Well, now it is OFFICIAL, Capitalism is EVIL

[Selene]

"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film

Sun Sep 6, 2009 11:59am EDT By Mike Collett-White

VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. {propagandist} documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.

Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an all out attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty. [unlike [Cuba, China, Russia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, North Korea, Venezuela, Ukraine, et. al.]

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.

"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

The bad guys in Moore's mind are big banks and hedge funds which "gambled" investors' money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood and which belonged in the casino.

Meanwhile, large companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits.

The filmmaker also sees an uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street.

He says that by encouraging Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the crisis, and with it homelessness and unemployment.

Moore even features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

"Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience in Venice.

"They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently in order to create finance and money, support for jobs, businesses, etc."

GREEN SHOOTS?

Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism,[can we get an address or county where that is occurring so we can move there] and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event," he told a news conference. "If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him."

Moore also warned other countries around the world against following the recent U.S. economic and political model.

The film follows factory workers who stage a sit-in at a Chicago glass factory when they are sacked with little warning and no pay and who eventually prevail over the bank. [ACORN]

And a group of citizens occupies a home that has been repossessed and boarded up by the lending company, forcing the police who come to evict them to back down. [ACORN]

The film re-visits some of Moore's earlier movies, including a trip to his native Flint where his father was a car assembly line worker and was able to buy a home, a car, educate his children and look forward to a decent pension. [before the immense central government was oppressing citizens through taxation and regulation]

But he brings it up to date with an examination of the financial crisis, demanding to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and demanding that banks give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.

And he interviews an employee of a firm which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amazing propaganda this MSM continues to press on we the living.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Thanks for the review. I haven't seen any Michael Moore film and I will not see this one.

[jriggenbach]

Of course what Moore means by the term "capitalism" is not what those of us who hang out around here mean by it. What he means by "capitalism" is what the majority of human beings who have ever used the term have meant by it - the system the term was originally coined to describe: the system people like us would call "state capitalism" or "mercantilism" or "corporatism" or even "fascism." State capitalism is evil,and people should rebel against it, in favor of a more "democratic" system - one in which each individual votes with his or her feet and his or her dollars for what he or she wants.

JR

[Christopher]

Of course what Moore means by the term "capitalism" is not what those of us who hang out around here mean by it. What he means by "capitalism" is what the majority of human beings who have ever used the term have meant by it - the system the term was originally coined to describe: the system people like us would call "state capitalism" or "mercantilism" or "corporatism" or even "fascism." State capitalism is evil,and people should rebel against it, in favor of a more "democratic" system - one in which each individual votes with his or her feet and his or her dollars for what he or she wants.

JR

Yes, but Moore still shows and proposes very manipulative logic. I have to agree with Moore on a few points: some recent corporate actions have been unethical... but he twists facts to support erroneous conclusions.

I have lost total respect for Moore after Sicko. He finds a bunch of sick people who didn't purchase health insurance and can't get treatment in the U.S., then he ships them over to Cuba where they receive "free" medical healthcare. What he didn't show was the living conditions of the Cuban citizens who paid for that healthcare.

[kiaer.ts]

I have lost total respect for Moore after Sicko.

After his 2007 film Sicko? Not after the obvious and disgusting fraud and lies of Farenheit 9/11? That's telling, and I want it on record. There's something quite off when you can start a thread criticizing a strawman "Randian Capitalism" but a criminal cross between Ellsworth Toohey and Jabba the Hut gets the benefit of the doubt.

Moore's fraud has been public knowledge since the late 80's. His career began when he was rightfully fired by Mother Jones, but they settled for $58,000 which he used to film Roger and Me, his breakthru anti-capitalist film 1989. It has been downhill from there. The guy is an intellectual, moral and literal pig. He should be in jail for fraud and a pauper from libel judgments. What prescription blinders does one wear to miss this?

