Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A 75th Anniversary for the American Dream, a 25-Year Anniversary for Me
On this day 25 years ago, in 1987, I became a filmmaker. It was around ten in the morning and the first-ever roll of Kodak 16mm film for my first-ever movie was loaded into my friend's camera to shoot the very first scene of 'Roger & Me.' I had no idea on that morning in Flint, Michigan what my life would be like after that, or what would happen to Flint, or to General Motors. It all felt fairly ominous, though -- after all, GM, which was posting record profits at the time, was closing its first Flint factory (the first of what would become many) and unemployment in Flint had officially been listed as high as 29%. Surely things couldn't get much worse.
That morning, 25 years ago today, a group of autoworkers had come together on the lawn of the soon-to-be-closed Buick-Oldsmobile-Cadillac assembly plant to raise their voices against the closing -- and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Great Flint Sit-Down Strike, which had begun at that very factory. That strike, in 1936-37, was actually an occupation. Hundreds of workers took over the factories in Flint and refused to leave for 44 days until GM capitulated and recognized their union. The strike inspired thousands of other workers across the country to stage their own occupations and, before you knew it, in the years to follow, factory workers were paid a living wage, with benefits, vacations, and a safe working place.
The middle class and the American Dream were born 75 years ago today, on February 11, 1937, the day the Flint workers won their struggle. And for the next 44 years, working people everywhere got to own their own homes, send their kids to college and never worry about going broke if they got sick. That belief, that life would be good if you were a good citizen and a hard worker, now seems out of reach for nearly half the country which is either living in or near poverty. Perhaps people wouldn't mind it as much if the burden were being evenly shared. But everyone knows that's not the case. In a time of record personal bankruptcies, record home foreclosures, record family and student debt, there are a group of people having the best years of wealth and profit ever recorded in human history. And it is those very people who have made the decisions to export our jobs, to decimate unions, to make college unaffordable, to start wars and to pay themselves with gluttonous joy while paying little or no tax -- this is the 1% that has created the burden so many Americans (and people around the world) now share.
And so, 75 years after the victory in Flint, the battle is now being fought all over again. But this time it's not just about getting paid a dollar an hour, or having Sunday off, or reducing the chance of your hand being crushed in the metal stamping machine. This time, the stakes are even greater: Who is going to own America and control the basic functions of our democracy -- the richest 1% who buy the politicians to get what they want, or the 99% who don't have much these days and live in anxiety or fear of what's around the bend.
I believe that justice will win out again, in the end, just as it did 75 years ago today in Flint in 1937.
I have no special plans to mark this day of anniversaries other than to post a short story I wrote called 'Gratitude.' You may have read it in my book, but if not, here it is to freely download and enjoy:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/gratitude
If you'd like to hear me read it in my own voice, click here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/gratitude-audio
It tells, in part, the story of that day I first placed that roll of Kodak film into a movie camera. I am proud of the town I was born in, and I'm proud of my uncle who participated in the Sit-Down Strike. I am grateful to those of you who have gone to my movies over the years, and I thank all of you who have been inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement to speak up on behalf of the 99%.
There's no turning back now. Onward!
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
134 Comments so far
Show Allmany of the 1% are unemployed too.
never done a day's work in their lives.
Mitt Romney was the only one in the 1% stupid enough to admit to it.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/romney-im-also-unemployed/
This is the best thing Moore has written in years. The 1% need to go extinct.
I truly wish I could believe Michael Moore, but I am wondering what he means when he says,
"There's no turning back now. Onward!"
If, as I cannot help but suspect, he means "onward" in the same way that the great charlatan Barack Obama says we must look forward, not backward, then all of these words are simply sentimental pablum.
If Mr. Moore means that he is leaving all corporate-owned politicians behind, then he must be required to spell it out because of his well known tendency to desperately cling to blatant criminal democrats who repeatedly work with their republican allies to stab the rest of us.
Obama supported Immunity for unconstitutional criminality by the telecoms and the so-called Bailout of the corrupt banks without any oversight BEFORE Mr. Moore (and the majority of the desperately delusional) voted for him in 2008.
