Birdman (2014) ****½/5: This is a very good film that is a moving experience. I was a bit distracted by the fantastic elements which took something away from the film.

Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance is quite an impressive film and it continues the great tradition of films about the theatre. I was impressed because I was moved and for me that meant it achieved something. There is dazzling technique here and there is something to say about it but not in a general review. Some of the technique is not quite as effective but it’s dazzling for several reasons. The main effects of the techniques utilized in this film are the various transitions from backstage to live performance and the shift in perspective with no edit.

Birdman focuses on how a washed up movie star, Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), attempts to get his directorial debut on Broadway off the ground through a series of comedic mishaps. More fascinating is how he grapples with his demons particularly his birdman superhero persona that saw him attain so much fame in the distant past. With his directorial debut he attempts to be taken seriously as performing artist especially as he is pushed to the brink with his capabilities seriously challenged.

Positives

The primary positive in this film is the portrayal of Riggan’s battered psyche. The performance by Keaton is superb and I never knew he could be this superb, dramatically. On the surface Riggan tries to stay humble and pleasant but inside he is a mess as he duels with his birdman persona which suggests that he has a split personality. Every time he tries to assert himself he is beaten down or abused. This is the case with most people perceived as humble on the outside for underneath is a hotbed of repressed emotions as they give others the opportunity or confidence to unleash their own tirades or express themselves how they wish. When these humble individuals assert themselves it seems like a joke and they are mocked by the extroverts. It is almost similar to the picked on nerd who returns with a machine gun to kill everyone or the man who commits suicide because he feels that asserting himself has done no good whatsoever and only revealed his own weaknesses.  When people like this are broken they either  put forward their more aggressive persona and become unrecognizable because you never saw it coming or they simply retreat from the world. There are some telling scenes that expose him. For instance after a fiasco with the lead actor, the popular Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), Riggan unleashes a tirade in his room and when he is exposed one can almost feel for him because this is not how he is viewed customarily. Look for that discussion between Riggan  and Lesley (Naomi Watts) where we see Riggan in the mirror trying to stay pleasant as everything falls apart.  There is also a telling discussion with his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) that is also affecting and his encounter with The New York Times critic. All these scenes reveal how broken Riggan is; how far he has fallen from his glory days when he used to play the superhero birdman.

His birdman alter ego gives him the strength he needs but it also reveals how deluded or how lost he is. It actually reveals how shallow actors are where their fictional personas (in some cases) come to be a part of their identity. Some actors seem to become so immersed in their roles that you can’t really tell who they are apart from these personas on screen. It seems that Riggan has bought into his birdman persona as being characteristic of who he is. I guess for their own sanity it’s good for actors to attempt playing multiple characters and not be so dependent on one even though it brought you so much fame. One can understand why Riggan made the move to switch to broadway because it seems as if he is trying to find himself especially as for so long he has been dominated by this birdman persona internally and externally. Chris Rock attempted to portray this dilemma in his film Top Five though not as successfully as it is done here.

There are also some interesting comparisons and contrasts with the high excellence of the performing arts in the theatre and the commercial nature of film. Film has assumed its own identity where one does not have to excel in the performing arts to be considered for a role. All that is needed is a celebrity profile. This is a far cry from the days of All About Eve (1950) where one had to prove themselves in the performing arts before one could be considered a bona fide dramatic star. In those days you had to do a play or two to really prove yourself. In these days, thanks to the blockbuster, it’s not much of a requirement.  The theatre still clings to its high standards and Riggan has to grapple with this because he is known primarily for his blockbuster role as birdman. In this film it seems like more of a sign that his career is washed up when  he decides to do a play for broadway but in this age of blockbusters it is made clear in some very fantastic moments that he could easily return to Hollywood  for Birdman 4.

I liked the portrayal of backstage theatre particularly how Inarritu made the transition from backstage to the live performance sometimes without an edit. Also the roving camera backstage also switches perspective without edit in some cases and this is very impressive.  There is also change in perspective for the schizophrenic Riggan to the real world i.e. what’s going on in his head vs. what’s in the real world.

The film is also very comedic and although a lot of the comedy focuses on things falling apart around Riggan, Mike Shiner also shares in this comedic  spotlight. Edward Norton does very well here and I was impressed.

This film however does  contain some of the elements found in Shakespeare in Love (1998). This is true of one particular element in Shakespeare… where although things appear to be falling apart the character played by Geoffrey Rush is always asked how does he know that things will work out and he says something like ‘I don’t know they just do.’ This is also the case in Birdman where although things appear to be falling apart they will work out in the end although there is an explanation this time around as Riggan puts on the performance of his life.

Great supporting cast.

I was moved by this film and that must count for something.

I liked the downbeat musical score

Michael Keaton should have been able to identify with  the lead character considering his batman roles in  ’89 and ‘92.

