Michael Moore

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by jazkiljok
the Hollywood annual self adminstered BJ otherwise known as the Oscars

They do it for the exact same reasons that dogs lick themselves...

...because they can.

 

[D_Brady]

He did what he ment to do, before that alot of people had heard of him, after that everyone has .

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
Actually, he's not a Leninist or a racist.

Does one have to be a racist to be a facist? Because he seems to fit everything else in that description.

A few years ago, just after he had finished writing "Downsize This!" I caught an interview with him on American television. I normally watch Jerry Springer on my trips back to the US to reming me why I want to stay in Japan, but in this case- he really fit the bill.

In this program, he reminded the audience that factory owners only had one vote, and that everyone else in the community had one vote each. He then proposed that the community pass laws saying tha factory owners could not downsize their work force while they were showing profit- which got a round of applause from the good volk attending the meeting.

This seems to fit the meaning of fascism as I understand it. They allow the fiction of private ownership as long as the owners of the means of production follow the micromanagement of the goverment. In the case of a democracy, this means that as long as a majority approve it, then the person who has responsibility for a factory can not run it as he pleases.

So as I see it, Mike Moore is a fascist.

Any disagreement?

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by GouRonin
The Pope also said making love outside of marriage is now ok as long as it's with someone you love.

I guess I can jerk off to my heart's content now and not be worried I'm going to hell.

I am glad i wasn't drinking milk...or I would have spilt it all over my keyboard. LOL! :rofl:

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Originally posted by Don Roley
Does one have to be a racist to be a facist? Because he seems to fit everything else in that description.

A few years ago, just after he had finished writing "Downsize This!" I caught an interview with him on American television. I normally watch Jerry Springer on my trips back to the US to reming me why I want to stay in Japan, but in this case- he really fit the bill.

In this program, he reminded the audience that factory owners only had one vote, and that everyone else in the community had one vote each. He then proposed that the community pass laws saying tha factory owners could not downsize their work force while they were showing profit- which got a round of applause from the good volk attending the meeting.

This seems to fit the meaning of fascism as I understand it. They allow the fiction of private ownership as long as the owners of the means of production follow the micromanagement of the goverment. In the case of a democracy, this means that as long as a majority approve it, then the person who has responsibility for a factory can not run it as he pleases.

So as I see it, Mike Moore is a fascist.

Any disagreement?

Yes, I disagree.

1) Let me get this straight, he wants the government to prevent the corporation from laying people off when they start losing money. Sounds more like leftist social democracy to me, man. Or Keynesianism, if you prefer, where you maintain jobs in order to make sure that people have money to BUY YOUR STUFF. This creates demand, and this keeps the economy alive, not to mention that it gives the company some ready-made customers. Again, this is leftist ideology, or more Keynesian-style right-wing economics.

2) Illusion of private ownership? He wants to let the people decide how to run their own lives and their own jobs, for once. They DO have a majority. The white-collar guys don't. So they outnumber the executives. That's old-fashioned direct democracy, not fascism. He's encouraging people to VOTE, not just let the elites run things. Fascism is controlled by an elite cadre, that dictates all life and activities in the society. The workers would have no say, there, while the managers would have it all. He wants the people to start voting for leftist or alternative parties that would take power OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE ELITES. That's the exact opposite of fascism!

I understand where you're coming from, but you've confused the arguments, I think. He's presenting alternatives to the system, not fascism.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
Sounds more like leftist social democracy to me, man. Or Keynesianism, if you prefer, where you maintain jobs in order to make sure that people have money to BUY YOUR STUFF.

Hmm, I would say it is a bit more like Stalinism than merely "leftist." The factory owner can not run his buisiness as he likes. It has to be run by the goverment. Both Fascism and communism disregard the idea of private property, the difference is that communism claims that the means of production will be run by the people. While Fascism states that the means of production has to be run for the good of the people.

And the idea that the people can get together and make the rich pay for what they want has made this a very popular form of politics. Greed and envy keeps collectivism alive and kicking, even after all the countries that it has destroyed stare us in the face.

And Mike Moore is just one of the new breed taking advantage of the greed and envy of so many people to advance himself. I still think that his version of leting the goverment run a factory instead of the person who owns it (even if it is backed by the excuse of an electionof greedy people) is closer to fascism rather than Leninism- but in either case it is a form of collectivism and use of force on others.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Who really owns a factory? Who owns nature? The deal-maker? I think not.

More to the point, I continue to be fascinated by the ideological contradictions that these discussion bring out.

 

[brianhunter]

Originally posted by Don Roley

This seems to fit the meaning of fascism as I understand it. They allow the fiction of private ownership as long as the owners of the means of production follow the micromanagement of the goverment. In the case of a democracy, this means that as long as a majority approve it, then the person who has responsibility for a factory can not run it as he pleases.

