Well, I'm confused. MM's films did not use any money in the making? They are not offered on the free market of entertainment? It seems to be the definition of capitalism (which is an economic system, not "the use of capital"). Did some government finance MM's films? Are you aware of who MM's investors are?
Perhaps you could help my understanding as to how a privately funded entertainment project that is freely marketed is not "capitalism". If not, what would you call it? "Capitalism" as an economic system simply refers to privately owned , free (of state control) markets. Is MM's movie funded by a government? Perhaps this is why some are confusing criminal or unethical acts as "capitalism". Are our definitions different?
I don't claim to be an expert ;), but I know BS when I see it.
You might want to reread your own definition. ::)
And keep up the personal attacks, it makes your arguments so much more credible.
Thanks for another personal attack, StephenDare!, it reinforces your character.
With all due respect, I believe that you are confusing CAPITAL:
1 a (1) : a stock of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period; also : the value of these accumulated goods (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income b (1) : net worth (2) : stock 7c(1) c : persons holding capital d : advantage, gain <make capital of the situation> e : a store of useful assets or advantages <wasted their political capital on an unpopular cause> <wrote from the capital of his emotionally desolate boyhood â€" E. L. Doctorow>
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)
With CAPITALISM:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
There is no requirement in "capitalism" for the funds used for production to be corporate. Private funds (even if MM had really paid for his movies) are no different. Your own definition even says that. The definitions are from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.
(While MM has contributed money to his films, most notably part of the $58,000 he won in a lawsuit against the liberal magazine he worked for with which he put into "Roger & Me", he utilized funding from various sources.)
Thanks for referring me to the master work of Karl Marx though! That is appropriate.
Geez! That BS radar is just screamin'!
If you can read the definition then it is as obvious as the nose on your face. Your argument that privately funded ventures are not "capitalism" is just wrong. Even if MM had used his own money or capital (he didn't), then he is still participating in "capitalism". And I'm not sure where you are getting any of the stuff your espousing on here. Where did you go to school again? Do you REALLY believe that Marx defined "capitalism" for the modern age?
For a guy that claims to have read all three/four volumes of "Das Kapital" I am a little shocked that you don't know what "capitalism" means. It's not worth the effort to keep going with you on this StephenDare!. Just ask someone who has studied this subject. And I have a little secret for you...Marx was wrong.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carney-goldman-sachs-and-ace-greenberg-helped-michael-moore-make-his-anti-capitalist-film-2009-9
Hmmm.....
Oh, I have embarrassed myself many times, don't worry about me. So, you have read all of Marx's "Das Kapital"?
Cause that BS radar is going off again.
Quote from: stephendare on October 04, 2009, 12:38:50 AM
Where was the pool of investment capital contributed to MM for his first movies that was contributed for the purposes of creating a profitable industry for the investors?
Thats the simplest question. If you can identify that capital seed, the industry that it spawned, and the group of capitalists who are realizing profit from Michael Moore's work then you would have described capitalism.
But Michael was self financed, does the work himself, and keeps the profits.
That is merely private industry, not capitalist industry.
Capital need not be pooled by outside sources to constitute capitalism. You answered your own question.
Mr Moore used his own capital (funding, assests, labor, god given talents) to produce a film which, prior to being exposed was a blank film produced by a capitalist venture, as were the assets used in the production of his films.
I realize you are trying to make a semantic point, however IMO it is incorrect.
MM is not "the devil" and I think he does make valid points. Hyperbole and misrepresentations are too often his tools used in making his points.
QuoteMichael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid
Mises Daily by Michael W. Covel | Posted on 10/1/2009 12:00:00 AM
A friend recently invited me to a private screening of Michael Moore's new film, Capitalism: A Love Story.
The September 16 invite, not surprisingly, leaned in a certain direction:
Moore takes us into the homes of ordinary people whose lives have been turned upside down; and he goes looking for explanations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. What he finds are the all-too-familiar symptoms of a love affair gone astray: lies, abuse, betrayal and 14,000 jobs being lost every day. Capitalism: A Love Story is Michael Moore's ultimate quest to answer the question he's posed throughout his illustrious filmmaking career: Who are we and why do we behave the way that we do?
