As I’ve said before, my book, Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism, came out last week. It’s published in the Comics Culture series at Rutgers University Press. My book is the second volume to be published; the first, released in late 2014, was Andrew Hoberek’s Considering Watchmen: Poetics, Property, Politics, focusing on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen.
Andrew’s book is appreciative but not reverent; he’s especially skeptical of the political stance in Watchmen. HU has talked a lot about Alan Moore’s politics over the years — so I thought it would be interesting to talk to Andrew about his take as the last post in my book release roundtable. Andrew and I spoke by email.
_______
Noah: Your central argument about Watchmen’s politics, as I understand it, is that Watchmen is based in Moore’s sweeping distrust of institutions. For Moore, that connects to 60s anarchism and progressivisim, but your point is that it’s also the basis for the neoliberal attack on government institutions. So when Moore rejects political collective action, he ends up on the side of Reagan and Thatcher, who he hates. Have I got the argument right there? And maybe you could talk a bit about where or how you see Moore rejecting collective politics?
Andrew: I think one example, perhaps relevant now, is the protest against Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre freeing Rorschach from prison that spills over into a group of skinheads killing the original Nite-Owl, whom they confuse with Dan Dreiberg.
Another way to think about it is the fact that Moore’s respect for individualism transcends actual political stances, to the extent that the rightwing Rorschach is a much more sympathetic character than the liberal Ozymandias. Ozymandias is a classic totalitarian figure, someone who (like Stalin) wants to impose plans from the top down and who doesn’t care if literally millions of people have to die in the process. This is very much the kind of figure that Reagan or Thatcher deployed to justify both their foreign policy and their domestic cuts, and that we still have with us in the form of the (absurd) assertions that Barack Obama is a socialist.
That said, I think “ends up on the side of Reagan and Thatcher is strong.” It’s probably more correct to say that he shares an anti-collective stance that hadn’t yet become totally the property of the neoliberal right at that point (It was still central to the sixties left from the Port Huron Statement to the anti-Vietnam movement), but was on its way to doing so.
Noah: So, do you think it’s possible to see Ozymandias as in some ways a critique of neoliberalism, or as trying to think through the connections between liberalism, capitalism, and authoritarianism? You say that Veidt is a classic totalitarian figure, but he’s awfully pro capitalism. And it’s not industrial Nazi-era capitalism either; it’s way more late capitalism, consumerism of the image, it seems like (part of his evil plot is essentially to make a movie.) Casting Veidt as the villain seems like it’s at least in part casting big business as the villain.
Andrew: That’s a good qualification. As I was writing the book I had my eye on the way that Veidt’s portrayal exemplifies a general distrust of institutions that has gone from being a shared feature of both the left and the right in the cold war period to a hallmark of neoliberalism. But another way to think of Veidt is as a figure who embodies Moore’s distrust of large-scale capitalism–a thing I associate in the book with the way he stands for the big comic book companies who exploit the intellectual property of work-for-hire creators. At the same time, it’s when Ozymandias steps outside the profit motive, and attempts to perform what he believes is an altruistic act, that he becomes the villain of the piece. Moore’s thinking about the comic book industry and his general politics remain entwined here, in that the celebration of individual comic book creators remains entwined with a kind of romantic ideology of small property ownership (in this case intellectual property) that’s long been central to American thought, and in some ways has facilitated or served as cover for the rise of neoliberalism. We think of Reagan and his successors as champions of small business–in part because they continuously tell us so–but their policies have largely benefited big capital.
Noah: Veidt’s capitalism doesn’t end though. And in fact he takes advantage of his knowledge of the change in the world situation to switch his investments around and make even more money. Liberal one-worldism and neoliberal corporation seem to fit together seamlessly.
I guess I wonder in part whether the critique of institutions you point to, or the sympathy for Rorschach and the distrust of Veidt — the assumption in your book seems to be that that’s politically retrograde or problematic. But— I mean, for myself at least…if the book is anti-Stalinist, and anti-violent revolution, which I think it is, I’m kind of on board with that. I feel like Moore points out that revolutions are really bloody, kill real people, and don’t necessarily actually change all that much, or can’t be counted on for real transformation. Those all seem like reasonable points — and stand in contrast to V for Vendetta, for example, where V seems infallible and revolutionary violence and torture result in Evey’s personal transformation rather than in the kind of pointless pile of corpses you see in Watchmen.
