"capitalism Is E V I L," .....says New Michael Moore Film

[LaoPo]

"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film

Sun Sep 6, 2009 11:59am EDT

By Mike Collett-White

U.S. director Michael Moore poses during a photocall at the 66th Venice Film Festival September 6, 2009.

VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.

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."

The bad guys in Moore's mind are big banks and hedge funds which "gambled" investors' money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood and which belonged in the casino.

Meanwhile, large companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits.

The filmmaker also sees an uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street.

He says that by encouraging Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the crisis, and with it homelessness and unemployment.

Moore even features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

"Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience in Venice.

"They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently in order to create finance and money, support for jobs, businesses, etc."

GREEN SHOOTS?

Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event," he told a news conference. "If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him."

Moore also warned other countries around the world against following the recent U.S. economic and political model.

The film follows factory workers who stage a sit-in at a Chicago glass factory when they are sacked with little warning and no pay and who eventually prevail over the bank.

And a group of citizens occupies a home that has been repossessed and boarded up by the lending company, forcing the police who come to evict them to back down.

The film re-visits some of Moore's earlier movies, including a trip to his native Flint where his father was a car assembly line worker and was able to buy a home, a car, educate his children and look forward to a decent pension.

But he brings it up to date with an examination of the financial crisis, demanding to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and demanding that banks give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.

And he interviews an employee of a firm which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures.

-- Reuters Sunday September 6, 2009

LaoPo

[TerraPosse]

Well, nothing all that new then.  He'll be preaching to the converted whilst those that always hated him will still be wishing Sen. McCarthy was still around to put an end to such 'un-american' behaviour.

[RKASA]

And what is democratic about anything that would replace it?  Nothing.  Michael Moore is to the left what Rush is to the right.  An equally self promoting moron of about the same weight and dimensions.  We can only hope they cancel each other out.  Blob meets blob.

Perhaps Michael will visit North Korea and fail to return from his new found utopia.  Please.

[aussiebebe]

I'd love to see this film, does anyone know how I can watch it? If there are any cinemas showing in BK, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

[LaoPo]

I'd love to see this film, does anyone know how I can watch it? If there are any cinemas showing in BK, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

Trailer and more news:

http://www.capitalismalovestory.com/

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Film Reviews

Capitalism: A Love Story

By Deborah Young, september 06, 2009 01:08 ET

Bottom Line: Building the case for capitalism as an obscene evil was never so easy.

Venice Film Festival (Competition)

VENICE -- Twenty years after "Roger & Me" introduced Michael Moore to the world as a politically engaged documaker with a strong knack for showmanship, "Capitalism: A Love Story" sums up his disgust with corporate America and its devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people.

Ending on the notes of the "Internationale" as Moore theatrically encircles New York banks with crime scene tape, the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it's less focused than "Sicko" or "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- whose boxoffice it should resemble -- because its subject is more abstract, this is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

Simplifications are Moore's stock-in-trade, and his documentaries are not known for their impeccable research and objectivity. But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of '50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present. Given the desperate state of the world economy, this provocative film should find attentive audiences along with many angry detractors who will give it free publicity.

As in his previous films, Moore is himself the chief character, offscreen narrator and investigator. Wearing his inseparable baseball cap and T-shirt, he pretends wide-eyed surprise as his interview subjects recount personal dramas related to America's economic meltdown. These are genuinely moving stories: a couple whose farm is in foreclosure, a family that discovers the father's company has taken out a lucrative insurance policy and earned $5 million on his premature death, tearful workers whose factory is suddenly shut down, commercial airline pilots so underpaid they live on food stamps.

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors. Even the Catholic Church is marshaled in support of his argument, and Moore finds several priests and a bishop who condemn capitalism as an immoral and incompatible with Jesus and the Bible.

The second half of the film is even more chilling in suggesting, through interviews with a number of worried members of Congress, that the country's $700 billion bailout was legalized bank robbery, a "financial coup d'etat" run through Congress just before elections and engineered principally by Goldman Sachs and Henry Paulson.

