I just watched Capitalisam.A love story....Why the fuck don't you do something about it?

[Del-Toro]

I stopped taking Micheal Moore seriously after "Bowling For Columbine". He didn't even make that many good points about gun control, he just put up some people affected by guns and said "see, guns r bad" completely forgetting that they are neutral fucking inanimate objects that can prevent violence just by being displayed and that states with heavy gun control have higher crime rates because crooks don't fear an armed response. That's not the democrat line, so he won't tow that.

We get it, capitalism isn't perfect. I've had this discussion several times with a friend who claims it is broken. It's not a perfect system, no system is, but capitalism has been most of what gave western society it's high standard of living. There are poor people, but guess what, unlike the communist or third world, they aren't the majority, so to me, the arguement that some poeple have everything while some people have nothing isn't valid to me.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

The thing i find most hilarious in this thread are all the people linking to wikipedia with facts...

Quite. How dare the try and use facts to win an argument!

I know! Don't they know the only thing that is allowed is anecdotal evidence and things you remember in your poli-sci class?

 

[karamazovnew]

I see quite a lot of people here mistaking Leninism for Communism. Let's get something straight: there has never ever been a true Communist state. Communism is an Utopia and if you think it would be like 1984, you're wrong. 1984 is Stalinism. Communism is best described as The Federation in Star Trek: a world without currency, where every man can do whatever he wants, while being rewarded properly for his labor. A world where any man can live and thrive based on his efforts. A world where someone who just wants to keep a nice french bar can live as happily as an admiral.

Capitalism is flawed in many ways. It produces inequality and in the long run it leads to something even worse than Stalinism. What you end up with is a powerful elite (which you'll never be a part of, by the way), who control EVERYTHING, and the rest of the world, who're at the mercy of their leaders. If you thought Totalitarism was dead and gone, you'd be surprised just how close we are to it, but this time on a global scale.

As in the 19'th century, the Marxist ideals and warnings are perfectly valid in our current times. Marxism was a simple evolution of the term "citizen", invented by the French Revolution. But, since most of the reforms proposed (such as welfare, work protection, labor laws) have already been applied all over the world, we tend to forget just how Marxist we all are. Socialism was an attempt to put into effect the Marxist theory. It has been successfully applied in countries such as Great Britain, where the change was gradual and mixed in well with the existing Monarchy. Leninism pushed for sudden change, and overthrow of existing leaders, simple and violent revolution. It was a mistake and it evolved into its natural form: Stalinism, or better said, Big Brother. Russia, China and North Korea are perfect examples, but more toned variants can still be found all over the world, mostly in Arab states. Big Brothers appear in different forms, they don't need to be individuals for the ugly thing to work. Big Brothers can be spawned by any ideology, even capitalism. The best example is the USA which has 2 parties, 2 flavors of the same corrupt idea. A state in which the average citizen is at the mercy of laws made to enrich the rich. A state in which freedom of speech means nothing without being able to act or having anyone to listen. And yes, I'm thinking about Michael Moore right now.

So don't be too quick to dismiss socialism. It's a much better recipe for freedom and human rights. And, what's even more important, it can be applied much more efficiently now than it was a century ago.

 

[marfin_]

And I said nothing about believing there is a perfect system out there, but I also refuse to believe that a system that practically begs people to indulge unchecked greed is the best we have, and so long as people accept that this is all there is and all there could be, nothing will change.

Srsly, can you imagine a peasant in feudal times saying "this is the best we can hope for"? Hey, maybe they did.

Socialism on the other had endorses a planned economy

Other things like personal property would be viewed as means of production and would have no place in a Socialistic society.

Wrong and wrong.

I don't mind being told that I was wrong, but I like constructive feedback better. :\

 

[wilsontheterrible]

If thats the case, communism must be the next logical step. Capitalism has failed, the European and American economies are inevitably about to hit rock bottom, all because of short sightedness and greed.

Still doesn't solve the issue of scarcity though. Capitalism vs Socialism or Communism isn't about money vs people. They're different ways of using scarce resources. Capitalism avdocates allowing people to decide the distribution among themselves while socialism and communism feels that is is a central governing body that should dictate how those resources should be used.

I've actually seen real communism in place. Small communities in Isreal and a couple in the U.S. They are self contained and self sufficeient but they never grow much larger than a few dozen people. Information and size are the bane of communism because after a certain point it becomes to difficult to guide it effectively and those in charge need to resort to force.

Capitalism and Socialism demand information. But only capitalism lays the responcibility of using it squarly on the shoulders of those who are most effective. When done right Capitalism is the pinnacle of individual empowerment, it's been twisted however through bad regulation and private interests. Now we have a mixed system that doesn't help anybody.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I stopped taking Micheal Moore seriously after "Bowling For Columbine". He didn't even make that many good points about gun control, he just put up some people affected by guns and said "see, guns r bad" completely forgetting that they are neutral fucking inanimate objects that can prevent violence just by being displayed and that states with heavy gun control have higher crime rates because crooks don't fear an armed response. That's not the democrat line, so he won't tow that.

