'Capitalism is evil', says new Michael Moore film

[The One and Only Mo]

Personally I have to agree with AsheDina, there is going to be a huge war as a result of the growing tensions caused by the radicals who want to turn our Country into a 3rd world Chit Hole. Michael Whore, George ( Satan ) Soros, and many others radicals who put this muslim marxist into the White House are not going to give up easily. Capitalism is their enemy and capitalism allows all people to have a better life. Their greatest wish is to have 2 classes of peoples, the elite and the poor.

It's going to get ugly before it gets better.


                                                                 Shalom - Dox

Yes sadly something is going to have to happen to get things ironed out. People like Moore are the face of evil. He present issues to the uninformed in a way that causes them to believe that they are needlessly being put at a disadvantage. People like this are very dangerous because they incite the ignorant into doing their bidding. The liberals in power today are the most radical element in the Democrat party. They want to bring everyone down to the same downtrodden and dependent condition. Only then will they have their wish of having full control of average Americans every move.

For all we know he doesn't believe anything he says in his films and he is just a marketing genius. He knows what people will buy. He brings a lot of valid points and doesn't make things up like the rest of the dumb media and the Muslims. A 9/11 conspiracy movie right after 9/11 sells, a shooting movie after school shootings sells, a health care movie during a health care crisis sells, and a capitalism movie during an economic crisis sells. Money is his yetzer hara, what can I say. There are bigger issues in the world than Michael Moore.

This is meant to be funny right?...... Moore does it for the money but I don't think its the motivating factor. I think Moore honestly believes he has scores to settle with corporate America and the establishment. What valid points does he bring to the table?....... Its true  he is always focused on the controversy of the day but he always presents it from his radical liberal socialist point of view. Anyone that says Moore speaks the truth really cant possibly consider themselves even a moderate conservative. The animal distorts the issue so bad that in the end its hard to tell fact from fiction.  Moore is a mouthpiece for the liberal far left and as such should be considered very dangerous in the political situation we are in today.

Big deal, Al Jazeera, CNN, Fox News and all that crap are worse than Moore. He is ONE problem, not THE problem. The reason he is so successful is because the rest of the idiots in the world don't research enough to formulate their own opinion. A part of being a functional human being in society is investigating every source on a certain issue and ONLY then formulating an opinion. Those who believe EVERYTHING Moore says are either misinformed, uninformed, or too lazy to conduct their own research. Just because he brings a load of crap to the table doesn't mean it's all his fault. It's the people that buy the garbage because they don't have any REAL information. Michael Moore is a tabloid. That is all. We don't have to believe tabloids.

I like Fox News while its not 100% its 75% which is sort of good by todays standards. We are just not going to agree on Moore. I see your point of view but I think the man is far more dangerous then a tabloid. I also don't believe that Moore puts research into his issues. He goes with the flavor of the day. Any time that More comes out with something he needs to get a strong rebuttal. I was never so happy when after More put out his film Fahrenheit 911 Dick Moriss put out Fahrenhype 911. 

The fact that you "don't believe that Moore puts research into his issues", and that "He goes with the flavor of the day", just proves how everyone who follows his crap is at fault. Call it the erev rav, call it whatever you want. The guy's just a fat, rich bastard who takes advantage of dumb Americans. The cigarette companies, fast-food industry, and majority of media outlets do the same thing. We'll agree to disagree.

[RanterMaximus]

I think there are so many in the political realm are nothing more than money grubbers who are willing to say or believe whatever if it makes them wealthy.  Moore is not alone.  I think the likes of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh belong in this category.  Just look at Michael Savage.  Political commentary nowadays has almost become as scripted as WWE wrestling.

[briann]

He brings a lot of valid points and doesn't make things up like the rest of the dumb media and the Muslims.

What?  Everything he says is either an outright lie or a HUGE distortion.  Watch farenhype 9/11 and you will see that his lies and distortion are purposeful.... just as purposeful as Obama's lies, or as the lies of Islam.

