Michael Moore

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I see. First off, where exactly was it that Moore called for some kind of revolution, some seizing the means of production? Could ya give a reference? Is it anything like that "lynch," remark in one of these posts, or the constant suggestions of violence I read here?

I fail to see where "Roger and Me," attacked working people. Or was Moore wrong about his facts? was there no "Autoworld," put up by the city's leaders, to turn Flint into a tourist attraction? No massive layoffs? No giant payouts to corporate heads and CEOs?

I think you've turned the whole thing on its head. You have a group--composed the rich, and the upper middle class, and the wannabes--who have seized control of the means of production from everybody--that's you and me. They make damn sure that their kids start out with an unfair advantage--or does anybody actually think that Bush, Jr. earned his way into Yale as his father actually did? Or think that Bush Jr. didn't have a hell of a lot of help in making a profit out of various failed oil bidnesses and a job with the Texas Rangers?

Then, we demand our share of the pie and we're the greedy ones?

A lot of folks on these forums complain about the media. Fine, me too. The public airways--the public airways, mind you--got given away to a buncha lobbyists. Not OK, in my opinion. So pretty much none of us approve of this--so when we try and get some of the p[ie back, is that fascism?

Folks, these ideals about strong men a la Howard Roark who wrest their fortunes out of the very earth is a fantasy. Look at the Kennedys, whose patriarch was a bootlegger...look at Barbara Walters, whose dad ran a speakeasy...look at the Rockefellers...look at...well, you get the picture.

Did I fall asleep and Enron disappeared? The massive energy company ripoffs of the last couple years? the....well, add your own list.

I don't see how criticism is fascist.

Robert,

I grew up in Flint and Metro area.

Where are you from? I am sure I can fins disgruntled people in your town to say anything also.

As for Auto World, Some out state investors pitched the idea to the State of Mich and then the the City of Flint. This was not done by the auto maker(s).

As for commentary, when some geek shows up at the Corp HQ and asks to see the CEO without an appointment, and then pitched to the camara that everything he has said must be true since no one will come out and give him an interview to the other point of view. The Evil Corps have done lots of things. The last time I checked it was ok to leave a town if you could no longer afford to build a product there.

As to that issue, the Unions were so strong in this town you could not cross the street without paying taxes to at least three of them. When Baggers at your local Grocery Store make $8.50 an hour in 1975, and the Cashier's make $16.50 to $21 which was even more then some or many of the Union workers. Then there is a problem, yes. But the problem was not the EVIL corps. The Evil Local Companies went out of business and the Chains were sold off. The Auto industry lay-offs also were part of the issue, but were only a small part of the whole picture. Yet, since you seem to not care about the whole picture, I will assume that you live in this nice Middle Class Home raised from Middle Class parents and never really had to worry about food, or making bills, well unless your credit cards were over the limit for your last trip to the Bahamas or Hawaii? You see, I only have your post to go by, and this how I see the picture. Not the whole picture. Sorry, but The Violence to this Moore Person who claims to be a local FLint residence was NOT. To the Moore Person who exploited the workers and the those living in this city and the surrounding area I say he is a hippocrite. Saying one thing and donig anything it takes to make his name. Come to my little town I will take you around and show the closed factories and the closed business, and the closed Auto World. Yet, unless you were there, you will not know that the factories were some of the last to close. Sis you know that some of these factories had been around since 1909 and were too expensive to maintain compared to other plants that had room and were sitting idle. Did you know that the City and the State came in and said No More Tax deferment, yet the Federal Gov. had declared the area a No Tax zone due peopel trying to regrow and retake the area. So The EVIL Corps were left out of the No Tax ZOne. It follow all the way around their plants. They never wanted to not pay taxes, they proposed to pay the same rate they had always been paying. Good PR! Well the City wanted Moore. Oh yeah did you know that the City it self is noe BankRupt and the State had to step in and take over. All these issues are from the Evil Corps, one might think that. Yet it is a spiral down the toilet from miss management and lies all the way around.

Liek I said, I offer you a room at my house, in nice suberb of Flint and I will let you do some research, and I will even escort you in the sections of town you should not be in. I offer this to show you that not all of what you see in a documentary may be the absolute 100% truth.

I do travel for work and MArtial Arts, so e-mail me and we can discuss the best time.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I see. First off, where exactly was it that Moore called for some kind of revolution, some seizing the means of production? Could ya give a reference?

As I said, it was a program of a lecture he gave to promote his (at the time) new book, "Downsize This."

He pointed out that under the rules of our democracy, the factory owners could only make one vote each. And since the people in the group and community were many, he made the point that maybe they should pass laws that would not allow a factory owner or big business owner to lay off people while they were making a profit.

Now, if the factory owners had resisted the law and tried to run their factory as they wanted, would they have been dealt with only with strong language, or by police officers carrying guns?

The factory owner would still be allowed the semblence of ownership, just as long as they did exactly as the mob wanted. And when the company failed, the same people who voted for the law would merely grin at their misfortune and cast their eyes out for more victims to exploit.

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, in no particular order.

1) the supposition that I must be a limousine liberal is hilariously wrong. I wish. The details are unimportant, but let me assure you that I did not grow up with money. I've been working for my living since I was 16, and I'm now too damed close to 50. More interestingly, it never fails to amaze me, the way that everything gets personalized.

2) Never said I wasn't a socialist. Wrote I wasn't a liberal, which seems to be about the worst thing that anybody can say about you, these days. If you'd like to assume that I must then be in favor of communist dictatorship, be my guest. Not true, but be my guest.

