• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Capitalism is Evil" - Michael Moore.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
Wait... Michael Moore's final conclusion is that the replacement for capitalism is... democracy????

Is it frightening to anyone else that he apparently doesn't know the difference between a political system and an economic one?
Click to expand...

I'm not a Michael Moore fan, but I don't believe that the two are that separated any more. Sadly.

The trivial example is: it's pretty obvious that corporations effectively influence some decisions with their campaign contributions, lobbyists, PR bullcrap, bribes, astroturfing campaigns, etc, more than all the population combined. I'm sorry, but that's not what democracy was supposed to mean.

But that's not the only thing.

There are a lot of things that we'd scream bloody murder about, if the state did them, but when a mega-corporation does them... well, that's ok then.

Another trivial example: the big "OMG teh politicians want to control the games" fight in the states is really only about what is the threshold where gory games should be labelled 18+ (AO) versus 17+ (M). Why is a year that important? Well, because of one single corporation: Wal Mart. It's the biggest retailer and it won't carry AO titles. Effectively one corporation is already sorta unilaterally regulating the games market, and everyone is apparently ok with that, even when they won't give their elected government the same right. Content is removed, games re-rated, cut-scenes reworked, just to please WalMart. And that's apparently ok, because OMG capitalism is sacro-sanct. It seems to me utterly illogical that people grant effectively the same regulation powers to a corporation we don't control, that they would instantly get paranoid if an ellected representative even hinted at getting.

There's nothing even "free market" about it. It's a unilateral, one-corporation decision which regulates a whole market. WTF?

And you don't see how democracy would actually _be_ an alternative to that? What's the difference? Both effectively decided on a regulation. The only difference I see is that the population at large can control the government in a democracy.

E.g., if the government were to ban a book or movie, everyone would scream "censorship." But when Disney gets another copyright extension just to _prevent_ a movie from being seen... well, that's ok, then. It's capitalism, see? Must be good.

Again, what's the difference? Both keep a movie from being shown.

E.g., people already are changing their behaviour because prospective employees will Google them. We've reached a more distributed version of the Soviet scare that they have a dossier on you, and anything you say or do can bite you in the rear later. The chilling effect actually worked better than Stalin's executions and mass deportations to keep the population in line. In the West nowadays it's not the secret police, it's Google and the HR departments. But a lot of people are already changing their behaviour and sticking to only saying or doing what seems ok to be found about them later.

So, again, what's the difference? Effectively a bunch of corporations created the same chilling effect that we scream "tyranny" about when the State does it.

E.g., drug testing. WTF? Since when did it become the corporations the volunteer enforcers of a law that shouldn't even be their business?

Etc.

So, basically, yes, it seems to me like there _is_ a lot of overlap. Yes, I know the difference between a political system and an economic one, but it seems to me like the latter has already muscled in on the former's domain.
 
Francesca R said:
As far as I can tell from the news story, the designation "evil" comes about because capitalism doesn't set out to act in the public interest, and so there are several examples where capitalism works against it.

That much would be true . . . but you can regulate against it, and should do if the (public) benefit is worth it to society.

But really, "evil" ought to mean setting out to act against public interest as a mission in itself, I would think. And I don't see anything approaching a statement that this is what capitalism does, that is: intends to do.
Click to expand...

I don't know... It seems to me like RL "evil" isn't comic-book evil for evil's sake.

E.g., take the legend of Nero setting Rome on fire so he can have place to build a new palace. (I know there is some debate, but let's take the claim at face value for the scope of this example.) Was that an act done just for the sake of harming the people of Rome? Was it just for the sake of going against the public good? No, it was just because he didn't give a crap about the people, and just wanted a new palace.

By your definition, then Nero's act isn't evil.

And that's where I'll disagree.

E.g., take Dick Turpin and his threatening to roast a poor widdow alive unless her son says where the money are. Was it motivated by just the sake of doing evil? No, it was motivated just by wanting her money, and not giving a crap about her or generally other people. He did leave her alone when he got the money, after all, so causing bodily harm wasn't his motivation.

Does that make the act not evil?

E.g., take the stereotypical wild west scenario where some villain kills a family of farmers for their land, or massacres an indian village again for their land, or whatever. There is no indication that the killing was the primary motivation. But it's still an evil act.

RL evil is IMHO almost always motivated by some personal gain -- even if it's the power trip, or the temporary amusement -- not by some compulsion to go against the public good, just for the sake of it. The best that can be said about RL evil and "public good" is more along the lines of "don't give a damn about the public good, if it gets in the way of my wishes."

Which corporations not only are doing, but are _supposed_ to do.
 
applecorped said:
Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.

"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."

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


Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama[/URL]'s rise to power may bolster it.
Evil?
Click to expand...

Good that he finally come out as an communist, now we can laugh at the people that take him seriously. :D
 
HansMustermann said:
Which corporations not only are doing, but are _supposed_ to do.
Click to expand...

I have alot more to say on the subject than this, but not much time, however it all sums up in one statement anyway.