So as I see it, Mike Moore is a fascist.

Any disagreement?

Thats the problem with democracy, our country is supposed to be a republic, Democracy at its finest is ruled by the angry masses, at its worse utter chaos. (cant remember who said that).

If you think its not a republic say your pledge...with or without God, it still says "and to the republic".

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Originally posted by brianhunter
Thats the problem with democracy, our country is supposed to be a republic, Democracy at its finest is ruled by the angry masses, at its worse utter chaos. (cant remember who said that).

If you think its not a republic say your pledge...with or without God, it still says "and to the republic".

Good point, I'll admit. Pity. Let's just hope the ol' Republic doesn't become an Empire like a previous one that ruled Italy for so many centuries.

I doubt that will happen... but I'm still allowed to be afraid.

And what's wrong with the angry masses running the show? I like angry masses. Would you prefer depressed masses? Then instead of having the workers run everything, they'd just give up and let everyone rule over them out of despair.

On a serious note, however, Machiavelli once wrote that the greatest strenght of Rome was its conflict between the Senators, the Patricians (the elites/nobles of Rome), and the Plebians (the commoners). This was because they would each fight to advance their own goals; the Senators fought for order, the nobles for power, and the plebes for freedom. The conflict between the groups was what Machiavelli believed drove Roman society to greatness. Its dynamism caused it to become one of the greatest powers on the earth. Its fall occurred when that dynamism and the conflict that caused it stopped.

Why do I say this? Because America is almost exactly like Rome. The conflict is now between polticians, economic elites, and proletariats, instead of senators, patricians and plebes. .

One of America's greatest strengths was and remains the conflict between the classes that make up its social structure. As each group fights for its interests, whether control, wealth, or freedoms, you get the result in the Amendments to the Constitution, the laws that get passed, etc. But part of the problem now is that some sides are getting too much say. The economic elites have a hand in everything in government, and often, they become the rulers of the country. Is that bad? Maybe not. But it does prevent the republic from fully functioning, in that it may not be fully responsive to the will of the people. Take out the will of the people, and you lose an important part of the dynamic of American society. You lose the desire for freedom, and replace it with the desire for wealth of the elites, or for power of the politicians. What I think America needs, then, is more access to power for the lower classes. It needs that social tension again. Because that's part of what drives America to be great: the drive for wealth on the one hand, strength on the other, and freedom on the final hand.

The only difference is the new dynamic, the middle class, and I don't know how it really fits in. In Germany, the middle class jumped to the Nazis because they couldn't find support in big business or big labour to support their needs or protect their interests. Maybe something similar will happen in the US, but then, maybe it won't. Hindsight's always twenty-twenty.

Anyway, figured I'd weigh in with something new on the ideological front. Maybe it'll spark some new debate (which is always my cup of tea, haha!).

Have a good one, folks!

--C

 

[Don Roley]

On a serious note, however, Machiavelli once wrote that the greatest strenght of Rome was its conflict between the Senators, the Patricians (the elites/nobles of Rome), and the Plebians (the commoners). This was because they would each fight to advance their own goals; the Senators fought for order, the nobles for power, and the plebes for freedom. The conflict between the groups was what Machiavelli believed drove Roman society to greatness. Its dynamism caused it to become one of the greatest powers on the earth. Its fall occurred when that dynamism and the conflict that caused it stopped.

Why do I say this? Because America is almost exactly like Rome. The conflict is now between polticians, economic elites, and proletariats, instead of senators, patricians and plebes.

The problem with the above statement is that it supposes that the modern version of the Plebians are fighting for freedom. Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

So, when fascists like Michael Moore whip up the volk and urge them to take over the running of other peoples property, it is not the abscence of physical force they are fighting for, they are fighting for the chance to use physical force on others.

And the scary thing is, like many collectivists before him (most recently in Zimbabwe) this unleashing of force to satisfy the greed of the masses is couched in terms of "fairness" by demonizing the holders of wealth and making it sound like the people have some sort of right to the sweat of others. This is needed because no person likes to admit the evil that drives them. So they have to come up with phrases about the rich "giving back" to the community, or hold up extreme examples of rich men doing bad things and try to paint all who own what they want in the same light.

As I said, socialism/ collectivism will not go away as long as men still have greed and envy in their hearts and need a noble sounding mantra to justify their form of gang rape.

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Don,

I really don't think I agree with you, however, I've argued this point to death, and I think to save my remaining brain power for exams, I'm going to just say I disagree with you and that Michael Moore is not a fascist at all, but leave it at that. We're all entitled to our opinions...

(Of course, I think mine is right, but then, don't we all?)