So, Who are you supporting this time, Mr. Moore?
Are you really with the Occupy-ers or are you (once again) strategizing for the corrupt politicos?
Good post BBA. Moore lost me when he pleaded with Ralph Nader not to run in 2008.
Look how that turned out..........
I say we vote him off the island and let him take up space at HuffPo.
"jbarret1"
I think the pleading began in 2004 when Moore was on his knees in front of Nader because Moore was so desperate to get people to vote for another corporate owned democrat, Kerry.
By 2008, Moore had reached a deeper level of delusional devotion to the corporate clubhouse members.
If only those darn, clever republicans would stop forcing him to support their agenda.
How a person votes has nothing to so with whether or not they are suffering from "a deeper level of delusional devotion to the corporate clubhouse members." It does not tell us anything about a person's belief system nor do belief systems drive politics.
The system was not voted in and cannot be voted out. Social and political change happens through mass organizing and mobilization by radical militant groups operating outside of electoral politics. That is what Moore advocates.
"Social and political change happens through mass organizing and mobilization by radical militant groups operating outside of electoral politics. That is what Moore advocates."
If Moore isn't dedicated to electoral politics, why did he literally fall to his knees on national TV, the Bill Mahr show, and beg Ralph Nader to drop his candidacy, thus attempting to denying me the right to vote for a progressive? I hold a grudge against him for that. It was very un-democratic of him and he has yet to apologize for it.
Not once has he gotten down on his knees to beg Obama not to use drones that kill children (or make jokes about using them) or not to sign the NDAA. Why doesn't he beg the O to stop the enormous gifts of $ and weapons to Israel? All I ask is why was the John Kerry candidacy more important than all of these things and more?
It's important to advocate for what you believe in. If you can't get on the Bill Mahr show,, the ballot box is one way to show your fellow citizens what you think - assuming the actual votes are reported. It's our collective voice.
All that said, Moore's films have done much to shine a light on how the regressive policies of the US elite, who run the government, have destroyed any remaining shreds of our social fabric.
Good article on history!
rvrwalker
Excellent point about both Moore and Maher literally begging Nader not to run in 2004 in order to not give Americans a choice between the GOP and the Savage Mules. As someone notes in the documentary An Unreasonable Man, Moore argued, ironically, that Nader should have that right to do so in 2000. Despite what Moore and Maher would have us believe, Americans should have the right to choose a candidate who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
"Choice" is an illusion. Both you and Moore believe that it is not, perhaps you more so than he does. The only difference is that you favor different choices.
Moore says that of the two choices one is less evil. Millions of people think that way. Others say that since both parties are evil, we should choose an alternative. In each case, the "choice" model is in play, and the assumption is that voting could have an effect on power. The two positions are two sides to the same coin. Many can see that the two major parties are two sides of the same coin, but refuse to see that "third party" and "duopoly" are also two sides of the same coin. That second "coin" is belief in the system, and faith in individual choice as the primary tool for effecting social and political change. That second "coin" is far more pervasive and destructive than the "duopoly" coin.
For a third party to win, there is a necessary prerequisite of massive social and political change. Advocating for voting third party does not, and cannot bring any such change. Organizing and resisting, however, can and will mean massive social and political change. Moore advocates just such an approach. That is far more radical than obsessing over the "duopoly," in a personal choice context, and advocating voting for an alternative, and thereby promoting and defending the system itself.
He was wrong on that. He has a lot of company there. The DSA and the CPUSA endorsed Obama, for example.
But the people attacking Moore over this are wrong, as well. While criticizing Moore for thinking that voting for Obama would make a difference, they think that not voting for Obama would make a difference. Those are two sides to the same coin. The problem is with the system, not with personalities.
Electoral politics are the wrong place to look for social and political change. The critics of Moore make the same mistake that he does. At least Moore also advocates for organized Labor and the working class. Many progressives do not, but rather pride themselves on being supportive of a third party candidate - as a personal choice and personal statement, as a reflection of individual belief. The Green party cannot be relied upon to advocate for organized Labor and the working class, for example. To the contrary, blue collar participation is unwelcome and even discouraged - most of the working class is invisible to the Green party.
