with complicated struggles in the First World, not with leading
Third World people. Making use of the scientific culture of the First
World, without putting down cultures in poor exploited countries and
without spreading illusions about First World productive forces, is
key.
I said "materialist," not "Marxist," because not all materialists are
Marxists. The mistake of others, though, is to think that one go can
from pop culture or postmodern poetry to Marxist materialism without
a phase in between except mushy thinking to be shaped by a cult
leader, or that pre-scientific agreement with the goal of a world
without class, gender and national oppression or the goal of global
equality is enough to put one on a track to Marxist materialism. In
an imperialist country like the United $tates that is so parasitic, a
pre-Marxist/non-Marxist stage is more important than in imperialist
countries in which people are more comfortable with science and
mathematics. The stages of pre-scientific communist,
contemplative-materialist communist and Marxist-materialist
communist(1) apply even to non-Marxist scientists who become
communist, but the average person in the United $tates and artistic
and literary pre-scientific types disdaining math, and science except
when opposing Evangelical Republicans, are at a further disadvantage
and have more things to learn (which is not to say that they will
learn them -- the majority are reactionary or complacent, and so are
the majority of First World scientists). In science and engineering,
there is a concrete goal and a method, even if the goal is non-social
and the method is undialectical.
Science fiction transcends the fragmentation of disciplinary science
and, among other things, often represents a formative socially
visionary non-Marxist materialism. Still, this materialism is
non-Marxist, and science fiction contributes to much contemplative
thinking that does not even claim to have goals that are communist.
This writer is interested in the forking that goes on over a long
period of time whereby people in conjunction with other factors end
up more disposed to taking up Marxist materialism, instead staying at
the contemplative-materialist stage of development as a "communist,"
making materialist or non-materialist contemplative predictions about
the future, or confining themselves to non-communist materialism.
There are differences within science fiction. It is a favorite of
so-called revolutionaries, but "The Matrix" (1999) is actually not
one of the high points of science fiction. Lacking originality in
numerous other ways, it is one of a long line of movies that
encourage viewers to focus on epistemological and ontological
questions in relation to themselves as individuals. Yeah, it is a
movie that some Rage Against the Machine fans and humanities
department academics who aren't sci-fi fans could get excited over,
but "The Matrix" should also be examined in the context of other
sci-fi works. The predictive psychohistory of Isaac Asimov's
"Foundation" science fiction universe (not the other psychohistory)
is to be preferred in some ways. Obviously, it is fictional, but the
Hari Seldon character's psychohistory involves statistics,
probability, large groups of people, and the so-called mass action of
those groups. It is not Hari Seldon pondering consciousness and the
nature of reality and perception year after year. That would be
idealist or contemplative-materialist. That is not to say that
Seldonian psychohistory is Marxist, despite the comparison some have
made to historical materialism, but within its fictional universe,
use of psychohistory in a kind of social practice works on a large
scale, to an extent. The way it is pursued and applied has
implications of idealism and individualism, and psychohistory is
reminiscent of forecasting used by governments and businesses with
certain objectives and outlooks, but one can discern differences with
even more narrow or idealist approaches and ideas. Psychohistory is
more credible (not just more believable) than John Connor's use of
revelations and prophecy to lead the resistance in "Terminator
Salvation," Connor being not much unlike pseudo-communists with
decades-obsolete dogma and utopian ideas; it's not just that the
whole thing with time travel in the "Terminator" series is contrived.
Euro-Amerikan individuals can project themselves onto John Connor as
the savior in the aptly titled "Terminator Salvation," instead of
analyzing the conditions and behavior of groups of white people as
they actually exist. The high point of "Terminator Salvation" for
this reviewer is when Connor wonders if his mother forgot to tell him
something or told him something misleading. But, it is Connor once
again questioning his mother as a source of truth. Either she is or
she isn't, and by that time Connor should have answered the question.
In the real world, so-called communists are stuck on philosophy
questions. People should wrestle with philosophy when they are young,
not after they have called themselves revolutionary for decades.
