Michael Moore New Documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story" --- Official Trailer

[Rakhmetov]

I can't wait 'til this film comes out and stirs things up. We need more ruckmakers like Moore.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRRemRXmy9g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRRemRXmy9g)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_A_Love_Story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_A_Love_Story)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlMYzLlQ0n4

[Kassad]

So the guy that endorsed Obama is going to attack capitalism now? How cute.

[Sarah Palin]

Hopefully it's not half baked.

[Rakhmetov]

So the guy that endorsed Obama is going to attack capitalism now? How cute.

Chomsky told people to vote for Obama as opposed to Bush. Is Chomsky a capitalist now, eh?---Only in your absurd fantasies.

[bellyscratch]

This is pretty confusing... since when has Moore been anti-capitalist? :confused:

[leochaos]

While some(many)people like MM's movies/doc it is pretty clear that the guy is part of the system.We all are,but he is now into the upper classes.His films are at maximum a mild criticism of the state of things.
On the personal level I read that years ago he acted like a prima donna while in London creating problems to workers.
I remember that I found of bad taste how he treated the semi-senile C Heston in Bowling for C
The fact that till now he is always on camera is a minus for me.
About Chomsky(who I always read with interest) there are a lot of question marks.It seems that he refuses to debate a number of people from the left about Israel.And that he watered down a motion for an academic boycott of the zionist entity.
L understand that after 8 years of Bush, smarter liberals may look better and if you are american it may be a relief,but I guess we need something more.Moore may be progressive on some level,but I do not believe he is even remotely connected to the real left and I would suggest comrades not to spend any money to make him even richer.
I may be wrong but the guy seems...bad, for sure he is not honest.But then amerika is indeed the place not to be.If I have time I"ll post something by a sociologist who considers A one of the most corrupt countries of the world.Nothing strange there,if indeed the USA are number one of this lousy capitalist world,then they are also number one in...cheating/killing/creating fakes

[gorillafuck]

Chomsky told people to vote for Obama as opposed to Bush. Is Chomsky a capitalist now, eh?---Only in your absurd fantasies.
Obama never ran against Bush.....

[mykittyhasaboner]

Michael Moore had a tendency to hint some critiques of capitalism in Sicko, where he pretty much openly sided with socialized health care as opposed to the privately run US system. So it's not surprising that hes taking the next step and making a movie about the banking system, bailouts and what not. However since Moore's politics are kind of as liberalistic as they get, I don't expect much from this new film (especially since his style of film making is nowhere near as analytical or robust as they should be for the kind of critique hes going for).

Obama never ran against Bush.....
He probably meant McCain.


Hopefully it's not half baked.
It's going to be, its by Michael Moore.

[Kassad]

Chomsky told people to vote for Obama as opposed to Bush. Is Chomsky a capitalist now, eh?---Only in your absurd fantasies.

Except for the fact that Michael Moore stated that a proper alternative to the corporate bailouts would be the total nationalization of the automobile industry by a capitalist government ruled by capitalist parties with a capitalist trend of construction. Therefore, not only is your assertion bankrupt, but it is also fallacious and completely irrelevant for I said nothing of the sort. However, Chomsky is an anti-communist and his endorsement of Obama as opposed to supporting radical and revolutionary alternatives is not surprising from people such as he and Howard Zinn.

Also, I do like how your illogic continues by saying that Chomsky endorsed Obama over Bush, especially since they didn't run in the same election. Feel free to correct your ridiculous post.

[x359594]

...Chomsky is an anti-communist and his endorsement of Obama as opposed to supporting radical and revolutionary alternatives is not surprising from people such as he and Howard Zinn.

Also, I do like how your illogic continues by saying that Chomsky endorsed Obama over Bush, especially since they didn't run in the same election. Feel free to correct your ridiculous post.

Chomsky is also an anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist and anti-capitalist.

As to "endorsing" Obama, here's what he said to interviewer for Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: “Change” is the slogan of this year’s presidential election. Do you see any chance for an immediate, tangible change in the United States? Or, to use use Obama’s battle cry: Are you "fired up”?

Chomsky: Not in the least. The European reaction to Obama is a European delusion.

SPIEGEL: But he does say things that Europe has long been waiting for. He talks about the trans-Atlantic partnership, the priority of diplomacy and the reconciling of American society.

Chomsky: That is all rhetoric. Who cares about that? This whole election campaign deals with soaring rhetoric, hope, change, all sorts of things, but not with issues.

SPIEGEL: Do you prefer the team on the other side: the 72 year old Vietnam veteran McCain and Sarah Palin, former Alaskan beauty queen?


Chomsky: This Sarah Palin phenomenon is very curious. I think somebody watching us from Mars, they would think the country has gone insane.

SPIEGEL: Arch conservatives and religious voters seem to be thrilled.

Chomsky: One must not forget that this country was founded by religious fanatics. Since Jimmy Carter, religious fundamentalists play a major role in elections. He was the first president who made a point of exhibiting himself as a born again Christian. That sparked a little light in the minds of political campaign managers: Pretend to be a religious fanatic and you can pick up a third of the vote right away. Nobody asked whether Lyndon Johnson went to church every day. Bill Clinton is probably about as religious as I am, meaning zero, but his managers made a point of making sure that every Sunday morning he was in the Baptist church singing hymns.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yeah chomsky is about as relevant as michael moore.

[New Tet]

Yeah chomsky is about as relevant as michael moore.

Which in my estimation is very much.

[Kassad]

So if Noam Chomsky sees absolutely no difference or 'change' in the system through electoral processes; electing capitalists and preferring one over the other in bourgeois elections, why would he not just condemn elections completely and repudiate the Obama rhetoric? Because he's not really radical. Like so many other self-proclaimed socialists, he subscribes to the same rhetoric he claims to dismiss and winds up almost becoming an apologist for the system, as opposed to supporting its destruction. Sorry, but if you support a capitalist candidate in the elections, that is not a revolutionary stance.

