Michael Moore and socialism

[Tower of Bebel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neyMdjrbM18
It's ecclectic (a mixture of religious believes, reformism and utopianism), but it can serve a certain agitational purpose.

[RedSonRising]

Now that he has come out and said it, even so far as to quote Marx, his appeals to religion and his standard US persona will make socialism very relatable and relevant to US cultural values of liberty and democracy as perceived by mainstream society. I like the way he talks. Marxist scholars are essential but the emergence of guys like Michael Moore are nothing to scoff at; his influence will help socialism become an acceptable term in the US political sphere.

[Muzk]

brings it to the GODDAMN POINT, although he didnt point out the failure of the us government in ruling over small countries, imperialism, etc..

But talking like this was probably the best thing to do, since the "average" American does not really know/understand many of these things :blushing:
but now there'S someone to trust! :D

[Crux]

Where is this from? Good to hear comrade Moore dropped the S-bomb. ;)

[the last donut of the night]

Wow. A quite mainstream figure, advocating socialism? This is very good.

We cannot expect Michael Moore to get into the more theoretical stuff. This is because Michael Moore, in order to be heard by the average American, needs to take baby steps with this issue. I hate to say it, but Moore would scare away people if he started talking about imperialism's role in capitalism, class struggle, etc.

What is necessary now is to bring back the idea of economic democracy into people's minds. This could be a spark for a future fire, and I'm excited. I've seen some results. Yesterday, I went to a movie theatre -- which had lost its heating -- and a paper was posted outside, saying NO HEAT IN CAPITALISM. I was proud.:D

[Crux]

Wow. A quite mainstream figure, advocating socialism? This is very good.

We cannot expect Michael Moore to get into the more theoretical stuff. This is because Michael Moore, in order to be heard by the average American, needs to take baby steps with this issue. I hate to say it, but Moore would scare away people if he started talking about imperialism's role in capitalism, class struggle, etc.

What is necessary now is to bring back the idea of economic democracy into people's minds. This could be a spark for a future fire, and I'm excited. I've seen some results. Yesterday, I went to a movie theatre -- which had lost its heating -- and a paper was posted outside, saying NO HEAT IN CAPITALISM. I was proud.:D
Well I have to say, I don't think the issue of imperialism is that far off really. If this is the beginning of something, think of how huge the antiwar movement was. That question still matters, especially with Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan and the increasing impopularity of the war. A recent CNN poll showed 56% of americans opposed to the war and only 26% favouring sending more troops to Afghanistan. If the antiwar movement can be turned towards socialism, that is some serious power and it will make it very hard for the Democrats to sidetrack it.

[Dimentio]

How many Americans like Michael Moore?

[pranabjyoti]

Well, in my opinion, he can be one the "very good petty bourgeoisie", whom Marx had described to a letter to Engels.

[chegitz guevara]

How many Americans like Michael Moore?

He is very popular, especially in the industrial cities. He is also hated by the right-wing. Interestingly enough, many of his supporters are also on the right. They know Mike stands with their class, even if his politics is on the left. He's one of the few people in American politics that is able to unite left and right-wing workers.

[FreeFocus]

It has an agitation purpose, sure, and it's a good introduction for uninformed people who don't have a good grasp of revolutionary theory. We shouldn't dismiss what he's saying, but we should also put forth developed critiques.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Interestingly enough, many of his supporters are also on the right. They know Mike stands with their class, even if his politics is on the left. He's one of the few people in American politics that is able to unite left and right-wing workers.

That's the kind of worker solidarity that's needed more and more. :)

[CJCM]

I've seen some results. Yesterday, I went to a movie theatre -- which had lost its heating -- and a paper was posted outside, saying NO HEAT IN CAPITALISM. I was proud.:D

Wonderfull :laugh:

[KurtFF8]

It has an agitation purpose, sure, and it's a good introduction for uninformed people who don't have a good grasp of revolutionary theory. We shouldn't dismiss what he's saying, but we should also put forth developed critiques.

Indeed. This is why it's annoying to see people just dismiss him because he isn't promoting a specific tendency of the left (anti-authoritarian socialism, Marxism-Leninism, etc.).

Some on the left are just so stuck in their own organizations that they miss the context of this film and its opportunity.

Anyway, I've seen Moore on TV using that "16th century system, 19th century solution" before and I think someone should just let him know about "Socialism for the 21st Century" ;)

[GPDP]

That's well and good, and I'm glad a mainstream figure is saying these things on platforms where he can reach the public, but as long as he keeps having illusions about Obama, Moore's influence may yet be limited.

Once he gets over his Obamania, then I'll be ready to welcome him.

[KurtFF8]

The thing about his limited influence, however, is that he is very open about not wanting to necessarily "lead" anything or even encourage people any further. He even ends the film with "I'm done with this, it's time for people to take matters into their own hands."

I don't think that by that he means, "support Obama and the Democrats in their own way" but he does believe people will resist in their own way independent of the system. That's where the left (e..g the Revolutionary Left) comes in and demonstrates that there is more development of his ideas needed (i.e. explaining imperialism, problems with the founding fathers, etc.)

[Q]

He said the S-word :o

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind :D

[Ol' Dirty]

On the real. The left has to stop alienating people and try to work with people to make change. Even if it's not exactly what we want, that's not to say that we can't get there through consistent effort. Most people will be slow to abandon tradition, so we can't cuss them out when they don't want to leave their comfortable -yet squalid- hovel. At least he's trying to appeal to an audience with larger scope that an Anarchist book club or G8 protest group.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm glad he finally cleared the air with this. In his interviews he promotes "democracy" as an economic system...which, yes, is true of socialism, but doesn't resonate with people who are familiar with the term socialism, be they for or against.

[Tatarin]

Well I certainly hope this will stick with people. If not, we'll have to wait for the sequel (Capitalism 2: Didn't You Get What I Said In The First Movie) around 2018-20.

[ellipsis]

I can't wait to see the movie. It has been interesting to watch his career and his political development. I don't agree with everything he says but I support his efforts to challenge the prevailing narrative.

[RedSonRising]

The video he has on workplace co-ops is really good, he cites examples that show he knows what he's talking about and also points out the obvious inconsistencies with capitalism and democracy.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think it is good to see him coming out and talking about Marx and Socialism. Bringing this sort of idea to the mainstream is really promising.

[The Broke Cycle]

I have to disagree.

Michael Moore represents a much bigger problem. We live in a world where most people are politically apathetic. What they do know is given to them by a press beholden to corporate interests. They do not have any interest in active political organizing - i.e. attending lectures, protesting, doing boring things like filing out applications, making leaflets, stamping envelopes. They are, in essence, passive.

And so they look to Michael Moore to do the things they will never do.

The same thing happened to Students for a Democratic Society during the Vietnam War. The press started "electing" spokesmen, people who were compelling but who had virtually no real legitimacy. They spoke for themselves, and they were not held accountable to the people they claimed to speak for. The end result was that nobody took the SDS seriously - instead of seeing students doing real work for real results, you saw Jerry Rubin dressing up like a moron.

So instead of seeing the thousands of serious, intelligent people doing hard work to provide real political change, you see Michael Moore bellowing at CEOs with a megaphone.

[RedSonRising]

I have to disagree.

Michael Moore represents a much bigger problem. We live in a world where most people are politically apathetic. What they do know is given to them by a press beholden to corporate interests. They do not have any interest in active political organizing - i.e. attending lectures, protesting, doing boring things like filing out applications, making leaflets, stamping envelopes. They are, in essence, passive.

And so they look to Michael Moore to do the things they will never do.

