MovieChat Forums > The Corporation (2004) Discussion > Moore's so called 'flaw' in capitalism.....

Moore's so called 'flaw' in capitalism...

posted 16 years ago by rabidpenguinz
12 replies | jump to latest

Very excellent film for the most part, btw. But Moore had to go in and screw it up with his last piece. Amazingly Moore had good points until he called out what was a flaw in capitalism. That his films were a way to exploit some so-called "crack" in the structure of capitalism that will make it hang itself by selling anti-capitalist films. That's not a flaw. That's the way capitalism is SUPPOSED TO WORK.

Capitalism facilitates a way for people to get what they want. If people want Car A, which belches grotesque amounts of pollution and has *beep* mileage and doesnt even use it for what it's for(I despise people who buy hummers or similar off-roaders and they are completely spotless), then the "capitalists" will rush to build that car for the people. If people want Car B, the one that belches water out of its tailpipe (huzzah for hydrogen) and allows you to drive halfway across the goddamn planet, then those capitalists will run to make THAT car. Whatever the people WANT, the capitalists will GET for them.

I was certain the film was attacking the the corporation as like a mutation/manipulation of the capitalist system. Corporations manipulating what the people want by obscuring information and hiding in the relativism of exploitation, but with Moore's comment and the film's seeming implication that de-privitization was the end-all-of-end-all, it left me a little dissapointed.

Forgive my Dungeons and Dragons reference but the structure of capitalism is just a "true neutral" entity. You see arguments that capitalism does bad *beep* Capitalism does good *beep* How can capitalism do both? It's because capitalism is just a tool. What people choose to do with it (choose pollution over conservation) is up to the people. The way to work with capitalism isnt to move toward public ownership of everything. That's just as bad as private ownership of everything. It's really up to the people.

Besides, for all this beef with capitalism it makes me wonder why the "people" are held in such high regard anyway. Just as the "people" were responsible for keeping corporations away from frickin water (i still cant believe it got that bad), the "people" allowed it to happen through the "stock holders" like it was repeatedly said. Company A has lower profit margins? I dont wanna buy that. But Company A has zero footprint! I dont care i want money. Are the stockholders just a bunch of rich white men that dont listen to society? Stockholders invest in whatever company the people think has the best product. What do people think have the best products? Apparently the cheap and fancy stuff which incidentally was created in sweatshops. See how hard it is to pin something on capitalism if every single incident along the line is actually pinned on people?

I mean, come on. Just look at our US Constitution. James Madison sure as hell didnt hold the people in high regard when he drafted that crap. It was designed to play off against everyone's self interests so that in the end they all cancel out and you get some moderation in government.

too long / didnt read: capitalism is not good or bad. It's just a tool/system for people to do what they want with it and this otherwise excellent film disappoints in this regard.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gnatcar 16 years ago

To manoverde84's response:

[–] twiggy232 14 years ago

ye the film is full of crap tbh

[–] eearghh87 14 years ago

I saw it as Moore describing the "crack" from the corporation's perspective. A flaw in their system whereby they will sell something that they think will make them a profit even if it's a documentary that exposes their evils. Corporations do have the power to silence films they don't like by boycotting distribution and forcing higher MPAA ratings that limit their audience. This Film Is Not Yet Rated is great for showing corporate censorship in movies.

[–] axl9871 14 years ago

I think what Moore called a 'flaw' was just a way to show a funny sense of irony in a very serious movie. That's all there was to it IMO.

------------
"This is my life and it is ending one minute at a time..."

[–] HankTuff 14 years ago

"Capitalism facilitates a way for people to get what they want. If people want Car A, which belches grotesque amounts of pollution and has *beep* mileage and doesnt even use it for what it's for(I despise people who buy hummers or similar off-roaders and they are completely spotless), then the "capitalists" will rush to build that car for the people. If people want Car B, the one that belches water out of its tailpipe (huzzah for hydrogen) and allows you to drive halfway across the goddamn planet, then those capitalists will run to make THAT car. Whatever the people WANT, the capitalists will GET for them."

There is a flaw in that argument. It assumes that people chose a product after thoughtfully considering the pros and cons and then making an informed decision. This is of course not the case. If Corporation A builds the Hummer but there is not much demand, Corporation A will create demand through the meanest advertisement campaign aimed at the subconscious of the consumers trying to control our thoughts until we want the Hummer. This is then indeed not a competion of the best products but of the best advertisement and marketing initiatives. And that is not the world I want to live in.