3) Let me see if I understand this right. Moore calls for passing laws, for giving everybody an equal vote, and this is "revolutionary?" "Scuse me, but last I checked, this is called, "democracy." You may not like what he's arguing for, what he's politiciking for, but it ain't fascism. Or communism. Or revolution.

4) I saw "Roger and Me." Moore never editorializes directly. He asks questions, puts people in awkward situations, and the meaning seems pretty clear. But he doesn't tell ya what to think. The best agitprop never does.

5) I still ain't seen nobody refuting any facts. Was there an Autoworld? Yes. Were there massive layoffs while GM was turning profits? Yes. Did executives get big bonuses and payouts? Yes. Did the auto industry in Flint collapse? Yes. Can we argue about why? Sure.

6) 'Scuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't you folks defending the guys who have been shipping American jobs overseas? Driving family farms out of business, and turning over our agriculture to the likes of Beatrice Foods? Slapping together companies like Enron (here's the connection), sucking them dry, dipping into employee pensions (much like the way they're now dipping into Social Security), running the company into the ground, and walking away with the bucks? How many times does this have to happen before the screwees notice that they're being screwed? How many executives have to be rewarded with multi-million bonuses and salaries, while their companies lose lotsa bucks and workers lose their jobs?

7) Oh. I get it. The only job that should be rewarded at the levels, say, of the Bush family is being an executive, a stockbroker, a lawyer, a banker. That's basically saying that these are the only jobs that count. And what if I don't want to be, say, a banker? What if I'm a good proud auto worker, let's say, and I do a good honest job my whole life? Don't I deserve to have my kid, if she or he is smart enough and works hard enough, going to Harvard or Yale too?

8) Democracy and capitalism have always been strange bedfellows, though arguably ya can't have one without the other. But to pretend that in this country rich and poor are treated alike...come on. Or did OJ get convicted, and I didn't notice? And to argue that any time anybody criticizes or asks for their rights under law, they're being fascists....come on. Why not just say you disagree, and explain why? Attack their facts?

9) I continue to be amazed that people are willing to support those who couldn't care less about them, or democracy, or anything else...other than money and power.

 

[brianhunter]

I heard a story awhile back Ill try and paraphrase it to the best of my ability............

The story told of a conservative dad and his student daughter, they had views of society on different ends of the spectrum......
One day when home on break the daughter was explaining to her dad the merits of welfare and govt cheese when he stopped her and asked her how her grades where doing.
She told her dad how she had gotten all A's and was holding the 4.0 she worked very hard for.

The dad then stopped and asked her about her room mates grades.....well the daughter went on and explained how the room mate was recieving D's and F's and seldom studied and partied all the time but hadnt put forth the effort.

Well the dad asked his daughter if she was willing to give away 2 points off of every A and give them to her room mate so that her room mate could pass school also because she deserves it like anyone else and its not fair to fail.

The daughter refused and stated she had worked very hard for her grades and wasnt about to give it away to someone who didnt work or deserve it one bit!

The dad smiled and said "Exactly"

...........................................

I dont think we need the govt to come in and fix every woe. I have yet to see a shining example of how happy everyone in communisim is.

 

[Elfan]

liberal: not conservative
conservative: not liberal

Perhaps some of the most useless abjectives I have ever seen for describing political beliefs.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hm. That's funny. I heard a similar story. Daughter comes home, and Dad says, well, we're going to have to pull you out of college. "Why, Dad? I'm getting Bs and As?" "Well, they've raised tuition because they can't pay energy costs, and the plant's talking about laying off some of us. But there's good news: I heard from my boss that his kid's going to Harvard with "C" grades, because his boss pulled some strings, and he made a donation to the school after he got a big bonus this year."

Affirmative action says that everybody--everybody--gets an equal shot. Why in the hell is it fair to me, if my dad ain't rich and doesn't have rich buddies, that I can't get what a rich kid can? Why's it democratic to stick kids with their parents social status?

By the way, if I had my druthers, we'd have affirmative action based on parental income. Why not? We have it now, for rich white guys...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I see. First off, where exactly was it that Moore called for some kind of revolution, some seizing the means of production? Could ya give a reference? Is it anything like that "lynch," remark in one of these posts, or the constant suggestions of violence I read here?

You said the above. I was the one that said Lynch. Therefore, it thought you were being personal.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OK, in no particular order.

1) the supposition that I must be a limousine liberal is hilariously wrong. I wish. The details are unimportant, but let me assure you that I did not grow up with money. I've been working for my living since I was 16, and I'm now too damed close to 50. More interestingly, it never fails to amaze me, the way that everything gets personalized.

I have been working also, since I was 16, earlier if you count mowing lawns and delivering papers. every little bit helps, right?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

2) Never said I wasn't a socialist. Wrote I wasn't a liberal, which seems to be about the worst thing that anybody can say about you, these days. If you'd like to assume that I must then be in favor of communist dictatorship, be my guest. Not true, but be my guest.

Then what are you in favor for?
Socialist, looking for the Government to Own and Operate certain industries. Just curious which ones you want the Government to run?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

3) Let me see if I understand this right. Moore calls for passing laws, for giving everybody an equal vote, and this is "revolutionary?" "Scuse me, but last I checked, this is called, "democracy." You may not like what he's arguing for, what he's politiciking for, but it ain't fascism. Or communism. Or revolution.

