there is nothing like show business...

It is hard to believe how easily folks are misled. C'mom people, he is knee deep in the business, show business that is, and he is profiting off the same system he purports to despise. I guess a guys got to make a living somehow huh? There's a name for that isn't there - you know something a person does on their back? Somehow I doubt he can do it otherwise.

Film & Culture vs Economic Tyranny

Somehow we have the film and culture writer critiquing a movie about economic tyranny. Worse, Mr. Burgess doesn't address the film's artistic merits, but instead jumps straight into the deep end into political science. Which is unfortunately not his forte.

Mr. Burgess commits several logical fallacies. First, strenuously objecting to the capitalist system, which has failed people around the world over and over again, does not make the 'objector' the same as Fox News or Sean Hannity. It would only be so if Moore were a dominant, monopoly news media, like Fox News is. He isn't, and comparing his film to the continuous roar of intolerance coming from Hannity, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh etc etc , doesn't follow.

Secondly, Mr. Burgess if anything appears to support capitalism. And he is certainly entitled to his opinion, as we still (thus far) live in a free and democratic country. Referring to FDR's proposal for a worker's bill of rights as somehow wacky pretty much indicates the lack of historical perspective the author brings to a discussion about money, power and who gets to control the world's resources. Just ask the thousands of people who struggled for years in labour strikes in Canada and the US to obtain some semblance of justice.

The history of capitalism is unfortunately bloody, violent and unjust. And it continues to be so to this day. Yes, Moore's topic might not make for happy go lucky movie watching. But there isn't much that is occurring today that is. It's time we all became better informed about what structures make society just, and what structures don't.

Re Shale or Shallow? OilbertaRedTory

Flint:

But every once in a while, the pressure of cultures creates a spark of feu sacre.

Entertainment aside, one hopes to see that.

Maybe it's an Onondaga or Mohawk thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint

"The exact mode of formation of flint is not yet clear but... Certain types of flint, such as that from the south coast of England, contains trapped fossilised marine flora. Pieces of coral and vegetation have been found preserved like Amber inside the flint. Thin slices of the stone often reveal this effect."

But only right wing nutcases hate Moore

Good to see my local non-right wing publication hosting a piece on why Moore isn't good for the cause, to complement the ones from the Salon (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/09/23/capitalism_a_love_story/index.html) and Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-09-22/film/michael-moore-is-now-a-marxist-for-capitalism-a-love-story/)

I've given up on bad logic that happens to support positions I agree with. In the end it doesn't help anything. I'd like to see intelligent cross-perspective discussion which can create real solutions. Anger at executives feels good, but in the end creates little more than hot air. But it does sell movie tickets.

Missing the point

I'm not going to issue a full critique of the critic's criticism until I've seen the film, but I will make some observations about Moore, based on all his other films (which I have seen). He is, first and foremost, an artist, a filmmaker, an entertainer, and in this sense his box office receipts speak for themselves. He seems to resonate with a significant segment of the masses who care enough about politics and satire to go see his movies. His receipts are especially notable given his clear left-wing bias in a nation and a movie industry that doesn't have much tolerance for anything left of Bill Clinton or the liberal film establishment.

I'm glad Burgess does not once utter the word 'documentary' - but I still sense Burgess expects this, wants this to be the case, and uses it to scold Moore for violating cinematic rules by having a blatant, passionate left-wing opinion. The Mirror image of Glen Beck? Are you serious, Burgess? And what sacred, objective, truthful political ground doth thou stand on, sir? The holiest of fences? Or just the liberal ground endorsed by the bleeding-heart New Yorker literati?

I think critics like Burgess place way too much responsibility on a single filmmaker like Moore. They think his film's are supposed to or aimed at changing the world, or else he fails as a filmmaker? Says who? Can't these films just be fun, politically subversive rants?

Moore does one thing very well: the time honoured tradition of agitation propaganda. And on my side of the fence, agit-prop is a valuable, necessary part of the political struggle. Granted, Moore lacks the eloquence and erudition of the great agit-prop writers like Brecht, Sean O-Casey and the many filmmakers so inspired, but what can you expect for a guy from Flint, who got fired by Mother Jones Magazine, and who despite his millions earned, still dresses, talks and acts like a guy from Flint. I never understood the line of logic that says an artist's integrity and political and class roots are nullified by his own financial success. What's he supposed to do? Give all his money away to the cause, don rags and go live among the impoverished minions? I do believe he gives a fair chunk of his change to various causes.

Moore adds to the debate. That's it, and that's good enough for me. If you are expecting more, you are expecting way too much and your film criticism ought to be judged accordingly.

I also need to remind myself Burgess is the same critic who thought District 9 sucked.

It's all about different strokes

Just as with Murray Dobbin, I suppose one has to put up with Moore's gross oversimplifications, his hyperbolic flights of fancy and florid depictions of "the enemy".

The fact is that despite our own preferences, he does appeal to those who inhabit the same intelligence stratum as those who follow "scholars" like Newt Gingrich and who think that government is barely tolerable Communism.

One has to meet the enemy on his own ground sometimes.

Well, yeah

I dismissed Moore after seeing his BS portrayal of Canada in Bowling for Columbine. I remember him showing poor, but nice areas of Toronto saying "This is a ghetto in Canada." He never came to the DTES or anything like that, it was clear lies.

That said, I agree with much of what he says, but much of what he says is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

half a brain?

Jeremy J: if people had half a brain, we would be well off!
Unfortunately we need people like Moore to stir the pot once in a while.
Maybe each time he surfaces a few more people begin to think for themselves?
That would be a good thing!

Michael Moore = Fox News! Who knew??

The intelligent viewer will swiftly realize that Mr. Moore is telling a true story about rampant, unregulated "Capitalism", not capitalism in general.

Referring to Michael Moore as the "mirror image of Fox News" is simply silly; Mr. Moore is not a 24/7 cable "News" network flooding the airwaves with innuendo, outright lies, and opinions that in many countries would be considered treason.