[angryChineseKahanist]

This devil speaks of evil?
What should we expect from a pile of slime?

[White Israelite]

IMO Capitalism is as evil as socialism.

In one case, the corporations run everything with government backing, the other side, the government runs everything with some select corporations working in the background for the government. Same [censored], different name.

Of course a communist is simply a capitalist in denial, they accept bribes just as much as anyone.

[MasterWolf1]

He is a fat ugly pig.  Goes to show what these leftist look like.. He goes to the zoo and elephants give him peanuts

[AussieJTFer]

He goes to the zoo and the elephants take a crap on him.

[Masha]

IMO Capitalism is as evil as socialism.

In one case, the corporations run everything with government backing, the other side, the government runs everything with some select corporations working in the background for the government. Same drek, different name.

Of course a communist is simply a capitalist in denial, they accept bribes just as much as anyone.

Imo, capitalism might be a misnomer. Marx defined it too early, during the period of transition. He focused on the wrong things and not on the salient points to describe this new social-economic formation.

Do we have the system that we think of as capitalism? I don't think so. how we define capitalism? Free market? But we don't have a free market. Rationalization of labor and factory production? yes, but socialism had that as well. So what are the defining characteristics? Everything is steered by the banking olygarchy that sits over and controls the money supply. The defining aspect of today's system is not the mode of production but the mode of financing. It is the virtual economy controlled by the international banking elite, This is why we observe the undermining of the nation-state. The money elite is not interested in the individual nation-state.

[Spectator]

Masha, what do you mean by 'mode of production'? The industry produces according to the customer demand, no more and no less. Doesn't it work so today?

[Masha]

Masha, what do you mean by 'mode of production'? The industry produces according to the customer demand, no more and no less. Doesn't it work so today?

If I remember my Marxism-Leninism correcly, "the mode of production" refers to the division of labor and factory production, which Marx identified with capitalism. It displaced people from the land and send them to the cities to work in factories. 

[cjd]

Masha, what do you mean by 'mode of production'? The industry produces according to the customer demand, no more and no less. Doesn't it work so today?

If I remember my Marxism-Leninism correcly, "the mode of production" refers to the division of labor and factory production, which Marx identified with capitalism. It displaced people from the land and send them to the cities to work in factories. 

I don't know if it is still the case but I was always led to believe that the Soviets worked on 5 year plans that dictated what and how much would be produced. The reason for this was the fact that government set the pricing and by doing that removed the demand or lack of demand for a product. In the capitalist system something that does not sell is soon found in the bargain bin and soon disappears altogether from the market.

[Spectator]

Masha, what do you mean by 'mode of production'? The industry produces according to the customer demand, no more and no less. Doesn't it work so today?

If I remember my Marxism-Leninism correcly, "the mode of production" refers to the division of labor and factory production, which Marx identified with capitalism. It displaced people from the land and send them to the cities to work in factories. 

I don't know if it is still the case but I was always led to believe that the Soviets worked on 5 year plans that dictated what and how much would be produced. The reason for this was the fact that government set the pricing and by doing that removed the demand or lack of demand for a product. In the capitalist system something that does not sell is soon found in the bargain bin and soon disappears altogether from the market.

Soviets produced much just to reach and surpass America. Sometimes it lead to the surplus of goods that nobody needed.
 

[Masha]

Masha, what do you mean by 'mode of production'? The industry produces according to the customer demand, no more and no less. Doesn't it work so today?

If I remember my Marxism-Leninism correcly, "the mode of production" refers to the division of labor and factory production, which Marx identified with capitalism. It displaced people from the land and send them to the cities to work in factories. 

I don't know if it is still the case but I was always led to believe that the Soviets worked on 5 year plans that dictated what and how much would be produced. The reason for this was the fact that government set the pricing and by doing that removed the demand or lack of demand for a product. In the capitalist system something that does not sell is soon found in the bargain bin and soon disappears altogether from the market.