Moore Called for passing of laws that made it impossible for a Profitable (* By $0.01 *) to leave the area or to take work elsewhere. Last time I checked this Country was a Republic for of Government, and the Capitalism was our choice of economics.
So what is Moore Arguing for? Everyone to have the same? Everyone to get the same treatment? Why has not Moore done anything with the Flint people and the Flint Economy himself. He just points fingers and gets rich. Hypocrite in my mind.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

4) I saw "Roger and Me." Moore never editorializes directly. He asks questions, puts people in awkward situations, and the meaning seems pretty clear. But he doesn't tell ya what to think. The best agitprop never does.

You say Potato I say Patato. (* Misspelled for effect *) Like I said in the last post, it was not the issue of the Car companies causing the downfall of Flint. The BIG and complete picture needs to be realized. In 1974 and the Oil Embargo. The 1972 Housing Increase Nation Wide. The National unemployment rate in double digits in the late 70's, as well as inflation. Let me guess this is all the fault of some car company. Believe me, if they had that type of power they would use it to get out of paying fines, and improving the quality of emissions. Also the Bail out of Chrysler in 1980. So, yes there is a lot more to the issue.

Are you ... ? Hmmm, No Comment, It makes you wonder why they do not reply? I can ask questions too and make people look silly or bad. Does that make me right? NOPE!

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

5) I still ain't seen nobody refuting any facts. Was there an Autoworld? Yes. Were there massive layoffs while GM was turning profits? Yes. Did executives get big bonuses and payouts? Yes. Did the auto industry in Flint collapse? Yes. Can we argue about why? Sure.

Yes, Autoworld built and proposed by Out of State Financial people, who sold a line of goods to the State and City.

Layoffs? and Profits? Is this some made up comment? I would like to see the proof of this. Please show me the corporate reports for the years that had these major lay-offs. (* See it works both ways *)

Did The executives have the Bonuses already baked into their salary for the year, before all this happened? Did they get less than planned due to the current market?

Did The Auto Industry in Flint Collapse? Show me where it Collapsed? In 1998-9 the Head Quarters of Build was moved from Flint To Detroit and The Renaissance Building. Are there still plants running and producing in Flint? yes? Did one of the locals Strike from 5 times in four years and bring GM to a halt, causing them to loose money and sales. Then The Unions wants to have more bonuses and money?

Now, Unions are good. They give the collective a way to bargain en masse. Also, it avoids the favoritism and ego's for pay. The major benefits of a Union are to bargain for Benefits outside of the Dollar, such as Medical, and Dental, and Optical, and chiropractor, et al. They serve for a better and safe working environment.

Side Note: Similar Argument.
Was there a War Called the Great War to End All other Wars? Yes there was and since we have had some War's since then it was all in vain? I am sure we can argue why we have though.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

6) 'Scuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't you folks defending the guys who have been shipping American jobs overseas? Driving family farms out of business, and turning over our agriculture to the likes of Beatrice Foods? Slapping together companies like Enron (here's the connection), sucking them dry, dipping into employee pensions (much like the way they're now dipping into Social Security), running the company into the ground, and walking away with the bucks? How many times does this have to happen before the screwees notice that they're being screwed? How many executives have to be rewarded with multi-million bonuses and salaries, while their companies lose lotsa bucks and workers lose their jobs?

Ok you want to attack, these cases, fine. How about my example in my previous post where the Union went too far, and forced the closing of the companies. They could not afford to stay open. A nice middle ground would be nice.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

7) Oh. I get it. The only job that should be rewarded at the levels, say, of the Bush family is being an executive, a stockbroker, a lawyer, a banker. That's basically saying that these are the only jobs that count. And what if I don't want to be, say, a banker? What if I'm a good proud auto worker, let's say, and I do a good honest job my whole life? Don't I deserve to have my kid, if she or he is smart enough and works hard enough, going to Harvard or Yale too?

No, The top guys get more than enough now. Just make you points based upon reason and facts. Not on made up supposition and hearsay. Yes Attack the institution, negotiate what you can get for your self or your brothers to be the max, just realize it is a dynamic system, and you may cause it to crumble. Be aware, educate yourself, and make others aware, but not with ignorant comments and innuendoes.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

8) Democracy and capitalism have always been strange bedfellows, though arguably ya can't have one without the other. But to pretend that in this country rich and poor are treated alike...come on. Or did OJ get convicted, and I didn't notice? And to argue that any time anybody criticizes or asks for their rights under law, they're being fascists....come on. Why not just say you disagree, and explain why? Attack their facts?

Gee I thought I have been attacking the Facts of Moore. I lived the era you are talking about in the town you are talking about. He came in and left Richer. Hypocrite. Liar. Fraud. In my opinion.

OJ, yes OJ was sit free, and he had enough money to make it into a circus., but how does this change my argument that Moore is a jerk for what he did? Now if you use this as a single point of data that here is an example of money getting something. then fine, make the statement.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

9) I continue to be amazed that people are willing to support those who couldn't care less about them, or democracy, or anything else...other than money and power.

Yes, let me see. I have the choice of today. People who want to make their religious views the Norm for everyone. Not my way of thinking.

I also have people who want to take all the money from somewhere, and then make everyone equal. Not sure about this one. I agree medical care and basic of life should be able to be gotten at a reasonable price or barter, yet, if I see no advantage to working hard, and I get the same as you? Then explain to me why someone would continue to work?

I also have the other parties, that have a different twist, yet all have a special interest for themselves.