This is criticism just of his first film, Roger and Me:

Film critic Pauline Kael criticized the film, claiming it exaggerated the social impact of GM's closing of the plant and depicted the actual events of Flint's troubles out of chronological order. Kael called the film "shallow and facetious, a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing". One such criticism is that the eviction at the end of the film occurred on a different day from Smith's speech, but the two events were intercut for emotional effect.[1] Moore addresses this criticism in the DVD commentary, stating that "there are no dates in the film; we'll be going back and forth throughout the decade of the '80s."[citation needed]

GM argues that the reason for its downsizing was fierce competition from Japanese auto manufacturers and that the only alternative to the factory closures in Flint would have been major government subsidies or increased protectionism. Moore briefly touches upon these issues, noting that GM and the factories were profitable when they were moved.[citation needed]

In March 2007, Canadian filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine appeared on MSNBC's Tucker to talk about their documentary Manufacturing Dissent. They reported to have found that Moore talked with General Motors Chairman Roger Smith at a company shareholders' meeting, and that this interview was cut from Roger & Me.[2][3] Moore acknowledged having spoken with Smith after surprising him at a shareholders' meeting in 1987, before he commenced filming, but said the encounter concerned a separate topic unrelated to the film.[4] The filmmaker also told the Associated Press that had he managed to secure an interview with Roger Smith during production, then suppressed the footage, General Motors would have publicized the information to discredit him. "I'm so used to listening to the stuff people say about me, it just becomes entertainment for me at this point," he remarked. "It's a fictional character that's been created with the name of Michael Moore."[4]

Edited September 8, 2009 by Ted Keer

[Selene]

Well there you go, Moore showed that the filthy capitalist was wrong that...

"...the only alternative to the factory closures in Flint would have been major government subsidies or increased protectionism."

The government did subsidize it, before they took it over completely, so Michael Moore is right as always!

Adam

Post Script:

Michael is a federal felon because he is registered to vote in both Michigan and Minnesota I believe. He also has some serious tax issues.

[Christopher]

Ted,

I have no respect for you, and this will perhaps be the last post I ever write in response to what you wrote.

1. I haven't watched any other Moore movies except Sicko, so your assumption is, frankly, uninformed.

2. Your claim that my posts of "strawman capitalism" tells me you have no concept of systems-oriented thinking. Go join ARI buddy, they'd love you.

[jriggenbach]

Ted,

I have no respect for you, and this will perhaps be the last post I ever write in response to what you wrote.

1. I haven't watched any other Moore movies except Sicko, so your assumption is, frankly, uninformed.

2. Your claim that my posts of "strawman capitalism" tells me you have no concept of systems-oriented thinking. Go join ARI buddy, they'd love you.

Cut Ted some slack, Christopher, I beg of you!

Look at it this way: humor is a scarce commodity; we should always be grateful for it whenever it comes our way. And Ted's spluttering, gulping, eye bulging outrage at the very mention of Michael Moore is nothing if not richly comical.

I've seen only one of Moore's films, myself - it was Fahrenheit 9/11 - but I saw nothing in it that I'd call "fraud." Moore is an advocacy journalist. He makes no secret of his views. You know exactly what you're getting when you sit down to watch one of his films or read one of his articles or books. You take his views into account when you interpret and evaluate what you've seen and read. Is this somehow less satisfactory than the usual process of reading or viewing the work of journalists? Most journalists attempt to conceal their views (except for the more fundamental philosophical views they aren't even consciously aware of holding and certainly don't practice in any consistent manner). Reading or viewing the work of such journalists as these, the reader's (or viewer's) task is to try to figure out what those views probably are so as then to be able to take them into account in interpreting and evaluating what's he read or seen. This is somehow to be preferred to the process one enters into with a journalist like Michael Moore? Why?

And why are we to regard Moore as any more reprehensible than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter or the other rightwing hacks on Faux News? It is a certainty that the point of view Moore espouses is less reprehensible than the point of view those other worthies represent - just as it is a certainty that liberal Democrats (at least post-LBJ) tend to do less damage politically than conservative Republicans.

JR

[John Tate]

When I was a teenager I read his book "Stupid White Men," long before I really cared about politics. He used to at least be funny, and I always simply considered him a comedian. These days he is just pathetic and as always fallacious. Unlike Ted, I don't think he should be in jail. It would be good if people were more aware of logical and critical thought. Unfortunately people will watch this crap, and let it influence them and how they vote.

However, the reign of the left in the 21st century is only beginning for most developed countries. When the ideas that are leading to insane economic policies come to their climax, inflation and poverty, I think most people will realise the disaster that they caused voting for empty rhetoric. It will ultimately come down to what they decide to do about it.

[Selene]

Jeff:

Would you elaborate on this statement, please?

"And why are we to regard Moore as any more reprehensible than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter or the other rightwing hacks on Faux News?"

Apparently. you have watched a Moore movie. Have you read any of Ann Coulter's books? Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh for at least five days in a row?