Considering Moore was going to be there for a Q&A after (moderated by Arianna Huffington), I quickly signed on. Now before painting a picture of Moore's new film, let me be honest: my belief set is essentially libertarian ("Government out of my bedroom and my pocketbook"). Not only do government solutions not excite me, they scare the living blank out of me. Remember when George Bush declared, "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system to make sure the economy doesn't collapse"? He might as well of said, "Hide your money, kids â€" 'cause I'm coming to take it!"
Oh sure, in theory I would like to see everyone with their own homestead, money in their pocket for regular shopping frenzies, and no health worries despite eating at Burger King 24/7, but arriving at those goals is not exactly doable unless government robs Peter to pay Paul and/or starts up the printing press.
And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn't care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed. So not surprisingly â€" and with some generalization as I proffer this â€" Democrats like Moore and Republicans don't.
However, I was excited to see a "mainstream" film that was backed by big Hollywood bucks conclude capitalism is "evil." Arguably the most successful documentarian ever â€" a man who has made untold millions of dollars â€" was going to legitimately make the case that there was an alternative to capitalism. I sat down in a packed Mann's Bruin Theatre in Westwood, California, eager to see how his vision could possibly flesh out.
Moore is a rather simple guy. He is likable. He sees the world as good guys (people with no money) and bad guys (people with money). His Flint, Michigan, union-worker upbringing is his worldview. If you did not have that upbringing or if your life started less severe than his, you are an evil capitalist. If, on the other hand, you are a laid-off factory worker with a sixth-grade education, you are a true hero.
I don't care one way or the other that he has that view and I am not knocking union workers, but Moore sees the world through a class-warfare lens resulting in a certain agenda: force wealth to be spread amongst everyone regardless of effort.
Within minutes it was clear where Capitalism: A Love Story was headed.
We listen to heartbreaking stories of foreclosed families across America â€" but we don't learn why the foreclosures happened. Did these people treat their homes as piggy banks? Was there refinancing on top of refinancing just to keep buying mall trinkets and other goodies with no respect to risk or logic? We don't find out.
We meet one family that is so desperate for money that they were willing to accept $1,000 for cleaning out the house that they were just evicted from. Was it sad? Yes. But should we end capitalism due to this one family in Peoria, IL?
We are introduced to a guy whose company, called Condo Vultures, is buying and selling foreclosed properties. Since he acted like a used car salesman, the implication was that he was an evil capitalist. However, Moore doesn't tell us if his buyers were "working-class" people making smart buying decisions after prices had dropped.
We listen to Catholic priests who denounce capitalism as an evil to be eradicated. What would they put in its place and how would the new system work? The priests don't tell us.
We learn that Wal-Mart bought life insurance policies on many workers. We are then told to feel outrage when Wal-Mart receives a large payout from an employee death while the family still struggles with bills. I saw where Moore was heading here, but is this a reason to end capitalism?
We hear a story from a commercial pilot so low on money that he has to use food stamps. Moore points out that many pilots are making less than Taco Bell managers and then attributes a recent plane crash in Buffalo to underpaid pilots. This one crash is extrapolated as yet another reason to end capitalism.
I was pleasantly surprised at Moore's attempt at balance. For example, he included a carpenter who, while boarding up a foreclosed home, says, "If people pay their bills, they don't get thrown out."
There is also a dressing-down of Senator Chris Dodd (D) by name. Moore called out a top Democrat? He sure did. He nailed him.
There is a lengthy dissertation on the evils of Goldman Sachs. He rips Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson big time, and I agree with him. In fact, I said to myself, "Moore, you should have done your whole film on Goldman Sachs!"
Throughout the various stories and interviews he also weaves a conspiracy theory (all Moore films do this). The plot goes something like this: America won World War II and quickly dominated because there was no competition (Germany and Japan were destroyed). We had great postwar success where everyone lived in union-like equality. Jobs were plentiful and families were happy. However, things started to go bad in the 1970s â€" here Moore uses a snippet of President Carter preaching about greed. This clip was predictably building to Moore's big reason for all of today's problems: the Reagan Revolution.
Moore sees Reagan entering the scene as a shill for corporate-banking interests. However, everyone is happy as the good times roll all the way through into Clinton era. Moore does take subtle shots at President Clinton, but nails his right-hand economic man, Larry Summers, directly as a primary reason for the banking collapse. While Moore sees Japan and Germany today as socialistic winners where corporations benefit workers more than shareholders, he sees America sinking fast.