While I reject the "lesser of two evils" logic, and do not see Nader as a spoiler and blame him for Democratic party failures, as so many Democrats do, nevertheless I think it is foolish and shallow to see those who do take that position as the enemy.
Restricting one's argument to criticism of the duopoly, rather than of the entire corrupted political and social system - of which corrupted elections and politicians are but one effect - is a variation on the "lesser of two evils" logic. It represents just as moderate and weak of a position, just as much of an apology for the system, as the "lesser of two evils" argument in support of Obama does.
The duopoly is an effect, and not the cause, of the corrupted electoral political system.
TA, Thanks for the excellent articulation of your 'systems' based analysis. This makes perfect sense. I think we all tend to get bogged down in a sports-oriented "red team,blue team" definition of the problem. The problem is not with who guides the system, it is the structure and function of the system itself. The function of the system we have is to produce inequality. It's working all to well, regardless of the personality or the team who happen to be at the controls. We need to create a strategy that will replace the current system with one whose function promotes the well-being of all.
Thanks, iowapinko, for giving my posts thoughtful consideration and for understanding what I was trying to say.
TW all that may be true, but a vote for Obama is tantamount for the chickens voting for Col. Sanders. A vote for a third pary candidate does not render void any thing you assert.
Participation by in all aspects of social, economic and political life in the United States is tantamount to chickens being ruled by Col. Sanders. Voting for Obama or not voting for Obama does not change that.
The problem is not voting. The problem is measuring everything by that standard - as though it were the ultimate test of something. The problem is in suggesting that if people only voted differently things would change in any important or significant way.
Saying that things would be better if we voted for someone other than Obama is based on the naive and foolish notion that we have a choice, that there is a democracy, that the system is responsive to voting. None of that is true. Insisting that those things are true - and saying that voting for Obama is tantamount to the chickens voting for Col. Sanders is insisting upon that - is a much bigger barrier than anything Moore says or does.
The lever in the election booth is not a mechanism for us to control the rulers, it is a mechanism for the rulers to control us.
Elections are not a cause of social and political change, they are an effect.
The metaphor I used was final. You just re-arranged the characterization which more aptly is a situation found in the theme of the film, The Matrix, when Morpheus tells Neo, "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Sometimes Art does in fact imitate life. And in the case of those married to the duopoly that is the only thing they are ever going to know. It is the only thing they want to know. And for those like you who beleive there is no choice in life, I can only express my condolences for the terrible existence life has succumbed for those like you. Have you ever read the myth of Sisyphus? If you have, you just described the Myth you are living under in that post.
The problem is people who are married to the illusions about "American democracy." There are "choices" beyond rejecting the "duopoly." Hoping for social and political change through electoral politics - supporting or rejecting this or that candidate or party and seeing that as important - is to live in the matrix and perpetuate the myths about "America" and "our system."
Moore does not expose Oilybomber as a war criminal , because according to TA it is not important , Oilybomber is a mere figure head not worth outing, yet Moore creates a whole movie devoted to Bush. Is it more dangerous to expose OilyBomber than Bush? Does Moore not realize who OilyBomber is? We need to understand why leaders on the left have such glaring shortcomings in order to educate them and build a stronger movement. Honesty, Courage and Wisdom are to be encouraged.Systems and individuals are both important.
Wonderfully said. Mike Moore lost credibility when he promoted his die hard stance of the Democratic Party, while turning his back on Nader. Moore is a self-serving has -been.
Michael Moore is not a politician, he is not a liar, and he cannot be "required" to do anything that might spring from the mind of despondent denizen of the CD crowd with a skewed perception of reality. Please direct your effete ire elsewhere mr alley. If you want to curse Obama, go for it - he has it coming - but confine the comments to blogs that refer to Obama.
Effete ire? EFFETE ire? Are we suggesting that one must have testicles to express legitimate righteous ire?
