Feature: Harry Potter a socialist?

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- In the wake of the Harry Potter craze and box office successes, some of the boy wizard's critics have accused him -- or rather his creator, J.K. Rowling -- of harboring socialist tendencies.

This came about in a recent series of e-mail exchanges with a number of colleagues, as the literary and cinematographic values of the world's latest hero were discussed and scrutinized through a socio-political lens.

Of course, any time a new popular figure emerges, without fail, someone will be there to bring him, or her, down. But placing Potter on the same political field as, say, Jean-Paul Sartre, is about as absurd as believing that the queen of England is a socialist.

Given that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" opened on Nov. 16 taking in $90.3 million in its first weekend, collected $57.5 million in its second, (raking in $82.4 million over the Thanksgiving Day holiday weekend), and stood at $187 million after 10 days in release is hardly a sign of socialism.

In fact, if anything, this is more proof of absolute free enterprise, and Rowling, now the second-richest woman in England (after the queen) must be laughing all the way to the capitalist bank.

And those who believe that Potter is engaged in the supernatural, or the occult, should rest assured. Robert Bucksbaum of the box-office tracking firm Reel Source, told USA Today the 36 percent drop-off from the first weekend to the second, "is a sign that 'Harry Potter' is human, after all."

But, of course, there are two sides to every story, and one could, if he or she looked hard enough, and maybe with the help of some of Potter's magic powers, uncover political leanings to the wizard's enchantment.

Or just maybe, others who suffer from the same symptoms as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin did, could suspect the workings of an evil plot behind every chapter, character and scene and then lash out at it.

One particularly harsh critic of Harry Potter pointed out the wizard's creator was clearly a "lefty," and outlined a whole slew of reasons that will be addressed below.

Particular to this Rowling detractor was the argument that Potter's sworn enemy is "Lord" Voldemort. Notice the emphasis on the word "lord," says Potter's critic, indicating that Voldemort is a peer, a member of the British House of Lords.

Naturally, more down to earth people will see Voldemort as a lord of evil, not unlike the Star Wars villain Darth Vader who was also addressed as "lord" by his underlings, and not someone who belongs to one of England's most prestigious and closed clubs. Or maybe they see something sinister in the House of Lords after all? Hmm.

Secondly, the same critics see Potter's nasty aunt and uncle, the Dursleys and their son, the pesky and spoiled little brat, Dudley, as "honest, hard working people." One can only question how can anyone who forces a child to live locked up in a tiny cupboard under the stairs, deprive the child of proper food and clothing, and deny him his mail, be called "honest?"

Is that in itself not a true sign of class struggle? Of one class profiting from the misfortunes of another? Not to mention that at the first sign of trouble, uncle Vernon packs up the family and runs away from danger like the real "paper tiger" that he is. When confronted by truth and good, uncle Vernon and aunt Petunia instantly cave in, offering no resistance.

Thirdly, these critics point to the fact that "everybody with a decent accent is a baddie, except Hermione, and she has to get her 'attitudes straightened out.'" The British, of course, have always had a nasty habit of instantly pigeonholing people in various social categories according to their accents. The moment residents of the British Isles utter a single word, they are categorized according to their class. In this case, a "decent" accent means "upper class" -- nothing short of an Oxford education, and corresponding accent. Anything less than that would simply not be acceptable, old boy.

Hogwarts, Harry's school of magic and wizardry, those same critics say is "clearly some kind of state establishment, as the headmaster is summoned to the Ministry (of Magic), and anyway, no owner ever appears," says the Potter basher.

Yes children, there is such a thing as a Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter's fictional world, which leads one to believe in the existence of some higher ruling authority, like God forbid, government. But even conservative right-wing administrations, such as George W.'s, which ran on a ticket of smaller government, is, in the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedies, enlarging the size of the government by hiring more federal employees than the previous Democratic administration did.

A new governmental department (or ministry in Potter's world) -- that of Homeland Defense -- was created by President Bush, and thousands of airport security personnel have been put on the federal government payroll. The CIA and the FBI are actively recruiting agents as the country is gearing up to fight terrorism.

Whether in the real world, or in the magical make-believe one of Harry Potter's, some aspects of everyday life simply require government control. Bush just proved it.

And to those who say that Harry is "simply born as the most powerful wizard that ever was, and has to make no significant effort to achieve his powers," one can only reply that it takes tremendous effort and willpower in order to use one's power for good.

It could have been terribly easy for Harry to fall to the temptations of wrongdoings and to join Voldemort in his evil ways. Instead, the boy hero opted to follow the more difficult path and fight evil, for which he almost pays with his life. Besides, he more than proves his bravery by his amazing abilities at broom-flying, which must certainly require very special skills, and at playing the wizard's complicated game of Quidditch -- a game that makes cricket appear easy to explain.

One exceptional harsh critic of the magical boy, a true capitalist and former banker, sees "Gringotts Bank, the true hero of the piece, portrayed as inhabited by unpleasant and inept goblins." Of course, only a capitalist will see bankers as heroes. Most of us muggles (non-magical people) usually perceive bankers as unpleasant goblins.

The exception, of course, is maybe Rowling's new bankers, who must be bending over backward trying to please her. After all, with her newly acquired, and well-earned wealth, she could practically buy the bank.

In conclusion, to those who argue the reward system at Hogwarts was completely arbitrary because Slytherin's hard-earned victory was nullified by the headmaster when he awarded more points to Gryffindor, it drives home the moral of the story: that decency and Truth always pays off in the end.