It also seems prescient in terms of our current political moment. Obama’s not Stalin, obviously, but like most of our Presidents he’s happy dropping bombs on people in the name of a better world. He really doesn’t look all that different from Veidt in a lot of ways (he’s even a successful creator of intellectual aesthetic content, right?)
Andrew: The Obama-Veidt comparison is a fascinating one, although I guess an even better comparison would be Veidt and Mitt Romney, since Romney too made a lot of money and now seeks to turn his attention to public service. (Of course he didn’t make it all on his own after starting from the bottom, the way Veidt and Drake did.) For my money, though, I think the things that are problematic about Obama actually have to do with his very Reaganesque dislike of large organization. For all the flak that he takes for his past as a “community organizer,” this is a figure whose commitment to ground up consensus building reflects a sixties left critique of big government in an era when anti-government sentiment has become a major tool of those in power. Obama’s missteps (including, one imagines, those with the security state, although we’ll probably never know the details there) seem to me to be a property of his desire to compromise and build consensus with everyone. To my mind I’d prefer a Lyndon Johnson who knows how to work within organizations and who isn’t afraid to strong arm opponents to get what he wants. I actually think Lyndon Johnson is–mistakes with Vietnam aside–an unacknowledged hero of the twentieth century. I’m getting a bit away from Watchmen here, but these days you don’t see too many celebrations of institutions on either side of the political fence: Spielberg’s Lincoln is one of the few I can think of, and a great, unheralded film for that fact.
Noah: Hah; I loathed Lincoln. Part of my broader loathing of all things Spielberg. I don’t think it does actually celebrate institutions, exactly. It celebrates Lincoln as white savior hero genius. Barf.
Andrew: My defense of Lincoln’s would be Adolph Reed’s, which is simply that it portrays politics and dealmaking as valuable and even dramatic activities, in contrast to a movie like Django Unchained which seems racially progressive but which actually personalizes both the critique of and solution to an institutional problem like slavery.
But to return to Watchmen in conclusion, I think this whole political question has a lot to do with the history of the superhero in which Moore and Gibbons play a key role. The pre-Watchmen history of the genre runs from 1938 or so to 1986, precisely the period in which Americans believed in the potential of government to make things better. In that respect, I tend to see the superhero as a figure for the New Deal state itself–a figure of extra-ordinary power committed to doing good in the world. The post-Watchmen idea of the superhero (in which Moore and Gibbons participate, even though they later come to bemoan it) as an obsessive or self-interested figure who claims to do good but in fact makes things worse nicely parallels, by the same token, neoliberal accounts of government.
Just to point out, social welfare points do not absolve Johnson for the fraudulently justified bloodbath of Vietnam. As with Obama and Veidt, political calculations don’t necessarily make for ethical policy.
Yes…and it seems like the praise for strong-arming opponents in that context is maybe unfortunate.
One of the things about “Lincoln” too is that it pretty enthusiastically endorses corruption and extra-legal methods of legislating; it’s less a paean to legislative compromise, and more an embrace of executive power. Which, again, in terms of Vietnam, and the lying and end run around Congress there, seems like a problem. Veidt seems a lot more like Johnson than like Obama, in a lot of ways.
I’d actually stick with “strong arming,” since I think the at times thin line between use of the means available and corruption is something that the right has long exploited to undermine institutions that make people’s lives better. This is of course a classic element of the critique of unions going way back before Reagan, and indeed before its classic fictional statement in On the Waterfront.
I don’t think the left deals with this effectively by adopting either a politics of purity or a related politics (Moore’s, for the most part) of anarchism.
Did Johnson do bad things in Vietnam? Absolutely, but to my mind that’s a separate issue from how he got things done generally.
I think Hoberek’s point about the superhero as a figure of the New Deal state is spot on, though, with Superman himself as perhaps the purest example. And now, in the neoliberal era, some of the most interesting Superman stories are about his limitations — about how many problems can’t be solved with merely power and genuinely good intentions.
Lincoln is potrayed as essentially buying votes in the film. I suspect the whole portrayal is largely inaccurate Spielberg bullshit in the first place, but to me bribery seems pretty clearly to be corruption, not just strong arming the system.
