"Foreign money" allegedly propping up California secession is actually an example of the Internet's effect on cultural commodities.

 August 1, 2022

"Foreign money" allegedly propping up California secession is actually an example of the Internet's effect on cultural commodities.

Did anyone else see this crazy news from a couple days ago stating that Russian state money has been used to prop up the California secession movement? I want to highlight it, but not exaggerate it into sensationalism. 

For one thing, this is a Cold War holdover issue, as far as it is getting media attention, and as far as Chinese state money was found to be propping up U.S. election and lobbying efforts several years ago, and the media narrative mostly ignored that. And for the second thing, this "fact" was discovered by the press in a court indictment and therefore may be still unproven and is (almost) certainly exaggerated in some way. In other words, the Cold War is still not over for some, and so people will try to continue to wring money out of that. Russia these days is certainly in the news, but for regional power manipulations. And the publicity a case about Russia gets is also, it must be admitted, a factor of the ease of writing about the "nefarious" actions of Russia. 

But there's a cogent point to be made here about the relative power of California compared to other states, which we can attribute to the globalization of culture. It has a global cachet that is comparable to the traditional status of New York relative to all the other states, because of its global connections. But the status of New York is relatively in decline, whereas the Internet has comparatively made movies and television even more important cultural commodities. The New York publishing industry hasn't fully been able to figure out the Internet, and that has in the long term contributed to the decline of its status as a gateway to the world. Its internecine debate about whether or not to take an Amazon distribution center in its downtown area, for which there was positive and negative, but for which the traditional feelings about the superior quality of life and status of the city played a role in the rejection of the permit, just shows that the city that was once the gateway from America to the world is having a lot of struggles adapting to the Internet. Regional presses have expanded too, but it's the confusion of the New York elite about what to do "with the Internet" that is driving that decline to deeper levels. 

California and Hollywood doesn't have that problem so much. They're perfectly fine putting new and old movies and shows on streaming, and making new stars, and making old stars new mentors to young stars (the trend of "one older actress/actor with a whole bunch of new actors/actresses on this new Netflix and/or other streaming program" will probably continue, I think, until it doesn't go down easy any more.) They are losing money, but there is always "new market" exploitation, and hence, the increasing global importance of California. Of course, almost every other country wants a movie industry as robust as the American system based around the Hollywood and California studios, and if they can manage it, would love to be putting some of "their" stories into the mold of the American movie production system. This, I think, explains that story about Russian money propping up strange causes in California. There's bound to be a reaction to people's perception of foreign influence from a geopolitical competitor. Hollywood's writers, for instance, have been under a bit of duress for the past decade - sometimes prestige TV shows and so on with "great writing" have been hugely appreciated, but at other times strikes and labor actions have not been totally successful. I actually think that Hollywood productions have a lot of moral force in this country toward getting Americans to become familiar with the cultures of the world outside our borders. But it also can't be denied that that is a far cry from allowing the American movie industry to be an empty shell for stories from foreign influence, etcetera. Not only that there are some security issues (allegedly) because those may be overblown, but because when Hollywood tries to "do" movies that end up being cultural appropriation (Moana? Mulan? -Coco? - and so on) it ends up being pretty shallow art, too. A lot of the stories most worth being told have elements of cultures from other places around the globe. But it's also, isn't it, an old rule of thumb for artists, not to sell out to your influence. 

The story about Russian support for California secession movements is probably overblown, or at the very least we have to assume that those the allegations concern are innocent for now. But it is undoubtable that the globalization of culture has made California and the movie industry a coveted jewel of the American economy that other countries would take advantage of if they could. This has to be balanced with the understanding that part of Hollywood's civic responsibility is to present to the public, in America, stories to make them familiar with other parts of the world. But those involved shouldn't balk at transcending this paradox. The "solution", if you will, is that those stories about other cultures are right here, too. All of the beautiful melange of immigrant cultures in the United States provide a more authentic gateway to the stories of the world, if those concerned with finding them look to the American population, rather than foreign money, to provide them.