Once again, Mr. Burgess attemps to take a contrarian view, albeit poorly argued, and he indulges in his own little festival of bloviation, comparing Mr. Moore to both Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin! Well done, Steve...I'll be sure to see and recommend this film.

good, bad or??

I have always enjoyed Mr Moores' movies etc. At least he gets to the point - bottom line of the harm done by greed, selfishness, and what I call a lack of moral maturity. It doesn't take much to develop the idea that a person should be able to get a job and take care of themself. However it takes alot more maturity to understand some need help or that if you want crap jobs done there should be some reason a person accepts - suffers low wages and the insults that go with doing these jobs besides starvation. Mr. Moore points out how the bullies of the world have made the world an ugly place to be. In the USA and to some degree in Canada, people love to kick you when you're down. Blame the victim a very popular way to avoid responsibility. Blame the victim means not accepting responsibility for those that can help those who need help making the world a more equal place to be. If everyone is healthy then flu and other diseases will not do so much damage or travel so far. What a shame it would be if we were all healthy and educated.

Mr Moore rubs the noses of the greedy in the harm they have done GOOD FOR HIM

Why shoot the messanger?

Mr. Burgess is just shooting the messenger. Moore makes very good points in his films about the plight of ordinary working people who suffer from the greed of rich people, corporations and politicians. He stirs up debate which is a good thing and, as it turns out, allows Mr. Burgess to earn a living by writing about him and his films.

Steve Steve Steve

"One begins to wonder about Moore's definition of capitalism."

Unfortunately Steve I have to wonder about yours when I read the following :

"Elsewhere Moore shows workers who have formed a co-operative to run their factory, sell their goods, and share the profits. There's a name for that: capitalism."

Really? Profiting from your own labour is capitalism? All farmers throughout history were capitalists?

So according to you there was no such things in history as mercantilism, communism, feudalism etc and even the slave and agricultural economy of ancient Rome was capitalist?

You're confusing capitalism with other things such as economic freedom, surplus, profit and so on.

The last two certainly exist within capitalism but all 3 can also exist in other systems.

I can assure you that when Ukrainian peasants living under Stalin produced an agricultural surplus it didn't mean they were capitalists.

Nor would anyone acquainted with economic history believe feudal peasants were capitalists that exchanged the surplus agricultural production from their labour with their lord in return for military protection.

If one farmer exchanges beef with another farmer in return for hay, that's not capitalism, although you seem to think any exchange of goods is.

There's a big clue when it comes to calling something capitalist, is there capital involved and who owns the surplus production resulting from labour, the labourer or someone else?

Moore's Lost Legacy

Moore once played (or perhaps could have played) a critically important role in society, but he threw it away for success and vanity. And that's a real shame, because the world needs as many legitimate Michael Moores as it can hold.

But when a Michael Moore adopts the tools of trade of the enemy (lies, deceptions, exaggerations, misinformation, etc.), we all lose.

Burgess says:

"Michael Moore is the mirror image of Fox News."

I think that is especially accurate in the sense of Moore's adoption of the tools of trade of the enemy to make his point. That simply means we can no longer trust him, and therefore, sadly, he has become worse than irrelevant: He's become a threat.

come on now!

Someone is successful in getting leftist ideas into the mainstream consiousness, and out comes this guy Steve.

"Whatever else Michael Moore may be -- gadfly, activist, entertainer -- he does not appear to be a difference-maker."

So what does that make you then Mr. Burgess? How many years of your agitation produced how many years of right wing Liberal rule here in BC? Do you think you make yourself look better by talking about how big of a failure someone else is? Michael's failures may be bigger (when you assume his goal is manipulating the election of the president of the USA), but not as deep as your own (when you attempt to manipulate the election of the premier of BC, but in an oh-so-serious manner).

Why would you try to knock this guy down a peg? So he doesn't server your purpose, what purpose does denigrating him serve?

Infantile. You've seen his previous movies, what would you expect from this one? Seriously.

It seems that Moore's problem, according to Steve, is that...

...he doesn't give both sides of a debate. He's giving us his point of view. Really? I guess we should all expect the same from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Yeah right, as though that will ever happen.

it's lefties scared of competition

not of Mr. Moore but of those he would bring closer to social democratic principles.

These gate-keepers of orthodoxy like Mr. Burgess fear voices like mine and others because we create a larger pool in which they must swim - no longer being the big fish in a little pond, they know that as more people sign on to progressive causes their own power will wane inexorably.

Naturally many more on the "left" have no such fears - only those in leadership positions who fear losing their influence.

I think this film may be the most important media moment decades to mobilize folks away from the lies at the center of power.

Deriding it as otherwise betrays a smallness and shallowness that is unbecoming at best and hateful, greedy, envious and dishonest at worst.

Humour and public rants

Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said: "If you want to tell people the truth make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."

I used to like Rick Mercer's "rants" - and his apparent ability to compel an "everyperson" to a kind of awakening, even to outrage. In a way, I feel that about Moore - but his are filmic rants - with no shortage of satire, and a significant amount substance, hyperbole aside.

And here's a thought - Who's really being effective in the public realm in this side of the border? Hardcopy print media? Mercer? Any others?

Used to think Mercer once; not any more. He appears to have gotten all happy driving tanks / flying warplanes ("I've never had so much fun in my life!!") and the like - yet not asking why so many east coast people are in the military, for instance - the poverty, the lack of educational opportunities, of meaningful work. Not enough of a "hee hee" I suppose. But Mercer has shown at times that satire, well delivered - has a kind of power.

Moore has the heart and certainly the gall - to ask those not so funny types of things - as in when he outed US military recruiters, for instance. Moore may make one (or "expert" pundits "with a following", or the "highbrow journalistic, documentarian minds") absolutely cringe - but some of the issues that he exposes in his filmic editorials would make one cringe even more - were these practices publicly known - but they seldom see the light of day in print. Even in his hyperbole he does deliver a strange common sense.

Moore knows that hard messages need to be wrapped in some kind of pleasure.

Michael Moore's films have

Michael Moore's films have all been great and the truthful. I look forward to this one. :)

If anything he gets people talking and talking about the issue of his film.