[x359594]

...why would he not just condemn elections completely and repudiate the Obama rhetoric?...

Well, he's done precisely that in election cycles dating to 1964 at least to my knowledge, and possibly earlier. He's quite clear about that in his various recent interviews with the Al Jezeera News Agency.

To paraphrase an ancient carpenter, "It's by their fruits ye shall know them, not by the ideologies attributed to them by others."

In any case, speaking for myself, I've found his analysis of US foreign policy very useful since I first read his articles in the New York Review of Books 42 years ago, and in 1974 his book Peace in the Middle East? was one of the few books detailing the ambitions of Israel in the region and bringing to light the injustice done to the Palestinian people, as well as showing the role of the US. Many of the conclusions he drew in that book are now widely accepted by the anti-Zionist left.

It was shortly after the publication of that book that Chomsky was characterized as a "self-hating Jew" by Zionist sympathizers and doors in mainstream publishing started closing on him, including The New York Review of Books, formerly his main platform.

Also of value is his critique of the corporate media, and the propaganda model he developed with Ed Herman in Manufacturing Consent is a useful tool in the struggle against media manipulation.

Returning to Michael Moore, his films serve the useful purpose of exciting debate in the mainstream about the subjects he addresses. By contrast, Robert Greenwald and his Brave New Films productions are much more incisive, but they're directed to activists and recieve very limited distribution.

[Bilan]

Haha, the trailer is quite amusing.

[Hit The North]

Are you joking? Moore is a liberal apologist for capitalism, nationalism, imperialism etc.

He certainly ain't no left communist.


Originally posted by Bellyscratch
This is pretty confusing... since when has Moore been anti-capitalist? :confused:
People's views aren't set in stone. We might, post-'credit crunch', find increasing numbers of people who are becoming anti-capitalist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First of all, yes Michael Moore is not a radical – he’s not even as left-wing as he was in the late 90s when he was more directly critical of the Democrats.

Second of all: way to miss the forest for the trees in your ultra-left pissing contest. Maybe where y’all live there’s a new anti-corporate documentary opening at the mall every week, but where I live, I’m happy to see lines out the door to see a Michael Moore movie against the war or for full universal healthcare despite their political flaws.

I’m sorry if this movie attacking corporate America from a left and broadly working-class perspective will suck all the fine anti-capitalist politics of “GI Joe” or this fall’s “Crash” right out of the multi-plexes.

Michael Moore may not be a revolutionary, but he is better and more independent than most liberals and this has lead to some of his best political ideas as well as a good number of plain wacky ideas. His movies are the most popular documentaries in US history and his existence is a counterweight to many of the right-wing lies of the neo-liberal era. The right wants us to think that the US working class is white and made up of Archie Bunkers who go to town-hall meetings and hang out in Militias. The reality is more like what we see in Michael Moore movies – a multi-racial working class (mostly pro-Democrats unfortunately) trying to figure out why their experience is so much different than what they are told by politicians and the media.

[Jimmie Higgins]

no. He ain't. But he is a supporter of the "liberals" war in Afghanistan. Also the petty reforms of capitalism that he advocates are never going to happen. The American ruling class would never allow a nice and fuzzy capitalism that Moore advocates in his movies.Who says any documentary no matter what the politics would cause the ruling class to do anything?!!

Considering most Americans have such low expectations that they see Obama's heath insurance plan, designed by Republicans, as better than nothing, it's great that Moore has made a movie about socialized healthcare and how the right-wing tries to demonize and red-bait anything that will hurt profits while telling us it's for our own good.

Read some of the equivocating shit that passes for liberal thought in the US and then compare it to the effect that Moore's movie has on workers how see it. Take healthcare again - the mainstream liberals do not want to even talk about universal healthcare, they only want to talk about "a public option" so it's great that Moore is out there saying" what's wrong with socialiszed health" or "what's wrong with nationalizing the auto industry".

Moore's old-school liberalism "pro-union" and "pro-social-welfare" may still be liberalism, but at least it opens the door for more radical views to be part of the mainstream conversation in the US.

[Hit The North]

But he is a supporter of the "liberals" war in Afghanistan. Is this true? This seems to contradict the sentiments expressed in his film, Fahrenheit 9/11. This month he also did an interview for Rolling Stone magazine where he said:
“Same with Afghanistan,” he claims. While adding, “I don’t think there was a reason for the war” because “the Taliban are not an invading force – they are citizens of Afghanistan” and therefore “it is up to the citizens of Afghanistan whether they want to be oppressed,” Source: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2313338/posts

So from this it seems you are mistaken. Do you have any sources to the contrary?

[Kamerat]

Chomsky told people to vote for Obama as opposed to Bush. Is Chomsky a capitalist now, eh?---Only in your absurd fantasies.
Sounds like it, if he told people to vote Obama.
Fuck Chomsky, hes misleading the workingclass.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I can't wait to see it as well.

Moore:

a) Does not support the war in Afghanistan.

b) Is a democratic Socialist/Social Democrat. So, he isn't going to be gung-ho about capitalism like us. He, however, is gung-ho against corporatism like us.

c) Only supported Obama because of the lesser of two evils thing. If you noted that in 2000 he supported Ralph Nader you would see where his ideals lay.

Moore's dissent is about the only thing many on the left, in America, can look to in times of struggle. To realize what shouldn't be done.

[Hit The North]

He criticized Bush for not going after Bin Laden harder in Afganistan in Farenheit 911. Also see this (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0706-08.htm):



But I think he does this, no to support the war, but to show the lie that the invasion was about catching Bin Laden in the first place. His preferred interpretation is that the invasion was a strategic move by the U.S. to secure oil.

The article you link to makes some very good points, but I wouldn't want to argue that Moore doesn't have his political weaknesses. They are manifest. Engaging in calling him out on every deviation from your own line, however, just plays into the hands of the right wing people who hate him even more than you do.