It may not be the best system, yet it seems to be working. Can it be improved, oh yes, get involved and make it better. Just be prepared that as long as I have the right to voice my opinion, I will also do so. As I expect you to do so also.

You can either use the system to change from within, or you can leave and go elsewhere, or you can have a revolution.

Have A Nice Day.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Fair enough, Rich, and well argued in my opinion.

There is one problem. Marx was right about capitalism if nothing else, and capitalism couldn't care a bit about human beings. It is capitalism that rewards a few for appropriating the goodies produced by the many. It is our economic system that shifts and moves, and transfers jobs. It is a way of life devoted to the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar (H.L. Mencken's phrase) that devalues everything else, that makes "everything solid melt into air."

In other words, it is capitalism that has made radical changes over the last two centuries--some good (I was at the dentist's last week), some bad (widespread poverty... etc.), some neutral but different.

For example, rewriting the American Dream so that it is equal only to the pursuit of money and possessions is a radical, revolutionary, newfangled idea. I'm agin it.

Or is it more of that hearsay that makes me note how many jobs, how much industry, has fled the US in the last thirty years? It's fine to blame union, environmentalists, etc., but what would you prefer? US workers getting paid piecework? Third World wages? Environmental disasters as in the former Soviet Union, or present China, or the Ruhr Valley, or South America? How well is this system actually working? Have you looked at the Federal deficit figures this year? At the State financial problems caused by reagan's, "New Federalism?" At the unemployment stats?

I'm an old-fashioned guy, and so I suspect is Moore. Personally, I think workers are the backbone of this country, and I despise those rich people who made their fortunes at the expense of what we used to call, "working stiffs." And I have to say, I don't much care for the propaganda bombardment that has left American workers blaming everybody but the culprits...

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
3) Let me see if I understand this right. Moore calls for passing laws, for giving everybody an equal vote, and this is "revolutionary?" "Scuse me, but last I checked, this is called, "democracy." You may not like what he's arguing for, what he's politiciking for, but it ain't fascism. Or communism. Or revolution.

Urging people to take things away from others by means of a vote is still taking things away from people. If Moore was suggesting that the 88 percent of the population who is not black, voted to make everyone who was black a slave, would you still use the same logic?

And, do you recall that the biggest facist in history was also elected? Does that fact make what he did all right?

Moore did not call for the people to take over the factory themselves. That would be pure communism. He urged them to control it, while still giving the semblence of private control. That is the fascist system.

And he and others like him succeed because people are motivated by greed and envy and need some sort of noble sounding excuse to take things away from other people. Take yourself for example. You have given a few examples of corporate mismanagement, out of a field of hundreds of thousands, and instead of calling on us to enforce the laws that stop that sort of behavior, you paint all corporations and the rich in an evil light in order to justify what you want to do to them.

Don't you see that if you took your way of thinking and merely replaced the word "the rich" with the word "black people" we would be calling you a small minded, hate- filled bigot?

Take the time to really think about this instead of just jumping in to defend yourself. If you take a hard look at yourself, you may not like what you see. But ignoring the greed and envy inside you will not make it go away, will not make you a better person.

And if you still feel that those who have more are obligated to help those that have less, why not start with yourself? There are people starving in many parts of the world. If you sold your computer, moved into a smaller dwelling place and used bikes to get around, you could save enough money to make the difference between life and death for some people in Africa.

Charity starts at home. Start by giving away all control of your life before you demand that others do the same.

 

[brianhunter]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

By the way, if I had my druthers, we'd have affirmative action based on parental income. Why not? We have it now, for rich white guys...

Wow, so the root of all evil is rich white guys? Guess I have half of that down, guess I should quit earning and saving money now so Im not identified as part of the problem. Hell someone should just vote me all the money or make a govt program that give it too me but then I wouldnt qualify, $ (earned or not)+ White guy = evil!
Thanks for saving me the effort, God knows I was handed an education, sure it had nothing to do with good grades, serving the military for the GI Bill and college fund, or feeding my kids and wife ramon noodles while I went to school and worked full time, some rich white guy put me up to it!

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Fair enough, Rich, and well argued in my opinion.

Same to you Sir,

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

There is one problem. Marx was right about capitalism if nothing else, and capitalism couldn't care a bit about human beings. It is capitalism that rewards a few for appropriating the goodies produced by the many. It is our economic system that shifts and moves, and transfers jobs. It is a way of life devoted to the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar (H.L. Mencken's phrase) that devalues everything else, that makes "everything solid melt into air."

Ah Marx, he was not such a bad guy. It is what people did in his name that became so completely different from what he wrote about. Capitalism cares nothing but for the Supply and Demand of any given product at anytime. Yet it is the People that determine the Demand. No one has to buy a Japanese Car. BTW most if not all of the large Japanese Companies have assembly plants here in the US, now.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

In other words, it is capitalism that has made radical changes over the last two centuries--some good (I was at the dentist's last week), some bad (widespread poverty... etc.), some neutral but different.

Hmm, Poverty, when we were an agricultural society, poverty was every where. A few people owned large amounts of land or key services, such as black smith. The rest all toiled in the field for food and a place to sleep. Please give an example of which society or time frame that, you would like to have as an example. I am very curious. Marx spoke of a Utopia, and so did other philosophers, yet it was almost always on a very small scale. Hence the term Communism. This would work with a small group of people working with similar interests and diverse skills, this would in theory work. Yet, add in the large scale effect, and the increase in the number of variables used caused by the number of people involved, and the understanding or model we have starts to break down. For everyone to give up their individuality for the better, I just do not see it happening with the current state of evolution / state of maturity of mankind.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

For example, rewriting the American Dream so that it is equal only to the pursuit of money and possessions is a radical, revolutionary, newfangled idea. I'm agin it.