Steve Burgess on Michael Moore

Please Steve, keep your attempts at political analysis to yourself. By your logic, no one who has any involvement in the capitalist system can criticize it. Michael Moore makes money. So do blue collar workers, even though in their case it may not be much. Apparently, only someone who completely extricates himself from the capitalist economy should be allowed to criticize it (until he starves to death). And those who try to create alternatives to capitalism, like worker co-ops, are no different from the corporations who actually control the economy!

Not a great movie critic

Steve Burgess didn't "get" District 9, so why would I take his advice on Michael Moore's new documentary. You know, the film that is getting great reviews and is being called his greatest work to date. I doubt, given this review, that we can count Steve Burgess as an unbiased movie critic. He clearly does not care for Michael Moore's politics and activism ... so why would I listen to his thoughts on Moore's new film?

Let's face it. Michael Moore

Let's face it. Michael Moore is unforgivable. He's made lots of money taking his messages to the public. Not only that, he's stimulated lots of discussion of important issues normally buried by the MSM.

error in the article?

Steve writes:

"Elsewhere Moore shows workers who have formed a co-operative to run their factory, sell their goods, and share the profits. There's a name for that: capitalism."

This actually sounds more like a variant of communism to me. The workers control the means of production. Am I missing something? Are free enterprise and capitalism synonymous?

Steve

That 'definition' of Capitalism...I don't think so my friend - I have to wonder, all things being equal, if you aren't simply being satirical.

Moore HAS made a difference - he will continue to.

The efforts of the Health Insurance industry in the US to demonize Moore for his film "Sicko" is the only proof one needs.

Those fellas don't blow up in public without good reason - Moore is his generation's Ralph Nader...

G West Said:

That has some truth to it, except for the fact that Nader gained his reputation on being factual, mostly provable, and consistently truthful. The same cannot be said for Moore.

G West, from your posts here at the Tyee, you strike me as a fella who has a pretty strong personal moral and ethical stake in truth -- or such truth as we can find. If that is so, does it not then cause you concern and discomfort how much dishonesty, malicious distortion of fact, and general misinformation Moore uses to make his points?

The role of whistle blower, which is one way we could define Moore's process, is very important socially, but such role must be kept moral, ethical, truthful, and factual, or it shoots itself in the foot. So to speak.

I once had really high hopes for Moore's work. But after catching him in lie after lie after lie, I feel he might as well be a right-wing Republican fundiewondie proselytizing groundless ideology, the only difference being which side of the partisan fence he's on.

SicPreFix

Obviously I disagree...Moore himself comes out of a logical, moral and ethical tradition of activist Catholicism...I don't think Moore plays fast and loose with the truth and I don't agree with your interpretation of what you think are lies...

With all due respect, you might care to look at what Wendell Potter has to say about the health care debate:

http://tinyurl.com/lcdspe

You might also be interested to hear what Potter has said about the health insurance companies' role in demonizing Moore and his documentary methods.

You shouldn't give up on Moore simply because he's the target of some powerful and immoral attackers.

You come across as a thoughtful fellow who wants to cut through the cant - I know you can get to the bottom of this if you care to....

Again, Steve's background is in the manse, I can't help but think this column was written tongue in cheek.

Moore is simply powerful enough to have attracted many of the same enemies that Nader did when he wrote 'Unsafe at any Speed' - perhaps you're too young to understand the irony of that statement given where, precisely, Michael Moore got his start!

Cheers.

G West, but, but, but

Of course I'd like to cut through the cant if I can -- on both sides.

No, not too young. I'm fifty three and have been aware of Nader since the time I met him when he was on my father's TV show in the mid 60s doing his spiel about the Corvair.

And while many of Moore's so-called enemies are indeed the same kind of right-wing whack jobs (and corporate apologists) that went gunning after Nader, many of them (such as myself) are intense supporters of what he started out to do, but no longer fully does, which was to be a major whistle blower of corporate and government malfeasance who told the whole truth, was provable, and who did not overly distort, deceive, and misinform for profit and sensationalism.

I do not feel he holds to the moral/ethical line in his role anymore.

Many people I know do not share my concern over some guy on the Good Guys side adopting the tools of the enemy to wins points. And I feel that that is what Moore now does: exaggerations; misinformation; deception; and so forth.

My concern, and I may have been unclear here, is not that I think he always tells lies -- I don't for a second believe that. My concern is that is some instances of some importance he does tell lies, and therein weakens his case because he weakens the trust we hold him in.

For a couple of specific example, the already mentioned issue of his mischaracterizing a poorish section of Toronto as being a fine, lovely, safe place even though it suffered from deep poverty, when not only was the area he was referring not in fact a deeply poor area -- it was a lower middle class working neighbourhood and he knew this -- but he also quite intentionally left out that neighbourhood's, and Toronto's gun violence problems, which while by no means as bad as the U.S. are nonetheless of some concern for the people in Toronto.

He also had a segment where he was standing around the Lawrence Market area, down near the water front, a very, very expensive area of luxury condos and toney refurbished historical houses, and referred to it as yet another poor area that had little to no problems with gun violence, major crime, serious litter, garbage in the streets, and so forth, all of it lies; all of it he knew.

I have not given up on Moore because he is "the target of some powerful and immoral attackers". I have just about given up on Moore because in watching his work, and in listening to him at public speakings, I have personally caught him out on several distortions and direct lies. And that is a very different thing.

Some thoughts and responses

First off, the definition of capitalism: some posters here are suggesting that a factory cooperative is not a capitalist enterprise. I suppose you can call it "Socialism in one factory" if you like. But outside the walls it's a capitalist society. Unlike Moore's stated goal, nobody in that factory wants to abolish capitalism. They just want a way to run their own show in a free market, with a more equitable distribution of the profits.

Every reasonable person wants a reformed and more just form of capitalism. I had assumed Moore would say so. So I was genuinely surprised when he declared "Capitalism is an evil that can't be reformed." That's utter nonsense as history as shown.

Throughout the film Moore sounds like the Creationists who argue against evolution by pointing out evolutionary improbabilities, as if by default that means we should accept the Genesis story. What is Moore proposing to replace capitalism? "Democracy."

