Most people see this movie as a very on-the-nose example of class struggle. But I see it as a commentary on how we humans build and interact with the very system that we collectively create to sustain ourselves as a species. The system always has its apologists, supporters and opposition, but deep down all but the most extreme zealots understand that the system has to change with time or fail, and the longer it takes for change to occur, the worse the inevitable failure will be. It ties in nicely with what Nassim Taleb says about fragility of rigid systems.
In the movie the system is represented by the train and its architect. All people on the train are grateful for what the train has provided them: safety from certain death outside. The poor at the back of the train are constantly threatened and preached to by the train loyalists how important it is for everything to stay as it is, that the train is eternal and will be there forever as long as they obey and believe. But as it becomes apparent that the loyalists are lying and things don't seem all that rosy with the train, the poor start to push forward, for information, and ultimately, change. As they go forward in the train they discover that the wealthy passengers have fallen into either hypernormalisation or a drug fueled apathy. They either believe so much in the train that they can't see how it could ever fail, or they know that it will inevitably fail but have given up hope to do anythin about it - perhaps facilitated by their own relative comfort (why jeopardize such comfort for an uncertain, risky change?).
After watching the movie, it struck me how we're perpetually living in an unsustainable system, but we avoid the abyss by constantly changing from one unsustainable system to another.
You beat me to it. I Happened to watched this movie after reading a couple books on modernity and postmodernism and was blown away by how much this movie touched on identity, the self and society. I watched it with two friends, one who also has read similar books and another who hasn’t. The guy who didn’t have the extra background thought it was just ok so YMMV.
A good triple watch is the next two movies by the director - Okja, and the much lauded Parasite. All three are themed on class struggle, and Parasite nailed the theme to perfection.
Maybe this is more than what people usually understand when they hear the term "class struggle" but this is actually exactly what Marx is talking about when he describes the "system" of capitalism and how all of the classes are dependent on it even though they are in conflict. This is related to the "inherent contradictions" built into the system which he also discusses.
One word you mention though -- "Hypernormalisation" -- reminds me of a film that made me see the world differently. I don't know if you intentionally used that term, but the Adam Curtis film Hypernormalisation is, I believe, an absolute must watch, probing for some clarification on the logic of the last 40-50 years of history in our capitalist/neoliberal society.
I've been going some anarch-communist rabbit holes lately. I feel I'm leaning more and more libertarian socialist. I'd accept government medicare for all, but I'm losing hope govt will ever do anything for people.
Another alternative would be: 1 million people start a union, virtual nation, online commune - whatever you want to call it. They donate 5% of their income. That's used for rental property investments, until we have a decent monthly recurring income from rentals.
Then we invest in other things like members startup ideas (as long as they use a worker-coop business structure).
Eventually we pay healthcare costs for all members, and ubi. 100% of money coming back going back out to the people who created it.
We could eventually buy hospitals, drug companies etc and get a stronger hold on the medical costs as well. Flip the script so self-pay and union members get discounts, and insurance carriers pay higher premiums. Maybe we even startup our own insurance companies in all 50 states. All worker-coops. All with CEO capped pay of 10x worker average.
Essentially using a tactic called 'dual power' to wrest power away from the insurance cartel.
I had a similar idea, but the organization would provide health insurance from the start. Basically, all gig economy/independent contractors/small business owners could pay into it and get better health insurance than they could buy as independent entities.
We'd work to provide that, but you need plenty of $$ on hand for healthcare monthly... I mean one cancer diagnosis and if you have 10 members, it's gonna cost 100k minimum that year just for one person... that might eat up the whole budget.
So by building some combination of crowdfund (for when we're under budget), along-side member sharing backed by recurring income, we create a more stable fund that uses 100% of it's money to reward members.
The idea is basically get single payer healthcare outside the government or alongside and force insurance carriers out of the market by coming up w/ something basically non-profit that gives all $$ pooled towards healthcare costs. While working to bring down costs in the industry where possible.
Great idea! Of course you will eventually have to wrest power back from the administrators of your fund, who have taken over control of everything and are doing whatever they want with your money. Just like every other great idea involving wielding power.
Not if it's ran by liquid or direct democracy. (Delegated democracy). You vote or give your vote to someone else in your behalf, all major decisions are voted on.
Most people see this movie as a very on-the-nose example of class struggle. But I see it as a commentary on how we humans build and interact with the very system that we collectively create to sustain ourselves as a species. The system always has its apologists, supporters and opposition, but deep down all but the most extreme zealots understand that the system has to change with time or fail, and the longer it takes for change to occur, the worse the inevitable failure will be. It ties in nicely with what Nassim Taleb says about fragility of rigid systems.
In the movie the system is represented by the train and its architect. All people on the train are grateful for what the train has provided them: safety from certain death outside. The poor at the back of the train are constantly threatened and preached to by the train loyalists how important it is for everything to stay as it is, that the train is eternal and will be there forever as long as they obey and believe. But as it becomes apparent that the loyalists are lying and things don't seem all that rosy with the train, the poor start to push forward, for information, and ultimately, change. As they go forward in the train they discover that the wealthy passengers have fallen into either hypernormalisation or a drug fueled apathy. They either believe so much in the train that they can't see how it could ever fail, or they know that it will inevitably fail but have given up hope to do anythin about it - perhaps facilitated by their own relative comfort (why jeopardize such comfort for an uncertain, risky change?).
After watching the movie, it struck me how we're perpetually living in an unsustainable system, but we avoid the abyss by constantly changing from one unsustainable system to another.