The same thing happened to Students for a Democratic Society during the Vietnam War. The press started "electing" spokesmen, people who were compelling but who had virtually no real legitimacy. They spoke for themselves, and they were not held accountable to the people they claimed to speak for. The end result was that nobody took the SDS seriously - instead of seeing students doing real work for real results, you saw Jerry Rubin dressing up like a moron.

So instead of seeing the thousands of serious, intelligent people doing hard work to provide real political change, you see Michael Moore bellowing at CEOs with a megaphone.

I see your point, I share your distaste for the passive methodology of modern students and dissenters who challenge oppression through now acceptable/tolerated forms of activism, but Moore makes it a point at the end of the film to call upon people to take action and not rely on him to expose and challenge the structure of the economic and political system. It's better that he make the movie than him not make the movie. In fact, a friend of mine who I saw the movie with who was previously non-involved in politics turned to me before the movie was even finished and expressed real interest in becoming involved in advocating and spreading socialist ideals through activism. The rage and frustration that the exposure to the philosophy by prominent figures motivates people to think and act differently.

Direct action is important, but without the education and perspective that a film like this offers to previously uninterested or uneducated workers and students, the movement will never break out of isolation. I don't advocate weak reformism or blind faith in a single leading actor for progress, nor do I advocate the isolated "direct action" of groups like the Weather Underground that lacked the class-conscious legitimization of social relevance. I respect them, sure, but where was the connection to the proletariat?

This is why I would agree with the notion that Moore is providing a service to socialism and disagree with the notion that he is perpetuating political apathy.

[RadioRaheem84]

With the exception of Moore's darling homage to Obama, the movie is quite possibly the most relevent mainstream movie of our generation. I was shocked that it even received nationwide distribution.

Then again, I saw it twice and each time the theatre was nearly empty.

[CELMX]

With the exception of Moore's darling homage to Obama, the movie is quite possibly the most relevent mainstream movie of our generation. I was shocked that it even received nationwide distribution.

Then again, I saw it twice and each time the theatre was nearly empty.

Totally agree!
I think it is completely ridiculous that "Capitalism: A Love Story" is rated R
...maybe to keep young children's minds from being "corrupted":)

“When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope we use.”
--Joseph Stalin

This movie is totally the "rope" that the capitalists are selling to us, playing this movie across the nation.
Where does the profit from this movie go to? It would be kind of ironic if all the money went to Moore, and he spent it on himself...

[cyu]

I think it is completely ridiculous that "Capitalism: A Love Story" is rated R
...maybe to keep young children's minds from being "corrupted"

No kidding. (Although the "official" excuse is "R for some language" - maybe anti-capitalist language =)



With the exception of Moore's darling homage to Obama, the movie is quite possibly the most relevent mainstream movie of our generation.


Yep, it's at least in the running for it anyway =)


I was shocked that it even received nationwide distribution.

I was more pleasantly surprised than shocked, but it may depend on where you live. Seattle is a pretty lefty part of the US.


Then again, I saw it twice and each time the theatre was nearly empty.

It depends on when you go. The Friday night when a movie opens is always busiest. I saw it the Saturday afternoon after - not empty at all. I think the audience was actually mostly 40-somethings, which I thought was surprising.

Anyway, from http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?top=125&start=2009&finish=2009&order=worldwide&keyword=&links=&popups=

...it's currently beating Kate Beckinsale in Whiteout, Dennis Quaid in Pandorum, Sam Mendes (Best Director for American Beauty)'s Away We Go, Richard Dreyfuss in My Life in Ruins, and Jane Campion (Best Screenplay for The Piano)'s Bright Star.

[Jethro Tull]

from what i've seen on the internet, i really feel that our american comrades are blowing this one out of proportion.

yes, i am quite pleased that the narrative of capitalism: a love story is more subversive than that of sicko, bowling for columbine, or fahrenheit 9/11...

yes, i think this is a glorious opportunity to further spread our message.

media personalities identifying themselves as "socialist" is nothing new, even post-mccarthy u.s., take john lennon. in europe, an entire wing of the bourgeois political oligarchy openly identifies as "socialist". there were pictures of marx everywhere in post-stalinist u.s.s.r., there are still pictures of mao tsetung everywhere in post-dengist p.r.c. none of these political systems are anti-capitalist.

the hype around capitalism: a love story is a little reminisicant of christian evangelists desperate to believe that jim baker has reprented and had his sins forgiven.

[RedSonRising]

from what i've seen on the internet, i really feel that our american comrades are blowing this one out of proportion.

yes, i am quite pleased that the narrative of capitalism: a love story is more subversive than that of sicko, bowling for columbine, or fahrenheit 9/11...

yes, i think this is a glorious opportunity to further spread our message.

media personalities identifying themselves as "socialist" is nothing new, even post-mccarthy u.s., take john lennon. in europe, an entire wing of the bourgeois political oligarchy openly identifies as "socialist". there were pictures of marx everywhere in post-stalinist u.s.s.r., there are still pictures of mao tsetung everywhere in post-dengist p.r.c. none of these political systems are anti-capitalist.

the hype around capitalism: a love story is a little reminisicant of christian evangelists desperate to believe that jim baker has reprented and had his sins forgiven.

Portrait posters in post-revolutionary countries and publicly socialist-identifying musicians from Europe are a bit different in their influence than a well-researched documentary that challenges and deconstructs the myths of the dominant oppressive economic ideology released country-wide to an audience living in the most powerful capitalist government in the world directed by a respected and controversial figure.

[A.R.Amistad]

I am planning on writing a letter to Micheal Moore explaining our solution. Would anyone be interested in contributing or expaning on this, we could make it almost like a petition.

[rivalin]

Moore is a joke, people like him are just used as a pressure valve by corporate interests.

[chegitz guevara]

And what have you done to advance the struggle?

[RedSonRising]

Moore is a joke, people like him are just used as a pressure valve by corporate interests.

Please explain how releasing a documentary that wholeheartedly discredits capitalism as a desirable democratic economic system through the accessible medium of cinema throughout the United States serves corporate interests.

Would you rather him outright bomb Wall Street without a word? Because that would be a REALLY effective way to educate people on the oppressive nature of capitalism and gain supporters.

[cyu]

Why is it that whenever I see an account with only a handful of posts, I immediately suspect them of being a capitalist in human clothing? :laugh:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

"I've got to say, I'm a little tired, and bored, of talking about a 16th centruy economic philosophy versus a 19th century economic philosophy."

That's a great line, wish I had thought of it.

[fabiansocialist]

And what have you done to advance the struggle?

And what has Moore really done except say, "Jeez, how awful?" What is the use of telling people to take action in general terms? What exactly is he proposing? How exactly is one to change the present system? The forbidden words -- violent revolution -- will not cross Moore's mouth. Nothing Moore has shown in the film is unknown to people of the (real) left who read books and journals. It just makes some of it known to people with room-temperature IQs. Nothing concrete will originate from this film. I'm not saying the film is a waste -- merely that it won't galvanise people towards any concrete program of change.

[ZeroNowhere]

And what have you done to advance the struggle?
It is, in fact, completely irrelevant what they have done to advance the struggle. It's just as important here as whether or not they have a beard or wear hats frequently. Challenge the assertion, not the person. So, for example, you could point out that they are giving Moore too much credit, but it really doesn't matter whether they prefer football or cricket.

[the last donut of the night]

"I've got to say, I'm a little tired, and bored, of talking about a 16th centruy economic philosophy versus a 19th century economic philosophy."

I didn't get what he meant by that. What did he mean?

