Marxism

I admit to being something of a Marxist. I've always preferred Groucho. Karl wasn't funny at all -- much too long-winded. His only one-liners were "workers of the world, unite" and "religion is the opiate of the masses." But try using those at amateur hour and see if you get any laughs.

I've seen almost all of the famous Marx brothers' movies, but I honestly can't remember much of them at all. (Two scenes that stick in my head: Harpo irritating the guy at the lemonade stand, and Groucho declaring war because of an imagined slight.) This weekend, I watched A Night at the Opera, which is considered one of their best. And, I'm sorry to say this, I didn't find it very funny.

Am I losing my faith as a true Marxist? Honestly, I've always liked Groucho the best, Chico pretty well, and Harpo not at all -- I put up with him because I have to in order to see the others, but he's really irritating to me. I also don't care much for the musical scenes. Chico can actually be amusing on the piano because of his funny hand motions, but Harpo on the harp is just harp playing -- not at all funny, and not particularly interesting to me. Even some of the wisecracks are nothing more than lame puns.

I did laugh on many occasions, because I love that dry wit. There were just long periods between the good jokes that I didn't find very funny. I think I would enjoy seeing Groucho do You Bet Your Life, because I suspect that his impromptu jokes are the equal of anything in the movies, and probably funnier for being unexpected. Well, I've ordered Animal Crackers from Netflix, so we'll see if that one amuses me any better.

Comments

  1. Mikhail SilverwoodDecember 10, 2009 at 11:58 PM

    Marxism is the best.
    Even after 150 years, all the rules of Marxism still apply: capitalism is a horrible oppressive system that needs to be overthrown.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more