Michael Moore's New Movie Concludes: "Capitalism is Evil"

[Pangloss]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/09/director-michael-moore-now-wants-nothing-less-than-the-complete-overthrow-of-the-modern-capitalist-system--from-reuters-in.html

 

"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."

 

Kind of an obvious contradiction, isn't it? Capitalism is very democratic in nature.

 

I haven't seen it yet, but if these indications pan out as reported I think Moore may lose a lot of his moderate-liberal support on this one. He has a lot of support from left-leaning libertarians who like to watch "Sicko" and then blog to all their friends about the incredibly travesties they've just discovered in the health care system (as anybody with more than a dozen Facebook friends can tell you), and they did similarly after Fahrenheit 911. But I don't know if this position will carry anything like as much weight with that crowd.

 

What do you all think?

[bascule]

Kind of an obvious contradiction, isn't it? Capitalism is very democratic in nature.

 

Capitalism undermines democracy. Corporations can donate to candidates and buy votes and policy, and when that doesn't work they can lobby for it. That doesn't necessarily make capitalism bad but it provides the power for a small group of individuals to dramatically and unduly influence public policy.

[insane_alien]

i wouldn't call it evil, but pure capitalism or pure communism are not good situations to be in and will be unstable.

 

a little mix of both works better than either.

[CaptainPanic]

Pure capitalism, in its extreme like we've seen over the last decade is indeed nearly as evil as communism in its extreme like in the Soviet Union.

 

I really liked the documentary "The Corporation", that explores companies... and in a way also our capitalist system.

Taking its status as a legal "person" to the logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?"

The answer to the question is quite shocking, but not very surprising.

 

Personally, I'd like a good portion socialism, a bit of capitalism to reward the good people and all under a democratic sauce of liberty. Thanks.

 

Who could agree with any system that just sees people as a commodity that you can use and dump at will? That's what capitalism is. You don't need someone? Just fire him.

We're talking about people here - not some lumber or iron ore.

[Pangloss]

We don't have pure capitalism, CaptainPanic. Never have.

 

And it's my impression that Michael Moore is criticizing our current system, not some hypothetical extreme. He's not exactly an academic -- he wants people to see this movie and act on it.

 

 

Capitalism undermines democracy. Corporations can donate to candidates and buy votes and policy, and when that doesn't work they can lobby for it. That doesn't necessarily make capitalism bad but it provides the power for a small group of individuals to dramatically and unduly influence public policy.

 

Bear in mind that the same system that fuels tobacco and insurance lobbies also fuels EFF, ACLU, Greenpeace and NOW. Also it's worth keeping in mind that pure democracies have their problems too -- what the majority wants is not always a good thing. But yes I agree with you about the influences of small groups.

 

Even if "capitalism undermines democracy", it also inflates and motivates democracy. I don't think we would have democracy today without the capitalist side of our economy. I also think we wouldn't have democracy today without regulation. It's the balance of the two, the compromise approach, that makes it work, in my opinion.

 

Michael Moore doesn't seem to agree with that point of view. In fact he explicitly rejects the concept of regulation in the quote I posted.

[iNow]

Michael Moore doesn't seem to agree with that point of view. In fact he explicitly rejects the concept of regulation in the quote I posted.

 

I wonder if it would be best to reserve such comments until after viewing the film so his comments can be discussed in context. Just a suggestion.

[padren]

Kind of an obvious contradiction, isn't it? Capitalism is very democratic in nature.

 

Capitalism is very democratic except for the fact that more capital = more influence, and the ideal of democracy is equality of each member regardless of capital. It's really a misnomer, as even if there was no wealth at all you'd still have better speakers, and more connected individuals wielding more influence.

 

On the whole though - it sounds like (and I haven't seen the movie) a really stupid quote. I honestly believe any society that is corrupt when leaning towards free enterprise will be equally corrupt when leaning in any other direction. There is no system that can keep people honest unless the people choose to demand honesty from their leaders - which is just as easy (or hard) under any framework.