[–] Speed-the-plow 14 years ago

I agree with you that the structure of capitalism is just a "true neutral" entity or tool, however, this tool or "truly neutral" entity has been elevated beyond tool status. Rather than serving the people, the people have been convinced to service and WORSHIP capitalism as some kind of godlike entity. That's the whole problem...people in power have transformed capitalism from a tool into a weapon that they efficiently use against "the people".

Until we all recognize capitalism is no more than a tool that needs some form of regulation to make sure people in power can't use it to bash people over the head, capitalism in the form it is now will only continue to destroy.

It's like worshiping a hammer. Who does that?

[–] toxilium 13 years ago

Advertisements are not controlling your mind. You are controlling your mind, and advertisements merely influence that. You have freewill, so use it. Also, "word of mouth" (i.e. your friend telling you about a product) is the most effective marketing tool above all else. Commercials, signs, billboards, coupons; nothing compare to the power of peer-to-peer advertising.

Lets look at the iPod Touch. What made it so popular? Was it those clever advertisements with that Justin kid? No. It was the product itself, which in turn created hype in Apple fans. If you hadn't noticed, Apple was pretty low on the Fortune 500 list before the iPod emerged. What did they do? They invented a product that is easier for the consumer to access their favourite music and pictures. Then they monopolized the music market somewhat with iTunes. People liked the simplicity and aesthetic of the device, thus a trend caught on. Apple outsourced their labour for their products to Taiwan because it's cheaper to manufacture there - logically this makes complete sense.

Again, you are not being brain washed; anyone who thinks that has been watching too much daytime televsion. The ironic thing perhaps is; maybe you are being brainwashed, to believe you are being brainwashed?

[–] HankTuff 13 years ago

If the iPod was so good, why did they need advertisement? Why was their advertisements not simply listing technical details of the product but instead putting a "cool" kid Justin in the ads? Why do they want their product whose main function is to play music to be cool? Cool doesn't play any better music than uncool.

The answer is: they want to influence you subconsciously so that you don't make your purchasing decision with rational mind but with your subconscious. And that's not fair.

In our times there are ads everywhere you look and they all want to influence you. A popular theme in sci-fi movies is how the future is full of ads everywhere you go, some beamed right into your eyes. Why would people depict the future like that?

[–] LnineB 13 years ago

um toxillium,,, i kind of agree with you but your logic is horrible. You are basically saying that the multi-billion dollar industry of marketing is useless. Any person that is pro capitalism or corporations would fire you for just thinking that. You have obviously never sat in a marketing or branding meeting. You have two goals,,,one to try to figure out what people want and if that isn't your product then MAKE then want your product. Name one fortune 500 company and I'll show you that almost half it's budget is spent on advertising and it's not used for solely "influencing" a buyers mind. Besides what's the difference between controlling and influencing someones mind anyway? it's basically making them want your product over another.

Secondly your i-touch analogy is all wrong. For one, the i-touch didn't put apple into the fortune 500 it was the i- phone,, which came out 3 to 4 months earlier than the i-touch. But I think you were referring to the regular ipod, Although it sold better than other mp3 players it didn't sell like hotcakes when it first came out. If you remember The ipod didn't explode until 2005 or so after they released their other brands like the mini and nano. One thing you are correct about and to me the one thing that corporations have all but forgotten about is that the IPOD did start selling well because the product was WAY better than anything else.

Now as for the iphone. That was ALL marketing. That thing sold like crazy on the first day and continued to sell even though it had all kinds of problems. As for apple outsourcing that didn't go to well for them. They or the manufacturing company got busted for illegal practices also. It has since cost them millions of dollars because they had to hire a third party auditing company just to regulate their rules. And still just last year they had the whole suicide thing that caused a bunch of trouble.

in my opinion the extra profit isn't worth it.?

Porn induced ED is pathetic!

[–] smoko 11 years ago

@ HankTuff Yeah, I think us consumers aren't anywhere near as thoughtful as we like to think we are.

I remember reading that Apple never does market research to find out what customers want. Instead Apple makes what they think are great products and tells everyone why they need it. That strategy seems to have worked well for them.

[–] Hollywood_Jay05 13 years ago

The flaw is how corporations have one goal, making money. Even if that means selling something that has exposed them, they don't care, they see short term profit. I see it as a retarded animal, eating everything, even nails, sure the nails will probably kill it, but he can eat it, so he does, not thinking of what harm it could do.

The problem isn't capitalism, I think it's good, the problem is corporations.

. : : R.i.P : : .
- Heath Ledger -