An alternative to what this writer is saying is that historical
fiction etc. can play a role. I don't doubt this, but science fiction
is more particular to the First World than the historical drama film,
the epic, and history books. Isaac Asimov shot down the idea of
Yankee ingenuity years ago, and I agree (and have different reasons
from Asimov's), but for certain reasons science fiction came to be
concentrated in imperialist countries and richer-imperialist-country
people enjoyed science fiction while other countries with less
science fiction and Russia had revolutions. There is a reason why Lu
Xun was translating imperialist countries' science fiction. The
biographies of real-life leaders aside, I recognize the idea of
non-science-fiction historical culture influence in some movies. In
"The Spook Who Sat By the Door" (1973), for example, it appears that
the Black-nationalist character who infiltrates the CIA for the
purpose of training obtained inspiration from a book about the
kingdom of Dahomey. The point could be just that Dan Freeman studied
world history or colonial African history in college. The focus of
the present article is oppressor nation culture, rather than
oppressed nation culture, but there are more Black people graduating
from college today than in 1973. "The Spook Who Sat By the Door" has
to be seen differently today. With more people going to college today
while the surrounding culture in general has become even more
decadent, other things are making a greater contribution than before
to separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of communist
leadership in the First World, in which the communist movement is
made up of leaders.
Perhaps what MIWS's critics are trying to say is something along the
lines of that MIWS thinks too much like the inventor and futurist Ray
Kurzweil, who forecasts a so-called technological singularity,
changing the world qualitatively in a relatively brief period of
time. (The term has a more specific meaning in futurology.) Kurzweil
himself has dialogued with science fiction author and computer
scientist Vernor Vinge. Though not discussing a singularity, MIWS
discussed the possibility of artificial intelligence's forcefully
ending certain social problems as an alternative to the extinction of
Homo sapiens sapiens if imperialism is not ended by other
means first. It was off-the-cuff, entertaining "Matrix" as prediction
to make a comment about the arduousness of the communist struggle,
particularly in relation to First Worlders. As compared with a
situation of contradictions between oppressed nations and imperialist
nations with exploited majorities, it doesn't get easier or simpler
having countries full of exploiters. People prone to apocalyptic
ideas should not despair, but realize that there is a way out: the
international proletariat deploying anonymous and structural
reasoning. "Terminator Salvation" seems to put MIWS in the same camp
as Kurzweilians in defending "Skynet" in some way. (Although,
Kurzweilians might argue that government secrecy would lead to flawed
projects such as Skynet.) Kurzweilians have a less dystopian vision
of artificial intelligence than "Terminator Salvation." Any
comparison would be superficial, not only because MIWS has mostly
discussed artificial intelligence as a symbol for human groups, but
also because MIWS has not made a forecast, has not made a claim about
the probability of extinction versus the probability of the emergence
of an AI caretaker prevailing over human opposition, has not made a
claim about the long-run probability of that emergence, and has not
made a claim about the benefits of future artificial intelligence
development in general.
This writer isn't sure what Kurzweilians think about the probability
of global socialism, which might affect the outcome of technology
development and the pace of development of certain technologies, or
of global nuclear war, which happens to be depicted in "Terminator 3:
Rise of the Machines" (2003). There are indications in Kurzweil's
book The Singularity is Near that Kurzweil thinks the Third
World is on-track to catch up with the First World economically (not
just that the cheapening of new technology will make it more
accessible to the poor), whereas MIWS believes that equality will not
come into being without downward equalization of the economies of the
First World and the Third World. This writer would scrutinize
Kurzweil's futurist work for that reason alone.
One of Ray Kurzweil's goals is to encourage the public to prepare
itself for technological changes by supporting development of
defenses against destructive uses of technology. This writer does not
dispute the technical possibility of strong AI. What I would rather
discuss are the ideological effects of Kurzweil's work, whether it
leads to apathy or backing First World nations in struggles with
Third World nations. It is hard to understand what smaller Third
World nations are supposed to do today with Kurzweil's forecasts and
suggestions.
More generally, major and ongoing predictions that aren't based on
the dynamics of the present or aren't related to current practice are
suspect as being contemplative and occupying too much attention. This
writer does not think about artificial intelligence on a daily basis,
and MIWS has made only a few comments on the topic. After considering
and rejecting futurist and utopian ideas and approaches, it is
something that one thinks about and then forgets before focusing on
tasks of organizing, leading, fighting, or educating, within existing
and emerging struggles. An accidental cataclysmic nuclear event
within the next fifty years is a significant possibility. Use of
artificially intelligent robots to clean the mess on the ground up
does not seem far-fetched, but the details of that probably wouldn't
figure into current communist practice.
The door should be kept open to different possibilities consistent
with the global class structure and the protracted character of the
class struggle today. At the same time, focusing on making
predictions and even discussing scenarios for the purpose of
preparation can become utopian or lead to ignorance about present
realities. Kurzweilians might argue that technology has already
impacted social relations (the Gorbachev glasnost policy being an
example cited in discussions of technology's historical impact on
politics), but there is a question of how to incorporate that
knowledge in revolutionary practice apart of using existing
technologies or studying how to use emerging technologies for
purposes the outlines of which already exist in practice. I
understand that inventors receiving or asking for government funding
have an ethical imperative to think about the consequences of their
inventions, which may lead to forecasting.
