Ruphus -> RE: Michael Moore´s "Capitalism: A Love Story" (Aug. 6 2011 13:03:29)
|
Apparently some of you believe that an attention receiving report telling as it is could ever be emitted without common editorials reacting with some pseudo actual clearing according to which the report in question was exaggerating, out of context and distorting a reasonable and democratic landscape. Typically the explanation for why even among basically progressive minds many don´t dare to stand to Moore´s engagement, fearing to be deemed as undiscerning followers of a film-making lunatic. But where there is lacking background about the return strategies behind the two crisis and long term information on common grade of ruthlessness with profiteering, one remaining question could had made you wonder: Where are the lucrative law suits against Moore? Didn’t you know that not only during preparation of such a documentary, but even before any one-paragraph article naming corporate inconsistencies, specialized lawyer departments will be checking the gathered facts word for word first? For if they didn´t , affected companies could and would sue you to bankruptcy. Especially a relatively small undertaking like Moore´s. So, despite of all the deformation against Moore´s work: Has it never made you wonder how he is still legitimately up and running, eventhough reflecting an America of the mafia and cashed-in government? But with a conception present through below quote, one must be willfully not be prepared to question qualities of establishment: quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH That is not a criticism of Capitalism per se, which I certainly think has shown itself to be the best, most efficient economic system (compared to others that have been tried). It is, however, recognition that most activities need some degree of regulation. This is not because of flaws in Capitalism; rather, it is because of flaws in human beings. How much does it really take to congruently comprehend that an economical method holding the votive of capital has to be appropriating, unsocial and unjust by its inner principle of function? What cluttered brainwork does it take to fancy and plead for a “humane capitalism” without realizing immanent contradiction and self-fooling? And when wanting to pretend open mindedness I guess one ressorts to paying attention to opportunely smoothing “critiques” like a Vaclav Havel who nicely blurb away from issues core. This is not about basically functional economical systems that would merely occasionally fail. It is about oligarchies and far away from any ethical concern operating mafia structures, that systematically loot populations by vertical draining. There is not a word of lie in Moore´s film, including the publicly available medical service in Cuba ( mentioned in another of his productions ), which is reality too from what I know. And the issues of slavery and proliferating health insurances ( maybe you want to also eye officially legitimated pharmaceuticals & medical gear supply racketing beforehand ) that you mention are not at all separate from the pocketing mechanisms illuminated in “Capitalism: …” These are branches of the same inhumane societal structure that make a material resource of men and environment on behalf of extremely privileged minorities who own legislative, judicative and executive to path their ways of never-sate pathological greed, and systematically wash people´s brains so far as to have them accept or even defend their own treadmill. - I am still convinced of what I claimed above. Without medial distortion and downplaying, this film would have been a fundamental trigger. In times when almost every American was either affected or at least personally familiar with a family that lost their home, and with elderly who lost their old age savings / provision, this summrizing movie was due to causing a revolt. In an unthrottled medial reflection, debates would had increased and heaten up. Disgust and anger of millions of people would had been displayed, reciprocally enhanced until the nation wide demand to kick out the mafia from state. Pretty self-evidently. - And besides: From what I recall, Moore deems himself a traditional conservative. Such occurs from time to time. Like with Rudolph Augstein, founder of “Der Spiegel”. Though conservative, he was an adorable and unique example of a sincere democrat. His conservative upbringing actually appeared to partially tore him into schizophrenic pieces. It´s what happens when you can´t escape youths indoctrination, yet sustain / develop intuitively stuffed with an inner receptor for just and empathy. Instead of focusing on Michael´s not so fashionable appearance, you might realize that this guy does feel with the people, and that it has been his empirical experience that made him illuminate corruption, whilst originally coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. This man lives enough love to feel with the deprived and their chanceless situation, and it breaks his heart to see his homeland becoming a trash site. As he correctly pointed out in his film, it has been the USA´s post-WWII leading position among industrial countries ( with Japan and Germany, France & Britain laying aground ) that allowed a cockaigne and the appearance as if capitalism was doing good to the people. - And more than that, though not mentioned in this movie: The decades long bargain of mineral and labour resources from abroad. What you see now with the disaster of economy and environment is the peeling through face of capitalist function, and it has just started coming through. Its pest needs realization ( through popular philanthropic works like Moore´s & co.) if you want your grand childs to breath and eat. Ruphus
|
|
|
|