"Effete" means having lost character, vitality, or strength; affected, overrefined, and ineffectual; marked by self-indulgence, triviality, weakness or decadence.
It has nothing to do with testicles.
"Michael Moore is not a politician, he is not a liar, and he cannot be "required" to do anything that might spring from the mind of despondent denizen of the CD crowd with a skewed perception of reality"
I agree 96% but puzzled by your last phrase. What do you mean by "skewed perception?" mis-perception? delusion? false perception? or just perception outside the norm? And isn't sharing perceptions - whether or not some despondent denizen of the CD crowd thinks they're skewed - what the comments section is all about?
Birdbrain Alley
I agree. One has to wonder if Moore will ever make a film condemning the warmonger Obama in the same vein that he condemned Bush in his well made film Fahrenheit 9/11.
It seems so incredibly unlikely. Moore knows who butters his bread and it ain't no third party.
Great question for Amy Goodman to pose to Michael the next time he's on her show.
Goodman is another 0pologist.
Oh gawd. So who's left worth listening to? Raul Castro?
Mike Gravel
http://www.mikegravel.us/national_initiative
Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party
http://www.voterocky.org/
Amy Goodman is a journalist. Gravel or Anderson are politicians. They are completely different things that have nothing to do with each other - and it is embarrassing that I even need to explain this.
pjd412
It is unclear if your comment is directed at me. But if it is I will point out that I was merely attempting to state that people in general in this country, as the person who inquired seemed to imply, can listen from someone from the left and that person can be someone like a Rocky Anderson. Contrary to what you seem to be assuming, I was not equating Amy Goodman with Rocky Anderson.
And yes, it is embarrassing that I even need to explain this.
"Amy Goodman is a journalist. Gravel or Anderson are politicians."
So what is Raul Castro?
Ralph Nader. David Swanson. Jill Stein. Rocky Anderson. Cynthia McKinney. Noam Chomsky, Glen Greenwald, Paul Street .....
That is the right wing smear against Moore. Since he is successful, he therefore must be a hypocrite.
Making money directly from creative works is not Capitalism, but anti-capitalism, since it rests on the original theory behind copyright law. Copyright law was intended to protect artists and authors from the capitalists by creating a protected zone within which those without capital could realize the benefits from their own work. The social benefit envisioned was that this would allow creative people to continue to contribute their work to society. Moore has certainly used his success to continue to make films, and to remain independent.
Moore never mentioned Democrats or Obama in this piece, or any other piece he has written for at least a couple years. Why do you go out of your way to denigrate someone who is on our side with your negativity? Negativity like yours and others (which comes right out of the FBI's COINTELPRO handbook) is far more destructive to organizing our side than any black bloq-er breaking a Starbucks window.
Moore is on the side of the working class.
He may well not be on the side of those advocating a partisan electoral approach to achieving social and political change, and he may well not be on the side of those advocating an individualized personal choice approach.
Moore often hangs out at the local movie theater, which he saved and restored, and debates politics with us. Often, some progressive will say that we need to raise chickens and organic veggies in our back yards, make "better choices" as consumers, etc., etc. Moore's response is always that those people are missing the forest for the trees. Moore advocates mass organizing and mobilizing, work stoppages, rent strikes and other militant actions.
Standing with the working class often contradicts liberal and progressive activism which is focused on personal belief systems and individual choices, and which seeks to work within the system rather than to shut the system down. The two contradict one another.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
"The two contradict one another."
I beg to differ, Two. They are complimentary, not contradictory.
By arguing as you do, that working within the system is useless, you exclude the 95% that do not occupy, or demonstrate, from the political process.
Many of these people will vote for lesser evils if there is no viable third party, and we will be ruled by greater or lesser evils forever.
There is a limit to the efficacy of occupations and demonstrations, and the electoral process must pick up from there to change the system. The two strategies working together have changed the system in several countries.
I think your argument pleases the duopoly immensely.
Trust me, nothing I say or that Moore says pleases those in power.
Sorry, no.
That boat has sailed …
You go out of your way to create divisiveness, instead of looking for how to coexist and learn from each other.