Where is it said that the American Dream required money. I have friends who are in income levels lower than I, and they are a happily married couple with two kids. They are happy with their lives. they enjoy the occasional night out yet they do not complain nor do they think I am evil for having a little more then them. :asian:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Or is it more of that hearsay that makes me note how many jobs, how much industry, has fled the US in the last thirty years? It's fine to blame union, environmentalists, etc., but what would you prefer? US workers getting paid piecework? Third World wages? Environmental disasters as in the former Soviet Union, or present China, or the Ruhr Valley, or South America? How well is this system actually working? Have you looked at the Federal deficit figures this year? At the State financial problems caused by reagan's, "New Federalism?" At the unemployment stats?

The last time I looked the Unemployment was still lower then the 70's and the 80's, I could be wrong. Heck anyone can change the rules on how to count the unemployed. I like the environmentalist, they make the water and air better for everyone. What I do not like is that California Mandates that 2% of all vehicles will be 0% emission at the tail pipe. This requires with current technology to be electric. Do you know where most of the US's Electricity comes from? Burning Sulfur based Coal. This is much more harmful to the Air and environment. You see knowing the whole story helps to understand and address the real serious issue. As for the Third World, becoming dumping grounds, that sucks. It should be the responsibility of the local government to put into place safety issues. Yes, I agree., But to mandate a certain percentage of a volume of product must be X or to mandate that company Y must remain open. This to me makes no sense, even looking at the greater good of everyone.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I'm an old-fashioned guy, and so I suspect is Moore. Personally, I think workers are the backbone of this country, and I despise those rich people who made their fortunes at the expense of what we used to call, "working stiffs." And I have to say, I don't much care for the propaganda bombardment that has left American workers blaming everybody but the culprits...

I may or may not be old fashioned. And Yes the "working Stiff" comes in may forms today. The Contract Employee with no benefits, the temp employee hired for a short term, no security. The new Technicians of the working class required to keep everything moving, may or may not be able to be classified as the working stiff. Would your father or grand father say you have it easy for having a car and / or a microwave?

As for blaming the culprits, a psychologist might ask you to look and see why you are unhappy and blaming others. DO you really need others to validate your existence? Or did you buy into a line and it is too late for you to stop the play, since you are already on stage? Externalizing, is not good for you. I say this not to be a smart ..., or a jerk, just as one guy to another. Are the guys on top responsible for some things, yes they are? Is it their fault if they are born into money, or win lotto? Identify each issue and attack it and then decide where the resolution lies, if Blame is a side effect, then so be it, yet to just sit back and be tired and upset at those that have it all. I wish you the best.

Looking forward to our replies
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, look. My mental health is fine, thank you very much, and I am quite able to navigate my way through the day and its history. Gee, guys, when you throw around the psychiatric this way, I am reminded of the definition of schizophrenia in the old Soviet Union as, "opposition to the State...." And if we're gonna get into that, how's yer reality testing? Rich white guys DO own nearly everything in this country, last I checked.

The comparasion of a critique of corporations to racist hatred is absurd, for two basic reasons: a) racism is based on biological fantasy, not critique of economic structures, and b) corporations really ARE the major orgaanizations in our economy. Or is, "The Wall Street Journal," just kidding us? This is like saying that black people are racists, because they keep remarking that members of the Klan are pretty much all white men.

As for the accusations of greed, they're hilarious. Let me repeat my basic point: corporate heads lay people off by the thousands while weaseling millions out of stockholders, then taking the company out of the country, and the people who criticize this are the greedy ones? Huh?

The definition of Moore as a fascist is equally absurd. Socialist, sure (yes, I know "Nazi," is an abbreviation for "National Socialist"). You don't have to agree with him, sure.

Read Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age." Read about Teddy Roosevelt--Teddy Roosevelt, mind you--busting trusts in the time when the anti-monopoly laws got passed. Read Upton Sinclair and Mencken. Read about Teapot Dome under Harding. Read Galbraith on the 1929 Crash. Read Eisenhower warning us about, "the military-industrial complex." This crap's been going on for at least the last century and a half....and its present avatars are not just Enron.

By the way, I am not thinking of Marx here. I'm thinking of Sir James Goldsmith, the gazillionaire, who I saw denouncing the evils of contemporary corporate behaviour in a TV interview...

It ain't my fantasy that the American Dream got reduced to screwing the next guy and grabbing as much as you can in greenbacks....and I still want to see somebody explain how it's fair that a kid like, say, Dan Quayle gets preferment over others just 'cause his daddy's rich and connected...or am I wrong, and this isn't a meritocracy, the way rich white guys are always claiming it is?

Oh well.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
The comparasion of a critique of corporations to racist hatred is absurd, for two basic reasons: a) racism is based on biological fantasy, not critique of economic structures, and b) corporations really ARE the major orgaanizations in our economy. Or is, "The Wall Street Journal," just kidding us? This is like saying that black people are racists, because they keep remarking that members of the Klan are pretty much all white men.

But you see, my point is that you are using the same tactics and logic as racists do. Instead of saying that everyone should be judged as an individual, you take several examples of bad behavior by individuals of that group, then project that behavior onto everyone in the group.

You need to do this sort of demonizing, because without it you are closer to saying the truth- namely, "they have more than I and I want it."

