I just watched Capitalisam.A love story....Why the fuck don't you do something about it?
- Thread starter xbox hero
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The hand chopping was not in British India but in Belgain Congo. (As far as I am aware, I could of course be wrong.)Giest4life said:
See the replies, OP? There's your answer. America's not exactly teeming with open minds or free thinkers.
I hate to just hop into this but, why must the two be mutually exclusive?Nimcha said:
xbox hero said:
The point to consider here is that it's Michael Moore. What he thinks is going to appeal to left wingers already leaning towards socialism. He sells a message by attacking what's wrong with a current system, while ignoring what's right about it, and also not presenting much in the way of a fair analysis of the few alternatives he presents. While popular with a specific group of people, there are a lot of reasons why Mr. Moore has never gone beyond what basically amounts to preaching to the choir and rabble rousing.
To explain why "I don't do anything about it" I'll sort of quote one of my old teachers:
Within society we have more an overwhelmingly larger number of people at the bottom than at the top. The people at the bottom of a society are always going to be exploited, and are NEVER going to be happy with their lot in life. Within a capitalist society the people at
the bottom are going to long for shared wealth, looking at the people who have come out on top of the competition and how much they have, and rant about how it's unfair, especially seeing as they use that wealth to maintain their own position and preventing a lot of it from trickling down. That guy sits there and will argue that the wealth should be evenly distributed because it winds up benefitting him. The thing is though that when you see a system come into power that endeavors to fairly distribute the wealth, you wind up with the issue of needing to have a strong society in order to produce the wealth and resources to be distributed for everyone's benefit. In order to get people to work, this ultimatly leads to a system by which the share of a society's wealth a person is entitled to has to do with their contributions to it. A sort of "worker's paradise" where by working harder you achieve more. This ultimatly requires a goverment to effectively take control of the resources and then fairly distribute them. Of course given the option everyone is going to want to contribute in their own way, everyone will want to be something important, an artist, a leader, an engineer, a doctor, nobody is going to want to be a ditch digger, low end food preparation worker, or factory monkey. As a result the goverment has to step in and decide who does what job, in order to ensure all the needed jobs are done, and this means it winds up deciding who gets the most wealth, and of course those who do the deciding have the most important jobs of all and take the largest portions of wealth for themselves, and give the best jobs to their friends and family. The guys on the bottom of this system look at it and go "damn, I should be able to compete directly, and determine my own fate and how much wealth I have!".
It's easy to criticize any system, and to present alternatives on paper, making a society work in reality is something else entirely. You look at the problems with the bank system we're facing here in the US, and it's easy to say "this is wrong, we should tear the whole system down" but truthfully any system we replace it with is liable to be just as bad or worse.
At least within the US system, I can point out that the sharks at the top of society are guys who got there due to competition. The guys on top of our society are generally exceptional in some way. It could be intelligence, talent, beauty, athletic abillity, charisma, or just plain ruthlessness. What's more those sharks always have to worry about another, bigger shark waiting to take them down. Fortunes are won and lost, kids who inherit money and don't have the abillity to at least pick the right people to trust, don't wind up keeping those fortunes. To the guy at the bottom it always sucks, but I figure your going to be exploited anyway, and at least under the US system there was always the chance if you were good enough that you could have been the banker (or whatever) doing the exploiting, in a more socialist system the order is predetermined and it comes down to what the goverment decides and who you know, what you can do generally winds up being irrelevent, if you don't know anyone... well society needs ditch diggers, and guess what your lifelong career is going to be?