[KurtFF8]

^ He's saying it isn't a battle between "Capitalism and Socialism" but between Capitalism and some abstract new "democratically run economic system" (which of course is where we step in and remind him that Socialism is indeed what he wants ;) )

[cyu]

Nothing Moore has shown in the film is unknown to people of the (real) left who read books and journals. It just makes some of it known to people with room-temperature IQs.

The problem is that most people never do read leftist books and journals - particularly not the ones who watch Fox News. Will the ones who watch Fox News also watch this movie? I doubt it - but maybe their kids, family, friends, or acquaintances will. A beachhead has to be established somewhere.



The forbidden words -- violent revolution -- will not cross Moore's mouth.


And how exactly do you plan to carry out violent revolution? Let's say "the conditions are already right" for violent revolution - what happens then?

The fact is, "violent revolution" versus "non-violent protest" is a false dichotomy. Excerpt from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1964031

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country. If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence. As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapons on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.


There are even different levels of pre-emptive strikes, such as:
Arresting their commanders before they give their orders.
Constant phone calls or loud noises outside the homes of their commanders so they never get enough sleep to do any planning.
Laying seige to the homes of their commanders.
Etc etc.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I didn't get what he meant by that. What did he mean?

Personally, I take it he means the debate between Adam Smith and Karl Marx some tend to equate to a valid economic debate.

[Niccolò Rossi]

And what have you done to advance the struggle?

What has Moore done to advance the struggle?

From your above question, it seems apparent to me that you are of the opinion he has done as such.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Michael Moore brining this into the public eye isn't a massive step forward however it will bring Socialism into the mainstream discussion and help to lessen the taboo on the word. It isn't anything groundbreaking but it isn't bad either.

[jake williams]

He is very popular, especially in the industrial cities. He is also hated by the right-wing. Interestingly enough, many of his supporters are also on the right. They know Mike stands with their class, even if his politics is on the left. He's one of the few people in American politics that is able to unite left and right-wing workers.
It's practically the most important thing we could be doing right now.

[ComradeR]

Whatever you may think of Michael Moore he is having an overall positive impact. Just yesterday at work I ran into some people who were actually discussing socialism because they saw this film.

[Sir Comradical]

Michael Moore referring to Marx? What the fuck?

[RHIZOMES]

And what has Moore really done except say, "Jeez, how awful?" What is the use of telling people to take action in general terms? What exactly is he proposing? How exactly is one to change the present system? The forbidden words -- violent revolution -- will not cross Moore's mouth. Nothing Moore has shown in the film is unknown to people of the (real) left who read books and journals. It just makes some of it known to people with room-temperature IQs. Nothing concrete will originate from this film. I'm not saying the film is a waste -- merely that it won't galvanise people towards any concrete program of change.

So you don't think merely challenging a completely and utterly totalizing pro-capitalist discourse is a positive step forward? How many workers are listening to the "book and journal" reading left (myself included)? Do we effectively communicate our ideas to the masses with our tiny left-wing sect papers? I mean, America is a society where most people think communism means some evil faceless menace which wanted to take over the world in some bizarro Darth Vader-type fashion. It helps put anti-capitalism back into the public debate again, even if at it's present stage it is largely unrefined. And not only that, it's linking it to class consciousness, which has always been present in America but the politics resulting have always zig-zagged all over the place.

[punisa]

Wohooo, now we're talking :)
I was like waiting for the point in his political development when Michael will eventually squeeze Marx into the whole story - so now there you have it. Thank you very much for this video, it certainly made my day :)

[Jethro Tull]

And how exactly do you plan to carry out violent revolution?

that is such a fucking stupid and irresponsible question to ask on a public message board.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

His views on socialism and religion, mainly Christianity, are totally false. The Bible teaches people to give their goods and money to people voluntarily, not by force. If the "evil" rich don't want to give away their wealth, horde, and be selfish then they will be dealt with in the afterlife. We are always supposed to help the poor, the hungry, the widows, etc. However, if it is just the States job to "spread the wealth the around" then it would make the teachings of Jesus concerning the poor moot.

[Cheung Mo]

Moore is a fucking bum. He actually begged Canadians to vote for the Paul Martin Liberals a few years ago.

[RedSonRising]

His views on socialism and religion, mainly Christianity, are totally false. The Bible teaches people to give their goods and money to people voluntarily, not by force. If the "evil" rich don't want to give away their wealth, horde, and be selfish then they will be dealt with in the afterlife. We are always supposed to help the poor, the hungry, the widows, etc. However, if it is just the States job to "spread the wealth the around" then it would make the teachings of Jesus concerning the poor moot.

Well the point of socialism is to make institutions and workplaces democratically run, destroying the line between voluntary popular action and actions of the state. So if Christianity teaches that people are supposed to do these things to help the poor, and under socialism they are in control of the means of production and the financial/governing institutions of their community, then the structure and the individual as one will both be in harmony with the outline Jesus gives for a "valid" lifestyle.

Furthermore, the poor are to be given equal access to societal institutions in order to improve their standard of living, not just the wasteful and often ineffective welfare check. "Spreading the wealth around" by using a modern State apparatus is not our goal; those are the Social-Democrats and hardcore "liberals". The wealth is to spread itself by popular means where it belongs, not in a top-down fashion that cleans up after the mess made by capitalism's hierarchical structure.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Moore is a fucking bum. He actually begged Canadians to vote for the Paul Martin Liberals a few years ago.

Yes a few years ago, it seems he has become more progressive since then. I still think he is merely a progressive liberal, but even talking about socialism is not entirely without its merits.

[Labor Shall Rule]

So you don't think merely challenging a completely and utterly totalizing pro-capitalist discourse is a positive step forward? How many workers are listening to the "book and journal" reading left (myself included)? Do we effectively communicate our ideas to the masses with our tiny left-wing sect papers? I mean, America is a society where most people think communism means some evil faceless menace which wanted to take over the world in some bizarro Darth Vader-type fashion. It helps put anti-capitalism back into the public debate again, even if at it's present stage it is largely unrefined. And not only that, it's linking it to class consciousness, which has always been present in America but the politics resulting have always zig-zagged all over the place.

True that.

It's obvious that the movie wreaked of chauvinism and economism, but he is a bourgeois liberal. It also didn't look at the relations in production itself, but then again, you can only disseminate a few concepts in a film if you want it to be shown at movie theaters. If he went into detail to discuss the appropriation of indigenous land and the use of slave and indentured labor, and how the internationalization of capital has lead to two world wars and continuing imperialist conflict today, then I feel that the length of the film would discourage many venues from premiering it. Also, a focus on the particularities of the crisis allows the audience to draw connections that they might not have before.

If anything, there is more to gain than to lose with this film. It allows us to introduce creative communication strategies to our radical pedagogy, in that a medium of popular culture is being used to market anti-capitalism.

[Bitter Ashes]

Let me start by stating that I am critical of Micheal Moore. I dont like his documentaries, not because of the subject or conclusions, but because I find his methods of anylsis to be faulty.

That bieng said though. I am pleased he's "come out of the socialist closet". I can only begin to imagine how Fox News are reacting to this, although it probably involves some kind of burning effigy I'm sure. Why am I pleased? Because, even if I dont personaly like the guy, a lot of mainstream centre left people who may have been put off by the sterotyping of socialism in the past, do like him and may seek to do some research of thier own as a result of him "coming out".

[cyu]

that is such a fucking stupid and irresponsible question to ask on a public message board.


Doing it in private isn't going to make you any safer. The more people you try to recruit, the more likely there will be agents of opposing forces that are among you. You have to start with the assumption that opposing agents know what you're up to, and you have to develop tactics that will work regardless of their presence.

