"Capitalism is Evil" - Michael Moore.

[GreNME]

You mean "representative Democracy".

I think that the fact we are a representative democracy gives some weight to the argument that "pure capitalism" is bad for a nation running on such a system of democracy. When an individual or entity (like a company or group of companies as a lobby group) can bend the ear of elected representatives more easily than the citizen individuals who vote in elections, it's worth questioning whom the elected officials are truly representing.

Granted, this goes into the subject of regulation that Francesca R brought up. And given the regulated nature of our representative government, it seems that we're not really a nation of pure capitalism anyway, thus adding a questionable nature to Moore's film.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think we should put this debate on hold for a few weeks, so the lefties can see the movie and so the conservatives can be told exactly what their talking points will be via the usual web pages.

 

[Kestrel]

I think we should put this debate on hold for a few weeks, so the lefties can see the movie and so the conservatives can be told exactly what their talking points will be via the usual web pages.

I was starting to wonder how many JREF posters see movies using psychic power several weeks before they are released.

 

[RandFan]

I think we should put this debate on hold for a few weeks, so the lefties can see the movie and so the conservatives can be told exactly what their talking points will be via the usual web pages.

...don't forget talk radio.

 

[themusicteacher]

The thing is, many people do seem to equate capitalism with democracy, representative or otherwise (see: corporate personhood, Reagan's "the business of the American government is business"). Our constitution says nothing of people's right to make billions of dollars or the right to defraud people for profit. It says nothing of shareholder's returns or of a CEO's "right" to run a company into the ground, cause thousands of people to lose their jobs and insurance and all the while collect a one-hundred million dollar paycheck and then ask for a bailout when the jig is finally up. There are recourses, however, written in to the constitution; that is, until they are legislated out by politicians who are in the pocket of these companies (giving immunity, special deals). And it's all done via the American democratic process.

It is correct to say that capitalism is neither moral or immoral. It is a system, plain and simple. It's all in how we use it, who uses it and to what ends. The practicing of capitalism in an immoral fashion is likely not what Adam Smith had in mind but, over time, it seems that it has become something of a game for some: how much money can I make, damn the consequences. And there is the rub: too many powerful people (a very, very small number of people with the ability to have an enormous impact) have taken capitalism to mean, "I do whatever I want."

Of course, our government has the power and responsibility to regulate these systems to a reasonable level but reasonable means so many different things. Your Libertarians (and many conservatives) say any regulation is too much but, as should be obvious to non-sociopaths, can plainly see that "the market" is really not all that great at regulating itself, at least not without considerable pain being inflicted (and who is most affected by that?). Some liberal's get out of control and take regulation too far.

It should be obvious at this point, though, that the more sophisticated our financial and banking system's become, the less and less the "free market" is actually free. Conservatives get incensed at the thought of the government interfering but without someone minding the shop, the corporations are, in essence, regulating themselves and that turns out to be like the prisoners running the prison. Is there no happy medium?

 

[Edward Lark]

Long term consequences can be a good thing

My educated opinion is that it's best to not elevate one method over the other. Given the incompetence of elected officials and the serious and long term consequences of enacting regulation to solve issues I wouldn't be quick to see regulation as a panacea.

Who the hell is saying that regulation is the panacea? It sure isn't me. A portion of my educational background is in public management, so I am excruciatingly aware of all the potential pitfalls that may arise in seeking change through regulatory/bureaucratic means.

I am also not advocating an abandonment of one method over the other. What I am saying is that when I look over the history of citizen/political action versus the history of consumer/direct-private action, it seems clear to me that the former is more successful, has a greater impact and for longer periods of time relative to the organizational starting point than does the latter. However, I am not unaware that you may need both if you want to get things done.

You think I am glossing over the negative aspects of regulation, I think you are overestimating the competence/efficacy of private sector and consumer action and falling into the trap of buying into the broad negative stereotype of government institutions and regulation. Yes, "doing it right" can be very difficult in the regulatory context. But the nice thing about citizen/regulatory action is that you do not have to do it in one, and even imperfect institutions can affect positive change over the long haul.

 

[dudalb]

I was starting to wonder how many JREF posters see movies using psychic power several weeks before they are released.

WIth the same psychic power where we can pretty well guess what Limbaugh or O Reilly's stand on a issue will be.
So Moore came out of the closet. I think a LOT of people on the left basically think the Free Market and the profit motive are evil, they just don't want to say so.

 

[KingMerv00]

Moore's most glaring bad habit is that he fails to address the counter-arguments in an attempt to appear flawless. Little does he know, no political argument is flawless because it is all about cost/benefit analysis. Pure capitalism sucks, pure communism sucks (if it were possible) and a mix of the two...well that sucks too but it is the best system we can come up with so far.

 

[dudalb]

Moore's most glaring bad habit is that he fails to address the counter-arguments in an attempt to appear flawless. Little does he know, no political argument is flawless because it is all about cost/benefit analysis. Pure capitalism sucks, pure communism sucks (if it were possible) and a mix of the two...well that sucks too but it is the best system we can come up with so far.

Agreed. But you can have one hell of a fight about the exact measure between Capitalism and Socialism.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I will probably see this one like I did his other "documentaries", but I can't stand the knee jerk reaction of many people who assume that my disagreement with Michael Moore and his "style" of film making is the result of some series of right wing talking points.

It could just be the fact that I find his dishonesty offensive. I hated Expelled for the same reason. I can easily watch a documentary that has a message a disagree with and not care as long as the film maker actually made a documentary.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I will probably see this one like I did his other "documentaries", but I can't stand the knee jerk reaction of many people who assume that my disagreement with Michael Moore and his "style" of film making is the result of some series of right wing talking points.