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for the accusations of greed, they're hilarious. Let me repeat my basic point: corporate heads lay people off by the thousands while weaseling millions out of stockholders, then taking the company out of the country, and the people who criticize this are the greedy ones? Huh?

All corporations do this, all???? You see what I mean about how you paint everyone in a group in the same light? The laws you would pass would cover and restrict every corporation, and not just the ones that commit fraud.

And as for the base of your grief, if they are the owners, they do have the right to do as they will with their property. Just like you have the right to use your car, house or car without others taking them away because they feel they need it more than you. As long as the workers are free to leave, people are free to buy or not and there is no deceit involved, then the coporate heads are morally correct in laying off people they want to, or moving their factories to where they can be more proffitable.

Tell me, do you buy products that are more expensive than they need to be? And how would you feel if laws were being passed to FORCE you to buy those products made in America rather than cheaper or better foriegn made ones? So why is it different when someone else tries to do bassically the same thing? In American society we are supposed to treat the rich and poor alike. Yet when I buy a cheaper product to save money, no one has a trouble despite the fact that the company that makes the more expensive product has just as much need as the cheaper product maker. So, if a company does the same with workers and such, it is the same principle- but because they have money it is not acceptable.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
The definition of Moore as a fascist is equally absurd. Socialist, sure (yes, I know "Nazi," is an abbreviation for "National Socialist"). You don't have to agree with him, sure.

If he fits the description of fascism, why is it "absurb" to call him one? Please explain how he can fit the definition and yet not be called one?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Read Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age." Read about Teddy Roosevelt--Teddy Roosevelt, mind you--busting trusts in the time when the anti-monopoly laws got passed. Read Upton Sinclair and Mencken. Read about Teapot Dome under Harding. Read Galbraith on the 1929 Crash. Read Eisenhower warning us about, "the military-industrial complex." This crap's been going on for at least the last century and a half....and its present avatars are not just Enron.

So we should treat all people of wealth as if they were like the examples you bring up? Again, I point you to my comments about how your logic is like that of a racist. There are no good corporations, none at all? And you would treat them all like criminals because of it? No presumend innocent until proven guilty? No benifit of the doubt until they prove bad intent? You would just go ahead and take away their wealth, or their control of their wealth, because you think that all wealthy people are by nature evil?

You need to take a real close look at yourself and the foundation of your philosophy towards life.

 

[Cliarlaoch]

The only problem with capitalism and its support of choice in demand, that you seem to suggest, Rich, is that there isn't much choice anymore. We no longer have the option of falling back on traditional methods of production or consumption, for one, and for another, there aren't that many brands out there anymore. True capitalism might have been fine, but it died out once competition for consumers ended with the oligarchy of corporations standing in charge of the economy.

And I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Moore is not a bloody fascist (this is directed to everybody painting him as such). I've read your descriptions of fascism, and I've read what Moore wrote and read what you've said he advocated... and it ain't fascism. The illusion of private ownership? Please. It's just one owner being exchanged for a set of other owners. Oh, no, don't tell me he's frightened people with the thought that workers can actually have a voice. Fascism is government by an elite cadre. What he's advocating is nothing more than radical democracy, wherein (not surprisingly), the policies that have the most votes get advocated. If people want to change those policies, then they'll change their vote in the next election or referendum.

It's called democracy, folks. The lower classes OUTNUMBER the rich classes. If all the poor vote for Candidate Bob, then Candidate Bob will win (unless someone futzes with the ballots). What Moore was trying to get across was that the power of the people is primary in a democratic society. If people decide to elect a group that choses to pursue a given policy, then the minority will have to tag along until they become the majority. That's the way democracy goes, folks. At least, that's the way that most democracies work. The problem is, in the US, it's generally not the way it works. There, only rich elites with very similar agendas get into the halls of power. I'm not saying elites don't run Canada, either, or Britain, but the Labour party of England (until recently) represented the interests of the working class, and would pursue Social Democratic policies like welfare and such. When people want a new party or policy in power, they vote for that new group. Simple as that, and the laws of the country will be changed to reflect the change. You protect the rights of the minority as best you can, and they can always become the majority and change the policy anyway.

Anyway, my two cents.

And yes, he does sometimes seem to be a bit rude, Rich. I won't call him a jerk, since I haven't met him, but if you want to...

 

[jazkiljok]

In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.


Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, andits opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, if that's how we're gonna argue it...I will, however, continue to leave the personalities/states of spiritual/psychological development out of it, if y'all don't mind. But please feel free to fantasize.

First off, some basic economics. In capitalist societies--and this is one--value is created by the transformation of raw materials into useful (or at least desirable) goods/services. Wealth is produced by the creation of what Marx called, "surplus value," which is then accumulated into large piles (bank accounts, for instance), or used to create new ways of producing value, or employed in maintaining and upgrading the old ones.

Second: Surplus value, AKA "profit," is calculated by substracting one's costs (for, say, labor) from one's net income. This means, among other things, that in capitalist societies owners are inherently interested in maximizing profit and cutting costs. Labor being defined as a cost, this means that owners are inherently invested in cutting the costs of labor. And the costs of production.

Third: there are two basic social classes in our society--middle and working. Middle class pushes the paper (I'm middle class, by definition, as a teacher), working class (my dad, for example) works with their hands. The middle class gets the majority of the profit. The working class gets the majority of the labor. The middle class produces what might be called, "paper," value--stocks and bonds, for example. The working class produces things of one sort or another, or services. Middle class people get paid more than working class people, on the whole, because the middle class controls the paperwork.