Though it blames all political parties, including the Democrats, for caving in with the bailout, the film is careful to spare President Barack Obama, who remains a symbol of hope for justice. His support for the workers who stage a sit-in at their factory is paralleled to Franklin D. Roosevelt's call for a new bill of rights -- never implemented -- guaranteeing universal health care.

A Paramount Vantage, Overture Films presentation in association with the Weinstein Co.

Production company: Dog Eat Dog Films

Sales: Paramount Vantage

Director-screenwriter: Michael Moore

Producers: Michael Moore, Anne Moore

Co-producers: Rod Birleson, John Hardesty

Director of photography: Dan Marracino, Jayme Ro

Music: Jeff Gibbs

Editors: Conor O'Neill, John Walter

No rating, 120 minutes

Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-r...004009622.story

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

The Times Online UK:

September 7, 2009

Capitalism: A Love Story at the Venice Film Festival

Having already tackled the Iraq war (Fahrenheit 9/11) and American healthcare (Sicko), the rabble-rousing docu-thug Michael Moore sets his sights on the US economy. And the audience at the Venice Film Festival, where the film premiered, was eating out of his hand. Not only did the film prompt enthusiastic cheers as the end titles rolled, some particularly eager souls applauded the opening credits.

It is not capitalism per se with which Moore takes issue. Rather it’s Wall Street and corporate America that are the villains here, in a US-centric film that sticks firmly within his country’s borders.

The film starts by juxtaposing a bloated and doomed Roman empire and shots of Washington DC, before segueing into an eye-opening whistlestop tour of US social and corporate ills. A family is evicted from the home they built themselves, on a fourth-generation farm. A scavenging property broker gloats as he explains how other people’s personal tragedies are his meal ticket. The corporate practice of taking out “dead peasant” insurance on their employees, meaning that they benefit from the employee’s death, is exposed. An assortment of priests and bishops are wheeled on to explain that capitalism is evil and was not, in fact, the preferred economic model of our Lord and Saviour. The camera hungrily hones in on crying children and the desperate and disenfranchised.

Subtle it ain’t. But even those who are resistant to Moore’s looming presence in front of the camera would have to agree that his techniques are effective, even if those techniques frequently boil down to taking the glaringly obvious and then simplifying it further.

While the subject matter has been covered before, more thoroughly, in films such as The Corporation (2003) and the Oscar-nominated I.O.U.S.A. (2008), the clout of the Moore name should ensure that his message has a wider reach.

Despite, or perhaps because of, his weakness for crass manipulation, Moore mounts a persuasive case that all is not well with America. Thanks to his trademark use of archive footage and witty, playful editing, this film is as much entertainment as it is a polemic.

His solution to the evils of capitalism (Democracy! Yay!) is less compelling. He ends the film with what sounds like a campaign slogan: “I refuse to live in a country like this. And I’m not leaving!” he rages, before exhorting the audience to “join me”.

Whether the American public will be persuaded to part with more hard-earned cash to hear more economic bad news remains to be seen.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle6823875.ece

LaoPo

[maccaroni man]

i'm sure mr. moore will donate all his profits to his favorite charity; himself

[sokal]

Micheal Moore is fat

[Geekfreaklover]

Micheal Moore is fat

And American.

[flying]

i'm sure mr. moore will donate all his profits to his favorite charity; himself

Edited September 7, 2009 by flying

[phetaroi]

And what is democratic about anything that would replace it? Nothing. Michael Moore is to the left what Rush is to the right. An equally self promoting moron of about the same weight and dimensions. We can only hope they cancel each other out. Blob meets blob.

You hit it exactly right. There are conservative nut cases and liberal nut cases.

[losworld]

And what is democratic about anything that would replace it? Nothing. Michael Moore is to the left what Rush is to the right. An equally self promoting moron of about the same weight and dimensions. We can only hope they cancel each other out. Blob meets blob.

Perhaps Michael will visit North Korea and fail to return from his new found utopia. Please.