Adam

[jriggenbach]

When the ideas that are leading to insane economic policies come to their climax, inflation and poverty, I think most people will realise the disaster that they caused voting for empty rhetoric.

Oh? So you think all the fools who have been voting for Republicans all these years, under the impression that the GOP's empty rhetoric actually indicated support for a free market, will live to regret their stupidity? I certainly hope so.

JR

[jriggenbach]

Apparently. you have watched a Moore movie. Have you read any of Ann Coulter's books? Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh for at least five days in a row?

Having read a few of Ann Coulter's articles, I have spared myself her books. Having listened to Limbaugh's entire show a few times and having read quoted passages from his radio gruntings in newspapers and on the Internet, I've spared myself the experience of listening to him for at least five days in a row. Why would I want to do that, anyway? I'm not a masochist.

JR

[Selene]

Apparently. you have watched a Moore movie. Have you read any of Ann Coulter's books? Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh for at least five days in a row?

Having read a few of Ann Coulter's articles, I have spared myself her books. Having listened to Limbaugh's entire show a few times and having read quoted passages from his radio gruntings in newspapers and on the Internet, I've spared myself the experience of listening to him for at least five days in a row. Why would I want to do that, anyway? I'm not a masochist.

JR

Jeff:

It would depend on where your interests lie as to why you should read one of her books. I do not read her columns unless a rare one catches my eye.

It would be the difference between reading one of Tom Paine's polemical and inflammatory pamphlets and reading his well reasoned Common Sense.

Or, reading a short Objectivist Newsletter piece written by Ayn and reading Anthem.

What extorted service do you perform to put bread on your table?

Adam

[jriggenbach]

Apparently. you have watched a Moore movie. Have you read any of Ann Coulter's books? Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh for at least five days in a row?

Having read a few of Ann Coulter's articles, I have spared myself her books. Having listened to Limbaugh's entire show a few times and having read quoted passages from his radio gruntings in newspapers and on the Internet, I've spared myself the experience of listening to him for at least five days in a row. Why would I want to do that, anyway? I'm not a masochist.

JR

Jeff:

It would depend on where your interests lie as to why you should read one of her books. I do not read her columns unless a rare one catches my eye.

It would be the difference between reading one of Tom Paine's polemical and inflammatory pamphlets and reading his well reasoned Common Sense.

Or, reading a short Objectivist Newsletter piece written by Ayn and reading Anthem.

What extorted service do you perform to put bread on your table?

Adam

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, "Common Sense" is "one of Tom Paine's polemical and inflammatory pamphlets."

One does not read an article and pretend that it is a substitute for reading a novel or other work of fiction. (Well, maybe Phil Coates does, but that's another thread.) So far as I know, none of the rightwing hacks we're talking about write fiction.

I write (mostly books). I do freelance editorial work (though less of it as I get older; progressively, it bores me). I produce and narrate audiobooks and other kinds of mostly "straight voice" educational audio projects. Sometimes I teach (though I haven't done any of that in ten years now, and am beginning to wonder whether I'll ever return to it).

JR

[Selene]

Apparently. you have watched a Moore movie. Have you read any of Ann Coulter's books? Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh for at least five days in a row?

Having read a few of Ann Coulter's articles, I have spared myself her books. Having listened to Limbaugh's entire show a few times and having read quoted passages from his radio gruntings in newspapers and on the Internet, I've spared myself the experience of listening to him for at least five days in a row. Why would I want to do that, anyway? I'm not a masochist.

JR

Jeff:

It would depend on where your interests lie as to why you should read one of her books. I do not read her columns unless a rare one catches my eye.

It would be the difference between reading one of Tom Paine's polemical and inflammatory pamphlets and reading his well reasoned Common Sense.

Or, reading a short Objectivist Newsletter piece written by Ayn and reading Anthem.

What extorted service do you perform to put bread on your table?

Adam

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, "Common Sense" is "one of Tom Paine's polemical and inflammatory pamphlets."

One does not read an article and pretend that it is a substitute for reading a novel or other work of fiction. (Well, maybe Phil Coates does, but that's another thread.) So far as I know, none of the rightwing hacks we're talking about write fiction.

I write (mostly books). I do freelance editorial work (though less of it as I get older; progressively, it bores me). I produce and narrate audiobooks and other kinds of mostly "straight voice" educational audio projects. Sometimes I teach (though I haven't done any of that in ten years now, and am beginning to wonder whether I'll ever return to it).

