Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story
DVD Review
Capitalism: A Love Story, directed by Michael Moore, 2009
No question the premier documentary director, Michael Moore, knows how to convincingly and artfully put together a collage propaganda (in the traditional sense) film. And he does not fail here. He shows the raw face of capitalism as it has ravaged his America, particularly over the past several decades when the working people of this country have taken it on the chin, repeatedly taken it on the chin, at the hands of today’s robber barons and economic royalists (okay, okay the 1%). His interviews of those who have been beaten down by home and farm (don’t forget those in the recent past) foreclosures at the hands of the merciless banks, the conscious “race to the bottom “ by American corporations to drive the wage rate down by outsourcing and off-shore operations, and the perfidious nature of the recent crop of politicians from selectmen to president most more than ready to do the bidding of the ruling class (okay, 1%) all are graphically and powerfully portrayed in this documentary.
Still and all as powerful as all of this work is as propaganda for an anti-capitalist (and maybe even a pro-socialist) perspective) I would, and gladly, take the expose more seriously if Brother Moore didn’t always find time to be front and center at every Democratic National Convention he can find, including, presumably, this year’s edition. One should at least be able to take one’s own conclusions seriously before asking others to do so.
Showing posts with label michael moore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label michael moore. Show all posts
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
*A Pinprick At Modern American Capitalism- Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story - An Encore Note
Click on title to link to the Renegade Eye blog posting of a review in Socialist Appeal of the Michael Moore film, Capitalism: A Love Story.
Markin comment:
Originally, I did not intend to review Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story and was more than happy to let the linked article posted on October 29, 2009serve in that capacity leaving myself the short comment below:
"Thanks for saving me from having to review this work. While we can all appreciate the work of Michael Moore in tweaking the right (here in America) I would feel much better about his work, his person, and his politics if he didn't have that front row seat safely ensconced in the midst of the Democratic Party. Michael- Break with the Democrats! Enough said."
After a recent re-viewing of the film documentary I still do no feel any great need to review the film, although in addition to the quoted comment above, which I stand by and I believe is still good advise for Mr. Moore, I do have a couple of other comments to make:
First, although this documentary was just released last year it already has a dated feel to it, as governmental regimes have changed but not the greedy profit motive that drives the capitalist economy and which the twin governmental parties of capitalism, Republican and Democratic, each in their way, serve. Moore’s main object at the time, I assume, was to take advantage, easy advantage as the case turned out, of the villainous characters that ran the capitalist government under President Bush, under whose regime all economic hell broke loose, especially in 2008. That was then, and this is now though. The easily interchangeable cast of characters now look remarkable the same, the wars the same, unemployment still at modern day highs, Wall Street bonuses obscene, Congress still under that street's thumb (as Moore, in his great film-making capacity, really captures) under new “go to” guy Obama. Sure, plenty of people had (and still have) lots of illusions in Obama so Brother Moore was not alone, although some of the others had enough sense not to film their glee for the world to see and thus have to now shield their faces from public view after the inevitable shoe has fallen.
Second, one of the central motifs here is Moore’s notion that this country can turn itself around by going back to some form of Rooseveltian “New Deal" (his Second Bill Of Rights). But his big push is for social and political action by the “little people.” (Called by Moore, and others, the middle class, although it is really called the working class, brother, at least from the film footage interviews from such towns as Detroit and Cleveland. There is nothing wrong with calling a thing by its right name, okay?) Moore makes several plugs (including at the end) for people to “do something.” Unfortunately, such a vague statement in politics can be turned on you. In a racist-tinged, anti-immigrant, starve public services (part of which is directed at those same two groups) “Age of the Tea Bag”, political action by the “little people” is not always, without a program, a socialist program, the kind of clarion call to action that one is looking for. So political programmatic clarity, always in short supply with Moore, is a must.
Finally, although I didn’t notice it as much on the first viewing, Moore’s worldview is informed by an almost Catholic Worker movement-like (formed in the old Great Depression days by Dorothy Day and others, and later included followers like the Berrigan brothers and many ex-priests and ex-nuns) sensibility. Now, as I, perhaps, have mentioned before Dorothy Day was revered in my childhood home, especially by my devout, pious poor mother. So I can thus sense the origins of the quest for justice in Moore’s work, as that spark also drove part of my own social education, if not for his conclusions. But Brother Moore that was long ago, and I was just I kid. Grownups fight, and fight hard, under the banner-Break with the Democrats! Fight for our communist future!