[Die Rote Fahne]

But I think he does this, no to support the war, but to show the lie that the invasion was about catching Bin Laden in the first place. His preferred interpretation is that the invasion was a strategic move by the U.S. to secure oil.

The article you link to makes some very good points, but I wouldn't want to argue that Moore doesn't have his political weaknesses. They are manifest. Engaging in calling him out on every deviation from your own line, however, just plays into the hands of the right wing people who hate him even more than you do.

You, sir, are correct.

[x359594]

Sounds like it, if he told people to vote Obama.
Fuck Chomsky, hes misleading the workingclass.

He didn't tell people to vote for Obama.

As with Michael Moore's alleged support for the Afghanistan war there's a lot of mis-information going around including unsourced attributions.

Then there's the question of context. Let's not forget that Marx and Engels encouraged workers to go to the polls and vote if the outcome was of tactical or strategic use in the working class struggle. But I wouldn't be surprised to read from someone here that they were petty bourgeois intellectuals intent on misleading the working class.

[Das war einmal]

In the land of the blind...

Michael Moore, in my opinion, paves the way for us revolutionaries. I was inspired by Fahrenheit 9/11 and it really helped in shaping my ideology. In a very hostile media environment he has succeeded in making a few very good documentaries that are at least questioning authority by a certain degree and giving good examples of the bad sides of capitalism in every day life.

[brigadista]

i liked Fahrenheit 9/11

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sounds like it, if he told people to vote Obama.
Fuck Chomsky, hes misleading the workingclass.

If only Chomsky had that much influence in the working class!

I have many criticisms of Chomsky and many more criticisms of Michael Moore who unlike Chomsky doesn't even consider himself a radical. It's good to be critical of these guys, but I really think we need to see them in context and save our fire for the people who are really misleading of the working class and the real people pushing for war and wage cuts and so on.

Workers are not drones... they can think critically about the arguments they read in Chomsky or see in a Michael Moore movie. The catch is that in order for workers to think critically about those arguments, they have to ACTUALLY SEE AND HEAR THE ARGUMENTS! So the fact that Chomsky exposes many many people to anarchist and radical ideas - GREAT! The fact that Michael Moore can have a line out the door of workers and hear pro-union or anti-war arguments in a country where you only hear ruling class arguments - FUCKIN' GREAT!

[pastradamus]

Chomsky told people to vote for Obama as opposed to Bush. Is Chomsky a capitalist now, eh?---Only in your absurd fantasies.

Bush wasn't running against Obama.

[pastradamus]

I have to say one thing about the whole Chomsky/Moore topic here.

Firstly, Chomsky.

I am a HUGE, HUGE Fan of Orwell. I absolutely LOVE his use of the English Language, that is to say I love "Orwellian" English (though he probably wouldn't have enjoyed that description). Orwell was a fan of Simple, Clear English which can be easily understood - especially to a poorly educated working class person.

George Orwell provides six rules for writers


Never use a Metaphore, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the Passive voice where you can use the Active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

In my opinion thats what makes Orwell one of the most talented Political writers of his time.

Chomsky on the other hand is almost the opposite.

1) Go out of your way to use a Metaphore, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2)If it is possible to cut a word out, always add it.

3)Always use a long word where a short one will do (show off your English).

4)Fill your Writings with Scientific Words, Political Jargon and use rare words.

For this reason alone, I cant stand Chomsky. Read Orwells "Homage to Catalonia" and then Pick up Chomsky and wait for the Headache and the double reading of statements. His politics though I must say are Interesting and its good that he gets an anti-Imperialist message across.

Now Michael Moore on the other hand is someone who is a FILM MAKER and AN ENTERTAINER who does both through the medium of a Political statement. He is not a Revolutionary, Never said he was and Just makes films for money. Its good in some ways that he gives widespread exposure to White House Corruption and Imperialist tactics. So I believe people should stop with the belief that he thinks he's some sort of Karl Marx or Che Guevara type, he never claimed to be.

[Uzasne]

Moore is a decent entertainer, but that doesn't stop him from being any less of a capitalist.

[IcarusAngel]

Chomsky on the other hand is almost the opposite.

1) Go out of your way to use a Metaphore, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2)If it is possible to cut a word out, always add it.

3)Always use a long word where a short one will do (show off your English).

4)Fill your Writings with Scientific Words, Political Jargon and use rare words.

For this reason alone, I cant stand Chomsky. Read Orwells "Homage to Catalonia" and then Pick up Chomsky and wait for the Headache and the double reading of statements. His politics though I must say are Interesting and its good that he gets an anti-Imperialist message across.

Now Michael Moore on the other hand is someone who is a FILM MAKER and AN ENTERTAINER who does both through the medium of a Political statement. He is not a Revolutionary, Never said he was and Just makes films for money. Its good in some ways that he gives widespread exposure to White House Corruption and Imperialist tactics. So I believe people should stop with the belief that he thinks he's some sort of Karl Marx or Che Guevara type, he never claimed to be.


Uhmmm... A lot of Chomsky's books, like The Common Good, Secrets Lies, and Democracy, What Uncle Sam Really Wants (recommended for any working class person who wants to understand US foreign policy) are merely excerpts of his other books, or even interviews. Anybody could understand these books. Even books like Hegemony or Survival are not too difficult to understand.

Chomsky assumes one thing: That people, regardless of class, age, religion, and sex, should be talked to like intelligent adults, and that his colleagues at MIT are no more important than the person who comes to see him at a local meeting. That's why his responses are often long and detailed - he treats people like equals and assumes people are smart enough to understand him. His linguistic work, however, is more detailed, but that's the nature of the field.

You're thinking of Aldous Huxley, who certainly does use metaphors, large words, and abstract thinking in his books.

[*Red*Alert]

Obviously like all of Michael Moore's books and movies, this will be half baked however they play a useful role in awakening people and providing them with information on the issues. The trailer even shows that it will simply be attacking the government and the bankers who caused the recession, but I doubt he will tackle the actual evil of the capitalist system in depth. His trendy life-stylist audience would not have the stomach for it.