JR

Thanks Jeff:

I think you are possibly smart enough to get that my comparison of Paine and Rand were as to the length of the piece, ie., column - book. My error with Paine is that I am re-reading Common Sense as it is in Glenn Beck's "book".

Ann Coulter's legal argumentation, attention to detail and sourcing in the two books of hers that I have read was superior. Moreover, I love the satirical debating style that she exhibits in her books.

As to Rush, he is intellectually superior, along with Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Laura Ingram to anyone in the alternate media. His wit and wisdom is a tribute to how wealthy and influential a person can become using his own initiative and creativity and maintaining his integrity. Finally, he is informative and hilariously funny.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Ann Coulter's legal argumentation, attention to detail and sourcing in the two books of hers that I have read was superior. Moreover, I love the satirical debating style that she exhibits in her books.

Treason and Slander are the best argued and documented books of their kind. If, of course, you can dismiss Coulter with ridicule rather than rebut her arguments, that's a time-honored tradition.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Is this a fair representation of my position? ==>

> "One does not read an article and pretend that it is a substitute for reading a novel or other work of fiction. (Well, maybe Phil Coates does, but that's another thread.)" [Jeff R]

Gee, is that what I actually said: 1) One article? 2) An actual or full -substitute-? 3) Were we talking about fiction? We discussed non-fiction a number of days ago: the writings of Kant whose ideas have been exhaustively studied and are quite clearly laid out in -multiple- encyclopedias and histories of philosophy? So my position was that those sources, built upon centuries of reading and scholarly articles on one of history's most important philosophers, would seem to tell us what his major or essential views are.

I don't want to relitigate Kant. But that is hardly the same as "substituting an article for reading a novel", is it Jeff?

And would that translate to saying I believe that 'secondary sources' in general are reliable? If I did say something that sloppy, I would take it back.

Moral: The most important first thing when disagreeing with someone is to bend over backwards to scrupulously, carefully, fairly represent their position. (Or if you are unclear about it or if you think they posted it when drunk, to ask them.)

Edited September 10, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Jerry Biggers]

Whew!... And I was about to write that we shouldn't really worry about the influence of Michael Moore's pseudo-documentaries,...and then I started reading the "hornets' nest" that mention of his name has stirred up on this thread. Hmmm.

Okay, let me try this argument. As clever and manipulative as Michael Moore is, on practically any issue that he has discussed in his films, and as popular as many of his movies are, there is not much evidence that his arguments have any lasting impression on the movie-going public.

Case in point, "Farenheit 911." It came out months before the presidential election of 2004. It was designed to be a devastating attack on George Bush and to ensure his defeat in the upcoming election. The MSM critics loved it. They talked and wrote about it incessantly. They encouraged all their readers/listeners to see the movie! And many people did. Moore was lauded by the entertainment media and even awarded an Academy Award for this dreck....

And the effect, after all this popularity and publicity? ZERO. At least, zero in the thing that Moore and his media fans most wanted: George Bush's defeat. And I doubt that "Sicko" has had much effect on the current health care debate.

So he comes out again with another film that directly attacks capitalism (or his caricature of capitalism). Does this surprise anyone? Will the MSM laud it? Probably. Will it convert Americans to socialism? Very unlikely.

Moore is a fly, buzzing around the room. Irritating, but not lethal. Better worry about the proverbial "800 lb gorilla" in the room.

[Selene]

Whew!... And I was about to write that we shouldn't really worry about the influence of Michael Moore's pseudo-documentaries,...and then I started reading the "hornets' nest" that mention of his name has stirred up on this thread. Hmmm.

Okay, let me try this argument. As clever and manipulative as Michael Moore is, on practically any issue that he has discussed in his films, and as popular as many of his movies are, there is not much evidence that his arguments have any lasting impression on the movie-going public.

Case in point, "Farenheit 911." It came out months before the presidential election of 2004. It was designed to be a devastating attack on George Bush and to ensure his defeat in the upcoming election. The MSM critics loved it. They talked and wrote about it incessantly. They encouraged all their readers/listeners to see the movie! And many people did. Moore was lauded by the entertainment media and even awarded an Academy Award for this dreck....

And the effect, after all this popularity and publicity? ZERO. At least, zero in the thing that Moore and his media fans most wanted: George Bush's defeat. And I doubt that "Sicko" has had much effect on the current health care debate.