It's actually quite fun coming up with anti-capitalist propaganda directed at people who are afraid to argue back and expose themselves. That's when you can use cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) to its fullest.

[chegitz guevara]

Would you rather him outright bomb Wall Street without a word? Because that would be a REALLY effective way to educate people on the oppressive nature of capitalism and gain supporters.

I think someone tried that a few years ago. I seem to recall they had some success knocking down a few buildings.

[chegitz guevara]

And what has Moore really done except say, "Jeez, how awful?" What is the use of telling people to take action in general terms? What exactly is he proposing? How exactly is one to change the present system? The forbidden words -- violent revolution -- will not cross Moore's mouth. Nothing Moore has shown in the film is unknown to people of the (real) left who read books and journals. It just makes some of it known to people with room-temperature IQs. Nothing concrete will originate from this film. I'm not saying the film is a waste -- merely that it won't galvanise people towards any concrete program of change.


It is, in fact, completely irrelevant what they have done to advance the struggle. It's just as important here as whether or not they have a beard or wear hats frequently. Challenge the assertion, not the person. So, for example, you could point out that they are giving Moore too much credit, but it really doesn't matter whether they prefer football or cricket.

Actually, it is not irrelevant. I'm tired of arm chair activists denigrating the work of others because it isn't perfect. Let's be honest, if Moore had our politics exactly, and he made a move which was explicitly calling for socialist revolution, I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't even have played in art houses.

The truth is, Michael Moore may have done more to advance our cause with this movie than most of us have been able to do in decades. Instead of being stupid shits and attacking Moore when millions of Americans are going to watch a critique of America's religion, capitalism. I don't have to agree with Moore, to understand that he just held the door open for me to talk to all those people.

Jesus fucking Christ, all us American revolutionaries should be down on your fucking knees and thanking the man. Not because his politics is perfect, not because he's a Marxist-Leninist, but because he has made it possibile for us to talk to the masses!

This movie was not for us. This movie is for the other three hundred million Americans (the entire country except for the few thousand perfect socialists). Lots of people are going to start checking out socialism now. You can either embrace them and guide them, or you can beat up on their hero and turn them away.

I think we all know what most of the left is going to do.

[chegitz guevara]

Michael Moore brining this into the public eye isn't a massive step forward however it will bring Socialism into the mainstream discussion and help to lessen the taboo on the word. It isn't anything groundbreaking but it isn't bad either.

You don't live in America. You really don't seem to understand how politically dead this country is.

[RHIZOMES]

Moore is a fucking bum. He actually begged Canadians to vote for the Paul Martin Liberals a few years ago.

He endorsed a possible Al Gore candidacy for the US 2008 prez elections as well. :lol:

Doesn't mean as I said before that it's positive he's bringing anti-capitalism into mainstream discourse in spite of his faulty far leftist street cred.

[Jethro Tull]

Portrait posters in post-revolutionary countries

well, the USSR, PRC, Socialist Republic of Cuba, DPRK, etc. are definitely "post-revolutionary". But so is France, Mexico, etc.

"Post-revolutionary" does not mean communist.


publicly socialist-identifying musicians from EuropeJohn was from England, which isn't exactly Scandinavia, although the word "socialism" might have a slightly more comfortable place in the public vernacular than it does here in the US.

A better example, in that case, would be Paul Robeson. Folks are acting like Michael Moore transforming from a garden-variety Social Democrat into some kind of social-fascist borderline Marxist is some new, unprecedented, and amazing development.


a well-researched documentary that challenges and deconstructs the myths of the dominant oppressive economic ideology released country-wide to an audience living in the most powerful capitalist government in the world directed by a respected and controversial figure.Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, The Metamorphasis, and other anti-capitalist texts are taught in high-school literature curricula. Plenty of box office films have offered intelligent criticisms of capitalism; Monsieur Verdoux, The Life of Brian, etc. Musicians with (at least ostencibly) anti-capitalist messages such as Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix have been promoted by the record industry in the past. Again, I see Capitalism: A Love Story as a positive development, but it's nothing earth-shattering.

[chegitz guevara]

Again, do you not understand what political life in America is like?

[Jethro Tull]

Yes, I've lived in the US all my life.

[chegitz guevara]

You sure don't act like it. The Life of Brian? Really? That was thirty fucking years ago. And I've never heard anyone call it a critique of capitalism. It contains a critique of Trotskyism, but that's different. Monsieur Verdoux? That was sixty years ago, and five will get you ten that 9/10 Americans don't know what that movie is without googling it.

This isn't 40 years ago. Revolutionary musicians aren't seen as such anymore. People don't listen to the Beatles for their politics. They just like the songs.

No, it's not earth shattering, except for the three hundred million Americans who aren't exposed to our politics on a regular basis. You live here, but you sure as hell don't live here.

[Jethro Tull]

You sure don't act like it.

Well, I'm not like most U.S. Leftists, in the sense that I don't believe American workers are uniquely decadent and unenlightened, just because the word "socialism" is less popular among the US masses.


That was thirty fucking years ago.

Thirty years ago isn't that long ago, dude.

If you want a more recent example, American Psycho, which was released in 2000, is a mainstream American film that's obviously critical of capitalism. My point isn't that American Psycho or Life of Brian is revolutionary, but that Capitalism: A Love Story isn't really, either.


And I've never heard anyone call it a critique of capitalism.

Maybe you should watch the film again. :D


It contains a critique of Trotskyism, but that's different.

Not if you consider Trotskyism a capitalist ideology:D

In all seriousness, the film criticizes Marxist-Leninist groups for posing too ineffective of an anti-imperialist resistance.


five will get you ten that 9/10 Americans don't know what that movie is without googling it.

Fair enough. Shouldn't we also wait 60 years to judge the lasting influence of Capitalism: A Love Story instead of pronouncing it as a hallmark of a profound change in American conscousness?


This isn't 40 years ago. Revolutionary musicians aren't seen as such anymore. People don't listen to the Beatles for their politics. They just like the songs.

The Beatles were not that revolutionary. Rage Against the Machine was a very popular musical group in the US in the early and mid-90s, whose lyrical themes were much more revolutionary than that of The Beatles.


No, it's not earth shattering, except for the three hundred million Americans who aren't exposed to our politics on a regular basis.

The entire American population has not seen Capitalism: A Love Story. Even if they have, it doesn't mean they endorse the perspective of the film, just that they're curious. Even if they have seen the film, and agree with it, it doesn't necessarily mean our job is easier. You're being far too optimistic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Actually, it is not irrelevant. I'm tired of arm chair activists denigrating the work of others because it isn't perfect.

Why does criticisng Moore's pseudo-anti-capitalist rhetoric make you an 'arm chair activist'?

Also, could people stop using the work 'perfect'. It has nothing to do about it not being 'perfect', whatever the hell that even means.


Jesus fucking Christ, all us American revolutionaries should be down on your fucking knees and thanking the man.

Like SPUSA's Brian Moore did with Obama? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialists-hail-new-t94461/index.html?t=94461&highlight=SPUSA%2C+Obama%2C+Brian+Moore)

"Honorable President-Elect Obama:

"Congratulations on your electoral victory to become the 44th president of the United States. Your campaign was hard-fought, and victory well-earned.

"We wish you the best in your four-year Democratic Administration and hope and pray for the change you have promised to improve the nation’s economy and general well-being.

[...]

"If we can be of any assistance in developing new ideas and programs for the country, we are at your service.

[...]

"With deep respect for the position and mantle you are about to assume, we remain your humble servants as mutual citizens."

Not because his politics is perfect, not because he's a Marxist-Leninist, but because he has made it possibile for us to talk to the masses!