The only positive thing the movie might bring about is concern over the issues, and it might awaken some people to actually learn more about the alternatives to the current system as Sicko did on the health care issue. But his line will be nothing more than conservative reform rather than radical change.

He's good at highlighting issues in a satirical way and bringing them to the attention of the masses, but lets face it, if he stood for real change of the system his movies wouldn't be getting published in mainstream cinema.

[IcarusAngel]

What do you think about the fact that he's getting the word capitalism used again? Part of the problem in America is that we call our system a "Republic," a "free-enterprise" system, or even a "democracy." However, we should point out that we are a "capitalist system," and most of our problems probably stem from this fact.

Moore also points out in one of his books (I believe stupid white men) that the reason we continue to see a current consolidation of resources, of one or two industries in nearly every industry (agricultural, automotive, aeronatuical, etc.) is because of c - a - p - i - t - a - l - i - s -m, as moore spells it in the book. However, people who use the term "capitalism" are often labeled as "commies."

[apawllo]

I'll have to wait and see the movie before I pass judgment. However, in past, Michael Moore has chosen to target a series of hot button issues which easily pander to the Democratic Party's base. His films will bring, typically, very little new information to an informed individual. However, ignorant liberals leave his films patting themselves on the back for opposing what one might consider to be conservative ideologies, similar to the way a neoconservative-minded Bill O'Reilly viewer might after watching his show each night.

In my opinion, Moore's documentaries accomplish one key thing; they politically polarize the country and therefore propagate the existence of the two party system. Like I said, I'm not going to pass judgment on this particular film just yet, but I'll be extremely surprised if it doesn't contain mass amounts of partisan nonsense sprinkled with factual inaccuracies.

[Agnapostate]

I also knew nothing of Michael Moore being wholly anti-capitalist; I was under the impression that he was a moderate social democrat, given his relatively active participation in mainstream American politics.

[*Red*Alert]

I also knew nothing of Michael Moore being wholly anti-capitalist; I was under the impression that he was a moderate social democrat, given his relatively active participation in mainstream American politics.

A very weak social democrat at that. Interesting to note the fact of the partisan polarity in his movies though, I hadn't given that much consideration before but given he is a self-profess Democrat he'd obviously have a stake in it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'll have to wait and see the movie before I pass judgment. However, in past, Michael Moore has chosen to target a series of hot button issues which easily pander to the Democratic Party's base. His films will bring, typically, very little new information to an informed individual. However, ignorant liberals leave his films patting themselves on the back for opposing what one might consider to be conservative ideologies, similar to the way a neoconservative-minded Bill O'Reilly viewer might after watching his show each night.

In my opinion, Moore's documentaries accomplish one key thing; they politically polarize the country and therefore propagate the existence of the two party system. Like I said, I'm not going to pass judgment on this particular film just yet, but I'll be extremely surprised if it doesn't contain mass amounts of partisan nonsense sprinkled with factual inaccuracies.In "the Big One" Moore basically calls out the Democratic Party for not being the party of working people - he talks to people trying to unionize "starbucks" with the backdrop of the neoliberal politics of Bill Clinton. He backed Ralph Nader in 2000 and made great speeches about how the Democratic party offers people nothing but lowered expectations and that people will have to fight based on higher expectations and for an alternative view of the world rather than just the lesser-evil.

Unfortunately, after Bush's election, like a lot of other "left of Democrats" progressives (including Chomsky) argued that people should vote for Democrats. This is part of a bigger weakness of the left in the US rather than any particular personal failing of Moore's but it was a pretty ugly betrayal and he made speeches which were the exact opposite of the ones he made while campaigning for Nader.

However, he is still probably one of the most independant minded liberals and one of the few who will actually criticize the Democratic party from the left. Who could forget the scene in "911" when he shows Al Gore not recognizing the black congresspeople calling for an investigation of black voter disenfranchisement. He made a movie all about Socialized health care and how both Republicans and Democrats are against it - and that was 2 years ago and the Democrats are still blacklisting any discussion of single-payer healthcare.

His television show which was explicitly anti-corporate (the only one I've ever seen on corporate commercial television) regularly took the Democratic party to task for it's neoliberal policies.

Moore is not a socialist, he is a progressive reformist and I am happy that he makes these movies just as I am happy that Naomi Klein wrote her book which forced the establishment to actually talk about the development of neoliberalism. They are not radical, but until there are 100 Malcom Xs and 100 Eugene Debs being booked for television shows and interviews in national mainstream papers, I am happy they are out there making these arguments because it helps us make radical arguments too.

[anticap]

It's all very well and good to point out that Moore has no serious anti-capitalist theory behind him, but so what? Any criticism of capitalism that reaches the ears of the general population is a Good Thing. Beggars can't be choosers (I know, I hate that phrase too, but it's apropos). We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Etc. It's important for comrades outside the U$ who are critical of Moore's shortcomings to be aware that the degree of capitalist dominance over this society can never be overstated. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world. Sure, there's ultra-capitalism elsewhere, but it doesn't rise to the level of official state religion like it does here. We in the $tates simply cannot afford to look a gift horse in the mouth when it comes to shining any amount of light on that reality. (OK, that's another bad metaphor, sorry pastradamus! Moore isn't giving anything away for free.)

As for Chomsky "endorsing" Obama, that's a bit of a stretch. All he did was suggest that if people intend to vote, then they ought to vote for the "lesser evil," such as it is. He was simply stating the obvious, that one of the two wings of the corporate party are going to "win" in U$ elections, but that there are minuscule differences between the wings, and that's what voters are going to have to take solace in. He offered no illusions about Obama, in fact he stated openly and repeatedly that the rhetoric of "Change(TM)" was a crock. But what should he have done, endorse one of the genuine leftist candidates fighting for a fraction of the 1% who don't vote for a corporate party candidate? Does anyone really believe that the path to socialism is electoral politics? Hands up, those who do, and name a single example of it happening, anywhere, ever. Elections aren't even an effective way to spread our message, let alone to dethrone Capital. Nobody looks at that 1%. I would argue that Chomsky made a bigger point by reminding voters of the reality of U$ politics. No leftist has cracked 6% in U$ presidential electoral history, and that was nearly a century ago, with Debbs. The best we've seen since then is faux-leftist Nader. None of this has any effect. The real change lies outside politics. Voting should be done with a shrug, if it's done at all.


