Michael Moore

[Colonello Buendia]

Ok guys, why exactly is Moore frowned upon on this site? because I thought he was decent could somebody help me on this?

[Jazzratt]

It's because he's a liberal. He can say fairly insightful things but he still misses the wider causes of all the problems he rails against - he is essentially fighting to remove the symptoms but not the disease.

[lvleph]

He also makes shit up. How can one further a cause, which is what he claims to be doing, when the shit he says in many cases are lies. No one will believe the ones you are telling the truth about if you are found out to be a liar.

And +1 on Jazzratt

[Colonello Buendia]

ahh, now I understand, is he like a reformist, maybe not the right word but does he want to like tackle issues but not the cause of the issue

[Ander]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[Colonello Buendia]

ok I understand, thanks you guys

[Comrade Phil]

Some of the remarks Moore made in the documentary "The Corporation" make me think that he does have some sort of understanding regarding capitalist exploitation and class conflict. I think that he purposely takes a liberal stance in order to gain more widespread popularity among Americans. Seems like kind of a sell-out move.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jealousy: because most lefties (me included) haven't a clue how to get our message across, we denigrate anyone (including Moore) who shows us up in this regard.

Apparently, it is more important to be orthodox than it is to be listened to.

[Herman]

Jealousy: because most lefties (me included) haven't a clue how to get our message across, we denigrate anyone (including Moore) who shows us up in this regard.

Apparently, it is more important to be orthodox than it is to be listened to.

Precisely.

He might not be "attacking" the "root" of the problem, but "attacking" the "symptons" is a good thing too. It seems people here are concerned more with wanting their super communist society rather then genuinely helping the poor and the workers to gain more rights. It might not be an end, but it can certainly be a means to that end.

Examples:

Guy 1: "Our troops from withdraw from Iraq. It is immoral that they should be invading another country!"

Revleft sectarian: "LOL He's not denouncing capitalism, he's a liberal!!!11"

Guy 2: "We should have nationalized healthcare so that anyone can have free access to doctors and medical treatment"

Revleft sectarian: "LOL He's not denouncing capitalism, he's a liberal!!!11"

[Labor Shall Rule]

I agree with Herman. Though he is a liberal, his documentaries do not triumph the Democrats as some sort of 'alternative', and are genuine critiques of problems prevalent with capitalist society.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 10:05 am
Jealousy: because most lefties (me included) haven't a clue how to get our message across, we denigrate anyone (including Moore) who shows us up in this regard.
This is, to some extent, undeniable.


Apparently, it is more important to be orthodox than it is to be listened to.

I think it is more important to say what I want to say than to be orthodox or to be listened. After all, if the price to be listened is to say what I do not think, am I really being listened? Or is it "the Master's voice" speaking through my mouth that is being listened?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:09 am
Examples:

Guy 1: "Our troops from withdraw from Iraq. It is immoral that they should be invading another country!"

Revleft sectarian: "LOL He's not denouncing capitalism, he's a liberal!!!11"
Non-sectarian American leftist:

Yes, our troops should withdraw from Iraq, and it is immoral that they are invading another country. However, they do this to secure America's domination over the region, which is important both in a political-military sence, and in an economic sence to certain interests within our country. If we want our troops to withdraw from there, and keep out from invading any other countries, we must confront the interests that bid us to such adventures.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I think it is more important to say what I want to say than to be orthodox or to be listened. After all, if the price to be listened is to say what I do not think, am I really being listened? Or is it "the Master's voice" speaking through my mouth that is being listened?

Ah, but far too many comrades confuse 'orthodoxy' with impenetrable jargon, revolutionary cliche, and long boring diatribe that not a single worker would read short of having a gun pointed at her/his head.

That is the 'orthodoxy' I was referring to.

And then we wonder why no one listens to us...

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 05:34 pm
Ah, but far too many comrades confuse 'orthodoxy' with impenetrable jargon, revolutionary cliche, and long boring diatribe that not a single worker would read short of having a gun pointed at her/his head.
Oh, yes, that is true.

On the other hand, other people confuse being accessible to workers with saying what people want to hear, which usually is related to what the bourgeois midia have trained them to expect (and sometimes, they also convey this in impenetrable jargon, too).

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, I agree; but Moore is not one of those.