It could just be the fact that I find his dishonesty offensive. I hated Expelled for the same reason. I can easily watch a documentary that has a message a disagree with and not care as long as the film maker actually made a documentary.

It's unfortunate for you that the talking points brigade have pretty much run those two arguments into the ground.

"Moore is dishonest in his presentation so I don't have to talk about the actual issues" and "They aren't real documentaries according to a definition I just pulled out of my **** that has nothing to do with how the real-world movie industry defines documentaries, so I don't have to talk about the actual issues" have been used so often that it's harder to get traction with them these days.

Too many people have seen them too often before, so you will run into the generic response: "Yeah, whatever, get over it, what's your position on the actual issues he raises?".

 

[fullflavormenthol]

It's unfortunate for you that the talking points brigade have pretty much run those two arguments into the ground.

"Moore is dishonest in his presentation so I don't have to talk about the actual issues" and "They aren't real documentaries according to a definition I just pulled out of my **** that has nothing to do with how the real-world movie industry defines documentaries, so I don't have to talk about the actual issues" have been used so often that it's harder to get traction with them these days.

Too many people have seen them too often before, so you will run into the generic response: "Yeah, whatever, get over it, what's your position on the actual issues he raises?".

Which is unfortunate because I run about a 50/50 when it comes to the actual issues. I merely wish he would not engage in what I consider dishonest and non-documentarian practices. For example a documentarian shouldn't create scenarios and present them as naturally occurring.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Which is unfortunate because I run about a 50/50 when it comes to the actual issues. I merely wish he would not engage in what I consider dishonest and non-documentarian practices. For example a documentarian shouldn't create scenarios and present them as naturally occurring.

I agree with you completely, and I think he deals with such inherently interesting topics that he really shouldn't need to stage stuff.

Then again maybe that's what it takes to get to the mass US audience. He's the millionaire film maker, not me.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I agree with you completely, and I think he deals with such inherently interesting topics that he really shouldn't need to stage stuff.

Then again maybe that's what it takes to get to the mass US audience. He's the millionaire film maker, not me.

Well it is what separates Michael Bay from Martin Scorsese, and what separates Michael Moore from Albert Maysles.

Given that the only real indicator of artistic talent and integrity is whether of not one is a millionaire...

Nevertheless once you cross a certain line you are no longer making a documentary, which is why Sasha Baron Cohen isn't considered a documentarian. Then again...he's the millionaire film maker, not me.

 

[Kestrel]

I agree with you completely, and I think he deals with such inherently interesting topics that he really shouldn't need to stage stuff.

Then again maybe that's what it takes to get to the mass US audience. He's the millionaire film maker, not me.

Frontline has covered many of the same subjects as Moore, but has a fraction of his audience. Perhaps it does take more than just an interesting subject to reach a mass audience.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well it is what separates Michael Bay from Martin Scorsese, and what separates Michael Moore from Albert Maysles.

Given that the only real indicator of artistic talent and integrity is whether of not one is a millionaire...

That poor straw man! Leave it alone, it never did anything to you.

 

[applecorped]

Poor Mike, shut out at the Venice film festival.

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/m...r-film-lebanon-u-s-director-todd-solondz-win/

 

[Rolfe]

Too many people have seen them too often before, so you will run into the generic response: "Yeah, whatever, get over it, what's your position on the actual issues he raises?".

You could have fooled me. I tried a thread recently aimed at talking about the actual points raised in Sicko, with the explicit purpose of excluding ad hominem attacks on Moore. Didn't really work. One segment was dismissed because it had a crying child in it, and that was an appeal to emotion, so the fact that the child's grandparents were homeless because of the cumulative deductibles and co-payments on their medical bills could be ignored.

The point that some of the people suffering poor health after being involved in the Twin Towers rescue and clear-up were having difficulty getting medical treatment, while US politicians boast about the excellent healthcare given to terrorists in Guantanamo Bay was lost in "OMG Cuba is a hell-hole, Moore shouldn't even have mentioned the place".

And so on. I just gave up.

In fact I've seen far more emotional heart-string-pulling, schmaltzy music and all, in anti-universal-healthcare propaganda films, and I knew that the alleged facts presented were downright lies. Moore gets the attention by being entertaining and involving, but a lot of people don't like what he has to say. And any argument will do rather than discuss whether he might actually have a valid point.

Rolfe.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You could have fooled me. I tried a thread recently aimed at talking about the actual points raised in Sicko, with the explicit purpose of excluding ad hominem attacks on Moore. Didn't really work. One segment was dismissed because it had a crying child in it, and that was

I participated in that thread and I actually came out of it with a more optimistic conclusion that you did.

I thought we did a good job overall of pouring water on criticisms that didn't hold up, and the thread died because once ad hominem attacks were excluded and the remaining criticisms of Sicko were dissected there just wasn't anything more for the anti-Moore brigade to say about that movie. It takes two to tango and the anti-Moore posters just ran out of dance moves.

I don't see it as a failure if a thread explicitly designed to discuss Sicko without ad hominem attacks contains little such discussion, I see it as evidence that there just isn't very much to criticise about that film.

Not having seen Capitalism I don't know if it will weather criticism as well as Sicko, of course.

 

[Eyeron]

It never fails to amuse me to see rich people bemoaning the evil capitalism won't give up their money.

That's the hypocrisy I often see with Socialists, is that they always want someone else to give up all their property and wealth and give it to themselves.

That's why I've come to call it the politics of envy, as well as the politics of materialism. Because at the core of socialism is the argument that people should not be allowed to have more than anybody else, if they do it must be taken away from them and given to the the people who don't have a s much.

It's a fine system for those who want to voluntarily live in it. But as for me, why should I work if it's just going to be taken away from me, or why should I work if it'll just be taken away from somebody else and given to me?