Don't be rediculous. A film has not made it possible (for the first time in history or decades or what ever other rubbish) to approach the working class (in contrast to your populist rhetoric of 'the masses'). This is a rediculous and actually rather condescending line. The working class is not won to the ideas of socialism and the need for revolution through propoganda, much less in the cinema. The consciousness and combativity of the working class develops in and through the class struggle itself.


You can either embrace them and guide them, or you can beat up on their hero and turn them away.

This is opportunism. Nothing more.


Again, do you not understand what political life in America is like?

American exceptionalism, leftist style.

[proudcomrade]

I find myself divided when it comes to Michael Moore. Part of me thinks that I should be glad to support what he's out there doing; but another part of me feels this gut disgust at anything emanating from Hollywood, particularly due to the association with hypocrites like the filthy-rich, formerly-Malibu-dwelling, convicted abuser of women that is Sean Penn, or with hideous shrews like the Fonda woman and Susan Sarandon. It irritates the fuck out of me that he, Moore, and Oliver Stone are the ones traveling to Cuba and making spectacles out of themselves, while leftist organizations in the US are still typically banned and sanctioned for doing the same. These people have light-years' worth of distance from the workers due to their extreme privilege; and it infuriates me that they are speaking out while so many workers and poor remain effectively gagged- yet they aren't exactly renouncing that priveleged lifestyle, and probably won't be doing so any time soon. I have a lot of difficulty separating these problems from these actors'/directors' actual work. To me, it is just like one more reinforcement of the dominance of stupid, obnoxious celebrities in the US, and the lack of a realistic political discourse. I know, I know, it's better than nothing- but I am not so thoroughly convinced of that. Liberals may appreciate celebrity activists; but I...question them. There is just something about these filmmakers that gets in my face and reminds me of "Let them eat cake". Anyone remember how Penn dragged along his "personal photographer" during his little Katrina publicity stunt? :rolleyes:

[chegitz guevara]

Why does criticisng Moore's pseudo-anti-capitalist rhetoric make you an 'arm chair activist'?

It's one thing to critique Moore. It's another thing to entirely dismiss him and the value he has for the American left. I know he's not perfect enough to be one of you perfect revolutionaries, but the rest of us in the real world, trying just to get to first base with the worker class, he's made it a lot easier. In the crowded theater I went to, people were fucking cheering. Now, since the number of socialists in that 200+ audience was about ten, it wasn't just us. That gives us a foot in the door to talk to people about socialism and past the six decades of anti-communism that Americans have been steeped in. Of course, you know more about America than we do. living in Australia like you do.


Like SPUSA's Brian Moore did with Obama? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialists-hail-new-t94461/index.html?t=94461&highlight=SPUSA%2C+Obama%2C+Brian+Moore)

We censured him for that.

As for the rest, you have no understanding of American culture. You really have no clue how depoliticized American culture is, and how hard it is to make any headway talking to people about socialism is.

There's a reason why the U.S. has the smallest, in sheer numbers, let alone percentage, socialist movement in the entire industrialized world. There are probably more socialists in Luxembourg than there are in the entire United States.

Don't give me any crap about "American exceptionalism." You don't know what you're talking about. We need all the help we can get. Moore is helping us.

[Jethro Tull]

It's another thing to entirely dismiss him and the value he has for the American left.

I admit that the film offered a specific oppertunity for us. Namely, it offered us a venue to distribute our propaganda and otherwise vocalize our position. However, the only point of doing this would be to illustrate how Moore's analysis of the situation is missing large chunks of the proverbial picture. Going around yelling "HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES OF COMRADE MICHAEL MOORE?!?!" isn't exactly constructive, either....


I know he's not perfect enough to be one of you perfect revolutionaries, but the rest of us in the real world

It's not about being "perfect". Nobody's perfect. It's about being intellectually honest. It's about saying "well, we don't interpret the significance of Obama's presidency in the same way Michael Moore does" or "well, we're not as nostalgic for obsolete modes of production, such as Fordism, as Michael Moore is". It's about not lying to people in a pathetic and disengenuous attempt to pander to them, as if we were some marketing department or talk-show pundit.


trying just to get to first base with the worker class

:blushing:


In the crowded theater I went to, people were fucking cheering. Now, since the number of socialists in that 200+ audience was about ten, it wasn't just us.

If the other 190 people weren't cheering for what you call "socialism", than clearly something can be taken out of Michael Moore's film besides what you call "socialism". (I would call it communism or anarchism to distinguish from ideologies such as social democracy, republican socialism, national socialism, etc.) In other words, Moore's message, while good, needs to be added to, commented on, even occasionally corrected.


That gives us a foot in the door to talk to people about socialism

Lots of weird pop-culture phenomena gives us a "foot in the door" to talk to people. I just don't think Capitalism: A Love Story is that uniquely unprecedented in that respect. For example, a 1999 Hollywood film called Fight Club sympathetically portrays the act of blowing up the headquarters credit card companies. A 2005 Hollywood film called V for Vendetta was based on an explicitly communist comic book from the 80s. Neither of those films are great, they both have a lot of problems, but the same can certainly be said of Moore's work. So why is it being blown out of perportion? Are we just reaching for stuff to give our lives more meaning, because what we're doing is mostly impotent?


past the six decades of anti-communism that Americans have been steeped in.

Michael Moore did all that?

Practically speaking, the vast majority of people, not just those living in the US, but throughout the world, would oppose, either passively or actively, any genuine communist project. Again, mind the US exceptionalism. The grass is always greener on the other side. Communism doesn't mean words like "socialist" and "communist" are thrown around a lot in public rhetoric.


Of course, you know more about America than we do. living in Australia like you do.

That's a really lame argument. I'd reccomend you not use it.


you have no understanding of American culture.

If only anyone, living anywhere on this planet, could be capable of having no understanding of American culture.


You really have no clue how depoliticized American culture is, and how hard it is to make any headway talking to people about socialism is.

Yeah, Europeans will say "yay, I like socialism!" more often than Americans. They still don't want a communist society, they want a centralized, technocratic social-democratic society to grant them the material priviliges a middle-class is entitled to.


There's a reason why the U.S. has the smallest, in sheer numbers, let alone percentage, socialist movement in the entire industrialized world.

Well, workers in the US, and everywhere, for that matter, have no interest in joining completely moribund and flacid organizations such as the SP-USA, not because they're apolitical douchebags, (they are) but because the strategic models these groups impliment have never worked, have failed us for decades, and, even if they did succeed, offer us nothing more than more white-collar office hell.


There are probably more socialists in Luxembourg than there are in the entire United States.

So? "Socialism" just means welfare-state capitalism to most European "socialists". They're not socialists in the sense of wanting to overthrow capitalism and create communism. (The word "socialism" is very seldom used in that sense anymore, and should really be simply abandoned since it was always sort of a worthless word.)


We need all the help we can get.

Help yourself. There will always be silly films that reflect capitalist contradictions, or hit upon important social themes, for us to organize around. But responding to silly, mainstream cinema is not the revolution. The revolution will be done without the help of millionare "socialists", and will involve a lot more work than sitting in a movie theatre cheering for Michael Moore.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, workers in the US, and everywhere, for that matter, have no interest in joining completely moribund and flacid organizations such as the SP-USA, not because they're apolitical douchebags, (they are) but because the strategic models these groups impliment have never worked, have failed us for decades, and, even if they did succeed, offer us nothing more than more white-collar office hell.

And how has your group fared? By this same token you damn yourself.