Markin comment:
Originally, I did not intend to review Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story and was more than happy to let the linked article posted on October 29, 2009serve in that capacity leaving myself the short comment below:
"Thanks for saving me from having to review this work. While we can all appreciate the work of Michael Moore in tweaking the right (here in America) I would feel much better about his work, his person, and his politics if he didn't have that front row seat safely ensconced in the midst of the Democratic Party. Michael- Break with the Democrats! Enough said."
After a recent re-viewing of the film documentary I still do no feel any great need to review the film, although in addition to the quoted comment above, which I stand by and I believe is still good advise for Mr. Moore, I do have a couple of other comments to make:
First, although this documentary was just released last year it already has a dated feel to it, as governmental regimes have changed but not the greedy profit motive that drives the capitalist economy and which the twin governmental parties of capitalism, Republican and Democratic, each in their way, serve. Moore’s main object at the time, I assume, was to take advantage, easy advantage as the case turned out, of the villainous characters that ran the capitalist government under President Bush, under whose regime all economic hell broke loose, especially in 2008. That was then, and this is now though. The easily interchangeable cast of characters now look remarkable the same, the wars the same, unemployment still at modern day highs, Wall Street bonuses obscene, Congress still under that street's thumb (as Moore, in his great film-making capacity, really captures) under new “go to” guy Obama. Sure, plenty of people had (and still have) lots of illusions in Obama so Brother Moore was not alone, although some of the others had enough sense not to film their glee for the world to see and thus have to now shield their faces from public view after the inevitable shoe has fallen.
Second, one of the central motifs here is Moore’s notion that this country can turn itself around by going back to some form of Rooseveltian “New Deal" (his Second Bill Of Rights). But his big push is for social and political action by the “little people.” (Called by Moore, and others, the middle class, although it is really called the working class, brother, at least from the film footage interviews from such towns as Detroit and Cleveland. There is nothing wrong with calling a thing by its right name, okay?) Moore makes several plugs (including at the end) for people to “do something.” Unfortunately, such a vague statement in politics can be turned on you. In a racist-tinged, anti-immigrant, starve public services (part of which is directed at those same two groups) “Age of the Tea Bag”, political action by the “little people” is not always, without a program, a socialist program, the kind of clarion call to action that one is looking for. So political programmatic clarity, always in short supply with Moore, is a must.
Finally, although I didn’t notice it as much on the first viewing, Moore’s worldview is informed by an almost Catholic Worker movement-like (formed in the old Great Depression days by Dorothy Day and others, and later included followers like the Berrigan brothers and many ex-priests and ex-nuns) sensibility. Now, as I, perhaps, have mentioned before Dorothy Day was revered in my childhood home, especially by my devout, pious poor mother. So I can thus sense the origins of the quest for justice in Moore’s work, as that spark also drove part of my own social education, if not for his conclusions. But Brother Moore that was long ago, and I was just I kid. Grownups fight, and fight hard, under the banner-Break with the Democrats! Fight for our communist future!
Sunday, October 01, 2006
THESE ARE NOT SALAD DAYS FOR LIBERAL HAWKS
BOOK REVIEW
THE GOOD FIGHT: WHY LIBERALS-AND ONLY LIBERALS-CAN WIN THE WAR ON TERROR AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, PETER BEINART, HARPERCOLLINS, NEWYORK, 2006
In the normal course of events these days the tasks of working class socialists, particularly during the electoral cycle, are to create and distribute propaganda in favor of socialist solutions to the crisis of humankind and to organize around a socialist program. Since we are not in an immediate struggle for political power that is more than enough work. Thus, usually the goings-on among capitalist propagandists and ideologues have no direct relation to working on those tasks. However every once in a while, as now during a electoral cycle, it is interesting to take note of what is going on in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Why? Make no mistake, while the relation of forces today is totally on their side, in the final analysis we will have to directly fight the liberal wing of that party for the political allegiance of the better elements of that party. Does any militant leftist believe that today in 2006 that our recruiting grounds are located anywhere in the vicinity of the Republican Party?