So is that it? That was the proof that capitalism is an evil to eliminate? Essentially, yes, that's Moore's proof.
What is his solution? Tugging on your idealistic heartstrings of course! Moore ends his film with recently uncovered video of FDR talking to America on January 11, 1944. Looking into the camera, a weary FDR proposed what he called a second Bill of Rights â€" an economic Bill of Rights for all â€" regardless of station, race, or creed â€" that included
the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
the right of every family to a decent home;
the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
and the right to a good education.
As FDR concluded and the film ended, I was shocked at the reaction. The theater of 400-plus spectators stood and cheered wildly at FDR's 1944 proposal. The questions running through my head were immediate: how does one legislate words like useful, enough, recreation, adequate, decent, and good? Who decides all of this and to what degree?
Interestingly, during the Q&A, Huffington and Moore discussed bank-failure fears during the fall of 2008. They asked for a show of hands of how many people moved money around or attempted to protect against a bank failure. I had the only hand that went up.
FDR's plan, hauled out by Moore six decades after it was forgotten, reminded me of another interchange â€" this one from the 1970s. Then talk-show master â€" the Oprah of his day â€" Phil Donahue was interviewing free-market economist Milton Friedman and wanted to know if Friedman had ever had a moment of doubt about "capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?"
Friedman was quick in response:
Is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? … The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
Donahue (and the video of this on YouTube is classic) then countered saying that capitalism doesn't reward virtue, but instead rewards the ability to manipulate the system. Friedman was having none of it:
And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? … Do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? … Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?
Friedman's logic was what I was remembering as a theater full of people cheered wildly for a second Bill of Rights. How did this film crowd actually think FDR's 1944 vision could be executed? Frankly, it was clear to me at that moment that capitalism is on shaky ground. From Bush "abandoning" capitalism to bailouts for everyone, to Obama gifting away the future, we seriously might be past the point of no return toward a socialization of America.
Figuring someone else must see the problems with this film, I started poking around the net for other views. One critic declared that the value of Capitalism: A Love Story was not in the moviemaking, but in its message that hits you in the gut and makes you angry. This film did not make me angry, but it did punch me in the gut. The people in that theater with me, including Moore, were not bad people. They just seem to all have consumed a lethal dose of Kool-Aid.
At the end of his Q&A, Moore pushed the audience to understand that while they don't have the money, they do have the vote. He implored them to use their vote to take money from one group to give it to another group. Did he really say that openly with no ambiguity? Yes, sadly.
www.mises.org
Post #28 explains the funding sources that Michael Moore used to make his latest movie, "Capitalism". Not that it matters in the discussion of what "capitalism" is as an economic system. But it does show that MM did not (and has never) finance the film personally.
I am not an economic expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it is an important subject. I have only met two people in my life who actually claim to have read ALL of Marx's "Kapital" and both of them were actual professional economists. My reading of it was limited to what was required . I get bored and sleepy just thinking about it. But a good location for some light economic reading including some of those that are NOT Marxist can be found here:
http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//thought.htm
No country uses a completely capitalist system, there is always a sliding scale of government control and regulation. History has proven that the "capitalist" system provides the best standard of living to our citizens. I don't think anyone (except maybe Michael Moore or some other hard core Marxist) would challenge that. The question then is what level of government control and regulation do we want involved in our system? I believe that the answer is "it depends" based on what outside influences and conditions are acting on our economy. What should be unchanging though, are our values and our core beliefs. This is a free country. Citizens have certain unalienable rights. On these points, there can be no compromise. Our citizens can live where they want and work where they want. They can work for someone or they can work for themselves according to their wishes and ability. You also have the right in this country to head for the hills and not use money or modern conveniences if you wish. Citizens have political rights and the federal. state, and local governments can not impede on those.
Moore's movies point out abuses of our freedoms and then argue that we should abandon our core values. I believe that that train of thought is misguided and dangerous. The real world show us plainly the dangers of veering our course. Castro's Cuba, China, and the former USSR speak for themselves. The European Union so often used as an example for us can not afford the current social systems that many countries have in place and it enjoys the protection of the United States. If the rest of the world provided for their own defense and carried their share of the humanitarian load it would only focus the superiority of a capitalist economy.