Mikev: No, I'm not a difference maker. Who is Steve Burgess, indeed? But Moore has the potential to be one. It's sad that on issues like health care, he is not. But a major problem is that as of now he is increasingly preaching to the choir. You don't spread your message beyond the core if you simply engage in cheap demagoguery. It's lazy too. Moore's individual segments are often excellent. He shines a light on injustice. So why go overboard with the class warfare and oversimplified demonology?

If we decry the demagogues of the right how can we embrace those of the left? Won't the political debate be enhanced if we avoid reducing political policy to "But first The Rich decided to pull one last heist?"

Moore has some noble goals and he has gained a position of public prominence to advance them. I wish he would do a better job of it.

SicPreFix

I feel the same way about Jesus.

Too extreme and has too tenuous a relationship with the truth.

"Unlike Moore's stated goal,

"Unlike Moore's stated goal, nobody in that factory wants to abolish capitalism. They just want a way to run their own show in a free market, with a more equitable distribution of the profits."

That sounds like "abolishing capitalism" as far as they're concerned. They may take a live and let live attitude to the world outside but that doesn't make them supporters of capitalism. In fact, it would be safe to assume they hope other people follow their example.

"Every reasonable person wants a reformed and more just form of capitalism."

It will never happen. It either is, or isn't. Reformed capitalism is like saying you're half-pregnant.

I assume what you mean is how can we give capitalism a more human face?

Reformed capitalism

I vote for a system that is 33% capitalist, 33% communist and 33% feudal.

If anyone can tell me what that would look like I'm all ears.

Michael Moore

Moore's exposition of the 2008 financial crisis, is an antidote to the shallow coverage that we have received. According to what I understood from interview comments Moore made on the Howard Stern Show yesterday, the theme of his new work is that the lack of responsibility accepted by financial leaders for the hardships imposed on individuals must be addressed. Lehman Bros. chief, Dick Fuld, repeated the greedy management choices that almost destroyed the firm in 1999, and expected yet another bailout. Fuld had paid himself hundreds of millions of dollars in wages, stock and options, and now lives in comfortable retirement. Not so with his many victims, some of which were corporate. The US government now owns 60% of General Motors; Canada has 10%.

The take-the-hit-and-move-on mentality is a recipe for future catastrophe. Resort to blow-horn harangues of malfeasant parasites in political office, is better than suffering in silence. Go Michael!!!

See this critical New Statesman review of the BBC drama, "Last Days of Lehman Brothers." I liked the show; very informative and well acted. http://www.newstatesman.com/television/2009/09/lehman-brothers-days-fuld

nice to see a reply :-)

That wasn't me who asked who Steve Burgess is, I didn't get edited!

I imagine that Michael Moore made his attempt to be a more upstanding guy, and when he realized he was basically farting in the wind (but still making money) he figured why not take off the gloves. When Fox News is the most popular, you give the people what they are obviously pleading for.

"nobody in that factory wants to abolish capitalism"

Har har har.

A factory cooperative is pretty much the most extreme anti captitalist statement anyone could make. The mirror opposite of taking a company public. Even better when it's the workers simply seizing a dormant facility. The next step beyond that is armed insurrection. Or what are you suggesting, voting for the Marxist Party? Writing letters to the editor, to your MP, posting on the internet? Joining a protest march? (that was decreasing levels of effectiveness there)

To belittle someone's contribution - "but he still makes money, owns property" or "but he's letting a little immorality creep into his methods" or "but they still sell their output on the open market" - maybe they are doing the best they can, at least the way they see it. Constructive criticism works (and looks) better than mocking dismissal, especially when it's someone who leans like you do.

If Michael Moore were perfectly logical and upstandingly moral and simply overflowing with truthiness, do you really think he would make more of a difference than he is making? Would he get more press, generate more discussion, get more bums into theatre seats? Please.

Does anyone have any better ideas for tearing down our capitalist system? In a way that is both "pure" and *effective*? (Besides catastrophic depopulation?) Didn't think so.

SicPreFix

Film is a different kind of medium from text - Moore could probably tell you a lot more about the relative safety of neighbourhoods in Detroit...I don't think you have a point: As long as the US continues to lead the western world in total citizens without health insurance and incarceration rates per 100,000 population I think he's doing important and moral work.

The fact he doesn't know as much about Hogtown as you do notwithstanding.

The films were meant to draw comparisons - and they do that very well, to the detriment of the United States and the credit of Canada.

Sadly, given the current direction of this country that may not long be the case - as the report by an old friend of mine - Professor Michael Jackson - presaged today.

So no, I don't think Moore's perfect and neither was Nader - but they both serve important and similar functions.

Please Steve, speak for yourself

This is simply not fair comment:

Every reasonable person wants a reformed and more just form of capitalism.
A great many 'reasonable' people do not want just another phony 'reformed' system which, quite frankly, may never be anything like just.

I've been waiting all my adult life for capitalists to start behaving like human beings instead of sociopaths - it ain't gonna happen Steve and Michael Moore's recognition of the reality of that situation seems a lot closer to the ground than your, with all due respect, somewhat unreasonable observations.

Too bad, Steve

rushed into print to peddle his bizarrepoint of view. Had he seen Moore on CNN today he would have had a much better understanding of what Moore is tryinhg to do "help those less fortunate". It's a principle of many religions. Ever heard of it?

oh boy

"
Why shoot the messanger?

Mr. Burgess is just shooting the messenger. Moore makes very good points in his films about the plight of ordinary working people who suffer from the greed of rich people, corporations and politicians. He stirs up debate which is a good thing and, as it turns out, allows Mr. Burgess to earn a living by writing about him and his films."

I didn't realize that Steve had written a body of work based on more that one could live off.

AS for the rest of you, the point he's making is that moore isn't always truthful when reporting and people think he is, that's misleading the public. He is just a left-wing rush limbaugh. And steve is saying THAT is the issue. None of us want critical analysis from an unbiased view... we all want some blowhard shouting for our side. And it's a shame cause it means we think less as they are thinking for us and telling us what to think, get it?