Don't get me wrong, a lot of what guys like Michael Moore says can be very seductive. I point to things like the Russian revolution as examples of the kind of major uprising that he (and you, the OP) would want to see. In the end the guys who fought in that war on the bottom just wound up on the bottom of the new system. Indeed, for all the criticisms of him Stalin "The Steel Angel" wound up having to save the country through his brutality. After the Revolution nobody wanted to go to work, everyone figured "I fought so I could now live an easy life" and of course a society can't work that way, it needs farmers to feet the people, workers to run the factories, and everything else. The point of Stalin's reeducation camps (Gulags) was to force the communist revolutionaries to go back to work. He didn't so much want to kill people, but pretty much figured if he killed 99 out of every 100 people that went into the camps, it would be worth it if that 1 guy coming out was a productive worker. One of the reasons why he's contreversial is because he really did save Russia, and turned it into a major world power. I'm not a fan personally, because I personally tend to view the situation as one that only occured due to stupidity to begin with, basically an example of what happens when you start screaming "we must tear down this unfair society" without any kind of viable plan on what to replace it with. The Russian revolution was based on a philsophy that was by it's very nature unworkable, since people are generally not going to just agree to do backbreaking labour for little personal reward to support the overall society on their own.
I'd also point out that Michael Moore also tends not to look at the big picture. See he can toss stuff like "Sicko" out there, and scream the praises of socialized medicine from the rooftops. while knocking the US system, but like most of his stuff he winds up missing crucial elements against his own case.
For example, one thing many people tend not to like to think about is that the US medical market props up the entire medical industry for the entire world. All of these nations with socialized medical systems are able to have them because of the US.
Simply put, developing drugs is expensive, ESPECIALLY developing drugs safely like people want. Ditto for developing new surgical devices and techniques. The guys investing millions and billions of dollars into these projects, and abiding by the safety requirements (which increase every year) do so in order to make money.
The US represents the biggest market on the planet for the moment, and it's one of the only major companies where the medical establishment can actually sell it's goods and services as a product. The big drug and medical companies that simply take whatever the goverment decides it wants to pay in other nations, rely on the USA heavily in order to recoup their losses and make a profit. This is one of the big reasons why so many big drug companies, including those largely from other nations (like Merck and Pfizers) operate so heavily out of the US and have these huge facilities down here.
This isn't a good thing, but if the US was to socialize it's medicine, or otherwise change the system signifigantly, we'd destroy the medical industry, not just here, but throughout the entire civilized world. It wouldn't happen overnight, but you would of course find less companies willing to invest huge amounts of money into the research and development since they would have no way of recouping the losses. Sure, there WOULD be goverment research and a few philanthropists, but it wouldn't be development anything like the level we see now. Production is also an issue, nobody is going to produce drugs and equipment to exacting safety standards that they can't get a return on.... like any situation that relies on a product being produced, you need a market to sustain that production.
Michael Moore is a good Comedian, I liked "TV Nation", but as he's gotten into politics I think he's gone off the deep end. I get that he's a socialist with an axe to grind, but the problem is that he's not even one of the more workable socialists. Anyone who would follow what this guy says has an issue, because if you DID tear down the systems he points at, turning to him as a leader to determine "what do we do now" wouldn't work, he doesn't have
a clue about a viable alternative goverment, and revolutions without those kinds of plans don't end well. As a result, I think he is one of those guys that needs to dial it back a bit since he seems to be trying to style himself as a modern Che Guevera with a video camera and a few cute one liners.
Of course I say this about most "revolutionaries", both in fantasy and in reality. There is no point in tearing down the evil empire if the guys doing it don't have a workable plan.
See, on the rare occasions when I talk about doing stuff like this (though rarely from the same perspective of Michael Moore, I'm more to the right wing than the left), I usually DO present a viable alternative as to how I think things could turn out. Of course most people don't like what I have to say because I'm honest enough to say that any slight improvement I could see being engineered doesn't come on a magical bed of roses just from having brought about the abillity to change. Of course then again most revolutions aren't inspired by people saying "yes, die for me by the millions, kill billions of people, and things will be a little better for the survivors" but by the promise of a sort of ideal golden age arising, and everyone radically improving their lot in life... and really that isn't realistic. In the case of our financial system, I think it works better than anything we could replace it with.