Negatives

The primary negative in this film for me was that the fantastic elements that sought to bring out Riggan’s bird man persona were not as effective for me. The main reason is that while we understand that he used to play birdman can he be so mentally fragile that his alter ego is birdman himself. We see scenes where he believes that he can fly or has telekinetic powers but it takes away from the backstage reality and seems like a diversion rather than adding to the story.  It might be good to portray the fantastic elements that are the norm with these Mexican directors but the birdman persona is more effective as a voice than a image. It made me wonder if someone could really believe he’s birdman unless he is schizophrenic. Is he just sick or is it a fantasy within his mind? It’s not really clear but all indicators suggest that his mind is broken and that he is on the verge of madness.  The director still wants it to assume fantastic proportions and only once or twice hints that he is just crazy. Without that acknowledgment the birdman is just a broken man who has lost his grip on reality. So whereas it’s fantastic and comedic and we come to sympathize with Riggan’s plight there should have been a more realistic assessment of his insanity which would have sobered the film up somewhat.  

All those fantastic elements, therefore, seem more like madness than inspiration. Maybe that’s the point but it could have been dealt with better. Instead Riggan appears like a genius as a result of his actions. Even the final shot appears more  fantastic than sobering; naïve optimism instead of cynicism. His release is through madness but it’s never addressed. It does not take away from his performance towards the end, because he felt it, but it does seem like there was denial by the other characters.

Some of the issues related to the other characters were not resolved as everything is centred on Riggan and so they come across as caricatures in some cases. If not caricatures then  not very developed. It is not clear what their objectives are apart from being actors. Only Edward Norton’s character gets some sort of development in contrast to Riggan but the actresses could have had more to do in terms of being more central to the story. Emma stone does the best here but I felt there was more to be said on her part particularly as she provides support to the two male leads.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) ***½/5: It was good while it lasted but it merely confirmed that these three hobbit films rest in the shadow of the LOTR mountain. Jackson should have found a different way to tell the story of the hobbit in order to make it a standalone effort. Some elements add up only as empty spectacle.

Well I finally decided to go and watch The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and now I know why I took so long to finally watch it. My instincts told me not to go and while I was watching it on the big screen I realized that you must not go against your instincts. It’s not that it is a bad film, because it was good while it lasted, but there was not much of an impact. No matter how much money these hobbit films make they still rest in the shadow of the LOTR Mountain. I do believe that Jackson should have found a different way to tell this particular story. He applied the same techniques that he used in his great 3 part LOTR trilogy but by this conclusion the story still just felt like a storm in a tea cup. You can blow it up with special effects, action and great production design but the core of the story still remains the same. When people go around saying that the visuals in The Hobbit are more spectacular than those in the LOTR that rings like hollow praise because that is to be expected in 2014 as opposed to 2003.

This final film in The Hobbit trilogy, chronicles how the band of dwarves and the hobbit , Bilbo Baggins,  led by Thorin adjust to life in the mountain vacated by the dragon Smaug. With the mountain’s treasure hoard now in their possession this leads to conflict with the men from Lake Town and the elves as each wants to claim their share.  While they bicker amongst themselves the shadow in the north makes its move as an army f trolls and orcs advance in order to wage war.

Positives

While this film is still in the shadow of the LOTR it still manages to hold its own as a good fantasy film. It is much better than the other fantasy films out there today and that is testament to the huge impact of the source material and the LOTR films.  Jackson also has his own way of telling Tolkien’s stories about Middle Earth and it is quite clear in The Hobbit as it was in the LOTR films. Jackson seems to be interested in the tragic elements at the core of our existence regardless of the good times on the surface. Things are never what they seem and this is one of my favourite themes.  This is the element he makes an effort to add to these hobbit films which were not present in the book. In the book the affliction known as dragon sickness is more or less brushed aside but there are moments when Jackson seeks to add some element of visual appeal to this affliction. This notion of the dragon sickness would appeal to someone like Jackson because of its tragic element and how the person responds positively to emerge triumphant even if they are at death’s door. Jackson does not shy from the tragic element and that gives his films about Middle Earth a significant edge over other fantasy films;  even the Harry Potter films. Other fantasy films acknowledge tragedy as some sort of back story or some big reveal but Jackson carries it along throughout always reminding us of how much these tragic elements at the core of humankind can effect even the presentation of the physical structures that are supposed to keep them secure. Tragic elements always manage themselves physically as a decaying element and for it to be exorcised it will require great effort and upheaval.  In the Hobbit films this can be seen with presence of Smaug, the shadow of sauron in the North, the massive treasure hoard that comes with dragon sickness etc.  All of these elements require some significant effort to be removed and removing them comes at a cost.  You can’t get away from the cost that comes with upheaval.  This was ever present in the LOTR and Jackson tries to reintroduce these themes here although there is not much impact. It does not feel like the end of an era like the LOTR but the elements are there and I could recognize them. The LOTR  the doom of man was a theme was ever present and the redemption near the end (with the help of the hobbits) made it a truly moving, epochal  experience.

While there is no doom of man episode, that could makes it relatable to human beings, the story of The Hobbit is really the story about this gold hoard in the lonely mountain. It also represents its own form of doom for those involved. By the end however it is not clear about what becomes of the treasure and how things are rebuilt. This is where Jackson could have improved on the book.

