A Response to Moore's Delusional "Capitalism: A Love Story"

Michael Moore has released a pathetic ode to communist crapology called "Capitalism: A Love Story," which has hit the brick wall of the American public's tolerance for hypocritical socialist nonsense from spoiled multi-millionaires.

The insipid drivel of a grown man extolling the virtues of communism (he closes the flick with a tribute to the Soviet anthem) could be allowed to pass without response into the quiet of Hollywood night. If a socialist whines alone in a movie theater, does he make a sound?

Nevertheless, it can be quite fun to smack around liberal arguments like a cheating five year old bats a pinata, so here goes.

There is a part of me that is too exasperated to argue with indoctrinated leftist drones over specific manifestations of their insanity - it is like debating a first year art student on the meaning of the melting clocks in The Persistence of Memory. You can't make rational arguments to irrational people and expect them to change their mind. There is no "mind" there to begin with - only an infantile limbic instinct to blame all the shortcomings of their lives and the world on "greedy" people - people who happen to come up with marketable ideas and products that give others meaningful work.

But to those who see some utopian Hegelian moment in unity for the sake of unity, and who therefore see government as somehow able to give their lives meaning, how can you convince them that such delusions are exceedingly dangerous and misguided? Ninety-nine percent of the time - you can't. But for the one percent of leftists who are able to deprogram from reading a blog entry, a bit of intellectual exercise might move them a nanometer back to reality.

Michael Moore makes the claim (used occasionally by those who are intuitively against any notions of American exceptionalism) that America only ascended to superpower status after World War II due to the decline of Germany and Japan. Now did Germany and Japan decline on their own? No - America defeated them militarily!

America did not defeat Germany alone, to be sure. The Brits and the Russians, among many others, helped defeat it. But what did America do after Germany's defeat? It installed the Marshall Plan - billions of dollars used to rebuild Europe. The U.S also defended Europe from further forcible Russian occupation. Only a thoroughly doctrinaire leftist would debate these points.

During the Cold War, the United States footed much of the security bill for Europe as it rebuilt. This allowed the Europeans to develop all manner of socialist welfare programs and to temporarily sustain them economically. American not only did not get credit for preserving the peace and defending Europe from Soviet encroachment, America was condemned for some imaginary form of "neo-imperialism." Certainly, the fence put up around East Berlin was put up by the Stasi to keep people from fleeing to the "evil" American capitalists, with all their MREs and chocolate bars, not to keep the other Germans from rushing into East Berlin with glee to meet their Soviet oppressors. And let's not even get started on France.

So now we turn to Japan. Anyone who is not a complete fool can see that America dropped the atomic bombs on Japan to prevent even more casualties than would have resulted from an invasion. The specifics can be legitimately debated, but there should be no mistaking two points: The first is that Japan initiated the war against the U.S.; and the second is that Japan would never have surrendered without taking millions of casualties in absence of the use of the atomic bombs.

After the U.S. defeated Japan militarily, again America built the country up economically and footed its security bill. This allowed Japan to grow and become a world economic power - even at the expense of American companies! Surely, building up a country so that it can flood your market with Hondas cannot be considered insidious by anyone with their sanity still intact.

The case of Korea is even more stark. The U.S fought off the communist North Koreans and the Chinese to protect South Korea. This military intervention was even underwritten by international law. Today, a satellite picture of North Korea and South Korea taken at night shows the north to be a desolate wasteland, and such South Korean cities as Seoul to be vibrant, industrious, and thriving.

Vietnam is usually the bug-bear of all leftists. In the progressive imagination, big mean America was picking on the poor North Vietnamese national socialists. After decades of defending the South Vietnamese from the designs of Ho Chi Minh, the left was finally able to get the U.S. to depart and embark upon a course of detente with communist countries. The North Vietnamese responded by massacring the Southerners and creating hundreds of thousands of fleeing refugees. Then there was the living nightmare of Cambodia, which was partly a result of the power vacuum left in the region when America departed.

So much for history. In regards to economics, it is ironic that Moore mentions the economy of the 1970s. According to Keynesian theory, the kind that FDR was committed to, the government should intervene in an economy in order to stimulate employment. Inflation (typically created by the central bank by increasing the money supply) is seen as naturally beneficial because it leads the economy along (it encourages spending and discourages saving). Then what explains stagflation, Mr. Moore? This is the combination of massive unemployment and inflation at the same time. According to Keynesian theory, progressive inflation and progressive unemployment, over a reasonable period of time (accounting for lag indicators), is impossible.

Which brings us to the left's bogeyman of Reagan. Obviously, we have to consider who we are arguing with when someone blames Reagan for slashing taxes and cutting unemployment. The typical objection of Reaganomics on the left is, "Sure, Reagan cut unemployment, but the rich got richer and the poor got poorer." But to paraphrase an insight from Margaret Thatcher, the left would rather that everyone be poorer than everyone be richer, if the latter means the rich are more rich.

To argue that building a defense infrastructure that ostensibly led to a devastating arms race for the Soviets was "corporate welfare" is an interesting tell for determining who is a socialist or communist "fellow traveler." What really infuriates the left about Reagan is his anti-government, pro individual responsibility message, which, "heartless" as it is, actually works.

But even more to the point, the Reagan years did not see the type of corporate welfare through injections of easy credit until Greenspan was made chair of the Fed in 1989. (And never mind that the behavior of the Fed, whose very existence is a page right out of the Communist Manifesto, naturally contributes to the effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer).

The coup de grace to the Michael Moore narrative is exactly how much Obama's candidacy was fueled by "big corporations" like GE, Caterpillar, and Goldman Sachs, and how Obama's administration is thoroughly penetrated with corporate lackies and former lobbyists. Goldman Sachs is deeply embedded in Obama's Treasury and the SEC; and the Wall Street investment firm's management of the $787 billion "stimulus" package is a pyramid scheme so colossal it makes Bernie Madoff's look like a childhood erector set.

If we can't trust Barack Obama, who bears all the hallmarks (and hallmark cards) of a quintessential leftist, to be committed leftist when "running the country," doesn't that suggest that something is amiss with leftist ideology to begin with? If Michael Moore would get off his donkey long enough to take a look around, he will see that his beloved leader has become a true fascist (even if a "smiley-faced" one). And lest the moron Moore should be confused, free market capitalists loathe and despise corporatism and fascism.

We can develop an atmosphere in which people can thrive and prosper, but this is best done by preserving freedom and leaving it up to each individual whether or not to succeed or fail by each person's own standards. You cannot empower human beings by stripping them of their agency. People who want to succeed in America, generally succeed.

The great majority of people in America are wealthy or "middle class" by world standards.If this is somehow a condemnation of the country, then I count myself among the damned. As for the communist Vladimir Lenin, I have visited his tomb, and I testify that he is as dead as Moore's beloved ideology. Someone should inform Moore that not only has Russia reversed itself from communism, so has formerly Maoist China. Even many European "socialist" states are beginning to reverse themselves back to more market-friendly economic models.

Communism only appears attractive to desperate, severely backward nations. Socialism is only economically feasible if you are free-riding off a great power's ability to ensure your security. Capitalism, in free market form, is not only the most prosperous economic system, it is the only one compatible with individual freedom.