Read Orwells "Homage to Catalonia" and then Pick up Chomsky and wait for the Headache and the double reading of statements.

Are you aware that most of Chomsky's political books are transcriptions of his speeches? I find them rough reading as well, but it's because I can usually tell that what I'm reading was spoken mostly off the cuff, or from notes at best.

[Bankotsu]

Anything that forces people to think, agitating or politicizing the public against the corporate, financial oligarchy and the mainstream brainwashing propagandist media is a good thing in my opinion.

[ZeroNowhere]

It sounds pretty boring, to be honest.

[x359594]

...Are you aware that most of Chomsky's political books are transcriptions of his speeches? I find them rough reading as well, but it's because I can usually tell that what I'm reading was spoken mostly off the cuff, or from notes at best.

That's largely true of his more recent works, but his earlier books were collections of well-thought essays written for The New York Review of Books, as well as the books The Fateful Triangle, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent, Toward a New Cold War and other volumes from the 1980s.

Only the collections dating from the mid-1990s and after are transcribed speeches and interviews, but even during that period collections of articles written for Z Magazine and such books as Year 501: The Conquest Continues, Re-Thinking Camelot as well as The New Military Humanism are carefully and clearly written.

[Agnapostate]

And really, Hegemony or Survival was pretty significant also.

[KurtFF8]

It seems to me that Moore is moving more and more to the left though. We shouldn't respond to such a move with "but you previously were just a liberal!!!!" but instead should embrace it. I mean after all, aren't we trying to have more people who previously/currently supported the capitalist system change their minds? Why criticize those who finally seem to be moving in the correct direction?

After all, Amy Goodman asked Moore what he thought would solve the auto industry crisis in Michigan and his response was "give ownership of the means of production to the workers" He said it in a tongue and cheek kind of way but he certainly seems to sympathize with socialism at this point.

[n0thing]

Sounds like it, if he told people to vote Obama.
Fuck Chomsky, hes misleading the workingclass.
This is pathetic. He criticized Obama all the way through the campaign. If you think there was any alternative to four more years of Republicanism besides Obama, you're deluded.

[BlackCapital]

I think its safe to say that not many people here are adamant Michael Moore fans, but assuming for a moment that this film does in fact contain an adequate critique of capitalism-why complain that this is not the position that he previously held? If this film turns out to be reformist nonsense then so be it, but I don't see a reason for preemptive complaining.

I don't know how part of this thread devolved into whining about frequently misinterpreted and out of context quotes by Chomsky concerning Obama, but its really ridiculous. He has been the first to dismiss the notion of meaningful change under the administration. What was said in the video was vote Obama in battleground states, but without illusions. If you wan't to criticize this statement as being reactionary or reformist I would agree with you, but that is frankly meaningless and is incorrect to say the same about Chomsky. The statement is logical; there was no remote possiblity of anyone/anything besides Obama or McCain coming into power at the time.

[Vanguard1917]

There is nothing correct or radical about the notion that a worldwide recession can be caused by the personality defects of a few handfuls of 'greedy bankers'. Furthermore, the prevalent tendency within the Western liberal intellegentsia to blame the recession on the supposedly greedy, credit-hungry masses is outright reactionary. To be at all radical, you have to question the system itself -- a system that can't bring about peace and material prosperity for all. From the clips in the OP, Moore will not be doing that.

Similarly, in Farenheit 911 Moore didn't question the role of the US military as the world's police force. He merely wanted a US military that would do a 'better job' abroad by, for example, dedicating its resources to places like Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

[KurtFF8]

^Indeed. This is why I think most leftists will go into this film quite skeptical with Moore's approach. That said, it's also possible he is taking a turn to the left and will have a valid critique of capitalism packaged in the film. We won't know until we see his approach. (Although we can assume it is a reformist liberal approach by his previous works, but as I said earlier, he seems to be taking a turn to the left as of recently)

[GPDP]

^Indeed. This is why I think most leftists will go into this film quite skeptical with Moore's approach. That said, it's also possible he is taking a turn to the left and will have a valid critique of capitalism packaged in the film. We won't know until we see his approach. (Although we can assume it is a reformist liberal approach by his previous works, but as I said earlier, he seems to be taking a turn to the left as of recently)

We'll see. I'm still skeptical, especially considering a near-orgasmic article from him singing praise to the heavens upon Obama's election.

[ChrisK]

Micheal Moore is the closest to us politically in the mainstream media. His documentaries, while centre-left, are a useful tool in getting people to think about these issues. Take Sicko, which pushed strongly for single-payer health care, sparked a massive debate on the issue.

This new documentary could be used to spark a debate about capitalism. With that going on in the mainstream media, people will start to listen to us more often when we say the whole system needs to go away. We ought to be accepting of his documentaries.

[Manifesto]

The most Michael Moore would admit being is a Socialist.

[Manifesto]

No he wouldn't. He's a left-wing populist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_moore#Writings_and_political_views).
I'm just saying if he did admit to something such as being a Marxist it would at most be a Socialist. Everyone knows he is a liberal.

[Leaf]

In the trailer it shows him attacking bankers and ceos. This is like blaming the 'greedy bankers' for the economic crisis etc rather than blaming the system and understanding that they are inevitable products of capitalism. Silly silly, right guys?
Still I am very glad this is coming out, so I can talk about it with people.
The part where a man said 'There's got to be some kind of a rebellion between the people who have nothing and the people who got it all' was good.