In actuality, this is an idealist explanation for a materialist problem. The SPUSA is not a tiny sect because of bad ideas. It has bad ideas because it is a tiny sect, just like all the other tiny sects. Everyone can argue perfect theories until the cows come home, but until we are in a position to test those theories in practice, see which work and which fail, they are all so much religious thinking.

As for the rest, you are entitled to your ideas.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Chegitz, you really haven't given me much to respond to. All you've done is repeat your line with lots of swearing and insults. All it is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is 'American exceptionalist' rubbish: not only in your characterisation of the American working class as uncomparably backward (and hence why a feature film criticising neo-liberal economic policy and the failure thereof represents a monumental leap forward for the class struggle) but also in your localist chauvanism (as if a foreigner could know anything about the US... God forbid they make political commentry or criticism!).

[joseph1594]

Ha! Do not even befriend Moore. Moore in reality is just another capitalist pig set on earning millions of dollars. Moore is no ally to the revolution and has no place in it.

[chegitz guevara]

Chegitz, you really haven't given me much to respond to. All you've done is repeat your line with lots of swearing and insults. All it is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is 'American exceptionalist' rubbish: not only in your characterisation of the American working class as uncomparably backward (and hence why a feature film criticising neo-liberal economic policy and the failure thereof represents a monumental leap forward for the class struggle) but also in your localist chauvanism (as if a foreigner could know anything about the US... God forbid they make political commentry or criticism!).

If I'm insulting its because I find your arrogance insulting. I don't tell comrades in other countries how to organize, what their situations are, etc. You know why? Cuz I don't know jack shit about any country but my own. It's not from lack of studying, but know amount of study will help me to understand, say, Australia, like someone who grew up there and has been organizing there for twenty years.

Are you positing that the American working class is not incredibly backward? Is every revolutionary group in America just wrong about our own country? Do we need an Australian to come over here and show us how to organize correctly? Are you that Australian?

Do you want to ask a question, instead of telling me that I don't understand my own country? I'll stop being so pissed if you stop acting like I don't know shit about America.

Let me tell you a little something about America. The Militant organization (prior to the split) thought they could do well in the U.S. After twenty years (and one split) the IMT and CWI have less than 500 comrades between them in the USA. These are organizations that number in the several thousands in Great Britain. The SWP (UK) has tens of thousands of comrades in Great Britain. They have a thousand in the US, and that's after 35 years. There's three hundred million people in the U.S. There's maybe, three or four thousand organized revolutionary communists in the United States, of all different politics and methods of organization. That's close to one communist per hundred thousand people.

What's your explanation?

[Niccolò Rossi]

If I'm insulting its because I find your arrogance insulting.

You are. You could stop by not swearing and throwing insults at me.

Also, I don't think there is anything arrogant about my posts in this thread. If you have intepreted them as such, I apologise.


I don't tell comrades in other countries how to organize, what their situations are

I wasn't aware I had.

Just to make it clear though, I don't hold the same chauvanistic localism that you do. Just because I wasn't born, raised and currently living in a country, does not strip me of the right to make analyses of the situation or criticisms of the political organisations present there.


Are you positing that the American working class is not incredibly backward?

No.

But I suppose I would be wrong either way, after all, I don't have a right to make such analyses


Is every revolutionary group in America just wrong about our own country?

No.


Do we need an Australian to come over here and show us how to organize correctly?

No.


Are you that Australian?

No.


Do you want to ask a question, instead of telling me that I don't understand my own country?

I have asked a question. I have not asserted that you "don't understand [your] own country".

I think you've gotten yourself so wound up you don't know what your on about any more.

... or am I not allowed to say that, since I'm not you?


There's maybe, three or four thousand organized revolutionary communists in the United States, of all different politics and methods of organization. That's close to one communist per hundred thousand people.

I'd say it's alot less than that. Then again, we have different understandings of what constitues a revolutionary communist organisation.

Again, maybe I'm not entitled to make that observation, not living in Amercia and all...


What's your explanation?

I'm a stupid, ignornant foreigner.

[ComradeR]

Man it's simply amazing how the left can take something like this and turn it into an argument between extremes of opinions. Really it's nothing more then a useful tool to us regardless of Moore.

I admit that the film offered a specific oppertunity for us. Namely, it offered us a venue to distribute our propaganda and otherwise vocalize our position. However, the only point of doing this would be to illustrate how Moore's analysis of the situation is missing large chunks of the proverbial picture. Going around yelling "HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES OF COMRADE MICHAEL MOORE?!?!" isn't exactly constructive, either....
Couldn't agree more.

It's not about being "perfect". Nobody's perfect. It's about being intellectually honest. It's about saying "well, we don't interpret the significance of Obama's presidency in the same way Michael Moore does" or "well, we're not as nostalgic for obsolete modes of production, such as Fordism, as Michael Moore is". It's about not lying to people in a pathetic and disengenuous attempt to pander to them, as if we were some marketing department or talk-show pundit.
This is true to an extent. However being "ideologically pure" at the cost of isolating yourself from rest of the working class accomplishes nothing. It's true we have to be honest and not compromise our politics but we also can't shout from an ivory tower and expect people to fall in line. You have to get people to question the system and connect with them on issues that effect their lives before you start laying the socialist rhetoric on them. This film reaches a wide audience and helps us do that.

Lots of weird pop-culture phenomena gives us a "foot in the door" to talk to people. I just don't think Capitalism: A Love Story is that uniquely unprecedented in that respect. For example, a 1999 Hollywood film called Fight Club sympathetically portrays the act of blowing up the headquarters credit card companies. A 2005 Hollywood film called V for Vendetta was based on an explicitly communist comic book from the 80s. Neither of those films are great, they both have a lot of problems, but the same can certainly be said of Moore's work. So why is it being blown out of perportion? Are we just reaching for stuff to give our lives more meaning, because what we're doing is mostly impotent?
I really don't think those movies are comparable to Capitalism: A Love Story simply because they are entertainment films with socialistic undertones which is something most people who are not looking for it may ether miss it or simply dismiss it. While Moore's film is a documentary all about openly criticizing the economic system people have been taught since birth is the "end of history".

[Cheung Mo]

Susan Sarandon

lol...I hate that woman...She whored herself out to the far right through her connections to perennial Ecuadorean LOSER Alvaro Noboa. Then her joke of a friend Ralph Nader sided with the religious right on the Terri Schiavo.

[Jethro Tull]

Man it's simply amazing how the left can take something like this and turn it into an argument between extremes of opinions. Really it's nothing more then a useful tool to us regardless of Moore.

Agreed.


being "ideologically pure" at the cost of isolating yourself from rest of the working class accomplishes nothing.

I would argue that it does, as far as "ideological purity" translates into intellectual integrity. Willingness to consider new perspectives and re-evaluate established notions is undoubtedly good, but to a very large extent the communist vanguard must "isolate from the rest of the working class" in some sense.

For example, currently the majority of the working class supports capitalism. They may resent the police, but the majority of them haven't conceived of nor implemented any functioning alternative. The majority of the working class is addicted to things provided exclusively by capitalism (cocaine, for example, or air conditioning) and has no interest in forging a life without capitalism. The majority of the working class, both male and female, seems to have no problem with patriarchal control, or reinforcing the deeply-cut wounds of racial apartheid. Clearly we must distance (arguably "isolate") ourselves from these tendencies by staunchly rejecting them and acting in a way that's contrary - not because we want to be contrary to the majority, but because we want to live with integrity and achieve basic goals - in other words, because the choices and acts of the majority are currently contrary to communism.


It's true we have to be honest and not compromise our politics but we also can't shout from an ivory tower and expect people to fall in line.

Agreed. Your argument pertains to the matter of how we communicate our message. The on-going "Michael Moore argument" is ultimately a matter of what our message is.