Jackson’s emphasis on fleshing out the story of the hobbit, over three films of considerable length, can be seen as admirable for all of the work put in to make these films have more of an impact than a cartoon. The Hobbit was written by Tolkien as a children’s story and so it seemed more akin to fable than a very detailed story. Jackson tries to add detail here to make the adventure seem more complete and some of his own additions misfire but it’s still hard to argue with his decision to add some detail to the story. Instead of a mention there is an attempt to give a lot of  elements from the source material some dramatic heft including the introduction of characters that were not in the book. The only thing wrong with adding all of this detail is that it will misfire if it does not have the impact and this happened a lot in these series of films.  

The visuals in this film are, not surprisingly, great. The major difference here is that in some moments the visuals really do convey the tragic side particularly Thorin’s dragon sickness.

I also liked how they documented how a leader was born in lake town. The man that slew the dragon is risen to the status of a king and it goes to show that you have to prove yourself as a leader because the previous leader seemed to be afflicted by dragon sickness as well.

At the end of the film when the lights came back I saw a woman seated in the same row about 2 or 3 seats down crying. If she was crying as a result of the film then that must be achievement particularly if others have a similar reaction. This goes to show that the techniques that Jackson applied to the LOTR can still reach some members of an audience when applied to story of The Hobbit which is much smaller in scope.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is the lack of an impact. Most of the spectacle you come to expect, that was also present in the LOTR, is there as well as a lot of romantic moments and a lot of tragic episodes. Even with all of that the impact near the end was still not as effecting. Jackson seemed to be trying to recreate the effect of the battle of the pelennor fields especially as 5 armies are involved in this grand clash but even when you see all the CGI numbers on the screen it rings hollow. The spectacle is nothing without the dramatic heft. In The Two Towers & The Return of the King when people saw those massive numbers on screen there was a lot of awe there. Jackson benefitted from the element of surprise. If anyone remembers how Saruman’s army was revealed in The Two Towers  you get what I’m saying. When people saw all those numbers on screen it did not matter that it was CGI. This was 2002-2003 and so it was very impressive and visionary in its intent. Now people are long past that and so the awe is no longer there. Jackson can no longer surprise with his massive numbers. Even the swarming killer bats seem pasted on.  Trolls are taken down pretty easily in battle. With all those numbers it’s a wonder that the orcs lost.  In the LOTR Jackson had the benefit of theme associated with the doom of man. In this case the spectacle of war resonated. The charge of the Rohirrim in The Return of the King was a clash of massive numbers but it was emotionally charged because you understood what was at stake, the doom of man. You wondered how they would rise to the challenge and by did they rise against all the odds. The buildup was just as important. In this current release there is not much at stake. In some cases they are protecting a lonely desolate mountain from being a mere strategic point for the enemy. Jackson did attempt to make it seem that something was at stake and those that understand Tolkien’s world will understand it but how do you get it to resonate emotionally with those not so familiar.  Where is the universal appeal? What is the theme that will resonate for years to come and will bring The Hobbit to mind? When I was actively promoting the LOTR while at high school the one thing that got people charged was the theme related to the doom of man and how the overwhelming odds were overcome.  They didn’t care for the history of middle earth or the intricacies of the Tolkien culture but they could identify with that theme related to the doom of man. The Hobbit does not have such a universal appeal and seems to be piggy backing on the greatness of the LOTR. There is even a reference to Aragorn  in this film and that was not necessary for the story of the hobbit unless there is some piggy backing going on.

Other elements that seemed tack on is the lovers triangle with legolas, the female elf and a dwarf. It was all unnecessary because it achieved nothing. It has no resonance and I was livid while watching it and was asking for a move on. If dwarf was supposed to become a king and then she would be his Queen then…wait that would be like Aragorn and Arwen. If Jackson cut out such useless romantic elements he could have streamlined this series of films better. He could have mentioned but not dwell on it as much as he does throughout his trilogy. Maybe it’s a good thing the dwarf died. Even the Aragorn and Arwen romance took place within the context of the doom of man which made it even more effective at the end.  At least we now know why Jackson introduced Legolas (apart from giving Orlando Bloom a job) when he performs his ridiculous stunts in the heat of battle. It seems great but it would have been more effective it was in the context of something much bigger which was the case in the LOTR.

Instead of the doom of man the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, only helps to thwart the doom of thorin. In the LOTR the hobbits saved the world of man from destruction.  It just goes to show how thin the story of the hobbit is and why it didn’t need to be a three part movie. Another element that supports this is  the dragon Smaug who is featured in this film when he should have only been featured in the second film. Why is he even in this third film? By trying to apply his storytelling techniques from the LOTR to this Hobbit series he has condemned the latter as a inferior project. He could have found a new way to tell the story of the Hobbit which would make it more distinctive as a standalone series. One alternative approach would have been to remove many of the action and romantic  scenes from the previous films and have an older Bilbo Baggins as a narrator which would unify the narrative. Jackson could have made two  very good films here by only focusing on the important elements such as Smaug’s control over the hoard, thorin’s  dragon sickness, the finding of the ring of power and of course the final battle. How much more effective it would have been if he followed Tolkien by having Bilbo knocked out and there be a black out for the movie as well. Just like that it would remain Bilbo’s story. Instead of being a spectator it would remain his story because he was knocked out and for us the screen would have to go black as well. We would have to imagine for ourselves or as he told it because in reality the battle of the five armies was not all that. There is a lot of sword slashing but it is not momentous or memorable hence why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.