[KurtFF8]

After watching this trailer, it seems that I'm not 100% ready to dismiss the film.

There's even a scene showing riot police and someone talking about people revolting (although of course it is likely in a populist context, but we'll see)

IhydyxRjujU

[oujiQualm]

Chomsky keeps the left unintelligable for anyone who hasnt been to college. That his job. He also has written some great stuff.

[trinity42]

I always find it amusing when people talk like they shot out of the womb with a copy of Das Kapital in one hand and a molotov cocktail in the other.

As if none of us came to an understanding of the mechanisms of capitalism, and how that affects the people enslaved to it through a long process of eye-opening experiences and learning.

Look, we all started somewhere (for me, it was lefty punk rock, for others it very well COULD be through a Michael Moore film), and it took years for us to really dig deep into how these systems work and to form our own theories and ideologies. If one of Moore's films takes a watered-down liberal and makes them begin to think about the insidiousness of capitalism and their role in it...good. I am all for it.

What I think is MUCH more destructive to true revolutionary theory/thought/action is the frakkin' ideological puritanism that I see all the time, just like I am seeing in this thread. We spend more time shit-talking people whose theories are not perfectly in line with some elusive ideal of purity then we actually do DOING anything.

If I were a n00b who started to really think about capitalism and its machinations, and I stumbled across a board like this, only to see people in a pissing contest over who is more radical and whose ideas fit the "proper" definition of revolutionary, I wouldn't care to stick around.

Instead of nurturing those with a burgeoning understanding of how frakked up capitalism is, we spend a lot of time throwing stones at those whose ideologies may differ from ours.

And then we wonder why the revolution never comes.

Because we are fractured, childish, puritanical, and basically act like a bunch of know-it-alls, even as the capitalist structures continue their om nom nom nom-ing of working people.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Personally, I can't WAIT to see an internationally known filmmaker (regardless of what he considers himself along the political/ideological spectrum) actually talk about the problems of CAPITALISM in a widely released film (especially one shown in theaters in the capitalist bastion of the United States). Cuz it's about damn time SOMEONE did. Sure it may be a watered down critique, but it has to be talked about, and it has to be talked about NOW. What happens from there, who can say. But I CAN say we can either take his critique and run with it, filling in the blanks for those whose interest is piqued, building an understanding and a new movement, or we can sit and fight over whether or not his critique fits in perfectly with our own.

The choice is pretty clear to me.

[gorillafuck]

I don't see why we would oppose this movie just because he's a liberal, he's actually being critical of capitalism in the mainstream media. Just because he's not an actual socialist doesn't mean that's not a good thing that will open peoples eyes and make some people think more deeply into it.

[The pizza crazed Anarchist]

I just saw this on Michael Moore's website.

September 6th, 2009 9:15 am
"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film
By Mike Collett-White
VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion of U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore's latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival on Sunday.
Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty.
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 attacks the 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 ordinary Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the financial crisis, and with it to homelessness and unemployment.
Moore interviews priests who believe that capitalism is anti-Christian, because it fails to protect the poor and encourages greed.
"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, to keep a healthy economy going."
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.
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.
"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."
Capitalism: A Love Story 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, but failing, to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and asking traders whether they can explain to him exactly what derivatives are.
When he asks for their advice, one man out of shot can be heard replying: "Don't make any more movies."
Moore drives a truck up to some of the biggest banks in New York and, through a loud speaker, demands they give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.
And he interviews an employee of a company which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures.

[scarletghoul]

It seems he's beginning to wake up from the liberalism of his earlier films and is turning to the left. You can see the transition in the messages of his films: "we need to ban guns";"this government is bad"; "we need universal healthcare like cuba"; "capitalism is evil". Perhaps his final film will be a glorious ultra-leftist tribute to Pol Pot :lol:

[KurtFF8]

Wow that article has certainly given me more optimism about this film.

[Communist]

this might interest; sent by portside------------->
________________________________________

Capitalism: A Love Story
Xan Brooks
The Gguardian
6 September 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/06/capitalism-love-story-review


If Michael Moore's latest documentary lacks the clean
punch of his best-known work, it can only be because the
crime scene is so vast, writes Xan Brooks at the Venice
film festival
4 out of 5 stars

Michael Moore film Capitalism: A Love Story

The bankrobbers caught on CCTV at the start of
Capitalism: A Love Story are a forlorn and feeble bunch.
We see a bedraggled old man in a Hawaiian shirt, and
what looks to be a 12-year-old boy wearing a balaclava.
For all their flailing efforts, they've got nothing on
the real crooks: the banking CEOs who recently absconded
with $700bn of public money, no strings attached. That's
what's known as a clean getaway.

Michael Moore's latest documentary drew tumultuous
applause at the Venice film festival today, suggesting
that the veteran tub-thumper has lost none of his power
to whip up a response. If the film finally lacks the
clean, hard punch provided by the record-breaking
Fahrenheit 9/11, that can only be because the crime
scene is so vast and the culprits so numerous.

Undeterred, Moore jabs his finger at everyone from
Reagan to Bush Jr, Hank Paulson to Alan Greenspan. He
drags the viewer through a thicket of insurance scams,
sub-prime bubbles and derivative trading so wilfully
obfuscatory that even the experts can't explain how it
works.

The big villain, of course, is capitalism itself, which
the film paints as a wily old philanderer intent on
lining the pockets of the few at the expense of the
many. America, enthuses a leaked Citibank report, is now
a modern-day "plutonomy" where the top 1% of the
population control 95% of the wealth. Does Barack
Obama's election spell an end to all this? The director
has his doubts, pointing out that Goldman Sachs -
depicted here as the principal agent of wickedness - was
the largest private contributor to the Obama campaign.

Capitalism: A Love Story is by turns crude and
sentimental, impassioned and invigorating. It posits a
simple moral universe inhabited by good little guys and
evil big ones, yet the basic thrust of its argument
proves hard to resist.