You have to get people to question the system and connect with them on issues that effect their lives before you start laying the socialist rhetoric on them.

I see no need for "socialist rhetoric" at all, as "socialist rhetoric" is usually just another way of saying "bourgeois propaganda".

But I agree 100%, we must get people to question the system, by connecting with them on issues that effect their lives. This is our primary goal, actually, in terms of recruitment/outreach efforts.


This film reaches a wide audience and helps us do that.

Yes but since the film's analysis of society is flawed and limited, even if only slightly, there is no reason for us not to expand and improve on it. What I'm getting at is that Michael Moore is certainly not doing our job for us. It's naive to, as some on this thread have suggested, maintain delusions of writing Michael Moore and converting him to "pure" red-ism, whatever your sect assumes that to be. Michael Moore is just a silly pop culture fad who should be taken about as seriously as David Carrodine or John Travolta.


I really don't think those movies are comparable to Capitalism: A Love Story simply because they are entertainment films with socialistic undertones which is something most people who are not looking for it may ether miss it or simply dismiss it. While Moore's film is a documentary all about openly criticizing the economic system people have been taught since birth is the "end of history".

Actually I would argue that Moore's film documentaries and books alike are rife with factual inaccuracies*, and thus have significantly less credibility, among broad segments of the working class, than other forms of mainstream pop culture. Among the American masses, documentaries are less popular in general than other genres of cinema. (Don't mistake this for an argument against making, appreciating, or promoting documentaries. Rather, I'm making a point that it's irrelevant if documentaries are more direct, since the majority who are not interested in the message are not going to show up.) For example, an action film with a subversive message is more likely to engross those not initially sympthetic to said subversive message, due to their interest in other aspects of the film. While it's true that someone might not even pick up on the subversive message at all, it could very easily be true that those who go out of their way to ignore subversive messages in the art-forms they enjoy will be least likely to be recruited by political subversives.

*eg: in [I]Dude, Where's My Country? he repeats numerous absurd Internet rumors; for example, the rumor that French's mustard issued Francophobic statements during the beginning of the Iraq war, and another that (I believe) Ukranian WTC workers in Manhattan stayed home en masse on the morning of September 11th, 2001. (This is a more Zionist-friendly variant of the anti-Semitic right-populist conspiracy theory that alleges that hundreds of Jewish WTC employees stayed home that morning after being tipped off by their Zionist masters)

[chegitz guevara]

Agreed. Your argument pertains to the matter of how we communicate our message. The on-going "Michael Moore argument" is ultimately a matter of what our message is.

Actually it isn't. No one here has suggested the Moore's argument is our argument. The difference of opinion here is whether we recognize the opportunity presented to us by this film, and run with it, or whether we sit around with our lattes in our hand denouncing Moore as a fat, bourgeois fuck (as several posters have done).

There's a way to discuss Moore with people who are attracted to him and his politics. If you start out denouncing him, as several of the posters here have done, you will not win anyone over, and isn't that our goal. The critique of Moore has to start with recognizing what he's said, then saying, but it doesn't go far enough.

And I think you don't recognize the depth of appreciation the American working class has for Moore.

[Jethro Tull]

or whether we sit around with our lattes in our hand

I'm allergic to coffee, what does beverage choice have to do with this?


denouncing Moore as a fat, bourgeois fuck (as several posters have done).

If that's there perspective they should feel comfortable to express it. Should we abstain from saying what we think in case Michael Moore fans are reading and might get mad?


There's a way to discuss Moore with people who are attracted to him and his politics. If you start out denouncing him, as several of the posters here have done, you will not win anyone over

At the same time, if we unconditionally embrace Michael Moore we will not win over the folks who are predisposed towards thinking he's a "liberal weenie" or whatever.

Also, we're not dialoging with non-revleft Michael Moore fans, right now, we're dialoging with each other. If you think Capitalism is the best thing to happen to the American public consciousness, go out and make it the opportunity you believe it is. No one's going to stop you or try to demolish your project. Commies should be making their presence known at all sorts of social events.


The critique of Moore has to start with recognizing what he's said, then saying, but it doesn't go far enough.

There might be problems with Moore's position beyond "it doesn't go far enough" though...


And I think you don't recognize the depth of appreciation the American working class has for Moore.

Actually it's Democrats, working-class or otherwise, who respect Moore. (I know a lot of Demorats who, prior to Capitalism: A Love Story, were really annoyed by Michael Moore's antics) Working-class Republicans, for example, won't give a shit. A lot of working-class people are convinced Michael Moore is "unamerican" - he was after all the face of the Bush administration's opposition, a very polarizing figure, like Glenn Beck.

[PRC-UTE]

Actually it isn't. No one here has suggested the Moore's argument is our argument. The difference of opinion here is whether we recognize the opportunity presented to us by this film, and run with it, or whether we sit around with our lattes in our hand denouncing Moore as a fat, bourgeois fuck (as several posters have done).

There's a way to discuss Moore with people who are attracted to him and his politics. If you start out denouncing him, as several of the posters here have done, you will not win anyone over, and isn't that our goal. The critique of Moore has to start with recognizing what he's said, then saying, but it doesn't go far enough.

And I think you don't recognize the depth of appreciation the American working class has for Moore.

That's a good post, I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. Someone like Moore can create more interest in socialist ideas within the mainstream, and make it seem less threatening to the average person. Some starting point, no matter how impure, is better than none. "Every beginning is weak" as they say in Irish.

[ls]

Let me tell you a little something about America. The Militant organization (prior to the split) thought they could do well in the U.S. After twenty years (and one split) the IMT and CWI have less than 500 comrades between them in the USA. These are organizations that number in the several thousands in Great Britain. The SWP (UK) has tens of thousands of comrades in Great Britain. They have a thousand in the US, and that's after 35 years. There's three hundred million people in the U.S. There's maybe, three or four thousand organized revolutionary communists in the United States, of all different politics and methods of organization. That's close to one communist per hundred thousand people.

What's your explanation?

You are a fucking idiot (yes this was warranted with the earlier unnecessary attacks on NR), the SWP UK does not even have 10k people you moron (even a pro-SWP optimistic source proves this: http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/[email protected]/7903412.html whatever "unregistered members" means and this probably includes RESPECT members too which number roughly 2.5k, after the split well..). In fact, America has exactly the same amount of people active as in the UK, some comrades could even factually argue that in many ways, the left movement is purer in the USA (albeit in less explicit ways) than in the UK (ask Jacob Richter for example). Also, while I am no fan of the modern US anarchist movement in general, it mobilises a lot more people in general than the UK one.

Bear in mind the fact that so many groups here pander to left-nationalist anti-revolutionary rhetoric and that the SWP argued that we should sell out every single revolutionary left ideal we have and vote for new labour, or there is the fact that they want to physically impose their will upon other leftists at demos and hand them over to the police, so will you shut up about who knows what and work out that you're talking absolute shit. Really, ignorant nationcentric posts like yours piss me off to no end, ironically it's you who is banging on about it!

/rant

The American ICC section have an excellent (and quite dryly funny imo) critique of Capitalism: a love story here: http://en.internationalism.org/inter/152/review.

[h9socialist]

As a socialist activist in the US I can tell you that it's really hard to underestimate the number of left-wingradical activists in this country. The left has been marginal for most of the last century -- specifically since the last time Debs ran for President in 1920.