In the end I believe that for Jackson to have had the same impact he did with the LOTR he  should have told the story  of the hobbit in a different way in order to make it seem like it could stand on it’s own especially as it preceded the story of the LOTR.  

Top Five (2014) ***½/5: Good film by Chris rock but there are a lot of gaps and too much product placement.

Top Five is a good film although I resisted it on some levels. I was pleasantly surprised because most films starring Chris Rock are normally funny in parts but hardly penetrative; always superficial and bordering on ‘is this worth it?’ vibe. Most of his films were like the Hammy franchise and so it’s good that he attempts to make a film that has genuine emotion although the comedy is not far behind.  The structure of the film actually reminded me of Before Sunset (2004) as it relies on two people opening up about the personal details in their lives and how that brings them closer together. The difference here is that Top Five has bit more detail in terms of a supporting cast and various scenarios that add some dimension to the story visually. The core of the film, however, still focuses on the development of a romance occurring in a single day.

This film stars Chris Rock as Hammy;  sorry,  I meant as Andre Brown , a  successful comedian and film star that has lost his spark and wishes to be taken more seriously. He meets Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson) who helps him reignite his spark and find out what he’s been missing amidst all the glitter and the fame.

Positives

For me I was very surprised that this film was genuine and had some heart to go along with the comedy. This provided balance and contrasted significantly with previous films starring Chris Rock that were all comedy and satire with no backbone. I can’t even remember his previous films as I write but I am sure that I will remember this one.  So kudos to Chris Rock for having us take him seriously. There are some good moments when you see rock trying to let others know that it’s not all a joke.

The blend between comedy and genuine emotion is revealed well with the back and forth between Rock and Dawson’s characters. It is clear that Andre Brown/Hammy gives us a more comedic outlook or the speakerboxx but Chelsea gives us the love below.  It is through Chelsea that the genuine feelings in the film come through particularly with her real vibe that challenges Brown. Andre Brown is almost looking to be rescued as he mopes around  wishing to be taken more seriously and giving us some comedy relief for good measure. His shallow life is made to look  more shallow and superficial  with his reality tv  star wife, Berkani (Gabrielle Union) who does everything for the camera.  Chelsea, however, is quite genuine and clearly has a need to prove herself and to find some sense of belonging in a world of disappointment. You feel more for her than for Brown and maybe that was the point of the Cinderella references. Brown must be the prince charming that will rescue her from her mundane and unflattering existence.  The good thing about the Cinderella reference is the surprise near the end. It all tied into Chelsea’s attempts to re imagine the classic fairy tale. It’s well done. You never quite realize how two people opening up to each other in the way Chelsea and Brown do until the time for a separation comes. When that moment of separation does come it does resonate.

There are some good comedic moments although only a few of the jokes really resonate with me. Those that did resonate had me chuckling and one joke, not from Chris Rock, about slave movies had me laughing out loud. There is a strong supporting cast that adds some range to the comedic effect although some of the individuals like Adam Sandler who are well know say a lot of platitudinous things and really just show up and contribute to the brown’s shallow existence. You expect more from them but they are flat. It’s not clear why they are even in the movie.  I suppose it’s a means to produce the Hollywood effect.  I was not wowed by their presence.  Some of the scenarios were funny particularly the one featuring Cedric the entertainer.

I also like some of the scenes where Brown goes on some ghetto odyssey to reconnect with his roots. I like some of the secrets that get revealed  throughout the film which make you realize that it’s lonely at the top with so many people out to get you. The trappings of stardom I suppose.

Kudos for trying to bring some attention to the Haitian revolution.

Negatives

The primary negative for me was product placement. When I saw that Jay Z and Kanye West were the producers it all made sense for me when they featured in everyone’s top 5 Mcs of all time. Typically room is only made for east coast rappers in the top 5 and tupac is made fun of. As a tupac fan  I was not impressed. Was that a requirement of the producers? I was not impressed and it threw me off the film completely. I am not a fan of jay z and I like some of Kanye’s music but that’s it so maybe that’s why I was more conscious of their requirements. It’s an east coast vibe in this film and the west is portrayed as some Disney land. In the east everything seems so real. As Alicia Keys said in the song ‘Empire State of Mind’ the streets of New York are the concrete jungle where dreams are made of as your head is dazzled by the lights. Jay Z did say in that song 'Empire State of Mind' that it was the home of hip hop so that must give it a monopoly on the top 5.  Couldn’t Rock have his producers make an appearance in the film?No! Jay Z must maintain his  imaginary,   American gangster image with 99 problems. I was not impressed by the product placement because it comes across as a means to promote some bias in terms of ‘who’s your top 5?’ ‘ Only east coast rappers.’ Who are they trying to convince with that? I was not impressed by the presence of stars like Sandler and Whoopi Goldberg. It seemed like some actor grabbing moment. An opportunity to get these people to play themselves and make some platitudinous remarks because it seems they were the ones willing to work for peanuts. It never added anything to the film. 