Crucially, Moore (or at least his researchers) has done
a fine job in ferreting out the human stories behind the
headlines. None of these is so horrifyingly absurd as
the tale of the privatised youth detention centre in
Pennsylvania, run with the help of a crooked local judge
who railroaded kids through his court for a cut of the
profits. Some 6,500 children were later found to have
been wrongly convicted for such minor infractions as
smoking pot and "throwing a piece of steak at my mom's
boyfriend". The subsequent bill for their incarceration
went directly to the taxpayer.

Moore's conclusion? That capitalism is both un-Christian
and un-American, an evil that deserves not regulation
but elimination. No doubt he had concluded all this
anyway, well in advance of making the film, but no
matter. There is something energising - even moving -
about the sight of him setting out to prove it all over
again. Like some shambling Columbo, he amasses the
evidence, takes witness statements from the victims and
then starts doorstepping the guilty parties.

"I need some advice!" Moore shouts to some hastening
Wall Street trader who has just left his office. "Don't
make any more movies!" the man shoots back. Moore
chuckles at that, but the last laugh is his. This, more
than any other, is the movie they will wish he had never
embarked on.

(2)
Capitalism: A Love Story
(Documentary)
By LESLIE FELPERIN
Variety
September 5, 2009
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940961.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

'Capitalism: A Love Story'

An Overture Films release of a Paramount Vantage,
Overture Films presentation in association with the
Weinstein Co., of a Dog Eat Dog production.
(International sales: Paramount Vantage, Los Angeles.)
Produced by Michael Moore, Anne Moore. Executive
producers, Kathleen Glynn, Bob Weinstein, Harvey
Weinstein. Co-producers, Rod Birleson, John Hardesty.
Directed, written by Michael Moore.

With: Michael Moore, Frank Moore.

By returning to his roots, professional gadfly Michael
Moore turns in one of his best films with "Capitalism: A
Love Story." Pic's target is less capitalism qua
capitalism than the banking industry, which Moore
skewers ruthlessly, explaining last year's economic
meltdown in terms a sixth-grader could understand. That
said, there's still plenty here to annoy right-wingers,
as well as those who, however much they agree with
Moore's politics, just can't stomach his
oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and
goofball japery. Whether "Capitalism" matches
"Fahrenheit 9/11" or underperforms like Sicko" will
depend on how much workers of the world are ready to
unite behind the message.

Pic reaped mostly ecstatic applause at its first press
screening in Venice - no great surprise, given the
largely leftist persuasion of film-fest auds, especially
in Europe. Still, "Capitalism's" worldview is resolutely
U.S.-centric, apart from the odd approving mention of
some foreign nation. Nevertheless, pic is likely to make
considerably more offshore, where "socialism" isn't
considered a cuss word, than at home.

Another commercial factor to consider is whether, by the
time the Overture release rolls out Oct. 2, most auds
might feel too bored with or depressed about the economy
to engage with the pic, despite its ultimately upbeat,
power-to-the-people message. A release six months ago,
when the crisis was still very raw, might have been
surfed the zeitgeist more effectively. Ironically, given
the current debate over President Obama's health-care
plans, "Sicko" might have suited the times better.

Sticking largely to the template laid down in his
earlier films, particularly "Fahrenheit 9/11" and
"Sicko" ("Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" had
more linear structures, with specific stories to tell),
"Capitalism" skips around considerably, laying down a
mix of reportage, interviews and polemic. In the opening
reels alone, auds are introduced to ordinary folk whose
homes are being repossessed; a gleefully unabashed real
estate agent who specializes in finding bargains on
foreclosed properties; immaculately researched archival
footage presenting crew-cut 1950s squares extolling the
virtues of capitalism; and homemovies showing Moore as a
tow-headed child, visibly overjoyed to be visiting Wall
Street on a vacation to New York from his hometown of
Flint, Mich.

The helmer is a very visible onscreen presence here
throughout, which detractors will decry as self-
indulgent. But the decision is justified, given how
relevant the damage done to the American automobile
industry is to the banking crisis, as well as the the
central role GM played in "Roger and Me," excerpts of
which are shown here, and the fact that Moore's father
worked in the motor biz. There's genuine poignancy, even
surprising restraint and dignity, in a scene where
father and son visit the vacant lot that once housed the
factory where the elder Moore worked.

Unfortunately, elsewhere, Moore strives so hard to
manipulate viewers' emotions with shots of crying
children and tearjerking musical choices that he's not
so much over-egging the pudding as making an omelet out
of it. While it could be argued that Moore needs to milk
the human-interest stories for all their worth to get
auds to engage with his denunciation of capitalism, more
often than not, such tactics just patronize the audience
and descend into cheap sentimentality. Moore all but
stops short of holding up dead puppies Hank Paulson
personally murdered.

Moore is on much more persuasive ground when he holds
back and lets a good story tell itself in drier terms,
recalling his best, muckraking work in the tube series
"TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth." There's a horrifying
yet absurd account, little known outside the U.S., of
judges bribed to send as many juvenile offenders as
possible to detention centers in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., some
for offenses as trivial as ridiculing an assistant
principal on MySpace. Also recalling the grassroots
activism of his TV work are rousing segments of workers
protesting Bank of America's refusal to pay them money
owed when the company goes into receivership, along with
calls elsewhere to, if not arms, at least civil
disobedience.

No Michael Moore film would be complete without scenes
of the writer-helmer arguing with security guards in
glassy office-building foyers as he attempts to have an
impromptu word with the company's CEO. Predictably ill-
fated attempts are made to storm the citadels of various
banks and financial institutions that survived the
crash. In perhaps the funniest moment, Moore tries to
find a banker who can explain what derivatives are; he
corners one and says he wants some advice, to which the
reply comes, quick as a flash: "Stop making films!"