If I recall, for a time (or it may still be true now), he had armed body guards. He said something to the affect that he needed these guys to have guns to protect him from crazy people.

...Which, if you think about it, is a reason to allow gun ownership.

 

[Calbeck]

Ummm just in case anybody does know, private companies ARE taking over America. Slowly, but they are. They already hold a huge chunk of political power, through lobbying and ex-employees and owners in government jobs. Politicians and CEO's are raking in all the money while thousands of people are desperate for jobs.

Why people don't do anything about it? Probably because the average America is somewhat ignorant and because they've had a strong stable economy up till now.

Try reading up on a little history.

For the first half of America's existence, corporations held a LOT more power. That's because there was ZERO regulation, ZERO accountability (outside of the actual marketplace), and ZERO protection for labor or even to prevent election fraud. The reason so many people died in early strikes was because it was perfectly legal for corporations to hire their own muscle and bust in the heads of "rioters" and "looters". Votes were routinely bought and sold for favors and cash, a practice now so untenable that Rod Blagovich lost his office over it.

American history has been a progression of the decline in corporate power...from the creation of "personhood" (which made corporations liable, just like people, for criminal and civil action), to the Sherman Anti-Trust Laws. We are nowhere near what things were like in the 1800s, or even the mid-1900s.

 

[Tim_Buoy]

I would start a killing spree

.......

Eh, Michael Moore doesn't seem to be the most reliable...
I'll pass.

Agreed. He's a shockumentary maker.

Granted, this doesn't invalidate everything he says...but he far too often oversimplifies extremely complex issues and relies on an emotional appeal to earn the sympathy of his viewers.

Ahhh. Good to see I'm not the only person who does not like Moore.

So no, I don't plan on watching this movie. But thanks

you should try reading micheal moore is a big fat stupid white person its a book written by the people he works with

 

[marfin_]

I see quite a lot of people here mistaking Leninism for Communism. Let's get something straight: there has never ever been a true Communist state. Communism is an Utopia and if you think it would be like 1984, you're wrong. 1984 is Stalinism. Communism is best described as The Federation in Star Trek: a world without currency, where every man can do whatever he wants, while being rewarded properly for his labor. A world where any man can live and thrive based on his efforts. A world where someone who just wants to keep a nice french bar can live as happily as an admiral.

Capitalism is flawed in many ways. It produces inequality and in the long run it leads to something even worse than Stalinism. What you end up with is a powerful elite (which you'll never be a part of, by the way), who control EVERYTHING, and the rest of the world, who're at the mercy of their leaders. If you thought Totalitarism was dead and gone, you'd be surprised just how close we are to it, but this time on a global scale.

As in the 19'th century, the Marxist ideals and warnings are perfectly valid in our current times. Marxism was a simple evolution of the term "citizen", invented by the French Revolution. But, since most of the reforms proposed (such as welfare, work protection, labor laws) have already been applied all over the world, we tend to forget just how Marxist we all are. Socialism was an attempt to put into effect the Marxist theory. It has been successfully applied in countries such as Great Britain, where the change was gradual and mixed in well with the existing Monarchy. Leninism pushed for sudden change, and overthrow of existing leaders, simple and violent revolution. It was a mistake and it evolved into its natural form: Stalinism, or better said, Big Brother. Russia, China and North Korea are perfect examples, but more toned variants can still be found all over the world, mostly in Arab states. Big Brothers appear in different forms, they don't need to be individuals for the ugly thing to work. Big Brothers can be spawned by any ideology, even capitalism. The best example is the USA which has 2 parties, 2 flavors of the same corrupt idea. A state in which the average citizen is at the mercy of laws made to enrich the rich. A state in which freedom of speech means nothing without being able to act or having anyone to listen. And yes, I'm thinking about Michael Moore right now.

So don't be too quick to dismiss socialism. It's a much better recipe for freedom and human rights. And, what's even more important, it can be applied much more efficiently now than it was a century ago.

I agree that communism is a Utopia, though we are corrupt and unfortunately will never make it work. Though the new race of supercomputers will be able to enjoy it though

 

[Calbeck]

I see quite a lot of people here mistaking Leninism for Communism. Let's get something straight: there has never ever been a true Communist state.

And we don't live in a true Capitalist state. By your logic, there's no room to claim that Capitalism is wrong, if there's no room to complain that Communism is wrong.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Right now though no other system has the capability of capitalism, communism is possible but so far the test runs have been far from desirable, socialist parliaments have never done well.

The problem with communism lies within the citizens just as much as the politicians and leaders. If everybody in the system gets paid the same amount and has no chance or earning more (or a significant amount more at least), then why should that person bother doing his or her best? They're going to get paid anyway, and putting the extra effort in would be pointless. Communism is flawed partly because it relies upon all it's citizens being willing to put in the work to keep the system going, despite being given no motivation to do so.