Some elements of the film are quite predictable and the inevitable romance develops. The film only remains good because it cannot make hard decisions. It retreats into conventional territory even with the surprises. The surprises only confirm its conventional approach to the narrative. There could have been moments that really tested the love between the two main characters but it remains conventional.  In the end no real hard decisions are taken particularly when Brown rediscovers his form.

Some of the comedy was just excessive and was more filler than having anything to say particularly the material related to Chelsea’s boyfriend and other scenarios. It’s just overcooked. Instead of delivering on the story Brown tries to go back into camp of his previous films and it registers hollow. Yes people will laugh out loud but just for the moment. People won’t be talking about those jokes years, or even weeks, from now. I was  expecting more from those scenarios as an extension of the story. There is much more that could have been revealed about Brown as a character but instead what is revealed in the scenarios is fodder for comedy not real story development. He could have had more scenarios if he kept the lengthy ones much shorter.   This is why apart from the relationship between Brown and Chelsea a lot of the movie remains empty at the core despite the social commentary or satire. Maybe for the next film he can fill out more of these gaps.

I suspect the top five element is supposed to be some form of rediscovery but it plays like Love and Basketball to me. Not much being introduced with the concept from that point of view. Chris Rock could have done better with that instead of just using the top five as product placement of the producers. The concept could have connected more. Why do people like to recite their top five? And Why is it always in regard to the top 5 rappers? Not everyone will get it. There are other questions I could ask but so what.

It’s clear that Chris Rock is trying to break through but it has not happened for this film. It definitely seems autobiographical and there are other stories that need to be told with the same vibe. There are some punctured areas that released something.  This is why I am looking forward to the follow up because this film seems to be doing fairly well at the box office.  Next we might be talking about Chris rock and spike lee in the same sentence but with a more comedic vibe.

The Petty Bourgeois Economy: A introductory discussion

The Petty bourgeois economy is one dominated by the petty bourgeois class. In a particular national sphere the ruling petty bourgeois class do assume the characteristics of the dominant bourgeois seen in the advanced industrial nations but this façade is shattered when their clout, influence or wealth becomes diminished as they encounter  the advanced bourgeoisie that exist outside of their shores. In that moment, at that point of contact, they retain their petty bourgeois status even though they do control the means of production in their own respective national territories. This domination by the petty bourgeois class in their territories provides the basis for the functioning of a petty bourgeois economy and reveals many limitations and weaknesses that forever leave those economies in a vegetative state. In the advanced bourgeois economies the petty bourgeois class keep the system functioning however the dictates do not come from them. They become caretakers for the dominant bourgeoisie in those economies but never the leaders. If they did become the actual leaders then the economy of the dominant bourgeoisie class would be ruined by fatalistic ideology and rampant idealism.   In this post I give  brief outlines of the characteristics of a petty bourgeois economy and the closed, small minded attributes of its population.  The petty bourgeois economies fall within the context of the national order as a means to enforce the will of the dominant bourgeoisie that exist in the advanced industrial  states. Their role is therefore twofold: on the one hand the dominant petty bourgeois class in a petty bourgeois economy must assume the characteristics of a national bourgeoisie in their own country  in order to promote the values of capitalism and secondly they must enact the will of the dominant bourgeoisie that exist in the advanced industrial nations for it is the dominant industrial class that provide the security for the tenure of the ruling petty bourgeois  class. A theoretical discussion of petty bourgeois economies are important in understanding how far capital has advanced from the 19^th century. It also speaks to the increasing division of labour in the world economy and the extent that capitalism can still expand by breaking many of the fetters that keep some petty bourgeois economies in a vegetative state. The existence of petty bourgeois economies proves that capitalism still has more room for expansion. These petty bourgeois economies are integrated into the world economy on the basis of capitalist principles however the mode of production is not reflective of capitalism in a developed state but a developing one.

