I just watched Capitalisam.A love story....Why the fuck don't you do something about it?

[Kair]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper.

Not even that. You can clearly see it will not work without having to put it into practice.

What is worse, to say that Communism is only good as a hypothesis, or to not even know what the hypothesis is before you comment on it.

The first is ignorant because a hypothesis needs to be tested before it can be falsified. The second is ignorant because not only because you say your imagined hypothesis is good (which it most likely is not since it is not a true hypothesis), but because you do not do enough research to even know what the hypothesis is.

-

To answer your questions before you ask them:

Communism is the end of conflict, the economic unification of all mankind. There will be no competition between individuals that results in conflict.

This is not a hivemind society. Today there is a hivemind (and do not think anything else before observing society) because today humans are animals. Communism requires free individuals, and freedom requires enlightenment (--> Mutualism).

Of course there are requirements before Communism is even remotely possible (It is stupid to assume Communism is to be implemented among today's population, so you are a moron if you did.). I will only include enlightened Communism because any other is unimaginable.
This is the major requirement:

Humans have to be Humans. In most philosophical branches we deem as virtuous, we treat humans as sentient being and peers, this has to be true before Communism is possible in the future. To disprove Communism you only have to prove that most humans are animals and will never be sentient.
I know that I am not an animal after years of reflection, so I assume as much for everyone else that they can also learn not to be an animal.

 

[Calbeck]

1) Michael Moore. Although it's not uncommon for documentary films to skew a few facts in order to make a point, Moore does it constantly and ham-fistedly. If you don't already agree with his view before you enter the theatre, you're not his intended audience.

That makes him less a documentarist, and more a propagandist, in the classic sense.


2) Here you are, whining that people haven't gone on a killing spree over this movie. That tells me all I need to know.

 

[Ratlover]

Go ahead and ignore everybody on here that says he tries to put shock value in his films. Almost everybody who hates the guy doesn't really listen to what hes saying. Love the gun nuts who hate him because they don't their little toys taken away. Very good points and he has to put a bit of humor in his films to make it interesting. Always blown away when rich pricks are allowed to get away with dirty dealings and don't suffer like the rest of us. Not a big fan of Republicans because they could care less about the working man. The funny thing about people is that they support Republicans and agree with them, yet they are on disability and don't realize that they want to take that away from you. Yeah the world is a corrupt place sometimes, we need more people getting in the face of certain people to get the truth out of them. literally can't stand shady people, I hate it when they get away with stuff that they know is wrong. Almost everyone on here probably has no idea whats going on in the world and just see his films as entertainment.

 

[Calbeck]

Almost everybody who hates the guy doesn't really listen to what hes saying.

Conversely, almost everyone who loves the guy don't really listen to what he says, either. It's sufficient that they merely have their pre-existing views reinforced.

 

[Rasmus Emilsson]

The thing i find most hilarious in this thread are all the people linking to wikipedia with facts...

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I don't know a whole lot about Moore or the American economy, but it seemed to me that the film never explored any other side to the argument than "Democratic Socialism is the only way", which is just ridiculous. Anyway, this isn't the end of the world, things were way worse for pretty much every country (including neutral countries like Ireland) during WW2, and look at the boom that happened after that.

 

[herr.Didi]

Havn't watched it, I am pretty tired of Michal Moore.

You can also watch "The Inside Job", which also is about the financial crisis. Its pretty good.

I watched The Inside Job, and right after that I watched "Capitalism: A Love Story". Both are pretty much on the same page, but I found The Inside Job done much more professionally and objective. I really hated when Moore went to the banks and tried to "arrest" the CEO's. The Inside Job is pretty good, and explains almost everything, hell even I understood it, and my economic knowledge is very limited, I didn't even knew whats with the mortgage. Was kinda shocked really, seeing how most Wall Street bosses worked with the former and current administration at the White House.

 

[tehroc]

Right all the people that got screwed over by capitalism... compared to the 400,000 deaths caused by collectivization in a Communist Russia.

The USSR was not a communist union, the USSR was a transitory authoritarian government. Fact is the closest civilization gets to true communist state is some self-contained backwater southeast Asian village.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

Michael Moore is about as legitimate a documentary maker as an amnesiac chinchilla named Jim.

I lol'd.

I'm not gonna watch it, I don't like Michael Moore.

 

[oktalist]

And I said nothing about believing there is a perfect system out there, but I also refuse to believe that a system that practically begs people to indulge unchecked greed is the best we have, and so long as people accept that this is all there is and all there could be, nothing will change.

Srsly, can you imagine a peasant in feudal times saying "this is the best we can hope for"? Hey, maybe they did.

Socialism on the other had endorses a planned economy

Other things like personal property would be viewed as means of production and would have no place in a Socialistic society.

Wrong and wrong.

Right all the people that got screwed over by capitalism... compared to the 400,000 deaths caused by collectivization in a Communist Russia.

1) There wasn't communism in Russia, they'd given up trying to be communist less than a year after the revolution, they just kept the name. State ownership of industry is not the same thing as public ownership of industry, plainly.