I think Johnson’s approach to Vietnam was fairly consistent with his approach to most things. I think it can be convenient, for supporters and detractors, to pretend that somehow the one thing doesn’t have to do with the other. I don’t find it convincing though. I admire Khruschev a lot; he was incredibly brave in denouncing Stalin, and he transformed the USSR in terms of civil liberties arguably more than Johnson transformed the U.S. That doesn’t change the fact that he had blood up to his elbows, though. Sometimes people have complicated legacies.
I mean, for Johnson, among other things, his obsession with Vietnam ended up gutting many of his hopes for social programs. That seems like the two things have a lot to do with each other. His strong-arm tactics in the Senate seem pretty closely related to his embrace of unilateral executive action and lying to Congress. The willingness to game the system, again, has everything to do with his approach to Vietnam.
It’s true that conservatives criticize Johnson for these things. But, you know, sometimes, maybe, people you don’t agree with on many things may be right. I write for Reason; they’re way, way better on civil liberties for sex workers than just about any other place I work for. They’re also staunch opponents of half-baked foreign intervention. The state is in fact often a scary and repressive thing. Just because some folks on the right say that doesn’t make it wrong.
Just to be clear, though, I do like the interview, and the book certainly seems worth reading. Re: the New Deal superhero, the recent fascistic incarnations of Batman work more toward the delegitimation of institutions than does Moore’s critique. Rorshach is something of a hero and kind of a sad clown. His leak also undermines whatever good was going to come of the nuclear slaughter. It seems like if you want to be an institutionalist socialist, which is an understandable impulse, you need to be able to own the institutions of warmaking and incarceration, and not just pick the regulators and service providers that make you feel good.
Agreed that the state can be scary and repressive; just don’t like the anarchist / libertarian / neoliberal argument that that means we should dismantle it. And while that’s a partially separate issue from the question of a strong executive, I’ll admit that the LBJ version of this seems preferable to me to the Barack Obama version, where the national security apparatus dictates its own terms and domestic policy just languishes. To put it another way, people do have complicated legacies, which means that Richard Nixon accomplished a lot of things that are more progressive than what Obama has been able to do, simply because Nixon was in a position to accomplish things as such.
On a different note, yes, Superman! The reckless driving story in Action Comics #12 is pretty much the locus classicus for this–Superman takes it upon himself to reduce auto fatalities in a literally strong-army way.
I’m a good bit more positive on Obama than you are, I think. National healthcare, however compromised (no purity!) is a huge deal. The stimulus was extremely important, even if a bigger stimulus would have been better. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (however partially) also matters a lot. Providing a half-assed dream act via executive action is a really good thing. Not invading Iran is something I am for. And so on. I think LBJ was way, way more in thrall to the national security establishment than Obama, the latter of whom has generally avoided an all out debacle in that area, as LBJ adamantly did not.
I’d say that it was the Democratic congress which accomplished a lot of the progressive aspects of Nixon’s agenda. It isn’t so much that Nixon was in a position to accomplish those things as that he wasn’t exactly in a position to stop them. And again, to suggest that Obama’s foreign policy is more poisonous or awful than Nixon’s just seems really confused to me (if that is what you’re suggesting; not sure it is.)
Andrew Hoberek,
Your admiration towards Lyndon Johnson says a lot about the type of person you are. This comment is pure gold:
“To my mind I’d prefer a Lyndon Johnson who knows how to work within organizations and who isn’t afraid to strong arm opponents to get what he wants”.
That’s the way many of the most despicable men in the history of humanity thought of. I am talking of the Lenins, Idi Amins, Stalins, and Hitlers of the world.
But, of course, you would take Johnson, or Roosevelt, as long as they push the agendas you believe in. I wonder if you can even see the contradiction in assuming that ideology, as it is no different from what Hitler attempted to do in Nazi Germany. That is the great failure of social democrats and neomarxists in a nutshell. One that they will never overcome as their theories and logic are intrinsically flawed.
Ozymandia’s totalitarianism is no different from the one that radical egalitarians willing to use the power of the state to destroy and imprison their enemies. For capitalism to work, it requires liberalism in its classical sense (respect of private property and natural rights). The two ideas that neomarxist philosophers despise the most.
You might be an academic, but for Christ’s sake, have some shame and read about all the crimes that Lyndon Johnson committed before claiming to admire him.
