Skip to content

Neo-Communist Left (Michael Moore) Debates Neo-Socialist Left (Bill Maher) on Real Time, Part 2

October 7, 2009
hayden

Why does Michael Moore's rhetoric sound like New Left leader Tom Hayden's?

In my last analysis of the interview between Neo-Communist filmmaker Michael Moore and Neo-Socialist comedian Bill Maher I demonstrated how Moore has embraced a kitsch Marxism. He simply updated the terminology of Marxism but maintained the notion of class conflict.

Here Moore addresses Maher’s (entirely correct) criticism that the opposite of capitalism (no government control of the economy) is communism (complete government control of the economy):

Moore: The opposite of capitalism is not communism. The opposite of capitalism is democracy. Because if we could order, create a new economic order that had at its underpinnings democratic principles – in other words you and I and everyone else watching this gets to control, gets to have a say as to how this economy is run.

One almost doesn’t know where to begin… And there’s only three sentences here.

One could point out that “you and I and everyone else” do have a say in how this economy is run. We have that say with how we choose to spend our dollars and whether we choose to create new businesses. Or perhaps one could ask, “How are ‘you and I and everyone else’ going to ‘control’ the economy?” Because the only way “you and I and everyone else” can do what Moore suggests is to grant greater power to the government to implement decisions. In other words, Moore is advocating for complete government control of the economy.

The Left has a long history of trying to rename “communism” by calling it “democracy.” In the 1960s New Left leader Tom Hayden referred to the Vietnamese Communists as practicing “Rice Roots Democracy.” And of course “progressive journalist” Amy Goodman hosts the Marxist Left’s flagship radio program “Democracy Now!”

The reality is this, “democracy” is a happy term that the Left has hijacked for its own totalitarian ends. It does this all the time — “liberal,” “feminist,” “social justice,” “civil rights,” “green jobs” — all of these terms have been perverted to promote programs whose result is the same: greater government control over other people’s lives. That’s what the Left is advocating and that’s what Moore is proposing. But the Left knows that they cannot sell their agenda that way. They have to give it an Extreme Makeover by redefining words like “democracy.”

Come back tomorrow for the third and final installment of Moore’s discussion with Maher in which the neo-communist documentarian has a Freudian slip which reveals his true political vision.

Advertisements
10 Comments
  1. October 7, 2009 5:35 pm

    If you define democracy as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we are indeed far from that ideal. What we have to a great extent is corporatism. The majority of people want a public health insurance option as well as the majority of doctors and nurses, so what’s the problem? The big insurance companies have far too much power and have many congressmen and even Obama in their pockets.

    • October 7, 2009 5:57 pm

      We aren’t a democracy. (And your definition of democracy is inaccurate.) We’re a republic. A democracy is a tyranny of the majority. We aren’t ruled by people we’re ruled by laws. In a democracy 51% of the people can vote to torture and rape the other 49% percent. That’s not the system of government we have.

      By all means fight corporatism. I’ll stand with you for that. Just do it Douglas Rushkoff-style:
      http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35663

      -D

      • October 7, 2009 6:39 pm

        No, we have a democracy that’s constrained by laws (the Constitution). The majority can enact pretty much any legislation provided it doesn’t violate the constitution.

        That said, I’ll have to check out this Douglas Rushkoff character. That Frontline episode “Merchants of Cool” sounds interesting.

        • October 7, 2009 6:57 pm

          You’re describing a democratic republic, which is accurate.

          Watch this video:

          Do read “Life Inc.” and fight corporations in that fashion.

          • Paddy Donovan permalink
            October 8, 2009 7:56 am

            Good to see a civilized conversation between people who may disagree

        • Tom Trevor permalink
          October 8, 2009 8:28 am

          From the New Oxford American Dictionary that is included in Mac OS 10.

          “republic |riˈpəblik|
          noun
          a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
          • archaic figurative a community or group with a certain equality between its members.”

  2. October 8, 2009 3:57 am

    They have both been in the “fools’ list for quite some time, continual confirmation continues.

  3. Julie Trevor permalink
    October 8, 2009 4:04 am

    What needs to be consistently pointed out by definition is the perils of majority rules (Democratic form of Government) and contrasted from the democratic process.

    When well defined; people will see the tyranny proposed by Michael Moore et al.
    Hopefully.

  4. Hammer permalink
    October 8, 2009 6:40 am

    “The majority of people want a public health insurance option as well as the majority of doctors and nurses, so what’s the problem?”

    If this were true we would have had this option when Clinton was in office or there wouldn’t be as much of an issue getting it now. Many doctors and nurses are outspoken about Obama-care

    “The big insurance companies have far too much power and have many congressmen and even Obama in their pockets.”

    Then why is Obama trying to cut them out and have a public run healthcare system?

  5. October 31, 2009 6:53 am

    The US was supposed to be a Republic, but it descended into a state of Socialism embracing Marxist Communism with Woodrow Wilson at the helm. And he was also hiding behind the title of “Progressive Democrat.” Here’s the history, including minutes of Communist meetings held in NYC, (“We are not fighting for co-operative commonwealths, for any abstract idea of human brotherhood. We are fighting to enthrone ourselves in power, and after that we will see what we will do. [Applause.]”
    http://www.rense.com/general88/uscom.htm

Comments are closed.