With that thought in mind Mr. Beinart’s book, the Good Fight, is an outline of a plan to undercut the so-called liberal-pacifist wing of the Democratic Party in order to draw back the allegiance of what at one time were the elements that made the Democratic Party a governing party during much of the 20th century. In short, Mr. Beinart is fighting for what appears to him to be the ‘soul’ of the Democratic Party. Mr. Beinart’s central argument is that while he and other liberal hawks were wrong, dead wrong, on support to the Bush Administrations war in Iraq those who did at least get that question right are nevertheless wrong on a strategy to either defeat or contain Islamic terrorism. Of course, in the process Mr. Beinart thus retroactively absolves himself of his ‘little error’ on Iraq in the interests of the greater war on terrorism. Nobody ever said democratic ideologues were incapable of the occasional sleight-of-hand.
The predicate for this thesis is that there is vast ‘conspiracy’ underfoot by those, apparently led by the filmmaker Michael Moore and kindred spirits, who want to take over the Democratic Party and emulate Neville Chamberlain's capitualtion to Hitler at Munich as a reaction to the current "war on terror". The result, according to Mr. Beinart, is that the centrist/ Lieberman wing will have no home and the Democratic Party will not rule again like in the good old days of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In answer, this writer makes this observation-what planet does Mr. Beinart live on? If memory serves Mr. Moore supported one General Wesley Clark, the mad commander of NATO forces in Serbia who attempted to bomb that country back to Stone Age conditions, in the presidential primaries of 2004. Moreover, do any rational liberal politicians or activists take political counsel from Mr. Moore? Certainly he is a political gadfly and provocative filmmaker but, please, go after the big game. And spend less time on the Internet.
Moreover, and I do not need to rely on memory for this one, who in the Democratic Party opposed the now crumbling war in Afghanistan? There were very few of us in those days, even those who were allegedly opposed to all wars on pacifist grounds, out on the streets protesting that invasion in the aftermath of the hysteria over 9/11. I saw no Democratic Party opposition, hawk or dove, to that little adventure. No, overall, as we are painfully aware every day, the Democratic Party is nothing more than a somewhat loyal parliamentary opposition. They take no more risks than the Republicans. The real problem is that on foreign policy, either in its containment or confrontational stages, the Democratic Party is Republican-lite. That in a nutshell is their political malaise-the Republicans do better at and are perceived to be better at protecting the long term interests of the ruling classes-end of story.
Mr. Beinart’s book does bring up a serious political question about how to fight the war on terror for those who favor a workers government and we duck the issue at our peril. Be forewarned, Islamic fundamentalism is a present threat to not only democratic forms of government but ultimately also to socialist forms as well. Thus, without being forced to outline an abstract blueprint to a theoretical question- How would a workers government in power respond to the actions of the Islamic terrorists? Fair enough.
The obvious first answer is that a workers government would try to break the stranglehold of Islamic fundamentalism at the base by, yes, throwing lots of money and organizers at the problems which keep the Islamic masses in poverty. Beyond that the breaking up of the Islamic terrorist organizations appears to be much more of police problem than a military one. A workers government, like any responsible government, would mercilessly track down every one of these cells in the appropriate manner. Finally, a workers government under foreseeable conditions would not be a pacifist government, even though its long-term aim is a peaceful world. There is a long way to go before humankind gets to that stage.
Let me suggest the following as one possible scenario that a future workers government might follow. The Soviet Union’s intervention into Afghanistan in 1979 drove the West, including the American Democratic Party headed by one President Jimmy Carter, to support the Islamic fundamentalists of that time as a proxy against the Soviets. The Soviet Union, even if eventually only half-heartedly committed to the intervention, in retrospect, was then the vanguard of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Does anyone today want to rethink that Western opposition to Soviet intervention into Afghanistan? One should. A workers government today would follow the Soviet lead demonstrated in Afghanistan and in earlier fights in the 1920’s against counterrevolutionary Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia as it attempted to consolidate the Soviet state. That is a sketch of some aspects of a workers government policy to think about. As these thoughts suggest in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism the real options are fairly narrow.
THE GOOD FIGHT: WHY LIBERALS-AND ONLY LIBERALS-CAN WIN THE WAR ON TERROR AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, PETER BEINART, HARPERCOLLINS, NEWYORK, 2006
In the normal course of events these days the tasks of working class socialists, particularly during the electoral cycle, are to create and distribute propaganda in favor of socialist solutions to the crisis of humankind and to organize around a socialist program. Since we are not in an immediate struggle for political power that is more than enough work. Thus, usually the goings-on among capitalist propagandists and ideologues have no direct relation to working on those tasks. However every once in a while, as now during a electoral cycle, it is interesting to take note of what is going on in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Why? Make no mistake, while the relation of forces today is totally on their side, in the final analysis we will have to directly fight the liberal wing of that party for the political allegiance of the better elements of that party. Does any militant leftist believe that today in 2006 that our recruiting grounds are located anywhere in the vicinity of the Republican Party?