The Internet has facilitated the dissemination of information
appropriate for Liberal struggles, but anonymous distribution of
information and anonymous reasoning -- obvious uses of the Internet
for contemporary scientific communists -- existed before the
Internet. This writer notices a lopsidedness in information and
communications technology development and adoption whereby progress
on anonymity is slow compared with progress on other aspects. Some of
the putative benefits of "Web 2.0" technologies and applications are
inconsistent with anonymity goals. What I mean to suggest by this is
that communists can take advantage of some technologies more than
others. Some technologies and practices may represent a continuation
and even an exacerbation of kinds of problems that exist outside the
Internet. So-called communists who are Liberals will disagree.
Contrary to what one might think, it is social-democrats, Trotskyists
and revisionists believing that a majority of First World workers are
exploited who talk fancifully about technology, and the reason is
that they need to explain why the First World working class or the
First World population is revolutionary despite more than a century
of non-revolution. The First World is past colonialism and feudalism
inside its own borders and supposedly has oh-so advanced productive
forces. So, where is the socialist revolution? The fact that
revolution has not happened in the First World despite supposedly
dazzling productive forces should be a clue to Trotskyists etc. to
not look to technology to explain socialism's emergence in the First
World, but some haven't gotten that. Artificial intelligence and
nanotechnology have become popular topics in the media. Laypeople or
those falling outside the "nerd" category are more aware of them. If
one talks about the global class structure that exists, one is likely
nowadays to at some point receive comments about robotics or
nanotechnology as if the class structure question were moot. This is
actually how many Liberals try to introduce First Worlders to
socialism -- with reference to its supposed inevitability due to
technical change, and its allegedly allowing First Worlders to work
even less than they do already. This is given a "Marxist" gloss by
relating the anticipated technologies to Marxist discussions of
machinery, productivity, and automation. Often, there are
accompanying and closely related ideas about First World productivity
in particular. Advanced nanotechnology and robots, automating
production or offering innovative fabrication methods, are seen as an
outgrowth of First World productivity, which also is supposedly
responsible for high First World living standards. Talking about
fabulous First World productivity and ignoring that the First World
imports most of what it consumes by composition is a way of denying
exploitation, denying the class structure of the First World, and
encouraging First Worlders to expect an even more privileged life.
Others talk about communications and media technology such as the
Internet as if it could make up for deficiencies seen in First World
politics.
People who keep putting First Worlders, groups and even individuals,
under a microscopic to find signs of unrest despite decades of
inaction and decades of organizing efforts, and also spend much time
speculating about the benefits of a particular technology or
technology in a particular context, aren't much different from those
worshipping Oprah and the Dalai Lama simultaneously. (First Worlders
should be examined closely for purposes of dividing and resisting
First Worlders, but this is a different issue. Scientific communists
have already drawn certain broad conclusions about the First World
class structure. After understanding those conclusions, detailed
investigation of First Worlders has a different implication.) Worship
of different individuals has been replaced with worship of, and faith
in, the First World worker and technology. At best, it is
contemplative, unsystematically focusing on certain questions to the
exclusion of others without making an advance in practice or even in
theory. Those worshipping the First World worker, and technology as a
magical bullet for political paralysis, are more idealist than some
futurists, because at least futurists have empirical trends that they
can point to and which they have written extensively about, detailed
knowledge of research and development problems, and a theory of
convergence consistent with their ideas about capitalism,
competition, markets, and specific industries; many futurists are
openly pro-capitalist and openly Liberal and have pursued a
materialist analysis within the confines of that framework. The
idealist "communists" have nothing like that, but rather use dead and
living figures and vague rhetoric to jazz people up for a fascist,
pseudo-scientific pseudo-revolution.
Talking about the possibility of things here and there could be
trying to please everyone or a diversification marketing strategy,
not something one could even say is a sign of contemplative
materialism. The Dalai Lama is good at saying things to please
various groups -- Christians, atheists, millionaires, destitute
people, etc. -- for his imperialist-ass-kissing cause. It does not
mean the Dalai Lama has necessarily devoted searching attention to
the problems of each of these groups. On the other hand, this writer
does not rule out the possibility that some so-called communists
being themselves quite provincialist are even more idealist than
people like the Dalai Lama, who has constituents in different Third
World nations. The Dalai Lama knows some things about the CIA. Unless
they are being wicked, it is hard to say the same thing about U.$.