I really fail to understand these all or nothing arguments. Who says Michael Moore is espousing socialism or communism? Although I haven't seen the film nor likely has anyone here I think he is probably arguing for a more true democratic system that is not controlled by an elite (i.e. Wall Street Media Conglomerate). This type of argument reminds me of when someone criticizes the Democrats and is immediately branded a Republican and vice versa. Maybe Capitalism and Socialism are currently like Democrats and Republicans in the "same crap different pile". If the goal of a system is simply to create a ruling class with special privileges then maybe there are more similarities than differences? I'm not saying dump Capitalism but rather reform it. You don't have to go to Socialism to reform a corrupt Capitalist system.

[RKASA]

In the case of Moore and Rush it is fair to place them in the same pile along with their well timed and whipped up hysteria pieces.  

Capitalism is always being reformed by laws and has been an on going process.  I would caution against confusing the abuses of some with a failed system.  I don't always like what we see in the press i.e. Moore's work, but I would never reform his rights and the right of other in order to satisfy my disapproval. The system has not failed us.  Its serves us that he made it and had the right to.  Same applies to Rush.  

Most of the activity in Capitalism is fair, transparent, and productive.  Sometimes abuse can be of large scale but its not the entity of capitalism that is to blame.  Socialism has proven itself time again to be full of corruption and abuse and minus the opportunity for all but the select and politically correct.  I prefer a system of opportunity over government subjugation which is what reforms often means or end up being and its rare that it ever does it resolve the problem which is one of human failing to start with,  that would still happen in any system.  

Sometimes we just have to roll with the punches. 

[Trickcyclist]

how many evicted home owners and redundant factory workers can you get in a gondola???

"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film

Sun Sep 6, 2009 11:59am EDT

By Mike Collett-White

U.S. director Michael Moore poses during a photocall at the 66th Venice Film Festival September 6, 2009.

VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.

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."

The bad guys in Moore's mind are big banks and hedge funds which "gambled" investors' money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood and which belonged in the casino.

Meanwhile, large companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits.

The filmmaker also sees an uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street.

He says that by encouraging Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the crisis, and with it homelessness and unemployment.

Moore even features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

"Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience in Venice.

"They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently in order to create finance and money, support for jobs, businesses, etc."

GREEN SHOOTS?

Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event," he told a news conference. "If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him."

Moore also warned other countries around the world against following the recent U.S. economic and political model.

The film follows factory workers who stage a sit-in at a Chicago glass factory when they are sacked with little warning and no pay and who eventually prevail over the bank.

And a group of citizens occupies a home that has been repossessed and boarded up by the lending company, forcing the police who come to evict them to back down.

The film re-visits some of Moore's earlier movies, including a trip to his native Flint where his father was a car assembly line worker and was able to buy a home, a car, educate his children and look forward to a decent pension.

But he brings it up to date with an examination of the financial crisis, demanding to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and demanding that banks give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.

And he interviews an employee of a firm which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures.

-- Reuters Sunday September 6, 2009

LaoPo

[maccaroni man]

Personally I don’t understand why capitalism is so often times equated with Wall Street when in fact it is no further than the shop keeper, street vendor, or flea market. having said this, when the govt gets involved in making rules to create some sort of equality for all it is the small business capitalist that ends up paying as well as the wealthy on wall street. IMHO if the people making the rules ever had to make a pay roll they would be a lot less likely to tax the capitalist who keep the economy rolling.

[Nilrem]

And what is democratic about anything that would replace it? Nothing. Michael Moore is to the left what Rush is to the right. An equally self promoting moron of about the same weight and dimensions. We can only hope they cancel each other out. Blob meets blob.

Perhaps Michael will visit North Korea and fail to return from his new found utopia. Please.

I really fail to understand these all or nothing arguments. Who says Michael Moore is espousing socialism or communism? Although I haven't seen the film nor likely has anyone here I think he is probably arguing for a more true democratic system that is not controlled by an elite (i.e. Wall Street Media Conglomerate). This type of argument reminds me of when someone criticizes the Democrats and is immediately branded a Republican and vice versa. Maybe Capitalism and Socialism are currently like Democrats and Republicans in the "same crap different pile". If the goal of a system is simply to create a ruling class with special privileges then maybe there are more similarities than differences? I'm not saying dump Capitalism but rather reform it. You don't have to go to Socialism to reform a corrupt Capitalist system.

