Is Michael Moore a Hypocrite? About as much as Sakharov was; Not at all
EconomicDemocracy Coop
capitalism as we know it, isn't something to love, after all, but to
replace to be rid of the evils it so consistently brings. Much of
mainstream and especially right-wing the reaction is the same as it
ever was to anyone calling for deep reforms, much less for overhaul:
1. If you're poor, you're dismissed as "jealous" without the facts and
logic of your argument being listened to much less given a response;
2. If you're economically doing well, you're dismissed as "a
hypocrite" without the facts or logic or your critique being
addressed, either: they "cover" just about anyone with these personal
attacks, since personal attacks are all that's left when one cannot
address the facts and the reasoning or the critique itself.
Mind you, what passes for "capitalism" today would make Adam Smith
spin in his grave. Read the original Adam Smith, not the right-wing
caricature: a man who spoke out against injustice and against
monopolies exploiting (yes) workers, and who was "politically correct"
enough to speak out against the "Savage injustice" perpetuated with
impunity by Europeans against Native Americans. Now, you can argue
whether the capitalism of Smith's time was good, evil, or in between,
but the corporate feudalism we have today which calls itself
"capitalism" would make Smith throw up in disgust, and has our
government bought and paid for in its back pocket, and is
indefensible.
My favorite is when they try to hint or even directly say, that Moore
is a "hypocrite"
This is the most common illogical statement heard over and over again,
so let's give a direct response. Do you think Andre Sakharov was a
"hypocrite"? Stalinists agree that he was. The rest of us, and anyone
sane, would disagree in the strongest terms with that.
Even sympathetic commenters on web blogs suggest that Moore may be
criticizing plutocracy, which is fine to do, and plutocracy is not to
be confused with capitalism per se (true enough) but somehow conclude
that there is a contradiction between success under the present system
and a critique of, gasp!, that very system itself, what we call
capitalism (or capitalism as we know it today with corporation given
the rights of personhood, etc, since that can't be right? They say:
"he appears to be a very successful capitalist himself by making
movies so that it doesn't otherwise make sense " that Moore could be
criticizing not just plutocracy but capitalism itself...could he be?
Yes, it does make sense to criticize "capitalism" in quotes (meaning
our Corporate-run capitalism of today, which would make Adam Smith
spin in his grave) As I noted above, there is no contradiction:
Does Moore's "capitalism" success make him a "hypocrite" no, not even
by the most remote stretch of the imagination does it.. and it shows a
deep misunderstanding of what hypocrisy is. If Moore said "everyone
should take out all their money, to the last dollar, out of the Stock
Market" and then excepted himself and kept money, that's hypocrisy.
Participating in a system you are criticizing is not hypocrisy, in
fact, it can be heroic.
What? That's correct. Let's take an example: Do you think Andre
Sakharov was a "hypocrite?"
Well, guess what? He strongly criticized the same USSR from which *he*
benefited. The same USSR that gave him his education. And his
university research opportunities,, etc .. but only an ugly Stalinist,
not a sane person, would ever call Sakharov "hypocritical" for
criticizing the system he lived under.
The same logic applies to anyone living in the U.S., you cannot get
tens of millions to see your film to spread your message unless you
play the capitalist game since it's the only game in town. A hypocrite
would be if they said "don't invest a penny of your money in the stock
market, but I will invest min" but to use the only system you have
available (under the very unlevel-playing-field set of laws favoring
Corporate based economics), to criticize its faults, it the most
patriotic thing you can do (America: Right Its Wrongs) to improve it,
and no more hypocritical than Andrei Sakharov was a "hypocrite"for
being so *successful* (which he was) under Communism, and benefitting
(which he did: education and all his physics research university
positions) but still very *critical* of Communism, which he was.
By the way, even Warren Buffett is critical of things he benefits from
(that billionaires typically pay lower percent of income taxes than
their secretaries, as he's pointed out many times), and is not a
hypocrite by any means (and he's not obligated to give away the extra
money he has..he can call for changing the laws, as he does).
Others, like Moore and Sakharov, take their criticism much further, to
the systemic and legal and structural/economic wrongs in the system
itself, and in both cases, are not only not hypocritical, but are true
patriots, taking a lot of heat and flak for calling for changing the
system itself.
==========
Postscript: Criticism of capitalism is as American as apple pie,and
pre-dates anything that any American has ever read by (or even heard
of) Marx. As the young women workers in Lowell Mass wrote way back in
the 1840s,"The people who work in the mils ought to own them"
http://economicdemocracy.org/lowell.html
"When you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you
sell your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and
becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy
that threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to
enslave and oppress.
"THOSE WHO WORK IN THE MILLS OUGHT TO OWN THEM, not have the
status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching
monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards
freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality
in the new commercial feudalism." (emphasis added) [ref: p. 29,
"Chomsky on Democracy and Education, edited by C.P. Otero]
Chomsky adds, "just in case you are confused, this is LONG BEFORE
Marxism. This is American workers talking about their experiences in
the 1840s". And that one of the early leaders of the AFL, about a
century ago, expressed the standard view when he described the mission
of the labour movement as "to overcome the sins of the market and to
defend democracy by extending it to control over industry by working
people." That is, you extend democracy from being merely in the
political arena (it's very limited and emaciated there, but that's
another story), to be also in the industrial/workplace arena -- to
extend democracy there too.