What Michael Moore Does Get...

Myself, I really don't put a great deal of importance on Michael Moore, though it has to be said that he understands the two central realities of our time. First, that the problem is capitalism itself, and secondly, he seems to be coming to the conclusion that the central element of that problem is elite ownership of the economy and its lack of democracy rooted in the working class. But then, he is not unique in that, as even a kind of capitalist himself, so do at least two other major capitalist critics of capitalism; George Soros and Warren Buffet. (Yes, there is a small, quasi liberal, even progressive element within the ruling class.)

But whether or not such as they, and for an additional example, I, as a "kind of" working class revolutionary, see entirely eye to to eye on how to get to that "democratic economic system" or not, we are all of us part of a growing body of "citizens" indicative of the ideological fracture beginning to occur within current capitalism in crisis. We collectively see, at least at the starting point, that the problem is capitalism itself.

The next phase of this process is a critical mass drawing of the appropriate conclusion to sever our loyalty with the system and all its major aspects, and to turn on it, engage in a serious struggle with it, and, preferably peacefully, but however the future determines, overthrow it. At that point we shall see if we still have the likes of Michael Moore, Warren Buffet and George Soros coming along with us or not.

Meanwhile, they are useful to the anti-capitalism struggle, and in the creation of that "critical mass" movement of people that can truly democratize the economy and the political system, and move society finally beyond capitalism onto a whole new level of socio-political and economic development. And by this latter I mean especially, away from the destructive adventurism of so-called "free market" capitalism, and its greed addicted need for endless growth, and towards a more sane, egalitarian, democratic and stable socio-economic arrangement of human affairs.

Without a revolution in this context, the bullshit "democracy", class struggle, greed of the privileged classes, resource waste, endless population growth and estrangement from the natural environment will continue, and continue to spiral out of control.

Michael Moore gets at least some of this. Whether he gets it all or not, I, for one, am prepared to be patient in waiting to find out.

"we all want some blowhard shouting for our side"

Speak for yourself Jeremy J. Moore is just the flip side of the coin in the debate between the so-called right and left. Both sides make good points, but when you sum up the argument it is meaningless and your pockets are empty.

Someone once said, "it is not nice to taunt the sheep". Nowadays there is too much information and too little critical thinking. So basically, as I see it, Moore is having a great time taunting the sheep, and little is being done to change anything. What's his message "the rich need to be a little nicer". Wow, what a hero. And all this on the backs of the working stiffs he manipulated and made fools of in his film while telling his audience he is the rescuer. What a comedy and a tragedy.

Canada's Naomi Klein Interviews Micheal Moore

For a perspective quite different from Mr. Burgess, the following is quite interesting.

http://www.alternet.org/story/142871/naomi_klein_interviews_michael_moore_on_the_perils_of_capitalism

Do you work for Karma Mr. Burgues?

It is funny to rant on someone you want to do better and yet criticize them for the exact same thing you are doing. Mr Burguess, please write for good karma next time and not for money. A co-op as you can probably imagine comes from a very different set of principles that at least acknowledges unity and community work, sometimes it will be capitalism and sometimes it won't. Not everything is black and white as you and Mr. Moore claim.

On another note, I have always wondered how people promote democracy as a solution to capitalism. One cannot replace an economic system with an political system. This could be akin to replacing an economic system with a religious system. Democracy has its inherent flaws, just like capitalism has. Maybe a better alternative would be to go back to a smaller scale and deal as locally as possible within our networks. Democracy cannot work as a practical tool when you have 200+ million people b/c there is no way to provide the same opportunity for everybody, capitalism is just the acceptance that democracy cannot provide enough.

One begins to wonder about Moore's definition of capitalism. "Capitalism is an evil," Moore states, "and you cannot regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that works for everybody, and that something is called democracy."

nechakogal and Jeffrey J

So before Michael Moore came along how were things going for the Left?

Because I recall there was a Rush Limbaugh on radio across the USA before Michael Moore and Air America.

And he went unchallenged. Much like CKNW, Can-west and the Fraser Institute here before the Tyee.

How did that work out?

I fail to see how Moore has hurt the debate.

in Moore's own words from the Klein interview

Well, people want to believe that it's not the economic system that's at the core of all this. You know, it's just a few bad eggs. But the fact of the matter is that, as I said to Jay, capitalism is the legalization of this greed.

Greed has been with human beings forever. We have a number of things in our species that you would call the dark side, and greed is one of them. If you don't put certain structures in place or restrictions on those parts of our being that come from that dark place, then it gets out of control.

Capitalism does the opposite of that. It not only doesn't really put any structure or restriction on it. It encourages it, it rewards it.

I'm asked this question every day, because people are pretty stunned at the end of the movie to hear me say that it should just be eliminated altogether. And they're like, "Well, what's wrong with making money? Why can't I open a shoe store?"

And I realized that [because] we no longer teach economics in high school, they don't really understand what any of it means.

The point is that when you have capitalism, capitalism encourages you to think of ways to make money or to make more money. And the judges never could have gotten the kickbacks had the county not privatized the juvenile hall.

But because there's been this big push in the past 20 or 30 years to privatize government services, take it out of our hands, put it in the hands of people whose only concern is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders or to their own pockets, it has messed everything up.

G West

Well you know, I agree with some of your points, yet not with others.

Perhaps I expect too much from Moore in regards to accuracy and veracity. But that's my background: A belief that journalism, especially of the type that Moore practices, must try at all times to be as truthful, unsensationalized, and accurate as possible (I do not however argue for perfect objectivity, because I think that's a sort of nirvanic or utopian impossibility that would weaken argument). And while it is impossible for anyone to be 100% of any of those things, I feel pretty strongly that Moore could/should do much better than he does.

At the same time, I do not for an instant befgrudge him for at least doing something. After all, he is one of a very, very small group of major whistle blowers. And for that, accuracy etc., notwithstanding, I am grateful.

One could make the argument

One could make the argument that any "documentary" film is trying to make a point, no matter how objective it appears. Some film makers are just better, or care more, to hide what side they stand on. Moore is clearly not one of them.