  I have already discussed the petty/petite bourgeois or middle class groups  and so I will not dwell on a discussion here only to say that the first major characteristic of a petty bourgeois economy is the existence of such a ruling class. The petty bourgeois class is characterized by a middling approach to most matters. It is incapable of aggressive expansion because it benefits from the fragmented means of production under its sway but it also benefits from the exploitation of wage labour that is the prime, characteristic feature of capital. This middling approach of the petty bourgeois class permeates the rest of the society and so aggressive expansion is frowned upon and every process associated with jump starting a progressive agenda is tedious or results in a lot of time being wasted. On the other hand it cannot fully exploit wage labour because of the low productivity that characterizes the economy. Low labour productivity is a feature of the tedious, drawn out processes initiated by the petty bourgeois class. The ruling petty bourgeois class, by its very approach, sets the tone for low labour productivity. Labour productivity only improves when the dominant bourgeoisie, from overseas, are granted a foothold in the economy. The petty bourgeois class gladly welcomes their masters into the fold only when there is a crisis although with the improvement in labour productivity the ruling petty bourgeois class will eventually lose its claim to domination within the petty bourgeois economy. The dominant bourgeois class will erode much of their influence. The very basis for its domination is a resistance to aggressive expansion or change within the economy and this reflects a middling approach to how the economy should function. Aggressive expansion always involves a rapid increase in labour productivity, investments and a consolidation in the means of production on a much larger scale; these are things the ruling petty bourgeois class cannot guarantee.  This view point associated with slow growth actually permeates the entire society and the people eventually feel that they only have to do just enough to survive. This is because the petty bourgeois class is almost incapable of leading in a style that requires aggressive expansion of capital investments in the market which will increase labour productivity. This is a role reserved primarily for the dominant bourgeois class in the advanced nations. I must repeat that the petty bourgeois class are considered the leaders that must set the pace for the petty bourgeois economy to function whereas in the advanced industrial nations they act only as caretakers for the dominant bourgeoisie in those territories. This reveals that they are incapable or unwilling to lead the economy into an advanced industrial state because they would lose their foothold or reveal their weaknesses.  In those petty bourgeois economies that attempt to become a dominant capitalist nation the state does play an active role in consolidating the means of production by taking over certain industries, tariff hikes and the training of skilled individuals for the international market. This training of skilled workers in line with advanced industrial capitalism will be a significant encouragement for the giant corporate firms to invest in the petty bourgeois economy and set it on the path to rapid industrialization. This is one of the reasons for Singapore’s rapid transition from a petty bourgeois economy to an advanced industrial state. The people themselves had to demonstrate the capabilities necessary to manage advanced industrial and financial processes. With this consolidation the state can promote a more effective industrialization program with the aid of both local and foreign capital. 

Another characteristic of the petty bourgeois economy is the fragmented means of production.  The fragmented means of production become the basis  for the entire economy because there is no corresponding revolution that would be characterized by a progression to  an advanced industrial nation.  There are pockets in the economy where the consolidation of the means of production takes place but not sufficient to dominate the economy. Only the great lever of foreign capital from the advanced industrial nations can fully effect this revolution by consolidating the means of production, however, because local capital is incapable of effecting such a change in the petty bourgeois economy which became so reliant on the means of production being fragmented. The fragmented means of production is characterized by several people working for just enough to get by or enough to satisfy their independent livelihood because the means of production are distributed among these many individuals. Every man/woman has a small plot of land or particular instruments to put his or her labour into motion. They use this as a means to provide for their subsistence as well as to, maybe,  generate a surplus in the form of profit. In many cases they pay their own wages and provide their own surplus value/unpaid labour time/profit. They are known as the independent producers and they flourish in the petty bourgeois economy. Whereas in the advanced industrial nations some of these independent producers eventually grow to become members of the dominant bourgeois class, by accumulating a significant amount of capital through the exploitation of a wage labour force, in the petty bourgeois economy the independent producer becomes a mainstay of the economy and does not expand significantly. The expansion of the independent producer is quite limited or remains within certain limits because so many of them exist. The ruling petty bourgeois class is reluctant to promote such expansion because it will lead to the destruction of its class and its noble pedigree. In Britain, home to the first industrial revolution,  the state played a great role in catering to the interests  of the dominant bourgeois class by destroying, in brutal fashion, the independent producing group represented by the peasantry and by converting them into a working class that relied primarily on selling their labour power to the ruling bourgeois class. This would never occur in a petty bourgeois state that relies on this independent producing group as a mainstay for the economy. The petty bourgeois state can only be forced to do this unless the dominant bourgeoisie class can force their hand by increasing their indebtedness and liability to the lords of capital or by a determined effort to encourage the rapid accumulation of capital through expropriation, expansion and the exploitation of a significant wage labour force.