If you think about it, what we have in the workplaces, with bosses
giving orders to employees, if you translated that into the political
arena, what would it be the equivalent of? Of some kind of despotism,
certainly not of political democracy
In 1907 the pamphlet "How the Miners were robbed" was published,
showing "trouble making rabble rousers" like John Wheatley who
authored it, could be uproariously funny at the same time, like a one-
act comedy play:
http://economicdemocracy.org/miners.html
For more:
Sid9
"EconomicDemocracy Coop" <econde...@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:02a6ad90-288f-4cc6...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
But....the workers you describe. in 1840, did not have a
label for what they were proposing
John Q Public
You dumb fucks, Marxism 1st started spreading in the 1840's, get a
fuckin clue will ya
EconomicDemocracy Coop
> On 2009-09-11 19:08:37 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "EconomicDemocracy Coop" <econdemocr...@gmail.com> wrote in
Congragulations for confirming my prediction that those who are too
afraid to discuss the issues of Michael Moore, capitalism, hypocrisy,
and wrong definitions of hypocrisy, and the problems of capitalism,
will try to distract the issue by leaping and jumping on anything with
the word 'Marx' in it.
Das Kapital was published in the 1860s. The Communist Manifesto was
published in 1948 the second to last year of the 1840s (according to
Wikipedia, since unlike hardcore Marxists and the right-wingers
everywhere I don't obsess with Marx of his writings, neither did these
women),...and there was no internet back then, shockingly enough. The
point Chomsky alludes to is that these women were not quoting Marx,
and most of them probably hadn't heard of him, and they were using
their own terms to describe their own real-life experiences as "wage
slaves".
By merely changing the subject to whether this or that woman had heard
of Marx (in fact, in actuality, it's pretty much guaranteed to be
utterly impossible to "prove" that not a single one of them had,
conveniently enough when it's impossible to prove something and that
task of proving it impossible is, absurdly, touted as so important...)
the right-wing subject-changes Win. But be warned: you'll be called on
this changing-of-subject every single time.
Without changing the subject one can address whether
1. the owners of factories should be those who work there
or whether
2. workers should, instead, have "the status of machines ruled by
private despots" namely by corporate rulers who have succeeded in
having corporations declared "persons" (and thus can hide their crimes
by "I don't have to testify against myself" and 101 other tricks)
while taking away such basic rights as free speech from human beings
during the half+ of their waking hours when they are in the
workplace...
Is Warren Buffett a "hypocrite" for criticizing the tax-policies from
which he benefits, or is he being courageous for calling for an end to
such outrages as secretaries paying a higher percent than
billionaires? The answer is so obvious and embarrassing that changing
the subject form this question is perhaps forgivable.
Was Andre Sakharov a "hypocrite" for criticizing Communism from which
he benefited by having received school level and university level
education, and then university research facilities and job, or was he
a hero for speaking out against the fundamental injustices of the
system from which he benefited? The answer is so obvious and
embarrassing that changing the subject form this question is perhaps
forgivable.
Is Michael Moore a "hypocrite" for daring to criticize a capitalist
system, a system where he has demonstrated he has the skills to do
very very well under, but still criticizes its injustices*, or is he
doing the moral and right thing by speaking out against the damage,
disasters, injustice, and "collateral damage" is causes not "now and
then" but as part of it's internal logic and daily operation? The
answer is so obvious and embarrassing that changing the subject form
this question is perhaps forgivable.
*(and I hope he will also criticize its ecological unsustainability,
it being based on exponential-growth-forever-and-ever as was the USSR
economic system too lest any fans of that system get happy to hear
this)
A 200 dollar bet that the nonsense about "hypocrisy"will be trotted
out again when the Moore film actually comes out...good, another
chance to repost some of the above to blow the nonsense to pieces
again, for more people to see the "anyone who criticizes but is
successful is a hypocrite" Emperor has no clothes, but does have a
necklace saying "lapdog apologist for the current system"
If Moore's "anti-capitalism" turns out to be a call for 1960s-Sweden-
type-capitalism he will call him out on that and point out that is a
less dangerous and less destructive and less unjust form of
capitalism, but is Corporate-rule capitalism all the same.
In 1907 the pamphlet "How the Miners were robbed" was
published,
showing "trouble making rabble rousers" like John Wheatley who
authored it, could be uproariously funny at the same time,
like a one-
act comedy play:
http://economicdemocracy.org/miners.html
For more:
http://economicdemocracy.org/analy.shtml
Responses from anyone who actually bothered to read the links..?
Dime a dozen: Marxist apologists who defend China's every move. Dime a
dozen. Indian and Pakistani citizens who see every crime of the other
but not the crimes of their own states. Dime a dozen. The entire US
right wing and much of its mainstream and liberals who break a sweat
at the thought of being thought anyhow associated with agreeing with
any criticism, no matter how true, of the inefficient, anti-
democratic, ecologically suicidal Corporate Feudalism (calling itself
Capitalism)...and who trot out catch-phrases and change of subject and
red-baiting and falsehoods and illogics and anything but an actual
thinking independent response to such criticisms of the sick, sick
economic system we live under: dime a dozen.