Fourth: in capitalism, businesses must by definition expand. They have two basic ways to do this--enlarge their markets, or create a new market. Therefore businesses, by definition, must compete with other businesses or die out. In capitalist theory, this Darwinian tendency is considered a good thing, since it "improves," the individual business and force-feeds the invention of new products. It also suggests, however, how we got into a position in which much of our economy depends on consumers constantly buying more and more, and buying what they do not strictly speaking need. Profits must maximize, so that businesses can compete, and most Americans already have plenty, so...

This stuff really is Econ 101. And it isn't particularly Marxist--more like, "The Wall Street Journal"--until the separation between a) capitalism is a good thing, because it's natural (we're all competing in an economy that mirrors Darwin's view of nature) and useful (we compete and evolve; businesses compete and society is evolving); b) capitalism is a bad thing, because it drives the exploitation of individuals and the production of worthless things. This is what we're really arguing over.

Now, then. I think that in such societies, businesses are inherently, "crooked," because in such societies, businesses are by definition constantly trying to chisel more profit. It isn't a matter of a few rotten apples, though that's always the excuse. One example: I know a guy who works for a BIG law and accounting firm. Know what he does all day, what the entire firm does? It advises corporations/businesses on ways to cut their taxes. All day, every day--that's what they do. They bill clients $700/hour. Another example: corporations like Enron, or telecommunications compaanies, etc. etc, have direct access to legislators. Guess what happens when they want something? And they have been central to capitalism--not accidents, not freaks, not occasional, but central--since the South Sea Bubble and the Tulip Craze.

I realize it's possible to consider this the product of fantasy, but it's what in fact happens. Sure, we can easily disagree (and do) about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Again, however, read "The Wall Street Journal." Watch NPR's "Nightly Business Report," or their radio show, "Marketplace." Read, "The Economist." Hell, read Buckley's, "National Review." They'll all tell ya the same stuff I am--it's just that they're also going to tell you it's a good thing, too.

Go back and read the basics on capitalism--Adam Smith (either one), for example. They will tell you that the capitalist economy is completely beyond any morality. At their best, capitalist societies produce morality because a) they are meritocracies, b) they produce so much affluence that people have the leisure to be moral, c) they constantly produce more and better goods and services, plus jobs. They have no inherent responsibility to workers whatsoever, however...if jobs are lost in the US but "created," overseas, that's a good thing. If an individual company collapses because they're out-competed by something "newer and better," (as if WalMart were better than the small hardware stores they drive out of business!), that's a good thing. If workers' wages and benefits are cut to maximize profits, that's a good thing. It ain't a few bad apples. It is the way the system works, by definition.

And since the question of patriotism came up--in capitalism, businesses have no inherent responsibility whatsoever to individual nations. They are only responsible to maximize profits--which is exactly what businesses keep saying, so I'm not sure why this is news.

Oh well. I'm going to shut up on this topic now. Sorry if you don't like the way I write, I guess it's too many years as a professor. But you don't know me from Adam, so let's leave the speculations out of it, OK? otherwise, I'll have to unleash my analysis of the fantasy of the author in political discussion...and nobody wants that. OOOOOHHHH! he's gonna sic writing on me....OOOHHHH, knees are knockin,' yah sure.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[rmcrobertson]

OOOH, rockin' Mussolini quote. Nice to see actual facts and evidence. Thanks; I'm gonna steal it.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OOOH, rockin' Mussolini quote. Nice to see actual facts and evidence. Thanks; I'm gonna steal it.

You chose to ignore facts that you didn't agree with. Nice lie
though.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OK, look. My mental health is fine, thank you very much, and I am quite able to navigate my way through the day and its history. Gee, guys, when you throw around the psychiatric this way, I am reminded of the definition of schizophrenia in the old Soviet Union as, "opposition to the State...." And if we're gonna get into that, how's yer reality testing? Rich white guys DO own nearly everything in this country, last I checked.

rmcrobertson ,

I apologize if you took my comment wrong. I meant it in the hoest, ability of the helping idea. My Reality, is just fine. I saw a counselor wiht the ex-wife, befoer the divorce. I also continued to see a Psychologist during the divorce. You see the ex blaimed me for everything, and I was the opposite and I believed it was all my fault. Now, I know some of it was my own and some of it was her own. Nice and Healthy, HERE! See the Pretty Stamp of approval. :rtfm:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

The comparasion of a critique of corporations to racist hatred is absurd, for two basic reasons: a) racism is based on biological fantasy, not critique of economic structures, and b) corporations really ARE the major orgaanizations in our economy. Or is, "The Wall Street Journal," just kidding us? This is like saying that black people are racists, because they keep remarking that members of the Klan are pretty much all white men.

For once I agree, that the comparison of Economics and Racism is absurd. Yet, I see the point trying to be made is that, the masses can vote for anything they want, it just may not be the right thing to do.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

As for the accusations of greed, they're hilarious. Let me repeat my basic point: corporate heads lay people off by the thousands while weaseling millions out of stockholders, then taking the company out of the country, and the people who criticize this are the greedy ones? Huh?

Do you own stock? have a 401K?

I never said the coprorations were perfect. I never said, they did not make mistakes. The Stockholders require that the companie makes money or they pull their money out and invest it somewhere else. Yes, many people lost a lot in the retirement accounts because the slow down of the Market. Gee, no one reads history and or realized that a slow down was inevitable?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

The definition of Moore as a fascist is equally absurd. Socialist, sure (yes, I know "Nazi," is an abbreviation for "National Socialist"). You don't have to agree with him, sure.