2) Your numbers are very conservative; more than 5,000,000 died in the Soviet famines. But today, 7,000,000 people die every year as a necessary consequence of capitalism, so even if you think Stalinism = communism, capitalism is still far worse in terms of deaths caused.

 

[Stalydan]

Michael Moore is about as legitimate a documentary maker as an amnesiac chinchilla named Jim.

I know Jim He's a nice guy/chinchilla

 

[fundayz]

Ummm just in case anybody does know, private companies ARE taking over America. Slowly, but they are. They already hold a huge chunk of political power, through lobbying and ex-employees and owners in government jobs. Politicians and CEO's are raking in all the money while thousands of people are desperate for jobs.

Why people don't do anything about it? Probably because the average America is somewhat ignorant and because they've had a strong stable economy up till now.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Capitalism is an awful system, but it's the best anybody has been able to come up with so far.

 

[marfin_]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper.

Not even that. You can clearly see it will not work without having to put it into practice.

What is worse, to say that Communism is only good as a hypothesis, or to not even know what the hypothesis is before you comment on it.

The first is ignorant because a hypothesis needs to be tested before it can be falsified. The second is ignorant because not only because you say your imagined hypothesis is good (which it most likely is not since it is not a true hypothesis), but because you do not do enough research to even know what the hypothesis is.

Hey genius it has been tested in the following countries:
Russia
China
Cuba
Laos
North Korea
Vietnam

? are any of these countries not know for being repressive to their peoples?

 

[oktalist]

The thing i find most hilarious in this thread are all the people linking to wikipedia with facts...

Quite. How dare the try and use facts to win an argument!

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Capitalism is an awful system, but it's the best anybody has been able to come up with so far.

Pretty much.
Right now it's the least of all evils, the problems are endemic to the system, getting rid of them properly requires changing too much. Even if you put a great party in who win the hearts of the people, bypass the corrupt media barons and the totalitarian mega empires and successfully build on the country as a whole in ten, fifteen years absolute tops they're gone. New wave comes in and those same media barons, those business executives, they're back in the driving seat.

Right now though no other system has the capability of capitalism, communism is possible but so far the test runs have been far from desirable, socialist parliaments have never done well. Dictatorship? Well even with the best leader backed by a fantastic crew of advisors it's so open to corruption and being blindsided it's unreal.

Capitalism is the best we got. You get a better solution, I for one am all ears.

 

[Staskala]

...I don't think you really understand what Communism is. In a Communist society (Real Karl Marx Communism, not the bastardized socialist version that Lenin and friends used), there couldn't be an 'elite'. Having an elite class goes against the very basis of Communism.

The real problem with Communism is that it has an extremely decentralized power structure as far as government goes...so it's fairly easy for anyone with the charisma and desire for power to take control of the whole thing and turn it into what has been called Communism, but never actually was Communism as Marx envisioned it.

Have you even read Marx and Engels yourself?
While they primarily advocated a peaceful revolution, they were by no means against using violence to accomplish that goal. Indeed, a violent movement was expected and "allowed" because neither was delusional enough to think that the "bourgeoisie" wouldn't resist expropriation.
This, coupled with their harsh stances against religion (just opium for the people to keep them quiet) and politicians (just pawns of the exploiters) legitimates Lenin's revolution as a truly communist movement.
Furthermore, a communist nation would still have a government, created by a single party, the worker's party.
Of course this party needs leaders, so not even an ideal communist nation would be without "elites".

The "partly socialist" economy you are referring to is called a mixed economy and uses part of Capitalism and Socialism, but is still considered as a Capitalistic form of economy.

Indeed, because socialism isn't an antithesis to capitalism. You can easily have both while in their "purest" form both are shit.
That's my point.

 

[peruvianskys]

Im seriously tired of kids who keep stating communism will not work just BECAUSE. Please, at least put some effort into your post and explain why you think it wouldnt work. Hell, im not even what you would call a communist per se, it still pisses me off.

I dont know about you, maybe you actually put some thought into the matter, but a lot of people nowadays seem to say communism would never work because they heard some "expert" say it on TV or they overheard their parents say it and want to appear cool.

First off, there hasn't really been a successful communist government that's lasted in its pure form ever, and the list of failed states (USSR, Cambodia, Catalonia, China, Cuba, etc.) is by itself enough to dissuade most people from assuming that it's a viable system - either way, from an economic standpoint, the basic tenants of communism are not sound, mostly because anti-capitalist political economies are based on the labor theory of value which has been mostly discredited by economics across the board. There are a lot of good things to say about socialization in a lot of areas, but the economics behind communally-owned, centrally-planned means of production on the scale that communism requires are just not sound.

And as for those who say, "Well, the USSR/the Khmer Rogue/Vietnam/China aren't really communist" are the same people who are apt to say that the inquisition/the Ku Klux Klan/Glenn Beck/the Crusades weren't really Christianity; an ideology can only trip over itself and result in disaster for so long before people start not wanting to consider the core tenants as viable.