The debate itself is the problem.

"I fail to see how Moore has hurt the debate". The debate itself is the problem. Both sides are unsustainable and keep us from looking for real solutions to very real problems. The fact that Moore has received so much mainstream media support makes this point all on its own. False debate (in too many cases outright falacies) is only useful because it keeps the sheep coming back for more. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh was also a media darling? He got the numbers up! Beyond that Moore is just another reality show producer who edits the truth for sensational images.

I understand the politician who bends the truth to get elected. I understand the filmmaker who wants to be famous. Doesn't mean I like them. And as for Klein's assertion this fellow is a teacher. I only have one answer: "We don't need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall."

nechakogal

"Beyond that Moore is just another reality show producer who edits the truth for sensational images."

If the "truth" is as Steve Burgess says, that capitalism is wonderful and that all exchanges of goods throughout history were capitalist and we just need a stronger safety net then no, Moore isn't speaking the truth.

But if on the other hand one sees capitalism as being inherently evil, as Moore does, then he is in fact speaking the truth as he sees it.

Just as I'm sure Limbaugh speaks based on how he sees the world. Is he lying or just wrong? I think he's both but that's beside the point.

What you're claiming is that anyone that says something that you don't believe is a liar and that if we didn't have all these liars around then all of our problems could be solved to your satisfaction.

Much as I'd like to believe that the right-wingers on this site all know the truth deep down and simply prefer to lie I know that's not true. They actually believe what they say for the most part.

Therefore, we need people like Moore out there to shake some trees and get people who's only source has been right-wing opinions exposed to other ideas.

As another article on this said, all those right-wing think-tanks are out there to "sell capitalism". And if they continue to go unchallenged then they will succeed.

Moore challenges them, you hope they go away. I know which strategy is more realistic.

other songs and other messages

Moore is a documentary film maker - he's not a professional journalist - not a lawyer like Nader either.

The concept of value free 'anything' is a useless artifact, in my view...Even a overtly 'saintly' character like Nader has been roundly criticized for having drawn enough votes away from Gore and/or Kerry to to elect and, mutatis mutandis, re-elect George Bush.

The criticism of Moore in this article was, in my view, ill-conceived and misdirected. He's far from perfect but, in the scheme of things - again in my view - C'est une persone fort engageante...

We have few enough of such people - and mores the pity!

Cynical nit-picking (which, I think, you're genuinely trying not to do) is so much more facile than genuine understanding and analysis...

Taken to its logical conclusion, Burgess's piece would neuter or silence Moore on the basis of his own appallingly bad understanding of economics and government and a somewhat charming tendency to throw off bits of flashy rhetoric...Not long ago Steve got a lot of feminist readers in a snit over his careless use of a reference to ‘girly-fighting’.

You’re not in ‘that’ league – but I fear you’re pretty close…

Furthermore, for those who think this is still a matter for debate, I totally disagree…I’d suggest
The Doors:

The time to hesitate is through
No time to wallow in the mire
Try now we can only lose
And our love become a funeral pyre
Come on baby, light my fire
Come on baby, light my fire
Try to set the night on fire, yeah

Moore plays the game

"Moore challenges them, you hope they go away. I know which strategy is more realistic." Moore plays the game. The point that Burgess is making is that he is not really challenging anything. As for wishing he would go away, I confess my guilt. As for thinking that wishing these folks away is the way forward. Your right, we have to do more. I suggest you start with boycotting his film, if you have not already seen it, and follow that up with any subscriptions to mainstream media outlets. Just a thought, why is the left so willing to let someone who liberally distorts the truth represent them? Just crazy isn't it? So, the argument is: They lie, so we have to? I'm beginning to understand why so few vote.

one more point

From what I understand an industry of right wing productions have risen up to take on Michael Moore. Of course, it should be pretty easy given his stuff is as full of holes as swiss cheese. So, is Moore taking them on or is he their inspirational leader?

What distortions?

So far we have the testimony of one commenter here who says Moore's take on a Toronto neighbourhood was faulty ..BIG DEAL!

If you don't like Moore because he's overweight and a bit on the slobbish side that's okay - but to maintain he's a deceptive liar on the basis of non-existent evidence is a bit rich.

Where's the beef? What exactly has he LIED about?

Or are those millions of mortgages not in default?

Those 40 odd million citizens without health insurance?

Are more personal bankruptcies in America not caused by catastrophic illness than any other single cause?

Please, convince me on the basis of some empirical facts or, in the politest possible way, please tell us exactly what is your game.

I don't think it's moore in the cheese business!

Perspective. Whose Perspective?

"Much as I'd like to believe that the right-wingers on this site all know the truth deep down and simply prefer to lie I know that's not true. They actually believe what they say for the most part." wrote Frank.

Very good, Frank. 'Cause we do need to be honest and insightful. I accept that as well, in the majority case. They are just wrong, that's all, from my perspective and analysis. :-)

Give me Moore any day. He is at least more right and insightful into the character and nature of capitalism than Burgess or any of these wingers here.(And, of course, the mugwampers... with mugs on one side of the fence, and wamps on the other.)

But then right or wrong is often really moot anyway. It's a matter of who wins in the end... a point which "they" make, and I accept as well. :-) The point is, at least for the working class and the underclass, and any allies they have in the intelligentsia and higher in the class stratum-, to win. And you do that the same essential way they do: Be convinced of the rightness of your own cause, and try to be right and have the correct analysis of reality , from your class perspective as well, which is the only one you can really have. But then finally and especially most importantly, muster a superior "critical mass" force to overcome and win. (It's irrelevant what you would do as a capitalist. You are not. You are a worker. That is your perspective reality.)

Oh, and dare to win.

nechakogal

"Moore plays the game."

If a war of ideas can be called a game then sure, he does. If he didn't, we wouldn't have a team again and as I asked before, how did that work out for us in the past?

Sure, a few of us picked up our copies of "Dissent" onm the newstands but one thing we were sure of is that it wasn't read by many people.

