Too funny for words. Didn’t this guy’s career end in 2007?
So how long has this occupation lasted? A month? So it’s been a month and their best spokesman has still not thought of a ‘system’ to replace capitalism.
Half the people in that video look like they work at Starbucks. Ok, that was a cheap shot.
Btw, Shittreport posts videos that contradict other videos that he uses agianst Schiff.
So, is 2011 capitalism different than the capitalism that Marx attacked?
Nah, same capitalism, only the banks tipped the balance in their favor 
But more importantly… where is this “lashing out?”
It wasn’t actually as derp as I thought it would be.
-
Absolutely ignorant of the cause of the current crisis
-
Absolutely ignorant of what his “democratic” system would cause
-
Contradicting in that he believes that democracy will bring about good results and yet they’re too stupid to find someone who won’t be bought out by wallstreet
-
Ignorant of the nature of capitalism itself
-
Entirely deluding himself as to the extent of the influence that the occupy movement is likely to have
He didn’t really “lash out” at Schiff though, he could have been a lot more insulting and stupid about it.
In a lot of ways Moore is really just the ideology of most Americans put into actual action.
You have to love the Black Panthers with their Black Power gestures standing right behind the rich, fat, white, 1%er who wants to pretend he’s anything but.
I’ve heard it before, but when you really think about it, Moore really does exhibit clinical signs of self hatred.
Do someone even pay attention to Michael Moore anymore?
In a related note:
Michael Moore won’t admit he is part of ‘the 1 percent’
Either Michael Moore movies aren’t that profitable for him, or he’s having a real identity crisis.
During a live made-for-cable-television town hall event on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” Tuesday, Moore discussed the plight of those hurt by the current economy. When asked by host Piers Morgan to admit that he was a part of the so-called “1 percent,” the enormously successful liberal filmmaker and author flatly denied it. The IRS reports that the top 1 percent of income-earners make a minimum of $343,927 in annual adjusted gross income…
MOORE: Isn’t that amazing? Really, I’m here talking against my own interests.
MORGAN: What’s the matter with you?
MOORE: What’s wrong with me?
MORGAN: You crazy man. He makes a good point. You’re in the 1 percent?
MOORE: I’m not in the 1 percent.
MORGAN: Probably 0.2 percent?
MOORE: No.
MORGAN: You’re one of the most successful filmmakers in the country.
MOORE: No, I’m not. For a documentary filmmaker, I’m doing well.
MORGAN: You’re splitting hairs.
MOORE: There’s a big difference between a documentary and “Avatar.”
MORGAN: There is.
MOORE: I’m not that. Let me just say –
MORGAN: There are people watching that say “Michael Moore, rich guy.”
[…]
Morgan: I need you to admit the bleeding obvious. I need you to sit here and say ‘I’m in the 1%’, because it’s important–
Moore: Well, I can’t, because I’m not.
Morgan: You are though.
Moore: No, I’m not! I’m not!
Morgan: You’re not in the 1 percent?!
Moore: Of course I’m not! How could I be in the 1 percent?!
(view the video at the link)
Peter Schiff responds:
And of course, earlier, he showed how Moore isn’t really against capitalism…
We’ve won the battle: “They can have all the money they want”
one Moore…
Schiff: “We know [Michael Moore] spends a lot of money on food.”
Winning.
Listening to Moore and Schiff’s analysis, and taking into account discussions I’ve had with my lefty friends, it’s pretty clear to me that the equivocation on the word “capitalism” is at the forefront of the problem/debate. I’m convinced that Moore knows exactly what the word means and understands the difference between it and corporatism. So, there are two options that explain his behavior: 1) He is, as Schiff suggests, a good capitalist and is providing a product to a market, or 2) He is really an out-and-out socialist Fabian type and understands that maintaining this confusion is absolutely necessary to advancing his cause. Probably both are true.
My friends eat up every word that a Michael Moore offers on capitalism. And while I can get them to see the distinctions that are obvious to us, they’re conditioned to react negatively to the word “capitalism” and in the end you make no progress with them. Moore knows this; he’s shrewd enough to see it and take full advantage of it. Through this obfuscation, he can get the average dupe out there to buy into the growing statism he wants to bring about.
You can also see it in the video where the OWS guy (dressed as Marx) rails against what is essentially corporatism while calling it free markets, only to admit privately after his speech that he fully understands the difference, but uses the term “free markets” because everyone in the audience thinks “free markets” and corporatism are essentially the same thing. This is what we’re up against; a large number of people so misinformed that they don’t know what capitalism is, and a small number of influential, manipulative socialists who know this. The OWS crowd fit the definition of “useful idiots” perfectly.
We really run into problems with the word “capitalism” because the misunderstanding is perpetuated by the media, schools, and especially people like Moore. History provides plenty of examples of stolen labels: liberal, federalist, Whig, etc…
Haha, add “libertarian” to that list, but essentially you hit the nail on the head.
Link?
He does kind of admit that capitalism is what built this country.
But, as for everything else, not so much. He is a multi millionaire. Give it up Mikey you’re a shill for the Establishment.
I’m looking but can’t find it. I thought someone on this board had linked to it. It was a video showing the speech, and then whoever took it added some textual commentary where he recounts the conversation he had with the OWS protester.
Listening to Moore and Schiff’s analysis, and taking into account discussions I’ve had with my lefty friends, it’s pretty clear to me that the equivocation on the word “capitalism” is at the forefront of the problem/debate. I’m convinced that Moore knows exactly what the word means and understands the difference between it and corporatism. So, there are two options that explain his behavior: 1) He is, as Schiff suggests, a good capitalist and is providing a product to a market, or 2) He is really an out-and-out socialist Fabian type and understands that maintaining this confusion is absolutely necessary to advancing his cause. Probably both are true
- They’re the same thing. All corporatism is capitalism, but not all capitalism is coroporatism… kind-of thing.
Hah! A good capitalist but a bad man. Producing “documentaries” for consumption. Comforting lies.