[spartan]

I am in complete agreement with Rosa and Herman on this issue.

Sure Moore isnt perfect but he is better than nothing.

And also who's anti-establishment message reaches a wider audience?

His or ours?

[Dros]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 10:05 am
Jealousy: because most lefties (me included) haven't a clue how to get our message across, we denigrate anyone (including Moore) who shows us up in this regard.

Apparently, it is more important to be orthodox than it is to be listened to.
Michael Moore is not a leftist. He is a liberal.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Silence, for drosera has spoken:


Michael Moore is not a leftist. He is a liberal.

So, you say, but we are learning not to believe a single thing you tell us.

[Dros]

So, you say, but we are learning not to believe a single thing you tell us.

Despite your obvious efforts to start a flame war, I have tried to remain civil. Are you really going to drag your silly little beef with me into the rest of the forum?

Really...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


Despite your obvious efforts to start a flame war, I have tried to remain civil. Are you really going to drag your silly little beef with me into the rest of the forum?

You clearly think that to disagree with you is to 'flame' you.

I am sorry, therefore, for not recognising your semi-divine nature, oh great one.

I will, henceforth, learn to accept all you have to say -- so long as you carve it onto stone tablets like you did back in the book of Exodus.

Deal?

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:38 pm
I am in complete agreement with Rosa and Herman on this issue.

Sure Moore isnt perfect but he is better than nothing.

And also who's anti-establishment message reaches a wider audience?

His or ours?
It doesn't matter how many people hear a message if that message is reactionary and Moore message is very reactionary it basically tells people to support the Democratic party and to pressure the Democrats to be a workers party. One just has to look at the Labour party in Britain to see turning bourgeois parties into workers parties is a total waste of time. Look at Naomi Klein's "The Take" where she shows the factory occupations in Buenos Aires, the documentary does a good job covering the power of the workers and is accessible as it makes the viewer connect with rebel workers. I could be wrong but I don't remember Moore telling people to watch the "The Take" (or Moore doing anything as good as The Take).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Parts of his 'message' is as you say, but not all of it.

[bootleg42]

I think most of you labeling him as "liberal" is wrong. He's been very critical of the liberals and of the capitalist system in general. But he's also hated on communism and marxism and anarchism many times.

He seem like a social democrat. He seems to have a love affair with Europe and their style of social democracy.

Bottom line he's not revolutionary but he's not the complete evil of the world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bootleg, I think you have hit the nail on the head, but you will never get this idea past the Heresy Hunters here (who are mostly but not exclusively Maoists), who prefer to communicate to 'the masses' by means of enforced 'education', guns, jails and executions -- so much more 'socialist', I think you will agree, than mere persuasion, of the sort that Moore enagages in.

[Demogorgon]

I don't think many people here know what a lib eral is. Which is sort of understandable given how broad the term is. But the way people go on about it is both bizarre and amusing. At any rate Moore is a Social Democrat, maybe a Democratic Socialist. He might not have the perfect revolutionary message witht he exact Sectarian biases you want to here, but grow up. Anything that reaches a wide audience from a leftist perspective is a good thing. I once saw someone here saying Cindy Sheehan was no good because she didn't produce any theoretical works on class analysis. That just shows to me how utterly out of touch some people here are.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Absolutely right Demog (if I may call you this).

Far too may of us prefer to be ideologically pure, and obscure, even though we communicate only with our own tiny sect, while the capitalist class controls the ideas of the majority.

Once again: and we wonder why workers do not listen to us. :rolleyes:

It is quite posssible for us to use Moore's ideas, but push the argument further -- but he at least raises the issues in ways that ordinary people can understand, and find both interesting and engaging.

This opens up opportunities for us to explore.

[Luís Henrique]

Having said something about sectarianism and tailing-ism in general... now about Michael Moore in particular:

I can't claim to be an expert on Michael Moore. I have seen his documentary about Columbine, which is very good, semi-read his book about where his country is (I found it very boring, so I quit before the end), seen one or two of his TV programs, and read and heard comments about him, from people all over the political spectrum.

He strikes me as an specimen of what I would call "exclamative journalism". Now, what is that? It is a practice among some journalists, to write about their subject as if it was the most unexpected, incredible, thing ever reported. This is a technique that works very badly in printed form, because it needs a very naïve public, and a public that reads is not as naïve as a public that sees the movies or the TV - and, also, the movies and the TV have, due to the images they show, a much greater ability to suspend our incredulity and inspire awe.