Moore's movies on the other hand, do get seen by a lot more people than there are on the Left.

"The point that Burgess is making is that he is not really challenging anything."

He is. He's challenging people's beliefs in private healthcare and capitalism.

"I suggest you start with boycotting his film, if you have not already seen it, and follow that up with any subscriptions to mainstream media outlets."

Tuning out the world didn't work for the 52% that didn't vote in the last provincial election did it? They got Campbell, they didn't get "none of the above". The Right doesn't care if you don't go to Moore's film, in fact they hope you don't.

"Just a thought, why is the left so willing to let someone who liberally distorts the truth represent them?"

Examples please.

"From what I understand an industry of right wing productions have risen up to take on Michael Moore."

You understand wrong then because that industry was already there. Michael Walker predates Michael Moore.

Tuning out the world...

"Tuning out the world didn't work for the 52% that didn't vote in the last provincial election did it? They got Campbell, they didn't get "none of the above". wrote Frank.

Right. They got the same bs reality as those who voted. But then, we at least knew that is what was going to happen. Even if we had all voted for Layton, as those who voted for Harcourt and James would have/did discover, nothingh changed.

It ain't the goddamn parties or a bullshit election that is going to change it, especially voting for the NDP. In the end, it's people in motion, on the streets, in massive numbers, that are going to change it. Or it ain't never going to change. The dance of death will just continue, as it has with you folks in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition..

It ain't about tuning out the world, Frank. It's about stopping participating in bullshit, and really tuning in the world.

Voting in the fraud democratic system of capitalism, or at least placing one's total reliance on that, for the NDP as much as any of the parties to capitalism, is really tuning out the world... and reality.

Stop the bullshit, and really take the system on, is my advocacy. (And that may involve, as part of the overall struggle, at some point, not now, casting a vote, in the context of an opportunity to really change society and move society beyond capitalism.)

The social democratic, NDP view of the world,of changing the system from within, is already exposed as inadequate to the problem, Frank. It has failed.

My view, brother.

confession

I confess I haven't seen *Capitalism: A Love Story*, but once again I weigh in anyway. I objected to Steve's use of 'girlie fighting' in a past article that escaped being engaging precisely because of those sorts of throw-off phrases, and I suspect that is part of the problem with this article. I am left wondering why anyone would see a film - read a book - have a conversation about a film or book - is the point to have ones' viewpoint confirmed/affirmed/reinforced?

I like Michael Moore - his books and films have made me laugh, and made me think. I get the sense that we are meant here to join in cappucino-sipping, gossipy (but high-brow, of course), superficially vague (but funny, darling) chit chat. If Moore does not provide any answers, he raises the big questions - how shall we live as a society? how shall we care for the vulnerable? How shall we organize ourselves to do so? Anyone who can get people to ask these questions is surely having an impact...engendering a sense of hope, of possibilities, of potentialities. These can only be evoked by the questions...not the answers.

I read one paragraph and skipped to comments :)

Steve has never liked Moore. I remember comments he made in an article years back- wasn't even related to Moore but he got a dig in; I remember because I love Michael Moore. It could probably be found in the archives. So why is the Tyee wasting decent 'Arts and Culture' space just so Steve can rant about a director he has never liked?

Clearly the majority of us enjoy Moore's films and find them worthwhile.

Why am I even wasting my time here?....

Judging Moore on the wrong standard

Not long ago, I listened to a radio interview with Moore. He said he is first and foremost, an entertainer. So Burgess and others here who judge Moore on the basis of being a journalist might as well criticize a goldfish for being unable to fly.

Moore is biased. He's over-the-top. He's sometimes blatantly unfair or even wrong. But he reaches an audience that journalist documentaries will never touch. And Moore appeals to the emotions, not the intellect. That may seem cheap but for most people, it's far more effective.

I watch an occasional Michael Moore movie for the same reason I watch an occasional professional hockey game. I can sit back, watch a few hours of entertainment and cheer on my team. I don't take either one seriously although I understand that others do.

Steve Burgess

Although after this article Steve won't be my "go to" guy on economics or left-wing firebrands I have to say his travelogues are funny and most of his movie reviews are well done too. And his first column for the Province was one of the funniest things I ever read. That was early 90's wasn't it?

appropriate quote

"Art is a lie that makes us realize truth." - Picasso

Everything you consume as a spectator is mediated by its creator. The only real question IMO is whether it amplifies or masks the reality it purportedly displays. I'd still like to know if free enterprise must mean capitalism as most of us try to come to grips with what business will look like within a sustainable framework.

Michael Moore-Today's Guy!

Michael Moore talks about his film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEwnG5UVA4

So much is made over the fact that Michael Moore has managed to make money with his films, Burgess just has to bash him too ".. rather successful capitalist filmmaker". Burgess doesn't mention that part of the profits from the film go to help those who are victimized by the financial collapse. Burgess also misses the message that "collective action not private charity" is what makes change.

Watch the clip, go to the movie, forget about this review.
It's not worth our time, Michael Moore and his films are.

"examples please"

See "Manufacturing Dissent".

Agree with David Beers

Regardless of the logical faults of Mr. Burgess reasoning, ad hominem attacks are themselves completely fallacious and should not occur. We readers of the Tyee have no justification in committing them.

The Tyee, its authors and its readers have an opportunity not to succumb to the form of bad journalism practiced by the major media outlets. If a Tyee author's article is faulty, it can be well described without attacking the individual.

I love the Tyee and would hate to see it diminished by those it serves.

ad hominem

I believe there were some remarks that may have been construed out of bounds upthread, but critiquing Steve's article or his writing is NOT ad hominem...it is precisely what the comments section is for. That said, Steve wrote a travelogue piece a while back that was one of the best I've ever read...and I was entranced.
I believe that Steve has succumbed here to thinking of current status quo thinking as THE reality...Moore is over the top in part to poke fun at the status quo.

Moore seems like a decent

Moore seems like a decent progressive guy who is not afraid to speak out - and to actually say out loud what needs to be said. A rare thing thing these days that deserves credit in itself.