 

[arnisador]

Did anyone else hear what Dennis Miller said about him on the Tonight Show this week? I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. You have the poor, picked-upon factory owner--and just incidentally, the days of the individual owner are pretty much gone; by the time you get to own a whole factory, you're a wholly-owned subsidiary of...--who gets the largest share of the profits made by others. He gets to choose who works and who doesn't, and who gets the benefits. He has much the greater power in negotiations, law, etc...and he gets to leave his kids a big head start in life.

And the guy who points this out--Michael Moore, in this case--is the fascist?

Just as a point of historical reference, it wasn't the Bauhaus school, or the leftist social critics, who benefited from the German fascism they supported. It was I.G. Farbenindustrie, Volkswagen, Von Braun, and apparently IBM, etc. etc. etc...

Unless I missed it, Moore isn't up in Idaho with the First Church of Christ, Fascist. He doesn't own a factory. He isn't Chancellor of Flint, Michigan...

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. You have the poor, picked-upon factory owner (snip)who gets the largest share of the profits made by others. He gets to choose who works and who doesn't, and who gets the benefits. He has much the greater power in negotiations, law, etc...and he gets to leave his kids a big head start in life.

And the guy who points this out--Michael Moore, in this case--is the fascist?

Micheal Moore did more "than point this out." He openly called on the volk to take control of factories away from the people who owned them.

And he is succesfull because there are always people who are filled with greed and envy and will follow someone who convinces them that what they want is somehow noble. He is succesfull because people like to make villians out of those who have more then them and only need an excuse to give the Micheal Moore's of the world the power to take from others and give to them.

Take a look at Zimbabwe right now. Mugabe was elected on a platform of taking from the rich, white farmers and giving it to the poor blacks. But the only people who seem to be getting the seized land are the elites that support him. The people really are only truning against him because the country has gone to hell. It used to export food, now it imports it.

Is this communism, as Mugabe claims to be, or fascism? When you look at the day to day running of a collective economy, it is hard to tell.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. You have the poor, picked-upon factory owner--and just incidentally, the days of the individual owner are pretty much gone; by the time you get to own a whole factory, you're a wholly-owned subsidiary of...--who gets the largest share of the profits made by others. He gets to choose who works and who doesn't, and who gets the benefits. He has much the greater power in negotiations, law, etc...and he gets to leave his kids a big head start in life.

And the guy who points this out--Michael Moore, in this case--is the fascist?

Just as a point of historical reference, it wasn't the Bauhaus school, or the leftist social critics, who benefited from the German fascism they supported. It was I.G. Farbenindustrie, Volkswagen, Von Braun, and apparently IBM, etc. etc. etc...

Unless I missed it, Moore isn't up in Idaho with the First Church of Christ, Fascist. He doesn't own a factory. He isn't Chancellor of Flint, Michigan...

Well, I do not know if he, Micheal Moore is a facist.

I do know that most of the people of Flint would lynch him if they recognized him.

I do know that I was raised in a Union Family of GM and that the Union members did not really think it helped their situation when he was out making his rants. His attacks on the company. Now is GM, totaly free from failure? NO Way thay have made many mistakes as many other companies have.

All I know is that growing as a young teenager and adult in the 80's in the city that was almost always in the top three to five for violent crime per capita, and being voted the worst place to live, five years running, in the USA. I think he took advantage of the situation more so than any Large Company out to steal the Bread from the table of the Working Man.

Put what ever label you want on him, I think he is Jerk! My Opinion.

:asian:

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Put what ever label you want on him, I think he is Jerk!

That's what it boils down to. Great post, Rich.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kirk
That's what it boils down to. Great post, Rich.

Thank You :asian:

Thank You :asian:

Now if I could only make a million or two following his ugly face around and mis-quoting him, and then maybe get an award or two.

That would make me feel better.

Oh Well

 

[arnisador]

See also the discussion in the Humor forum, e.g.:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7208

 

[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.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

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?

YES! The lesson with Bush Jr is that your own hard work and
reward carries beyond your own lifetime. You want a share of
the pie that you didn't earn? Get your own pie! Unfair advantage
my butt. There's nothing stopping you from hammering out your
own wealth and putting a silver spoon right into your own kid's
mouth.

Share of the pie
And you claim to not be a liberal, or socialist?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Or was Moore wrong about his facts?

Yep .. right from the get go, in "truth" number 1. He doesn't
speak for the majority, IMO, and he certainly doesn't speak for
me.

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

Enron? What does that have to do with anything? Criminals are
criminals. I grow tired of "non republicans" using Enron as some
final evidence that thier platform is the end all be all. So a
corporation ripped people off, big deal. The Indian owned
convenience store down the road ripped me off one time, out of
20 bucks. Are they better, because it was only 20 dollars? Does
it give me the right to say that Indians shouldn't own convenience stores? The only thing you prove by bringing up
Enron is that crooks exist in all walks of life, and in every type of
job.