The Belgian Congo one is the more famous incident because they did it for the sake of cruelty. While the British have their share of atrocities, their chopping hands was mainly for economic reasons; a deterrent for others to not to do the same.stefanbertramlee said:
Michael Moore isn't as bad as everyone says. His use of editing is more restrained than, say, a reality TV show. Sure, he's a hypocrite considering he's made buttloads of cash by condemning rich people, but at least he's raising awareness about important issues.
That said, I don't remember anything particularly evil in that movie. Made me wanna vote Green Party and donate to charity, but not go on a killing spree. Am I forgetting something here?
That said, I don't remember anything particularly evil in that movie. Made me wanna vote Green Party and donate to charity, but not go on a killing spree. Am I forgetting something here?
Because I'm not a leftist (though I do lean towards the left) nut job who religiously listens to Michael Moore. I've found that Michael Moore isn't entirely the best thing to be basing your beliefs on...actually he's at the other end of the spectrum. I wouldn't listen to him if he said a car was going to hit me and I was standing in the middle of a highway.
Moore's films aren't about thinking logically. They're about evoking an intended response.Gxas said:
One can say the same thing about any talking-head --- regardless of whether it appears on radio, television, or movie. Even Glenn Beck has "some truth" to what he claims --- because you cannot effectively con people (or yourself), if you don't first have at least some truth on your side.
"See this truth? We agree this is true, right? Okay, here's another truth...and here's something I suggest is truth but don't really quite show how or why it is...and voila! The Jews are running Germany. We need to DO something about this!"
Yeah, I prefer to think logically myself. This is why I don't like Michael Moore.
WwwwwwwOW, that's a lowering of the bar...Glass Joe the Champ said:
Here's an idea: communism is actually a shitty idea on paper too. Why? Because other people get to benefit from my work without my permission. Work is time, and time is life. So other people get to steal my life from me. I don't care about the masses, they're a statistic. I care about the people close to me and myself and I would much rather donate my life to people I care about than have it forcibly taken from me to benefit someone I don't even know.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
^this. Michael Moore makes everything one-sided. If you've seen sicko you know this. Hell I would argue that only one of his "documentaries" is even worth watching and that's Bowling for Columbine and even that one is incredibly one sided and pretty damn bad.TheIronRuler said:
It's mostly because it greatly exaggerates things and shows worse case scenario situations, and partly because Michael Moore is a massive blowhard. He loves making a big talk about the fat cats that run Wallstreet, the evils of Capitalism, and how the rich are running the country although I'm sure that he has to be filthy rich after making his documentaries and just because he dresses in street clothes and drives a prius doesn't make him the working class.
Capitalism isn't perfect and has flaws that people can exploit. Shocker, what type of economy doesn't have these flaws. Communism isn't as evil as people think but I'd take capitalism over it any day. Moore is good at being dramatic and firing people up, although I wouldn't take all of his ideals to heart.
Capitalism isn't perfect and has flaws that people can exploit. Shocker, what type of economy doesn't have these flaws. Communism isn't as evil as people think but I'd take capitalism over it any day. Moore is good at being dramatic and firing people up, although I wouldn't take all of his ideals to heart.
communism is the perfect form of government, the only problem is humans arent perfectmarfin_ said:
Michael Moore is a trustworthy filmmaker to the same degree that Fox and MSN are unbiased news shows.
Well yes that certainly explains the how certain resources were acquired, but what do you think happened to them once they were shipped back home? It took people who knew what to do with the materials and entrepreneurs to make those new technologies and ideas a reality. The economy did not become greater just from acquiring more resources. That was beautifully illustrated by Spain during the 16th century in which it had held wealth equivalent to 1 trillion US dollars in gold and silver from its colonies and had abruptly lost nearly all of it due to ?investments? which did not help Spain's long-term economic integrity and ultimately led to inflation.Giest4life said:
I'm just going to address a few points quickly.