Good encapsulation. "Same crap different pile" is an excellent analogy. And, you are quite right about reforming a corrupt capitalist system.

Further, the dominant world social theory (maximand of self-interest relative to maximizing profits for producers in equilibrium with consumers making the most of utility) doesn't distinguish selfish-interests in professed theory and is non-existent in any political platform or policy. Academic professors necessarily have blinkers on; politicians are simply blind. Still, reformation is possible and there is a theory to do it.

There is a difference in kind between self-interest and selfish-interest (not merely one of degree in the status quo theory) according to the scientific Ego'n'Empathy Hypothesis. This implies free markets become corrupt, when not fair, which may now be scientifically proven but has always been common sense, in my mind. For a viable reformation self-interest relative to capitalism in free and fair markets must be distinguished from selfish-interests relative to greedy capitalism that corrupt markets. In other words, capitalism per se isn't evil, greed and wanton desire is evil and a system which perpetuates it is the vehicle of evil on the road to Hades -- and the whole world is onboard!

[skipvice]

what a bunch of bull crap

[Beacher]

Do people really take Michael Moore seriously? He would like to think of himself as a probing investigative journalist, but in fact he's just another cog in the mainstream media facade. Although he's a big fat man, his stories are actually pretty lightweight with numerous gaps in the information he presents and too often factually wrong. He sensationalizes all he touches and never lets the true facts interfere with the development of a story. I think the worst piece of crap he's ever done was the one about 9/11 -- let's avoid the real issues and focus on a bunch of superficial crap. The man's a phony!

Saying that, capitalism IN ITS PRESENT FORM does have problems, but that's mostly due to the fact that governments are controlled by big business. If Moore actually goes into this with some real depth, then maybe he's got a film worth watching, but it would be the first time ever that he actually dug deep and took a chance of upsetting anybody of importance and power.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Beacher

[lannarebirth]

Do people really take Michael Moore seriously? He would like to think of himself as a probing investigative journalist, but in fact he's just another cog in the mainstream media facade. Although he's a big fat man, his stories are actually pretty lightweight with numerous gaps in the information he presents and too often factually wrong. He sensationalizes all he touches and never lets the true facts interfere with the development of a story. I think the worst piece of crap he's ever done was the one about 9/11 -- let's avoid the real issues and focus on a bunch of superficial crap. The man's a phony!

Saying that, capitalism IN ITS PRESENT FORM does have problems, but that's mostly due to the fact that governments are controlled by big business. If Moore actually goes into this with some real depth, then maybe he's got a film worth watching, but it would be the first time ever that he actually dug deep and took a chance of upsetting anybody of importance and power.

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes. If he made a movie about how stupid, selfish and greedy most people are, and that the source of most of their problems is themselves, how many tickets do you think he would sell?

[flying]

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes.

Thru its elected officials? Yeah that is what I thought too.

Then I woke up.

[Beacher]

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes.

I really can't help but think that your view on this is somewhat naive!

Edited September 8, 2009 by Beacher

[lannarebirth]

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes.

Thru its elected officials? Yeah that is what I thought too.

Then I woke up.

It's the truth. I probably should have included "over a span of years".

You'd have had health care in America 15 years ago at a cheaper price if the government hadn't let itself be lobbied by special interests ((which the public controls BTW). Bushes tax cuts never made any sense but you still got'em because people don't like paying taxes for the things they use. Not when you can borrow the money. Well those decisions are being reflected today.

You know I've been travelling overseas all my life and one thing I always here from non Americans is "I know many Americans I like but I just can't stand or support america the country". I always tell them they have it backwards. In the most democratic nation on Earth, what the government does is a DIRECT reflection of the ignorance, greed and hatred of the populace.

[flying]

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes.

Thru its elected officials? Yeah that is what I thought too.

Then I woke up.

It's the truth. I probably should have included "over a span of years".

You'd have had health care in America 15 years ago at a cheaper price if the government hadn't let itself be lobbied by special interests ((which the public controls BTW). Bushes tax cuts never made any sense but you still got'em because people don't like paying taxes for the things they use. Not when you can borrow the money. Well those decisions are being reflected today.

