The Magic Kingdom is no longer a State

The Complex Reality Behind Disney and DeSantis

In my last entry, “Dogma or Deference,” I discussed some ramifications of team sports dynamics in American society. Today, I would like to provide an example using the controversy around Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Walt Disney Company.

Governor DeSantis made headlines when he revoked a law that established the Walt Disney Co. as the private government of the 39mi² district where it operates. This move by DeSantis drew significant attention and speculation about the motives behind his decision. Disney has made the claim that this is about "fighting DeSantis's anti-gay law," which has attracted the support of leftists, liberals, and even many “socialists.”

However, total corporate control over public services and taxation is hardly socialist. The Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) was a bourgeois corporate state in the most literal terms. In 1967 (the same year Society of The Spectacle was published), the Florida Legislature passed the Reedy Creek Improvement Act to bypass regulations in building Walt Disney World. Essentially, Disney lobbied the state to become its own autonomous state because it would allow them to quickly build the resort, ultimately transforming Orlando into a flourishing metropolis.

The Disney-owned RCID was given the power to collect taxes, issue bonds, and provide public services like law enforcement (not mall cops, real Disney Police), fire protection, and waste management. Disney, a multinational corporation (that makes investments in finance, you know, finance capital) was the literal state in RCID.

Don't Say Government

Disney claimed DeSantis revoked its government status because of the company's criticism of the "Don't Say Gay" law. As a result, left-leaning individuals – supporters of LGBTQ+ rights, often calling themselves “socialists,” – indiscriminately rallied behind Disney, viewing it as a champion fighting against DeSantis' anti-gay legislation.

It’s easy to see why people who are generally inclined to support the rights of minority groups in what is ultimately an oppressive capitalist state might jump to such a conclusion. However, Disney’s maneuvering of PR is a manipulation tactic, and they do not genuinely support any historically marginal group. It is important to note that corporate control over public services and taxation (as well as the establishment of a police force), exemplified by Disney's previous status as the Reedy Creek Improvement District's (RCID) governing entity, is far from a socialist principle.

This is why I wrote “On ‘The Trans Agenda’,” where I am attempting to separate the preferences and predispositions of members of sexual and gender minorities from what has ultimately become “LGBTQ+,” an ideology that can be weaponized in support of capital and its state(s).

The RCID operated essentially as a bourgeois corporate state, granting Disney extensive powers to levy taxes, issue bonds, establish a police force, and provide public services such as fire protection and waste management. Therefore, siding with Disney based specifically on its stance against the "Don't Say Gay" legislation (which is important to note that I am not claiming it is “good”) contradicts seeking to establish a proletarian state.

Imperialism

To better understand Disney's role in this controversy, it is essential to recognize its nature as a multinational corporation. Disney engages in significant financial market investments, exemplifying the concept of finance capital. Its actions in the financial sphere aim to increase shareholder value and generate profits. By operating out of the imperial core, Disney embodies the characteristics of an imperialist entity.

I view Disney through the lens of Lenin's theory of imperialism, outlined in his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin characterizes this stage of capitalism as the global domination of monopolistic finance capital. Monopolies and finance capital are its core, exporting capital from the core capitalist countries to exploit resources, markets, and labor in other nations.

When considering Disney in the context of imperialism, several key factors come into play:

1. Monopoly/Finance: Disney possesses considerable market dominance and control in various sectors, including film, television, theme parks, merchandise, and media. Its vast portfolio of intellectual properties and its ability to acquire and consolidate other companies within the industry contributes to its monopoly-capital position. Further, Disney invests in financial markets such as stocks, debt, asset management, mergers and acquisitions, and other financial instruments.

2. Capital Export: Disney’s finance activities expand globally. This capital export allows Disney to penetrate and exploit foreign markets, often to establish dominance and secure economic advantages.

3. Labor Exploitation: it should surprise no one that Disney has faced allegations regarding labor practices in its global supply chain (which includes sourcing fabrics, plastics, metals, and various other components along with manufacturing merchandise, toys, and other consumer products). Low wages, unsafe working conditions, and other labor rights violations have been repeatedly documented in countries where Disney operates or sources its products.

Disney's influence extends beyond economic power, too. Disney shapes and exports American cultural values and narratives globally through its extensive media empire and the dissemination of its cultural products, such as films, television shows, and merchandise. This cultural dominance ideologically reinforces and justifies its imperial power.

This is the subject of my recent book, Woke Ouroboros, in which I examined what “wokeness” ultimately is as a bourgeois ideology. Firstly, promoting “LGBTQ+ rights” isn’t automatically working to empower members of sexual and gender minorities. An ouroboros is a snake eating its own tail. With a “woke” one, we are talking about putting a progressive veneer on the same forms of segregation and essentialism it claims to fight (here, sexual and gender minorities are still subjected to segregation and essentialism, but it’s “good” and “progressive” now because they can toil away at a tech company or whatever).

In the book’s conclusion, I assert another ouroboros: bourgeois ideologies claiming to be “progressive” function as a means to align groups of people who should (and otherwise would) be against imperialism with it.

Supporting Disney based on its perceived progressive values without considering its position within the imperial capitalist system highlights a lack of understanding of the intricate workings of global, imperial-stage capitalism. The capitalist system is complex and perpetuates the same inequalities and power dynamics that “progressive” ideals are against (including the treatment of members of sexual and gender minorities).

Conclusion

It is essential to resist reducing the debate to a binary perspective; between Disney and DeSantis, neither is "the good guy." DeSantis isn’t here to save anyone from capitalism; he's an idealist who wants to push his personal views onto everyone else with imperial state power (with finance capital’s backing).

Moreover, enjoying Disney's content does not inherently endorse their actions, nor does criticizing them validate DeSantis' policies. Each aspect should be evaluated independently, recognizing the nuances at play. This entry should not be seen as an endorsement of DeSantis or any of the ideologies he’s pushing; I am asserting that the version of “freedom and equality” Disney is pushing is not genuine because it can’t be.

Whatever you mean by “progressive,” Disney is not that. Whatever aesthetics they push do not address the power dynamics that are necessary for a “progressive” outcome beyond temporary permissions. Further, they will drop them at the turn of a hat if they need to justify something that contradicts them, and their supporters will defend them one way or another (a perfect example of what I am talking about in “Dogma or Deference”). So the question is, when will “progressives” recognize they’re being played?

Regardless of the reasons behind DeSantis' revoking of Disney's status as a self-governing corporate entity, it is crucial for individuals who claim to oppose capitalism or advocate socialism to refrain from celebrating Disney's position. The company's vested interest in being a governing entity goes far beyond its criticism of the "Don't Say Gay" law, and understanding this broader context is vital.