"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film

[keep_it_real]

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.

"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."

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5850F320090906

[Deja Q]

1. Well, so do 80,000 DUers. Why aren't they just as wealthy as he is?

[keep_it_real]

2. Maybe because they don't make movies as good as he does?

Or have a product as good as his?

[Deja Q]

6. Or because he flip-flops on capitalism? And I quote:

“Every filmmaker intends for his film to be seen on the big screen, this wasn’t a guy taking a video camera into a theater. This was an inside job, a copy made from a high-quality master and could potentially impact the opening weekend boxoffice. Who do you think benefits from that?”

Now, here's another of his comments, made before his whine about someone pirating one of his movies:

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people, I make these books and movies and TV shows because I want things to change, so the more people that get to see them the better, so I’m happy when that happens. I think information and art, ideas should be shared.”

Now depending on which quote he said first, there's a big conflict of interest. Oh, I'm sure there are ways it can be rationalized... what the hell.

I've seen his products. He's a showman. He pulls peoples' emotional strings. That's all he does. I do question his veracity on the issues he hypes up. Most people who otherwise say what he does are the ones who go to the theater to pay to watch his maudlin song and dance. (Not me, I wait for reviews and netflix if or when it's worthy. I give enough money to haughty celebrities to begin with to give it to someone who's petulantly and pettily baiting my my emotional side...)

[Merlot]

10. The first quote implies that someone who had access to the film

was intentionally sabotaging the opening week. Opening week numbers are what make a film successful. Doesn't seem like he's as concerned with the loss of money as much as the intrigue behind who doesn't want his film seen.

All movies pull emotional strings, that's why we watch them. His movies have always been proved to be factually correct.

[democrat2thecore]

3. Was met with GREAT reviews in Venice last night

Several of the industry magazines say it's easily his best film yet.

[Mojambo]

4. Wow. I didn't expect him to come right out and say it was evil.

Very provocative, even for Moore.

Can't wait to see it.

[HughBeaumont]

5. Headline is an "all or nothing" mislead.

I think Moore's trying to say that unchecked and unbridled Corporatism is evil, not Capitalism itself.

This sort of selective word mincing leads people down a path of "it's either THIS or SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM" with absolutely nothing in between.

[applegrove]

15. We all lived in mixed market economies in the west. All of us, even the USA, have elements of

socialism and capitalism in our countries.

[AntiFascist]

19. Exactly...

and God forbid some filmmaker use the term "fascism" with it's military-industrial implications.

[Democracyinkind]

7. "Micheal Moore is evil" says new Capitalist film...

[bemildred]

8. Way to go Mike, feed them some of their own. nt

[Synicus Maximus]

9. Capitalism seems to work reather well for him. I guess it is only

evil when other people are involved.

[Luminous Animal]

12. "Capitalism is evil" is Reuter's conclusion.

Without a doubt, Moore's conclusions are far more complex.

[el_bryanto]

26. What a bullshit argument

I am in favor of healthcare for all; does that mean I should forgo healthcare until everybody else has it?

You work within the system you are born into while working to change it.

Bryant

[Kievan Rus]

11. I would say CORPORATISM is evil, not capitalism

In my honest opinion, there is a big difference between capitalism and corporatism. The latter is a radical offshoot of the former; not unlike what jihadism is to Islam or hardcore RW fundies are to Christianity. You wouldn't think every Muslim is like Osama bin Laden, nor would you think every Christian is like Jerry Falwell, right?

In my mind, corporatism calls for trickle-down or "Voodoo economics" (a term coined by Daddy Bush, oddly enough), is stacked in favor of big business, is against any and all market regulations, massive tax cuts for the rich, a few ultra-wealthy superowners while everybody else suffers, corporate takeover of the media, funding cuts for government services, offensive foriegn wars, widespread materialism, and no regulation on corporate influence on the government.