 This independent producing group, therefore, acts as a stabilizing and stagnating element in society. It stabilizes the economy for decades because there is no risk of the constant flux associated with advanced capitalism.  The cultural values of this independent producing group are passed down for generations and eventually most people are brought up believing that doing just enough to survive is enough.  Doing enough to get by with your own labour even if that means you only live in a board or zinc house. It should be enough. In Jamaica the rastafari movement is typical of such a value system. In other countries that preach about such a mystical vibe it is also a recurring theme because it leads to a promotion of a lifestyle where individuals are one with nature. You do not disturb the balance of nature but you do enough, in terms of applying your labour power,  to satisfy your own needs.  Whereas the dominant bourgeois  class tries to subdue nature for the benefit of raw material extraction thereby dispelling a lot of fantasies associated with nature worship the  members of the petty bourgeois economy do not wish to disturb the balance that comes with working for just enough to get by.  This can become a stagnating element because of  the low labour productivity that comes with such a belief system. This belief system eventually becomes a means to keep the people in a state of bondage whereby change can only come from above or from the gods on high. The people themselves become incapable or unwilling to disturb this balance. The growth of a criminal class that adopts primarily material values also presents the people with a lot of headaches because the fragmented means of production means that the lack of registration and accountability becomes an issue. It becomes difficult to track people and incorporate them into the state and this is a gateway for exploitation by the criminal class that use intimidation and fear, so called illegal activities as a means to accumulate capital by plundering the independent producers of their product. In certain spheres the criminals adopt the values associated with the dominant bourgeois class when it was just being formed in Western Europe from the 13^th to 16^th centuries. Obviously it has cleaned up its act by now.  The criminal class eventually disturbs this balance in a petty bourgeois economy because the means of production are so fragmented and are difficult to incorporate into a consolidated whole and so people get lost or cannot be accounted for unless something dramatic happens. The petty bourgeois state keeps some semblance of order through a nationalist agenda but it is incapable of consolidating the means of production which is the primary way, from a material perspective, to unify the country i.e. the means of production will be socialized more effectively. Even in the advanced industrial nations petty commodity production associated with a petty bourgeois economy thrives until the dominant bourgeois class eventually takes over those areas. Prior to their takeover those areas are normally promoted in the media as crime infested or impoverished areas and the value of property actually goes down and this makes it very easy for the dominant bourgeois class to expand into these territories.

Another characteristic of the petty bourgeois economy that can be counted as both progressive and regressive is the deification of labour. This deification promotes labour as the epitome of excellence. You are encouraged to work hard for what you want and to apply yourself as a worker. It provides some aura of invincibility when you interact in the social scene because you’re revered for your hard work ethic. Your labour alone can guarantee a significant surplus when compared with other independent producers. In some cases the hard working independent producer will apply himself and become a small capitalist within the confines of the petty bourgeois economy.  The primary downside to this deification of labour is that it can lead to exploitation from the dominant bourgeois class or by the criminal element.  It also provides the basis for an erosion of the independent producing group because with the rise of very hardworking independent producers there will be a significant accumulation of capital that can drive your competitors out of the market and so begin the process of rapid capital accumulation. In a lot of cases, however, the hardworking independent producer does enough for his own well being despite all the hard work. The surplus he generates beyond his daily needs are seen as a blessing instead of a means to aggressively expand and become a lord of capital. In the end when this hardworking independent producer has done enough his limit is shown as a worker and the standards he employed with his labour may be glorified by the populace in a petty bourgeois state but in the international arena he still cannot compete with output per worker in the advanced industrial nations. For instance a successful independent producer in a petty bourgeois state like Jamaica rises above the average per capita income of US$5000 per annum to about US$50, 000 per annum. In the end however that hard work will meet the standard of a normal wage earner in an advanced industrial state. Even if the independent producer meets the requirement of a small capitalist by employing labour that 50, 000 is seen as good business up to a certain limit. In other cases the earning of a successful independent producer can be outstripped by the wages made to skilled workers in the advanced industrial states. In a petty bourgeois state it is not the norm and so the success actually reflects the low productivity levels of labour, the inadequate investment climate and the fragmented means of production which inhibits considerable expansion. Some petty bourgeois states produce one or two individuals whose skills dazzle the world but their success and earnings are considered the norm  for a petty bourgeois in the advanced industrial states. It still reflects a petty bourgeois mindset where your input is sufficient; your skill set that guarantees you success reveals your limits but it should be enough.

This is why the celebrity status is an important vehicle in the petty bourgeois economy or the lifestyle of many of its citizens. People use the ethic of hard work in a particular field to become a success within a certain limit. Eventually the field in which they are a success becomes the basis for fame and fortune that are tied into the image or activity in their field. Even if they try to extend into other fields or to become a dominant capitalist it will be difficult because it will not compare with the earnings associated with their success in the particular field that made them famous and rich within petty bourgeois limits. It reveals the petty bourgeois as a skilled worker and nothing more and although they tap into the fantasy of those that aspire to be successful through their labour it does not guarantee the progression of the petty bourgeois economy into an advanced industrial state.  In an advanced industrial state the petty bourgeois celebrity class might be revered on a social level but the economy does not rely exclusively on their prowess to do well or to be seen as a dominant force in the international arena. Many petty bourgeois states tend to exaggerate the success of their petty bourgeois success stories on the international scene whereas in the advanced industrial nations they are a dime a dozen.

The deification of labour in the petty bourgeois economy also reflects a backward approach to the adoption of advanced technology. People are keen to rely on outdated machinery or other materials to get work done because the input of human labour is valued above all else. Even some members of the national bourgeoisie use outdated machinery and technology as the means of production and not just the peasant or artisan classes. It’s not just the government that’s slow to change. The use of outdated technology is one reason for the low levels of growth and the inadequate response of labour. When new technology comes on stream in the advanced industrial economies the industries in the petty bourgeois economy normally receive them much later  and only the truly elite companies can acquire this technology as it becomes available. By the time they fully implement these new technologies weary travelers  never fail to remind them of their outdated qualities. In the petty bourgeois economy a significant amount of importance is attached to these wonderful outdated creations but at the core remains the mantra that human labour is much more noble. This mantra permeates the many members of the peasantry that stubbornly resist the introduction of new technologies. 