 

My own feelings aside the quote strikes me as "classic Moore" and he really has come to bother me over the last few years. I used to love his work on TV Nation "back in the day" which was genuinely edgy, daring and thought provoking. Now, he seems to preach to an invisible choir with a condescending tone and simplistic blanket remarks that imply if it's not equally obvious to you, that's your problem and he shouldn't be inconvenienced with having to make his case to someone as hopeless as you.

 

Granted I haven't seen this movie, so I have to withhold judgment. I have a hard time being interested in anything he has to say anymore though because every time I see something new he puts out it's just so laden with self righteous fail it makes me sick. Every time I see something new he considers his views so self evident as to not require any evidence, vetting or caveats - and this guy was my hero in my late teens - so I am pretty much done seeing anything new he has to say.

[Pangloss]

Michael Moore doesn't seem to agree with that point of view. In fact he explicitly rejects the concept of regulation in the quote I posted.

I wonder if it would be best to reserve such comments until after[/i'] viewing the film so his comments can be discussed in context. Just a suggestion.

 

I'm not prejudging him -- this was a direct quote from the conclusion at the end of the film:

 

"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."

 

That's pretty direct. He says he doesn't approve of the current economic system, and that regulation can fix it. He says it has to be replaced with a different system. I'm not seeing a lot of room for interpretation here, but maybe the reviewer misunderstood the audio track or got his notes confused. You never know. I'll keep it in mind.

 

 

My own feelings aside the quote strikes me as "classic Moore" and he really has come to bother me over the last few years. I used to love his work on TV Nation "back in the day" which was genuinely edgy, daring and thought provoking. Now, he seems to preach to an invisible choir with a condescending tone and simplistic blanket remarks that imply if it's not equally obvious to you, that's your problem and he shouldn't be inconvenienced with having to make his case to someone as hopeless as you.

 

I agree. I love "Roger & Me" -- from a pure film-making point of view, it's a documentary classic. Practically (really) a work of art. But part of what makes it so great is that, as you say, it's thought-provoking. Not thought-ending. Not thought-replacing. Asking questions is a good thing. Replacing one set of ideological beliefs for another is not asking questions, and it's not thinking.

 

There's been a lot of criticism leveled over the years about how he takes only one point of view, leading to responses along the lines of "he's not obligated to be objective". This challenge-and-response misses the key point: Accuracy and reality are more convincing than closed-minded, narrowly-focused opinions.

 

Stick with what makes people think. Stop short of telling people exactly what to think.

[bascule]

I've seen all of Moore's films and liked most of them. I didn't like Bowling for Columbine because of the subject matter (and also because it won an Oscar over Winged Migration that year, which was a far, far more amazing film).

 

Sicko was awesome, and one which I wish more people would watch nowadays amidst the healthcare debate.

 

I'll withhold judgement on Capitalism: A Love Story until I see it.

[iNow]

I'm not prejudging him -- this was a direct quote from the conclusion at the end of the film:

 

"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."

 

That's pretty direct.

Here's where I think you're being inconsistent.

 

In the quote above, Moore says that capitalism is evil, yet you in post #5 said this:

We don't have pure capitalism, CaptainPanic. Never have.

 

And it's my impression that Michael Moore is criticizing our current system, not some hypothetical extreme.

 

I may be wrong, but the quote you used appears very much to be "some hypothetical extreme," and does not apply to our current system (but, I don't know, which is part of the reason I said it would probably be best to restrain from comment until we've viewed the movie and can place the quotes in context).

 

 

So, either you're attacking Moore for something he is not saying, the quote you selected does not support your argument, or we should both shut up about it until we have the context of the quotes because we have little idea of what we're talking about at this point. I'm going with #3.

[Saryctos]

wow, the ABP crowd sure is getting feisty these days =P

[iNow]

Abp?

[bascule]

Abp?

 

Anybody But Palin?

[Pangloss]

I may be wrong, but the quote you used appears very much to be "some hypothetical extreme," and does not apply to our current system

 

Sure, it's possible that Michael Moore has produced a film that has no bearing whatsoever on any aspect of modern politics and economics, and that he's just attacking the academic principle of capitalism, and not the actual practice of it that we experience in the United States.