You know I've been travelling overseas all my life and one thing I always here from non Americans is "I know many Americans I like but I just can't stand or support america the country". I always tell them they have it backwards. In the most democratic nation on Earth, what the government does is a DIRECT reflection of the ignorance, greed and hatred of the populace.

I dont see it that way at all.

Truth does not change over the span of years. If it does it was never true.

Folks who told you they like the people but hate the govt had it right.

People dont like taxes because it is excessive & unfair. Paying for the things WE use??? Or they use?

What does FED taxes buy the people?

Fat ass govt takes so much to do so little they should get the fuc_k out of the way.

We did not vote for TARP we voted against it.

We did not vote for the war in Afghanistan nor Iraq

This US Govt is a bloated beast that with any luck will soon explode & the mess it leaves will be cleaned up by whom?

The most democratic nation would be a lot more democratic if they include a

NONE OF THE ABOVE check box on all ballots going forward

Then we would see what you claim as a DIRECT reflection

Edited September 8, 2009 by flying

[Nilrem]

Do people really take Michael Moore seriously? He would like to think of himself as a probing investigative journalist, but in fact he's just another cog in the mainstream media facade. Although he's a big fat man, his stories are actually pretty lightweight with numerous gaps in the information he presents and too often factually wrong. He sensationalizes all he touches and never lets the true facts interfere with the development of a story. I think the worst piece of crap he's ever done was the one about 9/11 -- let's avoid the real issues and focus on a bunch of superficial crap. The man's a phony!

Saying that, capitalism IN ITS PRESENT FORM does have problems, but that's mostly due to the fact that governments are controlled by big business. If Moore actually goes into this with some real depth, then maybe he's got a film worth watching, but it would be the first time ever that he actually dug deep and took a chance of upsetting anybody of importance and power.

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes. If he made a movie about how stupid, selfish and greedy most people are, and that the source of most of their problems is themselves, how many tickets do you think he would sell?

Part of the problem is people themselves, not most. And, it's not a given that democracy dominates or that people have public choices (US party politics is case in point). The general movement away from democracy towards worldwide plutocracy indicates otherwise. However, believing the problems of capitalism are mostly due to the fact governments are controlled by big business is somewhat one-sided. Ever bigger governments as well as ever bigger businesses have a common denominator: controls of capitalists, desiring to get ever bigger. The control of government is indirectly through its debt and legislation partial to the general interest of values based on capital. The control of business is as shareholders and through management that can lobby legislators for the particular interests of capitalists. Capitalists, businesses, governments primarily revolves around plutocracy, not democracy, as far as I can see. Indeed, to reverse the movement from plutocracy towards democracy appears as part of a radical reformation of capitalism, which pertains to my previous post.

[Heng]

The ol' "I've made my bones, and think socialism for everyone else would be ideal for the world" hypocrisy.

[Nilrem]

You know I've been travelling overseas all my life and one thing I always here from non Americans is "I know many Americans I like but I just can't stand or support america the country". I always tell them they have it backwards. In the most democratic nation on Earth, what the government does is a DIRECT reflection of the ignorance, greed and hatred of the populace.

"...most democratic nation on Earth..."

On what grounds? By what reasoning?

I believe that America once moved the most towards democracy; now see them moving towards plutocracy, the greatest the world has ever seen.

Ever been in their schools? Never see such a state of societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery. The land of free enslaved themselves; then the home of brave filled themselves with fear.

[lannarebirth]

Do people really take Michael Moore seriously? He would like to think of himself as a probing investigative journalist, but in fact he's just another cog in the mainstream media facade. Although he's a big fat man, his stories are actually pretty lightweight with numerous gaps in the information he presents and too often factually wrong. He sensationalizes all he touches and never lets the true facts interfere with the development of a story. I think the worst piece of crap he's ever done was the one about 9/11 -- let's avoid the real issues and focus on a bunch of superficial crap. The man's a phony!

Saying that, capitalism IN ITS PRESENT FORM does have problems, but that's mostly due to the fact that governments are controlled by big business. If Moore actually goes into this with some real depth, then maybe he's got a film worth watching, but it would be the first time ever that he actually dug deep and took a chance of upsetting anybody of importance and power.