This is probably the reason I liked his movie so much, and the TV programs even better, and could not read his book to the end.

Now, the Columbine movie, as the book, does not go beyond liberal ideology, although of a very special, very American, kind of liberal ideology, much centered in what some call middle class guilt. I particularly remember his comparisons between criminality in the US and other developed countries. It somehow echoes the "American dummy" myth found in the third world; it seems there is something wrong with being American. Moore moves on to specify such "something wrong": according to him, it is a "culture of fear", caused by the need to live along people who are brutally harmed by American opulence. This is, of course, a totally idealistic perception, that does not deal with the real problems, and does not point to realistic changes that could be done to improve the relations between the American populace and the issue of violence.

But the movie works, and is very funny and enjoyable, while the book is a mess. In print, the prestidigitator cannot work properly; I can go back, reread, suppress the enchantment, and understand what he is saying; besides, the printed word has not the same magic properties of the animated image. And so, while the movie is wonderful, albeit being totally naïve as an analysis of the problem, the book cannot be wonderful, because it is to naïve to be read.

Now the TV programs were a different experience. While of course Moore isn't able to decipher the issues he discusses, he is nevertheless able to discuss issues that are way beyond the limits of liberalism, showing daily problems of the working class, unemployment, the fascination of the military, housing difficulties, etc, that you don't expect to be exposed in the "small screen" (to be fair, the movie, to certain extent, does the same thing - but this is something common in cinema, not in TV; and, besides, the movie tries a broad explanation that Moore is unable to manage, while the TV programs seem more modest, conveying more perplexity than intellectual arrogance).

Finally, there is an issue about Moore's credibility. It seems that he often distorts reality, to better fit his ends; I have it difficult to assess that, since he usually refers to a reality that is too much removed from me. But I have read that from people in the far right, and also from people in what, in American terms, could be called "the broad left", ie, people who are ideologically close to Moore.

It reminds me of a Stalinist paper here, Hora do Povo. While they often make some valid points, they overstate them, and mingle them with so much obvious falsities, that they become unreliable. I don't know if it is the case with Moore, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 11:22 am
Demog (if I may call you this).
Methinks he is the People's Meduse.

Luís Henrique

[Psy]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 11:22 am
Absolutely right Demog (if I may call you this).

Far too may of us prefer to be ideologically pure, and obscure, even though we communicate only with our own tiny sect, while the capitalist class controls the ideas of the majority.

Once again: and we wonder why workers do not listen to us. :rolleyes:

It is quite posssible for us to use Moore's ideas, but push the argument further -- but he at least raises the issues in ways that ordinary people can understand, and find both interesting and engaging.

This opens up opportunities for us to explore.
But Naomi Klein is also accessible and has a better message. Even on Iraq, Moore is simplistic just saying the troops have to come home while Naomi Klein points to the economic domination of Iraq by imperialist powers so even if all the imperialist troops go home there is still the problem that Iraq does not own their own means of production. Moore calls Iraq a mistake while Naomi Klein calls Iraq imperialism.

Now even Naomi Klein does have a rock solid understand, her interview with Green Span on Democracy Now was just painful she just didn't have a deep enough understand to take on the bourgeois intellectual like Green Span but she does have enough understanding to communicate to the masses.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 11:10 am
Bootleg, I think you have hit the nail on the head, but you will never get this idea past the Heresy Hunters here (who are mostly but not exclusively Maoists), who prefer to communicate to 'the masses' by means of enforced 'education', guns, jails and executions -- so much more 'socialist', I think you will agree, than mere persuasion, of the sort that Moore enagages in.
Those people you refer too seem just to be dogmatic. A problem we'll all have to face in the left. I mean as long as we're all fighting for a CLASSLESS and STATELESS society, then we'll be good. It's when you stop fighting for the ultimate goal (take note of the word "ultimate goal") of the classless, stateless society is when you're no longer a revolutionary leftist.

Moore may not be fighting for the classless and stateless society we're fighting for but he certainly is not the evil of the world and if humans were to make a real move towards a classless/stateless society, I don't think Moore will be on the frontline of the counter-revolution.