 

Perhaps his preview can give us some insight on the matter:

 

-YuxAYnX_jY

[iNow]

Sure, it's possible that Michael Moore has produced a film that has no bearing whatsoever on any aspect of modern politics and economics, and that he's just attacking the academic principle of capitalism, and not the actual practice of it that we experience in the United States.

I guess my point has been fully missed. Oh well. I tried.

[Saryctos]

Anybody But Palin?

 

There's a name that starts with 'P' that is far more relevant to this thread

[Severian]

Capitalism is very democratic in nature.

 

One dollar, one vote. Very democratic.

 

I find it hard to argue with the sentiment that capitalism is evil. It is. Undoubtedly. But the question is, what will we replace it with? Until we have a better system to put in place, which has been demonstrated to work, I think we need to stick with the devil we know.

[Mokele]

I find it hard to argue with the sentiment that capitalism is evil. It is. Undoubtedly. But the question is, what will we replace it with? Until we have a better system to put in place, which has been demonstrated to work, I think we need to stick with the devil we know.

 

There's an alternative to replacement, namely a sort of gradual evolution. It seems that, at least in the West, regulation has been increasing, usually in response to public demand (via elected officials). Why not simply let things evolve, trying stuff out along the way? If that winds up as something like socialism, fantastic. If it turns out capitalism really is best, also fine.

[Pangloss]

One dollar, one vote. Very democratic.

 

I find it hard to argue with the sentiment that capitalism is evil. It is. Undoubtedly.

 

I disagree. I think that's like that statement that "money is the root of all evil", which is obviously countered by the fact that it's what people do with money that's evil, not the money itself. Similarly I think with capitalism people can certainly do evil things, but the concept itself is not good or evil or anything else. It's what people do with it that becomes good or evil.

[padren]

Capitalism is only as moral or amoral as the people that utilize it. If the majority of people cared about sweatshops, the homeless, the environment, trade inequities, inhumane meat processing plants, and all the other "evils of capitalism" enough to sacrifice and pay more somewhere else it would be largely self correcting.

 

The fact is we could adopt a system of forced morality and we would still support the policies that brought us most for the least effort and simply justify why it is ethical to do so. Right now, we blame the system instead of ourselves - or "everyone else" that is dastardly enough to shop at Walmart and do all the evils we would never do - but to be really honest it is still our combined failing and not the fault of the system.

The only real issue is we accept our society won't act morally and blame that on the system, whereas if we didn't we'd have to make up excuses just as ridiculous as China's "moral imperative" to invade Tibet so we could both feel good about ourselves and not actually make any personal sacrifices whatsoever.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just an additional note to be clear on this point:

 

It's not like capitalism has allowed backdoor dealings and secretive illicit activities to create the inequities we are all upset about - these dealings and activities happen in front of our eyes. We already know the effect Walmart has on small local businesses, we know the conditions most animals are exposed to in the food industry, we know about sweatshops, we know about the lobbyists and Wall Street/Federal Reserve/Government Oversight rotating doors... and we don't care enough change our habits or apply the pressure to our elected officials.

 

Maybe most people don't know just how bad meat processing plants are, but they know they are bad and they really easily could learn more - they genuinely don't want to.

The few things people aren't aware of really are the result of intentional avoidance of the facts because they would be potentially disturbing and they really don't want to deal with it right now.

 

 

What if everyone was willing to sacrifice just one hour a day to keeping capitalism moral? In any given seven hour work week, that means you either say, work an extra four hours (to spend slightly more money on goods you find more ethically sound), and dedicate three to research and/or writing elected officials, or in some breakdown like that.

 

How much impact would one hour a day have if everyone who said they cared was willing to dedicate it? I really just don't think we can blame the system.

[Dudde]

Just an additional note to be clear on this point:

 

~~~~

 

How much impact would one hour a day have if everyone who said they cared was willing to dedicate it? I really just don't think we can blame the system.

 

essentially what I'm getting from this is that Americans are very lazy and callous for things that aren't affecting them right now? That's around the gist of what I thought you were trying to say, and if that's the case, I completely agree. I'm actually quite guilty of this myself to be honest.