“Your admiration towards Lyndon Johnson says a lot about the type of person you are.”
Come on, now. Using someone’s political opinion as a way to launch a full scale attack on them as a person is how the totalitarianism you claim to be against tends to work, you know? Johnson has a complicated legacy; I don’t agree with Andrew’s take on it exactly, but hopefully it’s something folks can agree to disagree about.
Capitalism “works” in various ways. Respect for natural rights is really not a requirement, nor for private property, presuming that one’s private property includes the self. I’d encourage you to read Edward Baptist’s “The Half Has Never Been Told,” which describes in painful detail how American capitalism was built on slavery. It’s an eye-opening book.
Yeah- as I’ve said, Vietnam is no “misstep” to me. But conflating the neo-colonialist actions of the capitalist free world’s leaders with those of the Stalinist state used as the bogeyman in that war definitely lends credence to Andrew’s argument, if anything. That’s the kind of crass anti-institutionalism that he’s accusing Watchmen of- I think Alan Moore is probably more subtle than that, but it’s an open discussion.
Bert: I too think that Alan Moore is more subtle than that. This is the distilled version of the argument that I try to unpack more carefully in the book chapter.
And you’re right that a lot of the subtlety lies in the portrayal of Rorschach, who’d be a simple Ayn Rand hero (like the late Ditko characters he’s based on) if Moore was simply endorsing the crass form of anti-institutionalism!
Oh right- the latter-day Dirko weirdness. I don’t want to make you rehash your book, but feel free to give the short version of why Rorshach is an inadequate strawman counterbalance to what I presume is your central thesis on the demonization of state socialism in the person of Ozymandias.
“Ditko weirdness.” Excuse me.
Not an “inadequate strawman counterbalance” at all. My point was, that as you say, Rorschach is both hero and “sad clown”–a fleshed out, three-dimensional version of the sort of character who in late Ditko is just a Randian mouthpiece for individualist ideology. Moore admires Ditko as an independent creator who left Marvel (as Moore would leave DC) to pursue his own vision. That version of individualism carries its own resonances in the context of an artist whose work is exploited by a big company who owns the intellectual property in question, yet when such individualism gets transposed from the realm of workplace autonomy to the realm of politics as such–which I argue elsewhere was basically Rand’s own project–then it has problematic consequences. It becomes a kind of lip service libertarianism that politicians deeply imbedded in the system, like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, can exploit without walking the walk. Making Rorschach a heroic but problematic and ultimately unsuccessful exponent of such libertarianism cuts against the grain, I would say, of that emerging structure of feeling.
One of the things I love about Rorschach is that in the end he abandons the individualist vision — or at least I think that’s one way of reading what he does. He rejects Veidt’s violence because he can’t stand to see the innocent suffer, basically — which is the reason he put on the mask to begin with. The beginning of the comic has him fantasizing about seeing the apocalypse and refusing to save people, but when the apocalypse happens, he identifies with the victims, not with the giant evil daddy thing that destroys them for their own good. His impulse at the end is communitarian and empathic, not individualistic.
That’s a great point.
Noah Berltasky,
Capitalism is incompatible with the institution of slavery and natural rights are indeed a vital component of capitalism.
“Come on, now. Using someone’s political opinion as a way to launch a full scale attack on them as a person is how the totalitarianism you claim to be against tends to work, you know? Johnson has a complicated legacy; I don’t agree with Andrew’s take on it exactly, but hopefully it’s something folks can agree to disagree about.”
It is always very telling to see who these intellectuals admire. That says more about their views of freedom and life than their elegantly construed opinions do.
Few people did more than Johnson to enslave a create a class of individuals subservient to the welfare state. Few other politicians despised African Americans the way he did too. His great society is a master piece of social engineering designed to keep African Americans impoverished and defenseless against the state.
Just looking at the statistics is very telling:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672
I always find amusing how these ‘academics’ blast capitalism without even knowing basic economics. That in itself keeps them delightfully trapped in their ivory tower where ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘capitalism’ are practically the root of all evil while omitting or ignoring the role the state plays in these processes. Of course, then again that would contradict many of their dogmas. It’s easier
Regarding your comment on slavery, I encourage you to learn economics and read from people who truly know about economics when assessing, discussing, and debating real life issues beyond a sophisticated analysis in nice colored book like Andrew does. I would suggest analysis like this one, FTA:
“The fact is that slavery disappeared only as industrial capitalism emerged. And it disappeared first where industrial capitalism appeared first: Great Britain. This was no coincidence. Slavery was destroyed by capitalism.
