- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1. I understand why you are annoyed by people who interpret Moore's films as the absolute truth. I understand why people are annoyed that Moore insists that everything he says is the absolute truth and reinforces that flawed notion when his fans express it. But people are responsible for their own handle on the truth or lack thereof, and Moore's job as a director is to make a film that moves and entertains people. Again, though, I see where you and many others are coming from.
2. Socialism is absolutely nothing like fascism. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say because you states that socialism and fascism are similar and then you say that communist totalitariansm and fascist totalitarianism have very little in common... did I read that wrong? I'm a bit confused by the point you're trying to make.
I think I may not have stated my point very well, either. What I was trying to say is this: Michael Moore is very consistent with his themes, which are about holding wealthy and powerful people accountable for their corruption (with a bias leaning left as we all know) and prohibiting corporations, special interests, and the media from taking the reigns over public policies ranging from gun control to health care and foreign policy. He wants the federal government to keep these sectors in check and believes they have failed to do so and it has been harmful to millions of Americans. Equating this approach to endorsing totalitarianism is more disingenuous than anything Moore has ever accused his opponents of.
1. IMHO, very little is "absolute truth." Mathematics is the only universal truth. With that said, there needs to be just a bit of accuracy to a documentary in order for it to have credibility. Moore is basically a lobbyist who promotes a special interest group. His films fuel more legislation that takes away from the individual rather than empowering the individual. And yes, I said it twice in two different ways. The similarities between fascism and communism (as they have been historically practiced on a wide scale) far outweigh the differences. Both are totalitarian, statist regimes that seek to empower government (or public/collective) control over individual citizens. In these regimes, the basic motive is to always empower the government to make the day-to-day decisions that would normally be left to the individual in a free society. Read the history of Mussolini's economic policy. The fascist governments wanted to nationalize nearly the entire economy in order to control the average citizen. The same is true of the Soviet Union (the only major difference was their language and the scapegoats they used). The easiest way to control your subjects is to control the economy. The opposite of fascism is not communism, but freedom. The opposite of communism is not fascism, but freedom. This is because the fundamental structure of each tyrannical regime is totalitarianism (or simply, the supreme control of one party/person over the entire citizenry).
As for Moore, how do you expect the federal government to do the job of "keeping these sectors in check" when they have historically done the exact opposite? You want government to control business? No? You just want government to regulate and monitor business? That requires that you get merge governmental forces with business forces. In a nice little package, the more you have the government regulating business, the closer you are to a corporatist state. If corporatism is the merge of economics and state, shouldn't we ideally separate the two systems for the same reason we separate church and state? We don't want certain religions to benefit from governmental charity over other churches, just like we shouldn't be subsidizing one corporation over another.