It’s not often that we get the kind of honesty displayed by a high-profile New York Times reported in an interview with Michael Moore.
In his film Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore squares off with the free-market system for its role in leveraging the United States’s wealth into the hands of a few.
But in one clip cut from the documentary — which Moore provided exclusively to RAW STORY — he interviews Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, who explains how capitalism is actually contributing to the very downfall of the human race and the "degradation of the planet."
"All sorts of people who have spent their lives studying climate change, from Bill McKibben on down, have warned us that we don’t have a lot of time left," Hedges said. "So it’s not just that capitalism has destroyed our economic system and hijacked our political system, but it literally is extinguishing the system that sustains life. If that’s not thwarted soon…then we will begin to see massive dislocations, environmental refugees, further depleting of natural resources. Overpopulation is also an issue. The UN estimates that by 2050 the size of the planet will double."
The very concept of capitalism, Moore declares in the film, is the problem because it inevitably leads to a system where the richest few control the means of production as well as the levers of power — leading to a "plutonomy," a term used in a leaked Citigroup memo from 2005, in which the finance juggernaut concluded that the United States is no longer a democracy.
In the interview, Hedges decries America’s turn toward supply-side economics over the last three decades as the cause of stagnating middle class incomes, contrasting it with the increasingly lavish fortunes of the wealthy and the aid they often receive from the government at the expense of working people… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Raw Story>
What can I add to this? Very little, I think. The one hair I would split is that our corporate plutocracy has nothing in common with Capitalism as envisioned by its creator, Adam Smith. In his concept, monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels were not allowed. He never considered the notion of a corporation. They came after his time.
I believe that a free market system is preferable to a planned economy, but in order for it to function long term, it must be heavily regulated to protect consumers against corporate predators, to protect the planet from corporate attempts to externalize the cost of their damage to the environment, and to ensure that wealth produced is distributed equitably.
6 Responses to “Capitalism: The World’s Downfall?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
TC,
I’m in complete agreement with you. A planned economy doesn’t seem to work on a large scale but we definitely need a strong social safety net and regulation to make capitalism work properly.
Michael Moore does great work.
I fully agree. During his movies, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry half the time.
TC it’s probably ok as long as you’re laughing or crying at the appropriate times!
I too believe in a free market system that’s regulated. I don’t know why the Right has such a problem with that (well, yeah, I do). Even the bloodiest boxing match or martial arts tournament has a referee to make sure the fighters don’t break the rules.
While many conservatives seem to cringe at the thought of regulation as a method of killing competition, I believe it to be necessary, and the government is the right entity to implement regulation. Allowing business to self-regulate will only lead to what is best of business. If an absence of regulation is allowed to persist, whether regarding environmentalism or health care, costs will only rise.
Many conservative friends I know like to argue with me over global warming, so I ask them that if they believe global warming is a myth or that it is not man-made, then what is the harm of environmental awareness, and things such as recycling, emissions reductions, and fuel efficiency… the only response they can come up with is usually that it is their choice and government has no place to intercede, but if that is the case, then where does it end. We have already seen prices rise across the board in recent years, so what is the harm in a little regulation. It is not a surrendering of rights, but insuring sustainability of rights for the future.
Thanks Oso. Most of the time I felt angry. It’s a good think I have learned to respond to anger, rather than react to it.
Tom, an excellent illustration.
Kevin, your friends’ arguments reveal that their objection is to government alone and that global warming (or whatever the issue) is only an excuse.