This notion related to the noble human qualities of labour also promotes a patriarchal mode of production whereby the strength associated with male labour is revered particularly as males are stronger than females on average. The female normally assumes a more supporting role to ensure the man is well taken care of and that his strength is preserved so that he can endure as he ventures out to utilize his labour in order to provide for the home. This patriarchal mode of production is eventually shattered when the petty bourgeois economy undergoes a fundamental industrial revolution in most spheres. The mode of production associated with capitalism does take place in pockets but it does not dominate the society because most of the means of production remain fragmented. In those pockets women clearly go out and work and are breadwinners but this occurs primarily in the towns. Petty bourgeois economies are primarily agricultural and so the patriarchal mode of production is more significant in those areas that account for the way of life of the majority.

The petty bourgeois economy also relies heavily on the developments in the advanced industrial economies. This can be seen in countries like Jamaica that are breathing a sigh of relief for the drop in oil prices. The petty bourgeois economies have little or no control over external events and are unable to influence them in a significant way. They are normally dependent on the activities of the real movers and shakers in the global economy. In some cases the populace becomes horrified by the dependence on external foreign capital investments because of the fear that the government will sell out when in fact the economy does not generate sufficient capital to handle major or mega capital projects on a large scale. There are some fairly considerable capital projects that are undertaken by local capital but it is completely dwarfed by the capital of the dominant bourgeoisie in the advanced industrial nations. This is because the petty bourgeois market cannot facilitate significant accumulation unless the state makes significant concessions to the local capitalists and encourages them to produce. 

Petty bourgeois economies are primarily markets for the advanced industrial capitalist economies. The low level of productivity and inadequate investment climate make them ill equipped to compete with the capitalists in the advanced economies. The populace do earn incomes and the economy does function but there is a lot of wasted potential in terms of realizing the full potential of the populace.  The income earned in the petty bourgeois economies are primarily through exports to international markets, by monopolies in the local economy and state intervention. It is clear how important the export market is for these economies because of their reliance on foreign reserves in order to purchase imports from overseas. Economies in the Caribbean rely heavily on tourism and remittances for these inflows of foreign currency. US dollars, the British pound, the euro, the Canadian currency are all welcome and the scammers will tell you that. The local economy cannot satisfy local demand in a globalized market unless petty bourgeois economies can start designing and making their own cars, phones, computers, raw materials or semi finished products, high tech machinery etc and other advanced industrially produced products. Most petty bourgeois economies are incapable of operating at such a high level and so importing is inevitable particularly if they wish to imitate or be like the advanced industrial economies. However even if they wish to be advanced they must demonstrate that they are capable of operating at an advanced level. If not then their ideas about being developed remain a fantasy. Most petty bourgeois economies become integrated into the world economy primarily as consumers and not major producers apart from raw material production or through foreign investment which is the only the basis to push on and become an advanced industrial nation by developing per capita incomes in the local economy.

Most petty bourgeois economies are agricultural in make up. This is why the dependence on raw material production is essential for growth in these economies. A lot of the oil producing countries are still petty bourgeois economies because they are so dependent on the export of such a valuable raw material. In the era of African slavery from the 16^th to the 19^th century Caribbean sugar once held the place that oil holds today.  It remained a significant source of earning yet these economies never became fully developed and their local markets remained perennially weak. This had a lot to do with Imperial policy however but even with the yoke of the imperial authorities gone these economies are still dependent on raw material production. They have been unable to create the necessary links to connect the agricultural surplus with the development of local industry sufficiently. This is due to the dependence on foreign capital, low labour productivity and the fragmented means of production which are all a characteristic of petty bourgeois economies. Economies such as Australia and New Zealand became developed although they were primarily agricultural countries. This was due, according to W. Arthur Lewis to the high labour productivity where one individual in Australia would produce and earn much more per acre than an individual in the British West Indies at the time although the two were agricultural in their makeup. 

Most petty bourgeois economies became integrated into the world economy through the colonial expedition of the Imperial powers. After the withdrawal of Imperialist powers and the semi autonomy granted to these newly founded states most of them still persisted with being dependent on the more advanced industrial nations. Other petty bourgeois economies were integrated, historically, as a source of raw materials. A lot of the wealthy oil producing nations today like Dubai, Saudi Arabia etc were economic back waters before the discovery of oil.

Petty bourgeois economies are also characterized by revolutions that lead to a higher stage of capitalism. The transformation of Singapore is quite clear in the history books as it went from a primarily subsistence based economy under British imperial rule to one of the wealthiest countries in the world according to per capita income. The other petty bourgeois economies remain in a vegetative state until certain factors push a bourgeois revolution that consolidates the means of production and improves labour productivity.

This concludes my discussion. It is one that requires further elaboration but this discussion provides the basis for further debate.