From: Louis Proyect c b wrote: > > Actually ,the more I think about it, it is extraordinarily advanced to > pose to an audience as large as Moore’s the notion that capitalism _as > a system_ is no good. How often do lefts criticize liberal critiques > of capitalism for not posing the issue as a systemic problem ? There's > Michael Moore on a morning talk show saying "the capitalist _system_ > has got to go" !
Of course it is a good thing that this movie was made. However, he is really not explaining what capitalism is. Basically, his analysis is a throwback to Proudhon's notion of property as theft. That is why the opening scenes depict bank robberies and why at the end of the movie he tries to make a citizen's arrest of Hank Paulsen. This kind of analysis is of course very good for movies, since it lends itself to a hero versus villain narrative that is the underpinning of Hollywood products going back to the 1920s. Someday somebody might make a documentary about capitalism, but I doubt that it would be produced by the Weinstein brothers. ^^^^ CB: Well, I'm repeating myself, but I think that his approach of just asserting the conclusion that capitalism as a system has failed is better for American audiences. An explanation of the system is not the American cup of tea. If we could get tens of millions of Americans to buy the "vulgar" notion that "property is theft" , I think we'd be on the road to socialism. I don't think mass understanding of the subtlties of _Capital_, exploitation vs theft are a prerequisite Also, Moore's movies, in general, are sort of mock documentaries, but appropriate for American anti-intellectualism. On the morning show interview I saw about a week ago, he said it's a comedy. To paraphrase Hegel, comedy is superior to tragedy, especially for Americans , tragi-comedy probably. Go, Michael Moore. He's our Lenin. It takes the son of an autoworker. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