Correct. According to Marxism-Leninism, one of the great problems of capitalism is overproduction and wastefulness. This is why they had 5-year plans of production, which they tried to model mathematically (i.e. we will need to produce so many washing machines in the next 5 years). One of the problems was that it made the economy very inflexible. It could not adjust for and incorporate trends. The clothing it produced was always unfashionable, as one would expect, because they couldn't make predictions for what would be fashionable even next year. This is why they tried to make all clothes "timeless."  

[Spectator]

Here's one funny fragment of Khruschev's debate with the Americans:

http://download.sovmusic.ru/m32/khrushev.mp3

Khruschev said:
"We still have a lot of work to do to catch up with you. For the moment, you are ahead of us. We'll do that. We'll do our best.  We'll catch up. We'll surpass you. And we'll go forward. That's my conviction. You may perhaps laugh now. But when we overtake you, we'll wave our hands and say "Capitalists! Good bye. Our train is going ahead. Catch up if you can!"

http://sovmusic.ru/text.php?fname=khrushev

 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Do we have the system that we think of as capitalism? I don't think so. how we define capitalism? Free market? But we don't have a free market.

Our system is based on Adam Smith, which is REAL capitalism - capitalism with checks and balances.    The "robber baron" completely free market system without any overarching structure or checks in place and designed to benefit only the rich (which marx and others attack) was not really what Smith talked about.    Or am I mistaken?

[RanterMaximus]

Capitalism, when left unchecked, can indeed be corrupt and polluted.  The multi national corporations get away with their thievery because they own the lawmakers of our country.  That is not what the free market was intended for.

[Masha]

Capitalism, when left unchecked, can indeed be corrupt and polluted.  The multi national corporations get away with their thievery because they own the lawmakers of our country.  That is not what the free market was intended for.

When free markets work as they should, they are supposed to insure flexibility, dynamism, competitiveness, robustness, and quick recovery. Unchecked growth is not good - it leads to corruption, loss of flexibility, and competition. We have very free market today only on the very low level. On the top, we have a power grab by perm,anent elites. Rockefeller (sp?) said that "competition is sin."

[RanterMaximus]

Capitalism, when left unchecked, can indeed be corrupt and polluted.  The multi national corporations get away with their thievery because they own the lawmakers of our country.  That is not what the free market was intended for.

When free markets work as they should, they are supposed to insure flexibility, dynamism, competitiveness, robustness, and quick recovery. Unchecked growth is not good - it leads to corruption, loss of flexibility, and competition. We have very free market today only on the very low level. On the top, we have a power grab by perm,anent elites. Rockefeller (sp?) said that "competition is sin."

This is so true.  Just look at Wal Mart.  I shop there, but there is no doubt that Wal Mart has done a lot to kill small local business because of their merciless goal to control the retail world. 

[ag337]

Capitalism, when left unchecked, can indeed be corrupt and polluted.  The multi national corporations get away with their thievery because they own the lawmakers of our country.  That is not what the free market was intended for.

When free markets work as they should, they are supposed to insure flexibility, dynamism, competitiveness, robustness, and quick recovery. Unchecked growth is not good - it leads to corruption, loss of flexibility, and competition. We have very free market today only on the very low level. On the top, we have a power grab by perm,anent elites. Rockefeller (sp?) said that "competition is sin."

This is so true.  Just look at Wal Mart.  I shop there, but there is no doubt that Wal Mart has done a lot to kill small local business because of their merciless goal to control the retail world. 

RanterM,
Your comment about Walmart is valid.
Recently, I saw a documentary about the impact that Walmart has on small-town businesses throughout the U.S.A..
And, it showed how small business owners could not keep up against a giant like Walmart.

[RanterMaximus]

The Wal Mart in my town has bought up land near it's location to prevent others business' from moving in, such as a Target.  That is just wrong to hog up land with no intention of using it, preventing more business which will create jobs and help the local economy.  And yet the idiots of that store can't keep in stock the brand of shaving cream I use!