We can use the information he gathers to EDUCATE the public. I mean in bowling for Columbine, anyone remember that scene of that poor black woman having to travel miles and miles a day to go to a shitty job, get paid shit, and having to work mainly to pay back the government for money they "wanted back"??? In sicko, those stories of people not having access to good healthcare shows that there is something wrong in those systems.

I know he's praised European style Social Democracy, but that idea of free healthcare for all came from one group of people (here's a hint.........it's mostly us). We can use information and data like this to EDUCATE the masses, the working people.

Get the people to gain class consciousness. Once people gain class consciousness, the rest will go on it's own way ALOT easier than it's been going on today in countries like the United States.

[spartan]

I am in complete agreement with you here bootleg42.

Most of the, very few, good things about our Capitalist society are only here because we Socialists and workers came up with them and pushed for them to be implemented.

But i wonder how many of todays people, who benefit directly from our actions, ideas and struggles, know this?

That is why we should start educating the masses.

The trouble is though how do we educate the masses?

Through propaganda perhaps?

If so then what type of propaganda?

Newspaper articles, newsletters, pamphlets, etc?

[bootleg42]

Propaganda does not work as well as being there in person and talking to people.

An example of mine from last week (good example here, READ THIS BELOW):

Last week in my gym, I was done with my workout (a hard one, legs day) and I was talking to some of my fellow gym rats. Everyone in the gym were working people (aka proletariat). They were talking about the sadness of global warning. They were all getting happy when they heard the news of this global warming conference that happened a week ago. I then told them that the conference will do nothing and that if there is a global warming problem, it will not be solved by that conference, nor will it be solved by the people in that conference.

They all started to ask me why I think so. I stated, "simple, they've got nothing to lose in the global warming issue. If they can't fix it, they'll still go back home, to their nice houses with their big clean new cars. Even if floods start occurring in many parts of the world, they'll have a nice place to be, plenty of money to stay alive and survive. We won't."

Then one of them stated, "then WE'VE got to do something about it". Then I asked (important part here)...I asked, "Who are "we"???".

First he said, "by we I mean the country". I then said such an issue (global warning) affects the world. He then said, "then we mankind must do something, that's why I like Al Gore and hope he does something,etc."

Then I started to force him to compare Al Gore and himself. I wanted him to realize that Al Gore was of a DIFFERENT CLASS then himself. I was able to get him to compare his own economic situation to Al Gore's. I then made him realize that people like Gore and the other people in that conference GOT NOTHING TO LOSE in an inportant issue LIKE global warming, so they probably won't be able to fix it. I then explain that such an issue like global warming, poverty, war, can only be fixed by US, the working class.

^^^My strategy was just for him to realize what class he was a part of and to gain the ability to distinguish who's in what class.

My next strategy is to teach the economics. I've already started with them. a half hour a day, me and 5 of them sit in a table (in the gym) to learn economics which I teach them.

This is the thing....I teach them BOTH capitalist economics and socialist economics. I don't hide anything from them. I also look to create critical thinking and I challenge them (when they come up with something very wrong, I ask them the simple question...."why"?). I force them to challenge me. I want to create consciousness not dogma.

[Psy]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 17, 2007 12:16 am--> (bootleg42 @ December 17, 2007 12:16 am)
Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 11:10 am
Bootleg, I think you have hit the nail on the head, but you will never get this idea past the Heresy Hunters here (who are mostly but not exclusively Maoists), who prefer to communicate to 'the masses' by means of enforced 'education', guns, jails and executions -- so much more 'socialist', I think you will agree, than mere persuasion, of the sort that Moore enagages in.
Those people you refer too seem just to be dogmatic. A problem we'll all have to face in the left. I mean as long as we're all fighting for a CLASSLESS and STATELESS society, then we'll be good. It's when you stop fighting for the ultimate goal (take note of the word "ultimate goal") of the classless, stateless society is when you're no longer a revolutionary leftist.

Moore may not be fighting for the classless and stateless society we're fighting for but he certainly is not the evil of the world and if humans were to make a real move towards a classless/stateless society, I don't think Moore will be on the frontline of the counter-revolution.