To begin with, the ethical and political principles that support capitalism are inconsistent with slavery. As we Americans discovered, a belief in the universal dignity of human beings, their equality before the law, and their right to govern their own lives cannot long coexist with an institution that condemns some people to bondage merely because of their identity.
But even on purely economic grounds, capitalism rejects slavery because slaves are productive only when doing very simple tasks that can easily be monitored. It’s easy to tell if a slave is moving too slowly when picking cotton. And it’s easy to speed him up. Also, there’s very little damage he can do if he chooses to sabotage the cotton-picking operation.
Compare a cotton field with a modern factory — say, the shipyard that my father worked in as a welder until he retired. My dad spent much of his time welding alone inside of narrow pipes. If you owned the shipyard, would you trust a slave to do such welding• While not physically impossible to monitor and check his work, the cost to the shipyard owner of hiring trustworthy slave-masters to shadow each slave each moment of the day would be prohibitively costly. Much better to have contented employees who want their jobs — who are paid to work and who want to work — than to operate your expensive, complicated, easily sabotaged factory with slaves.
Finally, the enormous investment unleashed by capitalism dramatically increases the demand for workers. (All those factories and supermarkets must be manned.) Even if each individual factory owner wants to enslave his workers, he doesn’t want workers elsewhere to be enslaved, for that makes it more difficult for him to expand his operations. As a group, then, capitalists have little use for slavery.
History supports this truth: Capitalism exterminated slavery.”
http://triblive.com//x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_304437.html
Capitalism “works” in various ways. Respect for natural rights is really not a requirement, nor for private property, presuming that one’s private property includes the self. I’d encourage you to read Edward Baptist’s “The Half Has Never Been Told,” which describes in painful detail how American capitalism was built on slavery. It’s an eye-opening book.
Without natural and property rights (including self=ownership) you can hardly have capitalism, that is a very popular misconception that many people have embraced without ever questioning how right or wrong it is.
BTW: being Alan Moore the anarchist he is, I don’t see how his distrust for institutions can be surprising to anyone given that anarchists distrust the state more than the left and the right altogether. I don’t know if Hoberek is a neomarxist, but if he is, then it cannot be surprising that he finds this ‘distrust’ to be an intriguing feature of Moore’s view of the state and its creations.
Comicbookfan, I’d urge you again to read Edward Baptist’s book. He’s a lot more qualified and a lot more convincing than the sources you site.
You’re just proving Andrew’s point. You worship capitalism (uncritically and even parodically). You like Alan Moore because he provides an individualism that is congruent with your intellectually impoverished Randian dreams. If anyone was going to convince me that Andrew is right on all counts, it would be you.
And please for pity’s sake don’t try to “educate” me further on capitalism. Let’s just agree to disagree.
So aaaaanywaaaay, the question, Andrew, is whether Rorshach (= Ditko?) is in fact the hero of the book. He seems to be the Rand (Paul or Ayn) figure, only more pathetic- albeit sympathetically pathetic. It seems to me (at least right this minute without thinking hard about it) that Veidt and Rorshach (and perhaps Dr. Manhattan) are what fall out in the “repressive desublimation’ of superhero comics undertaken by Moore, in the way you (Andrew) criticize him. Moore is responsible for staining utopian superheroes with capitlaist-realism and thus flattening and commodifying them (or so the Marcuse/Adorno argument would go), and so what are we left with?
I think we are left with (pardon my vulgar Lacanianism) an “imaginary” inhuman, alienated omnipotence in Dr. Manhattan, a “symbolic” creature of corrupt egotistic grandiosity in Ozymandias, and a “real” hero in Rorshach, the emptied-out Thing that cycles through repetitions of repression and trauma, circling paranoiacally toward the unspeakable truth.
I know that a lot of more throwback socialists like to pick at the legacy of Foucault and cultural leftists generally, and Watchmen is a prime target for a Jameson style dig at postmodernism. But it certainly seems like overlooking the fact that the discredited Ozymandias is essentially Bill Gates (and certainly not LBJ or Trotsky or whomever socialists like nowadays), God (Dr. M) is effectively dead, and the lone fringey nutcase is going to undo everyone’s false consciousness, it seems at the end like a less hopeless vision to me than perhaps it does to you.