So forgive me and other comrades in the US if we get excited when a piece of popular culture comes along and states something pretty close to what we believe. We are in the process of casting off the Reagan-Bush regime in the US. We need all the help we can get -- and Brother Moore has been an indispensable ally. To refer to him as a "fat bourgeois fuck" is not helpful in the least. Because of his efforts, socialist ideas are reaching more people in the US than all the Left-wing propagandizing of the last 40 years! So what if the new recruits aren't as ideologically pure as some leftists would like? It's still a very welcome thing among the left in this country.

Finally, I would remind all of the comrades that Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara, once told some young radicals in the US that they had the most important challenge of all: fighting capitalism in the belly of the beast. That astute observation was almost understatement. This country has a long history of hostility towards socialism -- because the powers-that-be see the US as capitalism's citadel, and they'll protect that situation at all costs. Every successful cry against capitalism in the US is a blow for freedom and justice!

[proudcomrade]

You are a fucking idiot (yes this was warranted

No, it wasn't. I'm getting seriously fed up with our not being able to discuss anything civilly around here, without the inevitable regression into namecalling and ad hominems. Can we please just go back to conversing about Michael Moore? Thank you.

[Jethro Tull]

As a socialist activist in the US I can tell you that it's really hard to underestimate the number of left-wingradical activists in this country.

As a total pessimest, I believe it is hard to underestimate the number of authentic and useful communist / libertarian radicals anywhere in the world, however many, such as chegitz guevara, are trying to measure the number of communist radicals in any reigon of the world by the membership numbers of ineffective, centralized, and effortlessly infiltratable activist bureaucracies.

It's worth pointing out that the least impotent communist-sympathizing individuals would shun such organizations out of basic principles, both tactical and philosophical.

It's also really lame when the UK is held up as a shining example, when their radical leftist currents are just as pathetic in many ways.


The left has been marginal for most of the last century -- specifically since the last time Debs ran for President in 1920.

This is a pretty blatant lie...are we just going to ignore the 1960s? And the presidential aspirations of Debs or any other social-fascist politician are really fairly irrelevant to the achievement of our concrete goals.


We are in the process of casting off the Reagan-Bush regime in the US.

This sort of watered down Social Democratic pseudo-radical bullshit is exactly the reason I fear for the notion of Michael Moore as the public face of the radical left, regardless of how good the film Capitalism was. (And I am a fan of the film)

That statement doesn't even make sense...again, are we simply ignoring the Clinton administration? (If not, what makes Clinton's administration part of the "Reagan-Bush regime" but not Obama?) How are the Reagan and Bush administrations "regimes" in a way that the Clinton and Obama administrations are not? A fascist revolution would have ended the "Reagan-Bush regime" as well...


We need all the help we can get -- and Brother Moore has been an indispensable ally.

Not enough is known about Michael Moore's personal life to say for cetain that he is a "brother" or an "ally". Michael Moore, out of decency, really, is not pretending to be anything other than a silly pop-culture-generated talking head.

There are people who actually pretend to be anarchists / communists / libertarians and still use every opertunity to build up their ego, exploit and abuse others, dominate and micromanage every situation, etc.

This unhealthy and uncritical adoration of anyone who shows the slightest hint of verging on political ideas close to ours is not only a sign of sad desperation on our parts, it's also dangerous for the above-stated reason.

I have no problem writing to Michael Moore in order to proslatyze to him or whatever, if that's what you want to do with your time. But it's no more valuable that writing to some Joe Schmoe in Maximum Security Prison. I really think we need to reject rather than replicate the superficial culture of celebrity that exists in capitalist spectator-society. (Unless we just want to re-create the Yippies and other ineffectual "communist" jokers)


To refer to him as a "fat bourgeois fuck" is not helpful in the least.

He's a celebrity, we can say whatever we want about him. He might not be a fuck, and I don't care if he's fat, but objectively he is bourgeois. Members of the bourgeoisie can still be communists but some of them are more prone towards waffling.


Because of his efforts, socialist ideas are reaching more people in the US than all the Left-wing propagandizing of the last 40 years!

Are you in honestly in any position to develop and defend the factual accuracy of this claim or are you just making bold, exciting proclaimations in the name of Polyanna triumphalism? (If it's the latter, you might as well be playing Dungeons and Dragons or fantasy football, since those are better uses of your time...)


Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara, once told some young radicals in the US that they had the most important challenge of all: fighting capitalism in the belly of the beast.

Well, Che was 100% correct when he said that, at the time. (Although obvoiusly, since it's Che we're talking about, notions of the Soviet Union as a possible secondary "belly of the beast" were not explored) It's also no longer the 40s, 50s, or 60s. The PRC is now as powerful as the US in many important ways, and the EU and Russian Federation are also formidable contenders, even India and the Brazilian-Venezuelan socialist bloc are developing into emergent micro-superpowers.


This country has a long history of hostility towards socialism

And I guess the "socialist" regimes of continetal Europe, East Asia, Latin America, etc. are somehow better?

And what part of the world, exactly, are reactionary political tendencies not extremely popular? As someone who has lived under the US regime my entire life, nothing you're saying about "my country" really rings true. It mostly rings of first world guiltist self-flaggelation which isn't constructive.


because the powers-that-be see the US as capitalism's citadel

Again this is totally misinformed. Again, this is why I worry about Michael Moore being embraced as a communist celebrity. When has the international bourgeoisie ever given a shit about "capitalism's citadel"? If the majority of the international bourgeoisie had overly sentimental notions about "capitalism's citadel", they wouldn't be pulling all of their investments out of the dollar and into other currencies. Keep up, this ain't the 50s...


and they'll protect that situation at all costs.

They'll protect their bank accounts ast all costs.

[quoteEvery successful cry against capitalism in the US is a blow for freedom and justice![/QUOTE]

But some aspects of Moore's current political philosophy are not anti-capitalist.

[GatesofLenin]

I have to disagree.

Michael Moore represents a much bigger problem. We live in a world where most people are politically apathetic. What they do know is given to them by a press beholden to corporate interests. They do not have any interest in active political organizing - i.e. attending lectures, protesting, doing boring things like filing out applications, making leaflets, stamping envelopes. They are, in essence, passive. And so they look to Michael Moore to do the things they will never do. So instead of seeing the thousands of serious, intelligent people doing hard work to provide real political change, you see Michael Moore bellowing at CEOs with a megaphone.
I agree with you, I get a funny feeling when I see Michael Moore speak. I know he shows himself to be a working-man and that he supports the working class but my alarm bells go off that he's actually found a successful niche and capitalizing on it. I truly think he's full of shit and doesn't care for anyone except his own behind. Attacking the rich is in mode now but remember, Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire capitalist. Final question: are his movies free? :ohmy:

[chegitz guevara]

At least one of his movies is free, and he encourages people to steal the others or sneak in free to watch them.

[tellyontellyon]

Words like socialism and communism are very misunderstood and misused by people in the States and in the UK and Europe.
If Moore can get people to just look at what we are talking about without all the misunderstanding and assumptions and fear, well... then it is a big step forward.

At the end of the day, it is not the capitalists that need to change their minds, it's the workers.

[cyu]

At the end of the day, it is not the capitalists that need to change their minds, it's the workers.

Well said.

[Philanthropist]

Words like socialism and communism are very misunderstood and misused by people in the States and in the UK and Europe.
If Moore can get people to just look at what we are talking about without all the misunderstanding and assumptions and fear, well... then it is a big step forward.

At the end of the day, it is not the capitalists that need to change their minds, it's the workers.
Exactly, he is not an ideal candidate to try and dispel the rumours surrounding socialism, but at least he is successfully doing so. His films are simplistic yet in the context how the majority of the American working class view socialism, he is making strides towards educating in a way that's relative to the working class Americans by highlighting the true agenda of American Capitalist institutions.