Are we a corporatocracy? Absolutely. But saying every version of capitalism is like the corporate-run morass we're in today is just as bad as saying every Muslim is like Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar.

[Initech]

14. We can thank Reagan for the "trickle-down economics" theory.

IMO - electing Reagan and his ilk is the worst thing we've ever done as a country. It's set us back decades.

[abumbyanyothername]

17. Adam Smith never intended for his theories

to be applied to combinations of capital. Nor, for that matter to the high energy economy we have become.

He wrote about farmers and tradespeople trading in a low speed, low energy economy.

That is definitely not today's world economy.

[Motown_Johnny]

13. So we should replace our economic system with our political system?

clever

[Luminous Animal]

16. I think I understand your question...

but what you don't understand is that, in a democracy, an economic system should always be regulated by it's political system. The economic system exists at the pleasure of society, not independent or outside of it, and is (or should be) subject to the restrictions that society places upon it.

[Prophet 451]

18. Well, that was to be expected

It's the standard now: Expose any abuse, propose any reform whatsoever to the free market uber alles attitude and you a "SOCIALIST!!!". Moore's an old-fashioned reformer but you can't expect Reuters (Reuters, FFS!) to recognise that.

[AntiFascist]

20. If Moore fails to make these distinctions...

isn't he just playing along?

[Prophet 451]

21. Open question

Is it the job of the artist to explain every nuance of his work or can he safely assume that the audience will make certain deductions themselves? I mean, if the public discourse hadn't been so corrupted by the McCarthy-wannabes, would anyone think to label Moore a socialist?

[AntiFascist]

22. I haven't seen the film yet...

and I'm confident that Moore did a good job. The problem that I see on DU is that some people have become so disenchanted with what is perceived to be standard capitalism that many conclude that socialism is the only viable alternative. If Moore leads people down that same garden path then one might conclude that he is at least anti-capitalism. What I, and perhaps a few others, have tried to do is make the fine distinction between big business-government collusion and a well-regulated capitalism where government only answers to the People. The fact that Moore stresses true democracy as a solution to the problem is encouraging.

Also people need to realize that we already have a degree of Socialism in the form of public education, public services, medicare, social security, and the military, and that in most cases it works very well. We need much more spending for education and much less for the military.

[Prophet 451]

23. I haven't seen it yet either

From what I can tell from Moore's books, he's like many of us: A capitalist but one who wants reforms to protect the people from capitalism's excesses. That's a position I share as well. I'm British, despite Thatcher's deregulation mania, our businesses are more regulated than yours and even ours are vastly less regulated than, say, Germany. But your mass media (and I'm afraid this is an anti-American sentiment) is so dumbed-down and so polarised that proposing any regulation at all is instantly decried as socialism. Of course, that has bugger all to do with socialism but we can discuss common mythology some other time.

[AntiFascist]

24. I completely agree with that!

The problem very much has to do with American mass media and the desire to polarize the public into ultimately two sides: those who are pro-fascist and those who are pro-socialist.

The way I see it, there are two types of capitalism: the altruistic, synergistic form of capitalism where wealth is created through the process of invention and investing in good ideas that can further society, and then there is the predatory capitalism of the scavengers, where the uber-wealthy no longer have any good ideas so they must invent bubbles and start wars in order to devise ways to steal wealth from the lower classes. This is the type of capitalism that has been fostered by Nixon, Reagan (and Thatcher if you will) and throughout the Bush dynasty.

[Prophet 451]

25. Absolutely, Thatcher is included

And Major and Blair although to a lesser extent. Brown has been so inundated with catastrophes so far that it's impossible to judge him.

I think you and I are largely in agreement: That there is a form of capitalism which involves invention, innovation and risk and another kind which involves predation, monopolisation and risk-aversion. And the media (and Britain is going in this direction) seeks to eliminate the middle ground between pro-fascism and pro-socialism. I would likely be described as anti-capitalist in the US. I'm not but I am anti-corporatist and it seems that the difference is largely ignored.