Corporations != Capitalism
 
Capatalism is amoral.

Amorality is not the same thing as being evil: amoral entities do good and evil things merely by accident, not design. So it is with capatalism.
 
HansMustermann said:
I don't know... It seems to me like RL "evil" isn't comic-book evil for evil's sake.

...snip...
Click to expand...

I took Francesca R's comments to mean pretty much the same as cyborg's:

cyborg said:
Capatalism is amoral.

Amorality is not the same thing as being evil: amoral entities do good and evil things merely by accident, not design. So it is with capatalism.
Click to expand...

The only issue I have with that view is that it doesn't account for the fact that capitalism only exists by the actions of people.
 
Francesca R said:
But really, "evil" ought to mean setting out to act against public interest as a mission in itself, I would think. And I don't see anything approaching a statement that this is what capitalism does, that is: intends to do.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree. :)
 
HansMustermann said:
I don't know... It seems to me like RL "evil" isn't comic-book evil for evil's sake.

E.g., take the legend of Nero setting Rome on fire [ . . . ]

E.g., take Dick Turpin and his threatening to roast a poor widdow alive [ . . . ]

E.g., take the stereotypical wild west scenario where some villain kills a family of farmers [ . . . ]
Click to expand...
And you can regulate against those things, no? And the relevant regulations will, if not all the time, elicit a behavioural response.
The best that can be said about RL evil and "public good" is more along the lines of "don't give a damn about the public good, if it gets in the way of my wishes."

Which corporations not only are doing, but are _supposed_ to do.
Click to expand...
They are also supposed to be subordinate to regulations which themselves are supposed to get in the way of overly harmful acts. Not giving a damn about public good isn't really "evil" as I see it. If you do, then there is a lot of evil in the world for you. (Cue uninteresting debate about whether it is actions or entities that are evil . . . )
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
Wait... Michael Moore's final conclusion is that the replacement for capitalism is... democracy????

Is it frightening to anyone else that he apparently doesn't know the difference between a political system and an economic one?
Click to expand...
Frightening is the EXACT word for it.

Sometimes people say something so incredibly ignorant, fallacious and flat-out dumb that it makes you question everything else they've ever said or done. That happens a LOT when it comes to economic issues, and also race issues.
 
Darat said:
The only issue I have with that view is that it doesn't account for the fact that capitalism only exists by the actions of people.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that makes a difference.
 
Darat said:
"Capitalism" is something people do, and people are rarely amoral creatures.
Click to expand...

The massive accounting fraud responsible for the collapse of Wall Street Investment banks last fall might be considered immoral.
 
Francesca R said:
And you can regulate against those things, no? And the relevant regulations will, if not all the time, elicit a behavioural response.
Click to expand...

Except I'm not talking there about whether it can be regulated or not. I'm talking strictly about your opinion that ""evil" ought to mean setting out to act against public interest as a mission in itself". And I'm saying that that's a flawed definition, because that kind of evil just to be evil only happens in comic books.
 
Darat said:
"Capitalism" is something people do, and people are rarely amoral creatures.
Click to expand...

About 3-4% of the population are sociopaths and don't particularly care about the other people. That's wired to be amoral and 3-4% is not particularly "rare" in my book.

Pretty much: it doesn't matter what the average person would do. People also rarely murder just for power thrills, but the same species created Ted Budy or Jack The Ripper or Pol Pot. It's a bit like saying that Russians were rarely amoral creatures, when discussing Stalin's NKVD. Yes, the average Russian wasn't a murdering psychopaths, but apparently there were just enough of those to make everyone else's life miserable anyway.

Ditto for corporations and people. It seems to me like entities which are supposed to act amoral, are the perfect medium in which amoral people rise to the top and drive the others out of business. And a lot satisfy the diagnostic criteria.
 
Jaxe said:
I have alot more to say on the subject than this, but not much time, however it all sums up in one statement anyway.

Corporations != Capitalism
Click to expand...

While that much is obvious, capitalism has also become the buzzword (and really nothing more than a buzzword) that gets thrown around as to why the plutocracy should get more money and more power, and why it's the epitome of evil to want to limit any of that. To Joe Sixpack there is no difference between Corporation X screwing you up the rear end just because it can bribe politicians to allow it to, and capitalism, and he's been trained to react like Pavlov's dog to the magic word "capitatalism." If you even propose to shake a roled up newspaper at Corporation X for immoral or even illegal behaviour, it's time for "OMG, that's like against capitalism! You can't do that!"
 
Darat said:
"Capitalism" is something people do, and people are rarely amoral creatures.
Click to expand...

Ah, but collective behaviour is not individual behaviour.

Individuals may be moral whilst collectives are amoral.
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
Wait... Michael Moore's final conclusion is that the replacement for capitalism is... democracy????

Is it frightening to anyone else that he apparently doesn't know the difference between a political system and an economic one?
Click to expand...
And lets get over the fact that democracy is some type of panacea for all our troubles. Lots of crap has happened because of democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom