who is michael moore? is he a socialist?

[cubeless]

he's not a douchbag, even a douchebag is a useful thing, which he is not...

the sad thing is that in our 'john stewart is the most trusted newsman' world, people think that this political comedian is a producer of documentaries...

and to say that his slanting and lies are any worse than beck is just shows your political bent...

 

[bamacre]

Arianna Huffington nailed it in her review...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-see-mic_b_293407.html

In the film, Michael describes capitalism as evil. I disagree. I don't think capitalism is evil. I think what we have right now is not capitalism.

In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire

Right-wingers aren't populist, so I wouldn't expect him to forgo his own biases - it'd make his job all the more difficult. Moore doesn't make expose`s or documentaries, Craig - he finds some stuff that pisses him off and he makes a 190-proof anti-O'Reilly film & book about it, much in the same vein. Were he a bit less of a self-styled Tarantino of film & politics, I could probably stomach him.

I have no real objection to you having the above position - it's far better than saying Moore will make a movie saying anything to make a buck.

Reforming the system is one thing, but calling it evil is simple bias.

To discuss this we'd get into the difficulty of discussing evil in politics, suffice it to say that Moore's use of the word is a good fit for his movie's message, even if you disagree with it.

But it's not 'bias', it's an opinion. Bias would be saying that Moore isn't overweight, because you agree with his politics. His saying something is evil is his opinion.

My composure is fine - I just have this personal failing where I categorically dismiss nutjob extremists who refuse to consider the opposite point of view because there are just too damned many of them in the world to make sense of them - and I make no apologies for it. Example - I dont even know WTF Glenn Beck is.

Dare I say that you have the sound of the nutjob extremist in your passionate opposition to Moore But you are very lucky to not know who Glenn Beck is.

I'm simply tired of sorting through the 'passionate' bias of people who are so sure they know better in order to find something out. Surely you can relate somewhat to that.

I'm tired of some things, but I'm not sure they're quite the same as your list. But anyway, I think we agree there are valid criticisms of Moore.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Arianna Huffington nailed it in her review...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-see-mic_b_293407.html

In the film, Michael describes capitalism as evil. I disagree. I don't think capitalism is evil. I think what we have right now is not capitalism.

In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains.

This system is inevitable. Enjoying the modern amenities we enjoy requires the creation of very large and diverse corporations. No one is building a modern CPU or airplane in their basement alone. The creation and existence of very large corporations encourages cartels and increases the externalities that can be inflicted on third-party members thus necessitating the creation of government (to both solve the free rider and Coasian bargaining problems).

One might also argue that government is the result of transactional costs involved with labor mobility that doesn't exist in capital mobility. A disparity which will always exist.

Obviously, what we have now is crony Capitalism. I just don't see how this situation isn't inevitable. Ultimately, it's not Socialism or Capitalism that fails, it's us. We are evil regardless of the system of government or economics in which we are placed.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent seen the movie, only the previews. One of the things in the previews is it looks like he goes after big govt as well for colluding with big business.

If true that can explain why some of the hollywood elite who used to support him are now publicly goign after him.

The funny thing for people like Moore is they believe the answer to the problem is bigger govt. All bigger govt does is up the anty for big business to surgically implant itself into the ass of Big Govt.

Please seek immediate medical help. You talked yourself in a complete circle in less than 100 words.

Originally posted by: bamacre
Arianna Huffington nailed it in her review...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-see-mic_b_293407.html

In the film, Michael describes capitalism as evil. I disagree. I don't think capitalism is evil. I think what we have right now is not capitalism.

In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains.

Looters & Special Interests FTW!

Isn't government & corporate interests living together like cats and dogs one of the signs of fascism?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

quite obvious that he is against capitalism, and his views seem very socialistic, where he wants to "divide up the pie."

OOOOOOHHHhhhhh!!!! It's the big, bad, evil "socialism" scare word. Be afraid.... Be VE-e-e-ery afraid. :Q

Quite obviously, you have no understanding of the concept that one of the best ways to preserve our democracy is through exercising one's freedom of speech to illustrate our flaws or that Moore trying to effect needed changes through his films or that he is among the best at making his points through sarcasm.

i saw his interview on leno and he seemed like a nutjob.

I read your OP, and YOU seem like the nut job. I want my 15 seconds back. I doubt that you could define "socialism," let alone explain it to anyone else. ;roll'

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Harvey
OOOOOOHHHhhhhh!!!! It's the big, bad, evil "socialism" scare word. Be afraid.... Be VE-e-e-ery afraid. :Q

Ironically, "capitalism" has now become the "big, bad, evil scare word."

 

[piasabird]

So what does Micheal Moore want to replace capitalism with?

Is Micheal Moore going to donate the preceeds of the film to charity or is he just a capitalistic biggot?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what does Micheal Moore want to replace capitalism with?

The LDS, you're in right?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The problem here is that Michael Moore is pulling at everyone's heartstrings. He wants us ALL to be winners. We can't be. That's just not how it works. People win and people lose. That's life. Now, we should have systems in place to help those don't win, but we have to look at the whole picture. Most of that 95% of people are living a FAAAR better life than people in any other part of the world. We're doing pretty well for ourselves. Sure, there are people that are doing far better than the average person in this country, but the average guy is getting along just fine over the last twenty years.

We can't all be winners. The minute Moore leaves his delusional world where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and ice cream we can start having a rational conversation about what's wrong with this country, but once again Moore misses the mark so dramatically with this attempt to cover the issue. He's pandering to buzz words, hoping to capitalize on the very people that he claims he's trying to help.

so its ok for some people to rig the system to be extremely wealthy, because the people that lose in the system don't live incredibly terrible lives, only moderately terrible lives?

Over the last fifty years, the vast majority of this country has enjoyed wealth on an unparalleled level in human history. Yes, some people have enjoyed more of that wealth, but every single index we have of quality of life has been continually rising for every member of society over the last half century.

The people who aren't rich aren't losing, they just don't win as much as the people who make it big. And you know what? That's life.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm, I think the joke is on you. What he's saying is that the wealthiest Americans are the recipients of socialism in their favor, having our tax dollars socialistically redistributed to them. His other point is that capitalism doesn't work because it invariably leads to this sort of thing where the wealthiest exploit everyone else.

You don't have to agree with him, but his points are certainly not head-exploding.

Right, but he's throwing the "socialism" buzzword in there just to attract attention. The easier, and more correct way for him to make his point is to say that there are a small group of people stealing money from the rest of us. There. No socialism involved.

Anyway, Moore is so far off track here that it hurts. Our society has survived much greater imbalances of wealth. We've gone through periods where the every-day worker was truly boned no matter what he or she chose to do. While we do have swings away from the mean, the truth is that the wealth gap has been narrowing and, while it may be getting bigger right now, that doesn't mean we need to blow the system up.

His other point is that capitalism doesn't work because it invariably leads to this sort of thing where the wealthiest exploit everyone else.

I'd just like Mr. Moore to explain a system where there is no potential for this to happen. It's easy to sit back and criticize everything you see around you, but when you propose no effective means for change, lace your interviews with buzzwords, and expect everyone to kiss your feet like you're some sort of genius ... that's when we've gotten far, far off track.

From what I've read about this documentary, it will add nothing to the actual conversation of how to fix this country besides thrusting ideals and labels into the forefront.

A short response:

You are really a classic example of a right-wing ideologue. You preach the faith - and you invent the facts to fit it.

Your post would need a detailed point by point response to really show this, but for now that's a high level comment.

For a start though, you are - right-wing ideology incoming - really minimizing the issue of the concentration of wealth. You make it sound harmelss - so what, you drive a Chevy and a rich guy drives a Lamborghini, doesn't hurt you - which is very much not the case. There are all kinds of problems an excessive concentration of wealth brings, which you appear blissfully ignorant about, not the least of which is the takeover and undermining of our democracy.

Our society has survived much greater imbalances of wealth.

Got evidence of the levels of concentration of wealth over history? Or did you just make that up because it says what fits your ideology?

Fact is, after the big cncentrations of wealth peaking just before the great depression, they were far lower for decades, until a reversal began with Ragan - and are now often higher.

Right wing? :laugh:

Just because I happen to believe in free markets doesn't make me right wing in the slightest and, congrats, I think you're the first person to ever call me right wing.

Anyway, to get to your points. Over-concentration of wealth is a problem, but we're not nearly there yet. Yes, the pendulum has swing dramatically towards disparate wealth -- the middle class has been hammered over the last six or seven years. I tend to think these things are cyclical though and will correct themselves. We don't have to look back very far to find obscene concentrations of wealth. Look at the the 1880s - 1940s. Men like Carngie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Ford, Walton, and Mellon were worth multiple billions of dollars. They retained much of their wealth while 50% of this country went down the pooper. These guys had unreal concentrations of wealth, Rockafeller alone was worth ~$300 billion in today's dollars. Together, these guys could have basically bought out the US.

Anyway, these concentrations of wealth were slowly reversed and, yes, things have swung the other way, but I don't think we're quite at that era again. I don't support concentrating wealth, but I also realize that no system is completely rigid and things will flex over time. Over time, though, relative concentrations of wealth will probably remain fairly stable. If there is evidence against this, I'd be happy to look at it.

Your last point, about the downfall of democracy, is something that seems to come up all the time this decade. I again see no evidence that our democracy is any more peril than it has ever been. If the past is any guide to the future, or even a rough approximation, this country has survived worse economic crises, worse political scandals, worse corporate influence.

To take my attitude and say that I'm "blissfully ignorant" is ignorant in itself. I'm not advocating sitting back and assuming that everything will work out without anybody doing anything. What I'm saying is that when we act, we need to do so with consideration that we've been there before and survived. We need to act with moderation, not with desperation. When we choose to act or change something, we should be careful about how drastic our changes are or how dramatic our actions will be.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have yet to see a corruption free system proposed.

Someone always cheats, that is the reason for regulation and enforcement. Now isn't it?

 

[bamacre]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...s-capita_n_296090.html

Michael Moore: Capitalism is un-American and undemocratic.

MM doesn't understand what capitalism is, and certainly doesn't understand that what we have now is not capitalism, nor the result of capitalism. He is only making true previous predictions that government's intervention in the marketplace will fail and cause disastrous problems, problems that would then be misguidedly blamed on capitalism. Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with a free society. MM is either very ignorant, and has sinister intentions.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what does Micheal Moore want to replace capitalism with?

Is Micheal Moore going to donate the preceeds of the film to charity or is he just a capitalistic biggot?

Michael Moore is trying to instigate capitalism by rubbing your nose in what's out there now.
Don't get it? He's popping your balloon.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...s-capita_n_296090.html

Michael Moore: Capitalism is un-American and undemocratic.

MM doesn't understand what capitalism is, and certainly doesn't understand that what we have now is not capitalism, nor the result of capitalism. He is only making true previous predictions that government's intervention in the marketplace will fail and cause disastrous problems, problems that would then be misguidedly blamed on capitalism. Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with a free society. MM is either very ignorant, and has sinister intentions.

Capitalism says nothing about our civil rights and thus our civil liberties. You need to get over the idea that transactional freedom is the only freedom that exists. The market is merely a way to distribute resources. For more information, see the regions like the Catalonia region in Spain during the Spanish Revolution that was basically "run" by Libertarian Socialists. You are confusing Communism with the totalitarian states that have ostensibly claimed to be so. Obviously, in Communism there is no state.

What we have now is a result of Capitalism, and not one that's unexpected. The growth of corporate power will inevitably be matched by the growth of government to deal with the imperfection of the market and the externalities it produces. It appears that anarcho-Capitalists are under the delusion that eliminating government is akin to eliminating power structures. It is not. A quick and obvious example off the top of my head is the fact that Kingdoms were privately and not collectively owned and people had very little freedom.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what does Micheal Moore want to replace capitalism with?

Is Micheal Moore going to donate the preceeds of the film to charity or is he just a capitalistic biggot?

communism, because that system is perfect. Absolutely no room for corruption.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

quite obvious that he is against capitalism, and his views seem very socialistic, where he wants to "divide up the pie."

OOOOOOHHHhhhhh!!!! It's the big, bad, evil "socialism" scare word. Be afraid.... Be VE-e-e-ery afraid. :Q

Quite obviously, you have no understanding of the concept that one of the best ways to preserve our democracy is through exercising one's freedom of speech to illustrate our flaws or that Moore trying to effect needed changes through his films or that he is among the best at making his points through sarcasm.

i saw his interview on leno and he seemed like a nutjob.

I read your OP, and YOU seem like the nut job. I want my 15 seconds back. I doubt that you could define "socialism," let alone explain it to anyone else. ;roll'

why the personal attack in such a condescending manner? many here agree he's off his rocker.

i may not be able to fully explain socialism to the degree that many others could, i have a basic understanding of the principals. i'll admit it's not my area of expertise.

i used to think you were a cool guy, a fair mod.
:disgust:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The problem here is that Michael Moore is pulling at everyone's heartstrings. He wants us ALL to be winners. We can't be. That's just not how it works. People win and people lose. That's life. Now, we should have systems in place to help those don't win, but we have to look at the whole picture. Most of that 95% of people are living a FAAAR better life than people in any other part of the world. We're doing pretty well for ourselves. Sure, there are people that are doing far better than the average person in this country, but the average guy is getting along just fine over the last twenty years.

We can't all be winners. The minute Moore leaves his delusional world where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and ice cream we can start having a rational conversation about what's wrong with this country, but once again Moore misses the mark so dramatically with this attempt to cover the issue. He's pandering to buzz words, hoping to capitalize on the very people that he claims he's trying to help.

so its ok for some people to rig the system to be extremely wealthy, because the people that lose in the system don't live incredibly terrible lives, only moderately terrible lives?

Over the last fifty years, the vast majority of this country has enjoyed wealth on an unparalleled level in human history. Yes, some people have enjoyed more of that wealth, but every single index we have of quality of life has been continually rising for every member of society over the last half century.

The people who aren't rich aren't losing, they just don't win as much as the people who make it big. And you know what? That's life.

the lower income groups have seen their purchasing power deteriorate over the last 30+ years. How is getting less than you used to get winning?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Moore's net worth is estimated to be somewhere @ $50 million dollars. Ironically, he's one of those very same rich bastards that he pretends to despise. When he wants to spread the wealth he means everyone elses wealth, not his own, which is how many socialists are. It's those other rich bastards that are the real problem, ya know.

i was just about to ask the question of how much money he's got and what's he personally done share his wealth.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cubeless
he's not a douchbag, even a douchebag is a useful thing, which he is not...

the sad thing is that in our 'john stewart is the most trusted newsman' world, people think that this political comedian is a producer of documentaries...

and to say that his slanting and lies are any worse than beck is just shows your political bent...

john stewart is the most trusted newsman because in this twisted world we live in comedians are the only people with the intelligence and integrity to actually analyze the news, because when you actually look at it its pretty funny in a very dark way.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: bamacre
Arianna Huffington nailed it in her review...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-see-mic_b_293407.html

In the film, Michael describes capitalism as evil. I disagree. I don't think capitalism is evil. I think what we have right now is not capitalism.

In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains.

This system is inevitable. Enjoying the modern amenities we enjoy requires the creation of very large and diverse corporations. No one is building a modern CPU or airplane in their basement alone. The creation and existence of very large corporations encourages cartels and increases the externalities that can be inflicted on third-party members thus necessitating the creation of government (to both solve the free rider and Coasian bargaining problems).

One might also argue that government is the result of transactional costs involved with labor mobility that doesn't exist in capital mobility. A disparity which will always exist.

Obviously, what we have now is crony Capitalism. I just don't see how this situation isn't inevitable. Ultimately, it's not Socialism or Capitalism that fails, it's us. We are evil regardless of the system of government or economics in which we are placed.

you can certainly make a system that resists the pressures to crony capitalism

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Anyway, these concentrations of wealth were slowly reversed and, yes, things have swung the other way, but I don't think we're quite at that era again. I don't support concentrating wealth, but I also realize that no system is completely rigid and things will flex over time. Over time, though, relative concentrations of wealth will probably remain fairly stable. If there is evidence against this, I'd be happy to look at it.

those concentrations of wealth were reversed by active government policy, it isn't something that naturally happens.

 

[Slick5150]

I can't remember where, but I just recently read a review of the movie by a conservative writer whose main points where:

1) He liked the OLD Michael Moore (Roger & Me era) that didn't make things partisan battles, but rather battles for the American people
2) He despised the NEW Michael Moore (Farenheit 9/11, campaigning for Dems, etc..) because it polarized everything and allowed people to ignore the message
3) He liked this new movie quite a bit, as it was almost the old Michal Moore coming back out again, as he nails Dodd, Pelosi, Geitner, Clinton (etc..) just as much, if not more, than Regan and the Bushes in the new movie. His only complaint was that he puts the kids gloves on when going after Obama for continuing some of the programs he blames Bush for and wished he hadn't done that.
4) Because the "new" michael Moore has polarized people (including many in this thread) into loving or hating him, the people that probably should watch this movie simply won't.

I'll be seeing a screening of it this weekend myself, so we'll see how it goes.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Right-wingers aren't populist, so I wouldn't expect him to forgo his own biases - it'd make his job all the more difficult. Moore doesn't make expose`s or documentaries, Craig - he finds some stuff that pisses him off and he makes a 190-proof anti-O'Reilly film & book about it, much in the same vein. Were he a bit less of a self-styled Tarantino of film & politics, I could probably stomach him.

I have no real objection to you having the above position - it's far better than saying Moore will make a movie saying anything to make a buck.

Reforming the system is one thing, but calling it evil is simple bias.

To discuss this we'd get into the difficulty of discussing evil in politics, suffice it to say that Moore's use of the word is a good fit for his movie's message, even if you disagree with it.

But it's not 'bias', it's an opinion. Bias would be saying that Moore isn't overweight, because you agree with his politics. His saying something is evil is his opinion.

My composure is fine - I just have this personal failing where I categorically dismiss nutjob extremists who refuse to consider the opposite point of view because there are just too damned many of them in the world to make sense of them - and I make no apologies for it. Example - I dont even know WTF Glenn Beck is.

Dare I say that you have the sound of the nutjob extremist in your passionate opposition to Moore But you are very lucky to not know who Glenn Beck is.

I'm simply tired of sorting through the 'passionate' bias of people who are so sure they know better in order to find something out. Surely you can relate somewhat to that.

I'm tired of some things, but I'm not sure they're quite the same as your list. But anyway, I think we agree there are valid criticisms of Moore.

Yeah, but I wouldn't call it passionate opposition - I'd call it learned indifference.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
Capitalism says nothing about our civil rights and thus our civil liberties. You need to get over the idea that transactional freedom is the only freedom that exists.

Sure it does. Integral to a capitalist system is the right of ownership/property, which is the basis of almost practically every other right imaginable. Even the basis of communism recognizes the importance of ownership in both systems.

The Existential Primer: Karl Heinrich Marx

Marx defined the Communist State as a nation with "common ownership of the means of production" -- public ownership of farms, factories, raw materials, et cetera.

Edit: Grammar.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

why the personal attack in such a condescending manner? many here agree he's off his rocker.

i may not be able to fully explain socialism to the degree that many others could, i have a basic understanding of the principals. i'll admit it's not my area of expertise.

And that's the problem. You and others toss around big bad scare words like "socialist," "communist" and "Communist" (with a capital "C" - there is a difference) without a clue about what they really mean.

It wasn't intended as a personal attack, but it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion if YOU don't understand what you're saying. There are lots of online dictionaries. If you don't want me to sound "condescending," stick with words you understand before you try to make a point with them, and I won't have a reason to do so.

i used to think you were a cool guy, a fair mod.

:disgust:

Sorry about that, and I'm not moderating in this thread. I'm posting as a member which has nothing to do with what I do as a moderator.