"communists" backing infiltration of foreign movements to support
campaigns against Muslim Third World nations.
In the late 1950s, a result of shooting down futurist ideas while
working through an idealist phase could have been to become drawn
closer to Trotskyism. That's fine. Going from idealism to Marxist
materialism is not a matter of receiving a divine revelation
unmessily, and it is better to be Trotskyist first and
scientific-communist later than scientific-communist first and
Trotskyist later. As far as truth content, Trotskyism is better than
some futurist ideas. The strange thing is that today people who are
supposedly past Trotskyism raise futurist ideas viewing technology
positively as a distraction from the truth about class and oppression
in their concrete existence, partly because computers and
cutting-edge technology are now cool and associated with youth. Times
have changed, so the opportunism of pseudo-Marxists has changed, but
not their class and economic dogmas. Criticism of MIWS on science
fiction is a joke coming from people who themselves use science
fiction analogies and references, or make reference to futurists
without critical commentary to create an impression of having
curious, open-minded interest in the "scientific" ideas of
non-communists. Since these people homing in on MIWS's discussion of
artificial intelligence also criticize MIWS's grammar and use of
idioms, what it might mean is making a racist comparison of MIWS to
the Ben Jabituya character in "Short Circuit" (1986) as imagined
migrants or Third World people while reserving ideas about robots for
the opportunist marketing needs and exploiter interests of white
people.
When it comes to people sacrificing Third World people on the altar
of First World productive forces, and an action blockbuster such as
"Terminator Salvation" attacking the Third World in the guise of a
telling a science fiction story, MIWS could be indifferent. One
cannot expect much from either the First World "Left" or Hollywood,
there being only shades of difference within parasitism. However,
"Terminator Salvation" reminded this writer of ideological questions
about futurism, contemplative materialism, and opportunism.
Notes
1. "Stages of scientific development: Contemplative materialism and
your own relationship to Marx's writings,"
http://prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/contemplativemateri
alism.html
Re-reading this article in the middle of writing this review, this
writer was a little surprised to find a remark on science fiction,
which is obviously fitting in this context. "MIM's theory of the
"joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations" is
not based on especially talented science-fiction writing. It's
something we've seen already, with the Red Army composed of many
nations marching into Berlin."
Discussing the JDPON is a matter of looking at history and
identifying advances, and recognizing the incipient joint proletarian
dictatorship that exists in international struggles. I would not say
the JDPON is a matter of forecasting (except in a contingent, "what
if" way), so it is not a question whether the JDPON is more likely
than an accidental nuclear event causing human extinction, for
example. Barring various possibilities, the JDPON is more likely as a
way forward for the proletariat than alternatives.
Despite the U.$. attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with fission
bombs, a global or regional nuclear war with thermonuclear weapons
does not exist in history. Still, it may very well be more likely to
occur in a given time period than the establishment of the JDPON and
various events and processes that one would prefer to happen after
the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
There is a danger of contemplative thinking creeping into the
communist movement in an unexpected way, on environmental issues. The
media has discussed abrupt climate change scenarios and dramatic
climate change scenarios involving lengthy passages of time.
Discussing the observed gradual effects of climate change and
disasters already happening caused by gradual climate change is one
thing, but MIWS is not going to be discussing climate change
scenarios without discussing the risk of nuclear war. Indeed, nuclear
war itself could cause catastrophic climate change. Discussing
climate change risks but not nuclear war risks would be Chicken
Little squawking, probably tailing one imperialist country bourgeois
party or another. Imperialist countries have the most nuclear weapons
by far.
In the fable, Chicken Little's error is a result of being narrow.
Because of this narrowness, Chicken Little pursues a route
(literally, but also metaphorically) that leads Chicken Little to an
actual calamity in one version of the story. It's not just that
Chicken Little lacks foresight about one danger, Foxy Loxy (like a
nuclear catastrophe by Chicken Little standards), but also that
Chicken Little has an incorrect method of responding to stimuli and
fixates on one stimulus as an indication of the future without regard
for history or the structure and logic of reality proved again and
again. Chicken Little's error is not a result of an epistemological
problem being a chicken. There are conclusions that he could have
drawn, and he has not drawn them. A majority of small animals can't
unite on what Chicken Little is saying, but some do, follow Chicken
Little, and reinforce each other's beliefs, unattached to anything
real in the world that is moving a majority of small animals.