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes. If he made a movie about how stupid, selfish and greedy most people are, and that the source of most of their problems is themselves, how many tickets do you think he would sell?

Part of the problem is people themselves, not most. And, it's not a given that democracy dominates or that people have public choices (US party politics is case in point). The general movement away from democracy towards worldwide plutocracy indicates otherwise. However, believing the problems of capitalism are mostly due to the fact governments are controlled by big business is somewhat one-sided. Ever bigger governments as well as ever bigger businesses have a common denominator: controls of capitalists, desiring to get ever bigger. The control of government is indirectly through its debt and legislation partial to the general interest of values based on capital. The control of business is as shareholders and through management that can lobby legislators for the particular interests of capitalists. Capitalists, businesses, governments primarily revolves around plutocracy, not democracy, as far as I can see. Indeed, to reverse the movement from plutocracy towards democracy appears as part of a radical reformation of capitalism, which pertains to my previous post.

Since American citizens retirement abilities have become more and more tied to the price performance of corporate stocks, you might deduce that either wittingly or unwittingly the population accedes to the policies that create the best environment for price increases. I don't say the populace planned this outcome, but they have surely been co-opted. War with Iraq was seen as a "buying opportunity". How could killing people you don't know on the other side of the planet be bad if it can enhance your leisure in your retirement years?

Edited September 8, 2009 by lannarebirth

[Beacher]

Do people really take Michael Moore seriously? He would like to think of himself as a probing investigative journalist, but in fact he's just another cog in the mainstream media facade. Although he's a big fat man, his stories are actually pretty lightweight with numerous gaps in the information he presents and too often factually wrong. He sensationalizes all he touches and never lets the true facts interfere with the development of a story. I think the worst piece of crap he's ever done was the one about 9/11 -- let's avoid the real issues and focus on a bunch of superficial crap. The man's a phony!

Saying that, capitalism IN ITS PRESENT FORM does have problems, but that's mostly due to the fact that governments are controlled by big business. If Moore actually goes into this with some real depth, then maybe he's got a film worth watching, but it would be the first time ever that he actually dug deep and took a chance of upsetting anybody of importance and power.

Both governments and corporations in democratic countries are controlled by the choices the public makes. If he made a movie about how stupid, selfish and greedy most people are, and that the source of most of their problems is themselves, how many tickets do you think he would sell?

Part of the problem is people themselves, not most. And, it's not a given that democracy dominates or that people have public choices (US party politics is case in point). The general movement away from democracy towards worldwide plutocracy indicates otherwise. However, believing the problems of capitalism are mostly due to the fact governments are controlled by big business is somewhat one-sided. Ever bigger governments as well as ever bigger businesses have a common denominator: controls of capitalists, desiring to get ever bigger. The control of government is indirectly through its debt and legislation partial to the general interest of values based on capital. The control of business is as shareholders and through management that can lobby legislators for the particular interests of capitalists. Capitalists, businesses, governments primarily revolves around plutocracy, not democracy, as far as I can see. Indeed, to reverse the movement from plutocracy towards democracy appears as part of a radical reformation of capitalism, which pertains to my previous post.

I agree that I've over-simplified this, and it goes much deeper than big busioness, but my main intention was to state that if people believe that they have a true choice about who sits in power in the government and that these "governments" are truly democratically elected, they are wrong and a bit naive in thinking that.

[lannarebirth]

You know I've been travelling overseas all my life and one thing I always here from non Americans is "I know many Americans I like but I just can't stand or support america the country". I always tell them they have it backwards. In the most democratic nation on Earth, what the government does is a DIRECT reflection of the ignorance, greed and hatred of the populace.

"...most democratic nation on Earth..."

On what grounds? By what reasoning?

I believe that America once moved the most towards democracy; now see them moving towards plutocracy, the greatest the world has ever seen.

Ever been in their schools? Never see such a state of societal indoctrination, social engineering and subjective slavery. The land of free enslaved themselves; then the home of brave filled themselves with fear.

Yes, that's the point I've been making here for months and years. I think we only differ in our view inthat I think they chose this outcome through perceived selfish interest and that it could not have been imposed if that condition were not extant.