Moore shows no signs of heeding this injunction, and
ends the pic on a combatative note, vowing, "I refuse to
live in a country like this, and I'm not leaving." It's
a pugnacious riposte to his right-wing critics, but in
the end, Moore also fails to answer his left-wing
doubters, who will have plenty of evidence here that
Moore's argument is less with capitalism as Marx and
Engels understood it, or even as the North Koreans and
Cubans do, than with capitalism's most egregious
excesses in the U.S. His ideal is not the end of private
ownership, just more cooperatively owned businesses
where everyone shares the wealth and makes collective
decisions. Moore merely flirts with counterpointing
socialism with capitalism, and ultimately sets up an
inoffensive-to-the-point-of-meaningless notion of
democracy as capitalism's opposite.

Original footage looks almost deliberately cruddy, as if
shaky camerawork were a badge of authenticity. Sound was
also a bit muddy at the screening caught, but editing,
credited to seven different names, is aces throughout.

Camera (color, HD), Dan Marracino, Jayme Roy; editors,
John Walter, Conor O'Neill; co-editors, Jessica
Brunetto, Alex Meillier, Tanya Ager Meillier, Pablo
Proenza, T. Woody Richman; music, Jeff Gibbs; sound
(Dolby Digital), Francisco LaTorre, Mark Roy, Hillary
Stewart. Reviewed at Venice Film Festival (competing),
Sept. 5, 2009. (Also in Toronto Film Festival - Special
Presentations.) Running time: 117 MIN.

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

[RedHal]

got a laugh out of this quote from Moore from reading the bbc article on this doc http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8241293.stm

"Why have these companies given money to a guy who is diametrically opposed to everything they stand for?
"I take advantage of one of the beautiful flaws of capitalism which is that the capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself if he can make a buck.

lol isn't that a Stalin quote? Comrade Moore, welcome to the movement:laugh:

[KurtFF8]

I thought that was either a Lenin or a Marx quote actually

[Orange Juche]

I'm glad to read that the film intends on pointing out that capitalism itself is evil.

As a side note, he is encouraging people to not pay to see the film. To either pirate it, or "barter" somehow haha.

[KurtFF8]

Yeah that's quite great. Someone gave me a good idea recently: flyering after the film for whatever organization you happen to be a part of. That way people would actually have a venue of action after getting "riled up" by such a film.

[Robocommie]

I have to say I get really discouraged when I hear Marxists attack Chomsky, Zinn, or even liberals like Moore.

Are things so good for global socialism, do we have such a glut of allies and left-wing champions, that we can afford to be so blindly doctrinaire and dogmatic?

Anyone who wants to improve the lot of working class people is a friend in my book.

[Jethro Tull]

michael moore's films are hit and miss. i have no problems with roger and me, i think it's an intelligent historical document, however, bowling for columbine is a very confused film.

basically the moral of bowling for columbine is that all the militia wackos are dangerous, not because they're racist, patriarchal, anti-semitic bastards, but because they're in-bred, illiterate, ignorant rednecks who want to defend themselves against the government because they haven't heard about gandhi.

bowling for columbine on the one, using two or three eloquant montages, hand offers criticism of the systematic slaughter carried out by u.s. (and other) imperialists...however, moore turns around and supports the same imperialist slaughter-system by arguing against gun control from the position of someone concerned about the stability of the capitalist state.

furthermore, the historical narrative of bowling for columbine is rife with factual inaccuracies.

for example, it falsely claims that the n.r.a was started by southern confederate-sympathizers and klansmen, when in fact one of the n.r.a.'s earliest presidents was ulysses s. grant. connecting the n.r.a. to historical political tendencies which seek to arm whites and disarm non-whites is legitimate, however, fabricating evidence does not help that cause.

another example of moore's historical falsification is the depiction of witch-burnings in the u.s. witches were persecuted in the u.s., but in virtually every case they were hanged. by failing to perform basic research, moore & co. show disrespect and dishonor to the victims of patirarchal oppression.

and the inaccuracies and blatant falsifications continue. for example, moore claims there are no slums in canada. (even my limited personal experience with canada testifies against this...my only trip to canada was spent in a french-canadian slum)

the final message of bowling for columbine is that the masses of other capitalist states, such as canada, may be intelligent and responsible enough to deserve gun rights, however, in the u.s., the masses are uniquely brainwashed and fear-mongering. thus, moore participates in the petit-bourgeois, social democratic tradition of victim-blaming. (as demonstrated by his harassment of wal-mart employees)

fahrenheit 9/11 is just as bad...he avoids all criticisms of israel in order to dodge accusations of anti-semitism, while making a melodrama over the u.s.'s diplomatic relations with saudi arabia. (for example he is shocked that there is a saudi embassy in d.c. with guards in front of it...) the disgust and outrage moore displays over the fact that bush actually meets with arab politicians borders on white nationalist protectionism. his criticism of the iraq war is petit-bourgeois, protectionist. like most social democratic critics of the riaq war he's concerned about wasting imperialist resources and weakening the sovereignty of the u.s.

sicko is an improvement because it has some relevance to people's actual lives. the first half is a brilliant expose of the h.m.o./health insurance complex in the u.s. however, he resorts to other capitalist models (france, britian, canada) instead of pointing out that capitalism and human health are inherently antagonistic forces. thus he passes up an oppertunity for broader social commentary.

with all that said, i am optimistic about capitalism: a love story, because i feel it is an indication that perhaps moore is becoming more cynical, more focused on the big picture. his commentary about "democracy" is fatuous, and it's disappointing to learn he spends ten minutes of the film gushing over obama, but it's definitely an improvement over bowling for columbine, and certainly a tactical oppertunity for ourselves.

[Pogue]

I have to say I get really discouraged when I hear Marxists attack Chomsky, Zinn, or even liberals like Moore.

Are things so good for global socialism, do we have such a glut of allies and left-wing champions, that we can afford to be so blindly doctrinaire and dogmatic?

Anyone who wants to improve the lot of working class people is a friend in my book.

Depends on what they mean by 'improve'.