What makes the documentary The End of Poverty? a success is its second section, which covers neoliberalism and its devastating impact on underdeveloped countries. What almost makes the documentary a failure is the first section, which attempts to give a historical explanation for the roots of poverty. For reasons that are not explained clearly, the director, Philippe Diaz, marks 1492 as the year that the gates of hell were opened. From this moment on, the world was split into two parts, the North and the South. The North, Europe and later the United States, was nothing but a vampire feeding on the body of the South. My problem with this section, the first section, which runs for about 60 minutes, is it marks all North/South encounters as a fall from paradise (natural economies) for the societies in the South. But pre-European societies in Africa and South America were by no means perfect. They, too, were plagued with violence, greed, and all sorts of exploitive practices. The problem is not Europe alone; the problem is the whole human race. Why are we so cruel to each other?

The second section of the documentary is excellent. It explores the age of the American empire (1945 to 2008) and its main instrument of power and control—neoliberalism, an economic program that forced governments in the South to diminish their role in the market and to privatize all services and goods (even water!). This economic program benefited the North and decimated the South. The economists and activists interviewed in the documentary are all on one side: anti-North. This is a good thing. Why? Because those who support the policies of the North have no ground to stand on. Neoliberalism is a bankrupt concept, and the recent bailout of the American banks makes this bankruptcy perfectly clear. recommended

Charles Mudede—who writes about film, books, music, and his life in Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, the USA, and the UK for The Stranger—was born near a steel plant in Kwe Kwe, Zimbabwe. He has no memory...

8 replies on “The End of Poverty?: Humans Are Assholes”

  1. Of course the rantings of racist misanthropes such as Charles, makes the issue no better. Charles believes that people should be divided into two groups – those who are with him and those against. This way he can keep his world view in lock step with his definition of good and evil.

  2. Fine review, although the following statement is simply non-nonsensical: “The economists and activists interviewed in the documentary are all on one side: anti-North. This is a good thing. Why? Because those who support the policies of the North have no ground to stand on.”

    Similar statements:
    1.It is good we skipped the trial because he was guilty.
    2.It is good that we infringed on her free speech because she had nothing worthwhile to say.
    3.It is good that we prevent them from voting because they would have voted the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

    The error is obvious. It’s not so much that the movie SHOULD have included other economists but they way you justify it.

  3. Well the people on the side of the North own all of the media outlets. Their viewpoint is well represented on every news channel 24 hours a day. That’s the reason I would give why it’s good to not take up time in your low budget documentary with their viewpoint.

  4. @3, yes. An example of willful media ignorance; I was watching a news roundtable “discussion” of current events last Sunday, wherein the question was raised, “Will Obama’s exit strategy for Afghanistan play out as he hopes?” The sad part is no one was willing to question why the hell we’re there right now. Not a glimmer of critical, objective analysis, just sound-bite affirmation of current policy, and whether or not the Dems will lose seats next election. Pathetic.

  7. I’m not sure the people who made the movie, Charles Mudede, or the economists who were interviewed in the movie, know what “liberalism” is, not to mention “neo-liberalism.” What they’re describing is hardly “neo”-anything; it’s the exact argument the South (U.S.) made about the North (U.S.) in the mid-19th century! How “neo”! But seriously, folks, privatization and exploitation isn’t called “neo-liberalism” (original liberalism, as an economic-cum-social concept, being represented by, say Wm. Gladstone) for the very simple reason that we already have a term for it: capitalism. I’m amazed Mudede missed that. The popular misconception is that capitalism relies on free trade (“economic liberalism”), when in fact it hates free markets and thrives on private property, interest, and exploitation.

    What the hell is “neo-liberalism”?

Comments are closed.