Can we use some changes in the modern America? Yes, I think we can and should adjust for a changing world and urbanization. Faye thinks that we should all pay for her son's tragic condition. I agree with her. We can afford and should have a system to provide for "calamity" medical. I believe that SSI is an existing vehicle that provides the best route to that goal. Of course, the devil is in the details. What conditions qualify? How do we fight fraud in such a system? What if the calamity is caused by willful risk (like getting hurt skydiving)? What we don't need is cradle to grave nanny statism that "provides" for our every need. I hope America is always a place where one can take risk and get ahead based on initiative and hard work. Where the future is unlimited, and yes, failure sucks. That is what makes this country great and life exciting.
StephenDare!, are you continuing to insist that MM financed his latest film completely on his own? I am not sure where you are going by calling my reference "stupid" other than hiding the usual LACK of facts and references in your arguments. You just say so and everyone else is just stupid? No one here knows what capitalism is except you? Really?
And StephenDare!, distribution and advertising are part of the costs of a movie like this. I don't know what the production costs of this movie were, but let's say it is about what F9/11 was, $6 million, where do you think that money came from?
And perhaps the relevant question is have you been to too many Moore movies?
So no one can ask a question except you as well, huh?
Will my answer change the definition of "capitalism"? What did YOU gain from seeing "Capitalism: A Love Story"? Moore is a socialist, do you agree with his view of our system? Do you agree with his belief that every citizen has a "right" to a home, a job, healthcare, and minimum income regardless of their ability? Can you point out the economic system that exists in the world today that you would most like to emulate?
And even though you inferred as much, you never actually said that you have read ALL of Marx's "Das Kapital". Did you read the tome that you wax so eloquently about? I answered the question, how about you?
"Das Kapital" has been translated into English several times, and is available online. I would like for everyone to go to it and settle in for a good read. Let us know how you like it.
I wonder if Moore is sharing the profits of his movies with of of the exploited workers that labored on the films. Wouldn't Marx argue that all who worked on the film are entitled to equal profits?
I answered the question about whether I had read "Das Kapital", how about you?
There seem to be a lot of questions that you can not, or will not answer. Throughout this thread I am the only one that has cited references and shown where I got my material. You have simply insulted my intelligance and called me and my argumants "stupid". That alone shows any intelligent person the outcome of our discussion. It is time that you answer some questions. See above. If you don't have any reasonable arguments, then move on to something else.
Showoff! ::)
Wow, that is quite an indictment of me. I thought that you didn't want to get personal anymore? Why do you keep doing it? From what I have seen, Moore's movie is about fraud and I am interested in hearing how that translates into doing away with capitalism.
Your apparent smugness in your mental superiority is amusing. Almost a caricature. And yet you still don't know the definition of "capitalism". Kind of funny, huh? Moore's schtick is the same. He finds individual cases of sadness or fraud, and uses those instances to argue for socialism. Documentary? Please.
What "kind" of politics do I represent? What "kind" of politics do YOU represent?
Maybe you can talk the city into giving you the Snyder building for free for a while and you guys can preach this ca-ca to teenagers and young adults who don't know any better.
StephenDare! - "So the answer is no. You haven't seen this movie. or anything hes done in years.
Why are you talking about this?
Your opinion on his work has absolutely no weight, you literally don't know what you are talking about.
You have a lot of nerve. "
So your views on the military and Law Enforcement carry no weight. You literally don't know what your talking about. OK, I won't mention Michael Moore again and you keep quiet about military and Law Enforcement affairs.
Judgement, principle, character.
Thank you for making my point. Anyone with character or principles would make a judgement.
And there are words for people who do not have principals and values. I don't have to see a convicted thief steal again to know not to give him my money.
This isn't worth bickering about. I know how you feel about MM. You know how I feel. Your views match his. Enjoy yourself.
And,contrary to what you might have heard, the concept of right an wrong, principles, values, really IS simple. It is just human to want to complicate it. And only one of us claims to know everything in the world. :)
My opinion is of Michael Moore, not this particular film. He is only one of a number of people who I will never voluntarily give my money to. From what I have read, this film is done in much the same way as his other films.There is apparently a market for this stuff. As I said, enjoy it.
StephenDare!, the discussion was about whether MM's movie effort was "capitalism". And then what "capitalism" means. I did not discuss the movie except in terms of MM's history and reviews. I haven't ridiculed anyone, unlike you, because that is a dishonest argument. What does making up "inaccuracies" about what I said say about you?