1. Everyone keeps saying that one of the biggest problems with Capitalism is that rich people are inordinately greedy. This is true in SOME cases, but most of the "greed" is really just wanting a better life. Everyone wants a better life, especially if they have a family to take care of, and money is actually the quickest and easiest path to it. Nobody likes to admit it, but there it is.
2. Some have asserted that the rich prevent others from being rich. This goes against the fact that most rich people in America, at least, are self-made. They are good with money, don't buy things they can't afford for more than they need to and use marketable skills or make a product for which there is a demand. There is an element of chance and meeting up with the right person (like a good marketing person) but for the most part you just have to work hard AND smart. Don't believe you can become super rich? Bill Gates. Used to just be a computer nerd. Found out people liked accessible, easy to use computers. Capitalized on it. Now he's rich beyond belief.
3. Part of the reason for the recent economic troubles are feelings of entitlement and instant gratification in people. Some of this is socialistic (assuring people they will be taken care of via government welfare programs and essentially rewarding able-bodied people for not working (unemployment benefits, though there are times this is appropriate)). Some of this is capitalistic (using credit cards to such an extent that you're buried in debt due to buying things you can't afford to own). But most of this stuff is caused by people acting like idiots (relying on a government that refuses to balance its own budget, buying into the idea that you NEED to have credit and therefore debt to succeed or get a loan (hint from observation and experience: YOU DON'T AND YOU NEVER DID)).
4. Someone mentioned something along the lines of "money = political power today." This is somewhat true, but it has ALWAYS been true to some extent of another. This is nothing new and as long as someone influential wants something, there will be someone willing to give it to them, for a price. And unless everyone is absolutely identical, there will always be someone influential.
5. I'm not an expert on Communism, but I've always understood that the problem with it is that to be brought about, it needs a huge, very powerful government to intentionally set the stage before it is eventually weakened if not outright abolished. The problem is that there are always people who don't want that government to lose that power. Maybe someone could correct me, but that is what I remember being taught.
1. Everyone keeps saying that one of the biggest problems with Capitalism is that rich people are inordinately greedy. This is true in SOME cases, but most of the "greed" is really just wanting a better life. Everyone wants a better life, especially if they have a family to take care of, and money is actually the quickest and easiest path to it. Nobody likes to admit it, but there it is.
2. Some have asserted that the rich prevent others from being rich. This goes against the fact that most rich people in America, at least, are self-made. They are good with money, don't buy things they can't afford for more than they need to and use marketable skills or make a product for which there is a demand. There is an element of chance and meeting up with the right person (like a good marketing person) but for the most part you just have to work hard AND smart. Don't believe you can become super rich? Bill Gates. Used to just be a computer nerd. Found out people liked accessible, easy to use computers. Capitalized on it. Now he's rich beyond belief.
3. Part of the reason for the recent economic troubles are feelings of entitlement and instant gratification in people. Some of this is socialistic (assuring people they will be taken care of via government welfare programs and essentially rewarding able-bodied people for not working (unemployment benefits, though there are times this is appropriate)). Some of this is capitalistic (using credit cards to such an extent that you're buried in debt due to buying things you can't afford to own). But most of this stuff is caused by people acting like idiots (relying on a government that refuses to balance its own budget, buying into the idea that you NEED to have credit and therefore debt to succeed or get a loan (hint from observation and experience: YOU DON'T AND YOU NEVER DID)).
4. Someone mentioned something along the lines of "money = political power today." This is somewhat true, but it has ALWAYS been true to some extent of another. This is nothing new and as long as someone influential wants something, there will be someone willing to give it to them, for a price. And unless everyone is absolutely identical, there will always be someone influential.
5. I'm not an expert on Communism, but I've always understood that the problem with it is that to be brought about, it needs a huge, very powerful government to intentionally set the stage before it is eventually weakened if not outright abolished. The problem is that there are always people who don't want that government to lose that power. Maybe someone could correct me, but that is what I remember being taught.
I don't think many of you understand Communism.
If you did not work, you would not be paid.
You get what you put in.
If you did not work, you would not be paid.
You get what you put in.