He isn't perfect, but then none of us are, and he has managed to make politics approachable and meaningful to many people who normally would have no interest in it.

(The difficulty both for himself and for his country seems to be that any mention of socialism is equated with an anti-American stance - one born of the myth that America is strong because it is country where you must "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" and funding for social infra-structure is viewed as threatening in that regard. Obama is finding it hard to counter that same firmly entrenched view when any mention of socialism is brought into the debate about health care reform. Yet the bail-out made clear that corporate welfare is not only thriving in the US but "expected"... just as it is here in Canada.)

I think Moore's baseball cap helps as well. ;-)

We need someone in Canada with a hockey jersey on that will do the same - inform those not paying attention in an approachable engaging way that we are being governed by the walking dead and that this country is presently in real jeopardy of losing its autonomy.

Can Someone Tell Me Why.....

....Michael Moore's films draw such ire, while Robert Redford's do not? Both, after all, are social commentaries.

- a limited hangout

I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I have read, it sounds like a limited hangout sort of thing - when the perp admits to a lesser crime to avoid being connected with something more serious. The things Moore talks about are real enough, but apparently he does not get to the heart of the matter, the most important problem with modern capitalism - money creation. In earlier incarnations, capital was indeed based on property - but now we see the big property people, the auto industry for instance, in dire straits - whilst those who engineered the 30-decades long bubble that just burst, the banks and their money creation, are given the keys to the kingdom as a 'punishment' for their misdeeds. No question at all who is running the show. And it seems the best that Moore and other 'progressives' can manage is to merely whine about the bonuses these modern warlords award themselves, and nobody appears to want to tackle the real problem - allowing a private entity, or group of entities, to control a nation's money supply is a sure path to feudalism, a few omnipotent masters ruling a country of tithing serfs. More here - Global Financial Meltdown: Forces beyond our control, or the greatest scam ever?
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greatest-sting-ever.html

Steve Burgess

I've read a number Steve Burgess articles in The Tyee. Generally, I've not found myself considering his point of view as one that I hold. I'd have to say this article, again, fails to contain much that is of use for me. I am not a Burgess-style world traveller: I won't be found going to horse races in Europe, let alone bragging that I have attended "my fifth palio" as Steve Burgess has.

I believe the man probably burns more jet fuel in a year than I will ever consume in my lifetime. His take on Micheal Moore has me wondering if Mr. Moore is shaking the capitalist tree that produces the fruit for The Tyee's very own "abulance chaser", and writer of "travel, culture and stuff" Golden Boy, Steve Burgess.

http://thetyee.ca/Bios/Steve_Burgess/

http://thetyee.ca/Life/2009/07/10/WildestHorseRace/

SharingIsGood

Well, that may be so. And of course that is your entitlement (so to speak). But so what. That's not what he's here for -- here being anything you like: The Tyee, Earth, The Galaxy, whatever.

He's here because he's a really good writer who neither pulls his punches nor shies from kicking at sacred cows. Or is that cans?

And we all need writers like that more and more these days as we witness witless journalists and wannabe journalists and pretend journalists kissing corporate editorial butt with the vigour of some kind of diseased coprophagist court jester.

The point of good writing is not to appease us, the reader. The point of good writing is to inform us and to make us think/feel something we have not thought/felt before. And perhaps to compel meaningful discussion.

Just When It Could Make A Difference

Michael Burgess is an Arts & Culture Critic. Yet, he strays into matters of political current affairs leaving us with the air-brushed story of the US 2004 Election.
Yes, Michael Moore may not have made the difference in 2004, but according to felony convictions and a study by the Ohio Governor on election tampering, vote-rigging may have played a larger role enabling Bush's victory.
On December 14, 2007, reporters for The Free Press in Columbus, Ohio, wrote their headline story:
Ohio Secretary of State Confirms 2004 Election Could Have Been Stolen

They reported:
"Ohio's Secretary of State announced this morning that a $1.9 million official study shows that "critical security failures" are embedded throughout the voting systems in the state that decided the 2004 election. Those failures, she says, "could impact the integrity of elections in the Buckeye State." They have rendered Ohio's vote counts "vulnerable" to manipulation and theft by "fairly simple techniques."

Indeed, she says, "the tools needed to compromise an accurate vote count could be as simple as tampering with the paper audit trail connector or using a magnet and a personal digital assistant."

Fitrakis and Wasserman summarize, "In other words, Ohio's top election official has finally confirmed that the 2004 election could have been easily stolen."

They continue: "The final official tally for Bush---less than 119,000 votes out of 5.4 million cast---varied by 6.7% from exit poll results, which showed a Kerry victory. Exit polls in 2004 were designed to have a margin of error of about 1%.

In various polling stations in Democrat-rich inner city precincts in Youngstown and Columbus, voters who pushed touch screens for Kerry saw Bush's name light up. A wide range of discrepancies on both electronic and paper balloting systems leaned almost uniformly toward the Bush camp. Voting procedures regularly broke down in inner city and campus areas known to be heavily Democratic.

In direct violation of standing federal election law, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties have since destroyed all or part of their 2004 election data.... including 1.6 million ballots, cast and uncast, needed for definitive auditing procedures. However, two Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) election officials have been convicted of felony manipulation of (the) official recount.

As exit polls show Kerry ahead of Bush among women in Ohio by 53% to 46% and Kerry ahead of Bush among men voting in Ohio by 51% to 48%, one can only wonder what third sex put Bush ahead in the final "official" tally?

While Burgess offers this as an aside, by not drawing on his strength as a critic, Burgess leaves us to do our own research or else be left saddled with assumptions that the 2004 result was fair and accurate, keeping us uninformed about key developments in that post 2004 election story.

See also Mark Crispin Miller's book, Loser Take All, for an overview of US election tampering from 2000 to 2006.

Chris Keam

"And perhaps to compel meaningful discussion."

I would argue that the media's reliance on jet travel (as well as that of politicians, the entertainment industry, and professional sports) warrants much more discussion. If we are going to hit GHG reduction targets outlined by our governments, we need to look at the big 'burners' and ask ourselves if we are willing to sacrifice a few circuses .