You know, I knew this, abstractly, but I did not know it was an official usage. Thank you

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Read Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age." Read about Teddy Roosevelt--Teddy Roosevelt, mind you--busting trusts in the time when the anti-monopoly laws got passed. Read Upton Sinclair and Mencken. Read about Teapot Dome under Harding. Read Galbraith on the 1929 Crash. Read Eisenhower warning us about, "the military-industrial complex." This crap's been going on for at least the last century and a half....and its present avatars are not just Enron.

Read Robert A. Heinlein and any of his early works where he talks about the future, being from 1960's to now. Some scary insight. Read in particular the Fifth Column. Note: This author is just as valid a point as Mr Twain , so no Sci Fi Crack!

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

By the way, I am not thinking of Marx here. I'm thinking of Sir James Goldsmith, the gazillionaire, who I saw denouncing the evils of contemporary corporate behaviour in a TV interview...

No Comment, I did not see the interview.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

It ain't my fantasy that the American Dream got reduced to screwing the next guy and grabbing as much as you can in greenbacks....and I still want to see somebody explain how it's fair that a kid like, say, Dan Quayle gets preferment over others just 'cause his daddy's rich and connected...or am I wrong, and this isn't a meritocracy, the way rich white guys are always claiming it is?

Oh well.

Hmm, I can see that the "Rich White Guy" is the problem here as well. You see where I work, I can be just as good as the next person. Be they White, Black, Asian, ..., Male or Female. Yet, if you are not the ones at the top of the performance and I mean the absolute top, you do not get promoted unless, ..., . Well Just let me say there are more younger women and minorities who are promoted to compensate and to meet a perceived perception. Most if not all are qualified, yet, it just seems really hard for me when I claimed Caucasion versus American Indian or Hispanic, which I get personel asking all the time. The system is not perfect. I choose not to claim a minority to try and prove that I am who I am. Not something that was given to me. And to me that is the pursuit of happiness, and the American Dream. Not this I just sit back and wait for mom or dad and the government to give me something. You see, I am out there doing my best for myself and for others. I take jobs that I think will help out in the long run. I helped to build better Tanks and NBCR's to help our militray men survive, I also work in the field that improves the performance of the vehicles for Fuel Economy and for Emissions. I try to look at teh big picture and see where I fit in the best help myself and to best help change the system or to help others.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Kirk:

Sigh. I'd ask you to discuss the ideas, offer evidence, present quotes, show me where I'm mistaken, and skip the invective, but there appears to be no point.

Always nice to be called a liar, though. I'd respond in kind, but I don't think you're lying, I don't have the right or the ability to judge the state of your soul, I don't respect over-the-net psychiatry, and I don't believe in name-calling.

Lesbian communist innuendo directed against all that's decent, now that's another story.

Thanks,
Robert

As for the actual discussion. (I was going to take out, "actual," but wottehehell.) Rich, please just leave out the "helping." I don't mean to be unkind, but it's really--well, I don't know quite how to put this--inappropriate, and regrettably it trempts me to respond in kind, and I don't see how that helps. I take it, too, as a sign of what Foucault described as the extension of the medical and psychiatric into the realm of the judicial....

Of course I agree that spending much time debating such issues on MartialTalk is a bit weird, but then, aren't we all in that boat?

As for Heinlein, well, I've read everything--and I mean everything--by that wacko. His god was Mark Twain, who had few things to say about corporate and personal greed, as well as patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.But then, so did Robert A....

Again, my major point here is that we're trying to talk about the world as it really is, not as it 'spozed to be or might, in some alternative history, be. And here on this planet, capitalism rules. And partly because of historical accident, partly because of the way capitalism emerged in tandem with colonialism (Marx seems to've argued that the middle-class needed the rush of money that only the exploration and exploitations of late-Renaissance Europe made available, in order to take over from feudalism), the facts seem to be that rich white guys do run this country, as well as the rest of the Western world.

If those aren't the facts, show me where I'm wrong.

As for meritocracy...Does anybody really think that the guys running the country, and our corporations, really are the best and the brightest? Their place at the top, for the majority--not all by any means (Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton pretty much earned their places, as did Bill Gates and lots of others), but the majority--sure looks like it's due to a) luck, b) contingency, c) wealthy parents. I mean, I'll grant you a Buckley or a Goldwater or even a Limbaugh, no real argument--but DAN QUAYLE? And does anybody really think that Reagan was smart and well-educated? leaving out little things like arms-for-hostages so-I-can-put the-money-into right-wing-death-squads (and I wish I were making that up, I was raised to think better of my country), he had an astrologer--AN ASTROLOGER, for chrissakes--determining his weekly schedule.

Hell, it's even quite arguable that the way our system works, we don't even want anybody smart, well-educated and genuinely moral running things--Jimmy Carter was brilliant by all accounts, ex-Navy, a nuclear engineer and successful businessman who actually meant it when he espoused Christian principles, and look how badly HE screwed up.

Hey, here's a question. We all kvetch about the way that money changes everything in martial arts. There are examples everywhere--so if Michael Moore's so wrong about capitalism, corporatism, and businessmen's greed, what are we all kvetching about? Doesn't the state of American ma's provide a wonderful example of the way capitalism converts everything into its own image, very much as ol' dead Karl argued?

Thanks, for the discussion.