We can use the information he gathers to EDUCATE the public. I mean in bowling for Columbine, anyone remember that scene of that poor black woman having to travel miles and miles a day to go to a shitty job, get paid shit, and having to work mainly to pay back the government for money they "wanted back"??? In sicko, those stories of people not having access to good healthcare shows that there is something wrong in those systems.

I know he's praised European style Social Democracy, but that idea of free healthcare for all came from one group of people (here's a hint.........it's mostly us). We can use information and data like this to EDUCATE the masses, the working people.

Get the people to gain class consciousness. Once people gain class consciousness, the rest will go on it's own way ALOT easier than it's been going on today in countries like the United States.[/b]
You can find better documentaries that are as accessible. The Documentary "The Take" shows class struggle, it smashes the myth that greed prevents anything better as it covers the solitary of the workers, it show workers don't need the capitalist to produce and these are far more important then anything Moore gets across.

You want to get workers to start questioning capitalism show them "The Take" not Moore documentaries.

[Herman]

He seem like a social democrat. He seems to have a love affair with Europe and their style of social democracy.

Bottom line he's not revolutionary but he's not the complete evil of the world.

The truth at last.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Psy+December 17, 2007 02:10 am--> (Psy @ December 17, 2007 02:10 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:16 am

Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 11:10 am
Bootleg, I think you have hit the nail on the head, but you will never get this idea past the Heresy Hunters here (who are mostly but not exclusively Maoists), who prefer to communicate to 'the masses' by means of enforced 'education', guns, jails and executions -- so much more 'socialist', I think you will agree, than mere persuasion, of the sort that Moore enagages in.
Those people you refer too seem just to be dogmatic. A problem we'll all have to face in the left. I mean as long as we're all fighting for a CLASSLESS and STATELESS society, then we'll be good. It's when you stop fighting for the ultimate goal (take note of the word "ultimate goal") of the classless, stateless society is when you're no longer a revolutionary leftist.

Moore may not be fighting for the classless and stateless society we're fighting for but he certainly is not the evil of the world and if humans were to make a real move towards a classless/stateless society, I don't think Moore will be on the frontline of the counter-revolution.

We can use the information he gathers to EDUCATE the public. I mean in bowling for Columbine, anyone remember that scene of that poor black woman having to travel miles and miles a day to go to a shitty job, get paid shit, and having to work mainly to pay back the government for money they "wanted back"??? In sicko, those stories of people not having access to good healthcare shows that there is something wrong in those systems.

I know he's praised European style Social Democracy, but that idea of free healthcare for all came from one group of people (here's a hint.........it's mostly us). We can use information and data like this to EDUCATE the masses, the working people.

Get the people to gain class consciousness. Once people gain class consciousness, the rest will go on it's own way ALOT easier than it's been going on today in countries like the United States.
You can find better documentaries that are as accessible. The Documentary "The Take" shows class struggle, it smashes the myth that greed prevents anything better as it covers the solitary of the workers, it show workers don't need the capitalist to produce and these are far more important then anything Moore gets across.

You want to get workers to start questioning capitalism show them "The Take" not Moore documentaries. [/b]
Thanks for the documentary suggestion but I was not saying that we can show Moore's work to create revolutionary situation.

I'm saying that he's gathered plenty of data that proves (whether it be his intention or not) just how damaging capitalism is to workers and poor people. We should use the data (along with a TON of other data) to create arguments against capitalism and to present them to the working class.

That does not mean we'll all fall into becoming social democrats and lose our revolutionary selves. This does not mean that we will end up stopping the fight for the ultimate goal of a classless and stateless society (key words there are ULTIMATE goal)

But this does not mean we're going to waste our time trying to write off the work of someone like Michael Moore, just because HE may hold the belief that we can fix the capitalist system instead of getting rid of it all together. This means that we have more information to present to the working class in a format that the working class themselves can understand.

It'll be up to us educating the working class and poor and the conditions around the them that will lead to revolution. Dogmatism will only give the capitalist more political power.

And a good idea (to those who are afraid that works of Moore and other "social democrats" will only lead the working people to social democracy and NOT to revolutionary thinking) is too teach the people the flaws of Moore's proposed alternatives. But don't make them the MAIN POINT of your whole discourse. Challenge the working class to critically think everyone, including you and themselves.

Only then can we take a big step towards the classless and stateless society we want.