So he comes out again with another film that directly attacks capitalism (or his caricature of capitalism). Does this surprise anyone? Will the MSM laud it? Probably. Will it convert Americans to socialism? Very unlikely.

Moore is a fly, buzzing around the room. Irritating, but not lethal. Better worry about the proverbial "800 lb gorilla" in the room.

Jerry:

Ok and the 800 lb gorilla in the room is .....????

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

Whew!... And I was about to write that we shouldn't really worry about the influence of Michael Moore's pseudo-documentaries,...and then I started reading the "hornets' nest" that mention of his name has stirred up on this thread. Hmmm.

Okay, let me try this argument. As clever and manipulative as Michael Moore is, on practically any issue that he has discussed in his films, and as popular as many of his movies are, there is not much evidence that his arguments have any lasting impression on the movie-going public.

Case in point, "Farenheit 911." It came out months before the presidential election of 2004. It was designed to be a devastating attack on George Bush and to ensure his defeat in the upcoming election. The MSM critics loved it. They talked and wrote about it incessantly. They encouraged all their readers/listeners to see the movie! And many people did. Moore was lauded by the entertainment media and even awarded an Academy Award for this dreck....

And the effect, after all this popularity and publicity? ZERO. At least, zero in the thing that Moore and his media fans most wanted: George Bush's defeat. And I doubt that "Sicko" has had much effect on the current health care debate.

So he comes out again with another film that directly attacks capitalism (or his caricature of capitalism). Does this surprise anyone? Will the MSM laud it? Probably. Will it convert Americans to socialism? Very unlikely.

Moore is a fly, buzzing around the room. Irritating, but not lethal. Better worry about the proverbial "800 lb gorilla" in the room.

Jerry:

Ok and the 800 lb gorilla in the room is .....????

Adam

the collected forces of, er, collectivism. I don't want to leave anyone out, but as institutionalized by the MSM, the entertainment media, many academics, and the current Obama Administration. Most of the first three groups and all of the last. Michael Moore is loud and annoying, but in the end, he is just a fly. Edited September 10, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Selene]

Jerry:

We are in substantial agreement. I posted this Michael Moore piece as evidence of the bottom feeders, like Moore, who are incompetent, but who are elevated to the top of the "sophisticated" world of Cannes. We used to use the pieces from the horror files from the newsletter to "close" the sale of Rand's ideas.

Towards that end, have you seen the blockbuster video that Brietbart released today:

http://www.breitbart.tv/shock-undercover-video-shows-acorn-workers-advising-pimp-prostitute-to-avoid-law/

Welcome to the tip of the claw on the left foot of the small toe of the 800 lb gorilla.

Adam

[Christopher]

That's good to hear Moore is not taken too seriously by the general public. Moore went on show with O'Reilly one evening... it was a nice discussion. I think Moore got the shorter end of the stick for having beliefs that can't be logically supported.

[Cariad]

Whew!... And I was about to write that we shouldn't really worry about the influence of Michael Moore's pseudo-documentaries,...and then I started reading the "hornets' nest" that mention of his name has stirred up on this thread. Hmmm.

Okay, let me try this argument. As clever and manipulative as Michael Moore is, on practically any issue that he has discussed in his films, and as popular as many of his movies are, there is not much evidence that his arguments have any lasting impression on the movie-going public.

Case in point, "Farenheit 911." It came out months before the presidential election of 2004. It was designed to be a devastating attack on George Bush and to ensure his defeat in the upcoming election. The MSM critics loved it. They talked and wrote about it incessantly. They encouraged all their readers/listeners to see the movie! And many people did. Moore was lauded by the entertainment media and even awarded an Academy Award for this dreck....

And the effect, after all this popularity and publicity? ZERO. At least, zero in the thing that Moore and his media fans most wanted: George Bush's defeat. And I doubt that "Sicko" has had much effect on the current health care debate.

So he comes out again with another film that directly attacks capitalism (or his caricature of capitalism). Does this surprise anyone? Will the MSM laud it? Probably. Will it convert Americans to socialism? Very unlikely.

Moore is a fly, buzzing around the room. Irritating, but not lethal. Better worry about the proverbial "800 lb gorilla" in the room.

Small correction here: Fahrenheit 9/11 did NOT win an Oscar. Michael Moore's Oscar was for Bowling For Columbine.