I think that’s a supportable reading. If you don’t already know it, I imagine that you’d like Peter Paik’s chapter in his book From Utopia to Apocalypse.
“Those all seem like reasonable points — and stand in contrast to V for Vendetta, for example, where V seems infallible and revolutionary violence and torture result in Evey’s personal transformation rather than in the kind of pointless pile of corpses you see in Watchmen.”
But the end of V is a chaotic bloodbath with no assured improvement in the offing.
“The pre-Watchmen history of the genre runs from 1938 or so to 1986, precisely the period in which Americans believed in the potential of government to make things better.”
This seems driven (in superhero comics) less by some “actual” belief in government potential, as it is by the Code mandating approval of governmental institutions.
Also, even if we believe that people ever trusted government, surely that ends long before 1986. Surely Watergate and Viet Nam (perhaps not in that order) are the key events.
Matthew Costello’s book on Superheroes and the Cold War does a good job of chronicling this shift in Marvel comics…and it definitely predates the 80s.
I like the early Superman where he collapses the mine on its owner (and friends!) to prove a point.
He also destroys several blocks worth of tenements, believing the govt. will be forced to build good affordable housing. Very optimistic!
Two things:
1. Young Kovacs is a huge Truman proponent, supports the dropping of the A-bomb, etc. It’s linked to his weird psychological need to see his father (never met) as faultless. So, basically, he supports an exactly Veidtian action in his youth. Does his opposition to Veldt then indicate some kind of “growth” in his viewpoint as Noah seems to suggest above. Or is it simply ironic that he cannot see the parallel (and why can’t he?)
2. In fact, Rorschach’s own activity as a “superhero” is parallel to Veidt’s in many ways. He sacrifices/kills the few (the villains he unilaterally declares guilty) for the sake of the many (the “innocent”).
In Veidt’s case, he sacrifices the few for the sake of the many, though it’s certainly not clear that all of his victims are “guilty”—this is also true of Rorschach’s, since he is acting as a vigilante.
I guess I’m not so sure R abandons his “individualism” at the end. Rather, he sees Veldt as a “guilty” criminal, and then follows his own black/white morality/logic to decide that he can’t be let off the hook.
That said, the best evidence that Rorschach/Kovacs “grows” is when he removes his mask before being killed. At that point, he perhaps “evolves” out of the dead-end that is Rorschach and returns to being a slightly more “human” Kovacs (if only to die as such).
I don’t know that I’d say that Rorschach grows. I think he’s split throughout; he wants to be the ogre-father, but is also/always slipping back into being the brutalized child, and identifying with those who are brutalized. He wants to be Veidt, and sometimes manages to be Veidt, but in the end he betrays himself by not being enough of a murderous asshole.
He’s plenty murderous asshole, isn’t he? I mean, he murders people, and is an asshole (like the Comedian too), but they both are also human enough and caring enough to exhibit other sides to their personalities. The Comedian too, ends up crying in Moloch’s apartment, aghast at Veidt’s plan.
The last thing R ever “wants” to be is Veidt (“too soft”–his morality is too compromised, etc.). He still is “just like him” in some ways.
And R, at the end, when he takes his mask off, and says “Do It!”–even his speech balloon shape changes. Something seems to shift there, if too late to have any impact.
Veidt isn’t actually too soft, though, is he? He’s more brutal than Rorschach by a lot.
Rorschach wears a woman’s dress on his face, remember. His relationship to masculine hardness and toughness if pretty conflicted.
It’s an interesting time, the late 80’s. You have the West pivoting away from the Cold War and gearing up for Consumer Globalism and Pax Americana. 1988 and 1992 are 180º in terms of geopolitical focus. I think Moore could see this shift… who pulls the world back from the brink of nuclear annihilation in the book? Dr. M, R, Night Owl, nope. Viedt. In the most horrific way possible. As a child of the 80’s, I look at Reagan’s US and Andropov’s Soviet Union and I want to join Dr. M on Mars.
Pingback: The Latest Capitalist Monopoly: Opposition to the State -
Pingback: The Latest Capitalist Monopoly: Opposition to the State « Attack the System