You'll have to forgive me if my views are somewhat misinformed, I only knew the difference between communism and capitalism when I was about 13, I've never studied it at school at my knowledge on the subject comes mainly from 1 or 2 years worth of books like animal farm and 1984, and internet discussions such as this one.

 

[Kair]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper.

Not even that. You can clearly see it will not work without having to put it into practice.

What is worse, to say that Communism is only good as a hypothesis, or to not even know what the hypothesis is before you comment on it.

The first is ignorant because a hypothesis needs to be tested before it can be falsified. The second is ignorant because not only because you say your imagined hypothesis is good (which it most likely is not since it is not a true hypothesis), but because you do not do enough research to even know what the hypothesis is.

Hey genius it has been tested in the following countries:
Russia
China
Cuba
Laos
North Korea
Vietnam

? are any of these countries not know for being repressive to their peoples?

You think revolutionary worker's states are attempts at Communism?

 

[franconbean]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper. In real life though it never really worked well for anybody not ruling the country.

The same could be said for Anarchy... and no one rules the country in that political system...

OT: The form of Capitalism we have now is too much. It needs to have some accountability attached to it. some REAL accountability. There needs to be more regulation. I'm personally in favour of incremental tax increases in percentage for people higher up the wage ladder. Not quite as extreme as the Labour party in the UK in the 70's, but higher than now.

The biggest problem with Capitalism now is that money = political power

 

[Staskala]

I see quite a lot of people here mistaking Leninism for Communism. Let's get something straight: there has never ever been a true Communist state. Communism is an Utopia and if you think it would be like 1984, you're wrong. 1984 is Stalinism. Communism is best described as The Federation in Star Trek: a world without currency, where every man can do whatever he wants, while being rewarded properly for his labor. A world where any man can live and thrive based on his efforts. A world where someone who just wants to keep a nice french bar can live as happily as an admiral.

That's kinda interesting, considering that Marx and Engels never described how the ultimate communist society would look like.
The original tale of communism ends at the establishment of a ruling "worker's party of equals" after the "ruling class" has been driven out - peacefully or not.
Everything that came after that was left to the people themselves, and regardless of whether you like the ending they found or not, they were all communist tales from start to finish.

With your stance on socialism I strongly agree though.

SNIP

You're writing this on a computer I assume? And in a house for that matter? And I'm guessing you or your parents own a car, phone and have hopefully stable jobs and steady wages? You get impartial news from a variety of sources (unless your in America, they're still catching up with the rest of the developed world), you have a varied and healthy diet? And the options to experience many different cuisines should you wish? You have a decent education with trained staff and a right to a diplomatic government?

Funny how you bring up education, which is the one thing modern nations should copy from communism.
Free education to the highest possible degree for everyone, regardless of social background, is one of the few worthwhile communist ideas.

 

[malestrithe]

Because I do not trust him at all. He is a failed movie director that got lucky in the late 80s with Roger and Me. He has demonstrated in the past that his narrative is far more important that any sense of truth telling and is willing to lie to tell it.

Actually, lie is too strong of a word. He is willing to mislead people and put things out of order if it fits the narrative he wants.

He bold faced lied with Roger and Me. He had two sit down interviews with Roger Smith, a fact that has been verified by Roger Smith, General Motors, and a Automobile trade magazine. Michael still insists that he never had the interview and will pitch a fit that you disrupt his narrative.

 

[marfin_]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper.

Not even that. You can clearly see it will not work without having to put it into practice.

What is worse, to say that Communism is only good as a hypothesis, or to not even know what the hypothesis is before you comment on it.

The first is ignorant because a hypothesis needs to be tested before it can be falsified. The second is ignorant because not only because you say your imagined hypothesis is good (which it most likely is not since it is not a true hypothesis), but because you do not do enough research to even know what the hypothesis is.

Hey genius it has been tested in the following countries:
Russia
China
Cuba
Laos
North Korea
Vietnam

? are any of these countries not know for being repressive to their peoples?

You think revolutionary worker's states are attempts at Communism?

... umm yes. I thought I was clear on that.

btw I'm surprised there has not been any "in soviet Russia" jokes yet.

 

[Raregolddragon]

Yea buddy Moore is all flash no Photo.

The facts in any of his movies are so distorted they are more works of fiction then facts.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

I can't watch anything by him. I tried watching Bowling for Columbine, and had to stop by the time he was touring Canada.

It's not that he doesn't make some valid points, but he's so concerned about pointing out issues that he forgets to mention possible ways for people to fix them. He's just a shockumentary kind of guy.

Also, Bowling for Columbine...your answer is simple Moore, it's cultural differences. I don't mean movies, music, and games. Yes, the news has a part, but look at the history of the countries, the values, and things of that nature.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Michael Moore is about as legitimate a documentary maker as an amnesiac chinchilla named Jim.

I think this quote about Sicko sums it up best:

"Here's the deal, Michael Moore is not a documentarian, he's a propagandist. He's said it again and again, it's propaganda. Now, listen carefully folks, propaganda isn't necessarily incorrect."