With that thought in mind Mr. Beinart’s book, the Good Fight, is an outline of a plan to undercut the so-called liberal-pacifist wing of the Democratic Party in order to draw back the allegiance of what at one time were the elements that made the Democratic Party a governing party during much of the 20th century. In short, Mr. Beinart is fighting for what appears to him to be the ‘soul’ of the Democratic Party. Mr. Beinart’s central argument is that while he and other liberal hawks were wrong, dead wrong, on support to the Bush Administrations war in Iraq those who did at least get that question right are nevertheless wrong on a strategy to either defeat or contain Islamic terrorism. Of course, in the process Mr. Beinart thus retroactively absolves himself of his ‘little error’ on Iraq in the interests of the greater war on terrorism. Nobody ever said democratic ideologues were incapable of the occasional sleight-of-hand.
The predicate for this thesis is that there is vast ‘conspiracy’ underfoot by those, apparently led by the filmmaker Michael Moore and kindred spirits, who want to take over the Democratic Party and emulate Neville Chamberlain's capitualtion to Hitler at Munich as a reaction to the current "war on terror". The result, according to Mr. Beinart, is that the centrist/ Lieberman wing will have no home and the Democratic Party will not rule again like in the good old days of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In answer, this writer makes this observation-what planet does Mr. Beinart live on? If memory serves Mr. Moore supported one General Wesley Clark, the mad commander of NATO forces in Serbia who attempted to bomb that country back to Stone Age conditions, in the presidential primaries of 2004. Moreover, do any rational liberal politicians or activists take political counsel from Mr. Moore? Certainly he is a political gadfly and provocative filmmaker but, please, go after the big game. And spend less time on the Internet.
Moreover, and I do not need to rely on memory for this one, who in the Democratic Party opposed the now crumbling war in Afghanistan? There were very few of us in those days, even those who were allegedly opposed to all wars on pacifist grounds, out on the streets protesting that invasion in the aftermath of the hysteria over 9/11. I saw no Democratic Party opposition, hawk or dove, to that little adventure. No, overall, as we are painfully aware every day, the Democratic Party is nothing more than a somewhat loyal parliamentary opposition. They take no more risks than the Republicans. The real problem is that on foreign policy, either in its containment or confrontational stages, the Democratic Party is Republican-lite. That in a nutshell is their political malaise-the Republicans do better at and are perceived to be better at protecting the long term interests of the ruling classes-end of story.
Mr. Beinart’s book does bring up a serious political question about how to fight the war on terror for those who favor a workers government and we duck the issue at our peril. Be forewarned, Islamic fundamentalism is a present threat to not only democratic forms of government but ultimately also to socialist forms as well. Thus, without being forced to outline an abstract blueprint to a theoretical question- How would a workers government in power respond to the actions of the Islamic terrorists? Fair enough.
The obvious first answer is that a workers government would try to break the stranglehold of Islamic fundamentalism at the base by, yes, throwing lots of money and organizers at the problems which keep the Islamic masses in poverty. Beyond that the breaking up of the Islamic terrorist organizations appears to be much more of police problem than a military one. A workers government, like any responsible government, would mercilessly track down every one of these cells in the appropriate manner. Finally, a workers government under foreseeable conditions would not be a pacifist government, even though its long-term aim is a peaceful world. There is a long way to go before humankind gets to that stage.
Let me suggest the following as one possible scenario that a future workers government might follow. The Soviet Union’s intervention into Afghanistan in 1979 drove the West, including the American Democratic Party headed by one President Jimmy Carter, to support the Islamic fundamentalists of that time as a proxy against the Soviets. The Soviet Union, even if eventually only half-heartedly committed to the intervention, in retrospect, was then the vanguard of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Does anyone today want to rethink that Western opposition to Soviet intervention into Afghanistan? One should. A workers government today would follow the Soviet lead demonstrated in Afghanistan and in earlier fights in the 1920’s against counterrevolutionary Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia as it attempted to consolidate the Soviet state. That is a sketch of some aspects of a workers government policy to think about. As these thoughts suggest in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism the real options are fairly narrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)