It is a valid question as to who is still dwelling in delusions and counterproductivity at this terribly late date supporting OIlyBomber. For OilyBomber supporters are one of the greaters impediments too overcoming the .1%. Moore has not repudiated Oilybomber and in not repudiating OilyBomber, Moore is not revealing if he has either the moral courage or intelligence to fully support an improved society. One may argue that one is ethically bound to destroy all objects employed in repression and or harm ( I am not making a judgement on starbuck glass but on the moral freedom to make ethical individual ethical judgements as to which objects are not fit for existence as in Ploughshares, agent orange, naplam, DU, international finance. fascist imperial governments, torture chambers etc.). Moore does not relate that the conditions in 1937 relate back to the late 1800's when big business captured the federal government. President Polk was elected on his promise to war on Mexico. The Gilded age was very similiar to today. Anarchists ( mostly Italian immigrants), Suffergettes, Pacifists ( who recieved greater jail time for draft resistance than anarchists for bloodshed), Unionists, Socialists and Communists gave the USA decent wages and working conditions.
Supporting the notion that partisan electoral politics can lead to social and political change is the obstacle. That position is far more conservative than any position Moore has taken.
Moore often relates the conditions in 1937 back to the Robber Barons and the gilded age.
Yes, Unionists, Socialists and Communists gave the USA decent wages and working conditions. Moore agrees with you and with me on that.
Agreed that supporting partisan electoral change is an obstacle, exactly and greatly in the case of those who still support OilyBomber. So what stops Moore and some others from stating the obvious, that OilyBomber is devious, violent, criminal, and generally harmful and no one should vote for him and additionly stating the likewise obvious that the.1% has a strangle hold on the federal government that prevents any progress through elections? This is called for because Moore's last prouncements on OilyBomber indicates he supports OilyBomber, as most well know this is unconciousable. Why not clearly and openly repudiate OilyBomber and partisan politics, which would edify so many Oilybomber supporters? ( Of course it doesn't hurt to write in Rocky Anderson). Anarchists (1900-1930)were a huge force in USA social reforms
Obama is no better and no worse than any other electoral choice in any way that matters. Why don't Moore and others say that "OilyBomber is devious, violent, criminal, and generally harmful and no one should vote for him?" Because that is a weak and meaningless position to take. You are personalizing this and misrepresenting where true power lies. These politicians are merely errand boys for the powerful few.
Progress will not come through elections. Moore says that progress will come through organizing, through strikes and other actions. Nor voting for Obama - as though that matters - is no more powerful that voting for Obama. It is not Obama that is the problem.
How can you berate Moore yet promote Anderson? That makes no sense to me.
Two Americas complains: "How can you berate Moore yet promote Anderson? That makes no sense to me." He also believes that "You are personalizing this and misrepresenting where true power lies." Is he actually attempting to claim that no one is allowed to point out the hypocrisy of an alleged liberal like Moore supporting a warmonger like Obama?
Regarding the first quote, what makes no sense is how one apparently cannot comprehend the difference between someone like Rocky Anderson, who is against Obama's militant foreign policy and which carries on Bush's foreign actions overseas, and Michael Moore, who is quite loath to criticize, much less condemn, what Obama is doing to the people in the Middle East and Africa.
http://www.voterocky.org/
If we are going to shill for candidates here, why do we never hear about Stewart Alexander here at CD? Promote a Socialist candidate and at least you can use that to get some decent discussions going with people. So many here profess to be left wing, yet the one unambiguously left wing candidate never gets mentioned. That is not by accident or oversight.
Most of the arguments here promoting the electoral process and shilling for candidates are actually for the purpose of defending the system. By claiming to "support" - whatever that means - some alternative candidate people can pose as opponents for the system while in reality promoting and supporting the system. Or are we ignoring the Socialist candidacy, and the opportunity it represents, for the sake of being realistic and practical? If so, we are making the same basic argument that the Obama promoters are making - a "lesser of the available (and practical and realistic) evils" argument.
No, sorry, Rocky is not "the answer." No personality is, no candidacy is, no platform is, no belief system is. No election is going to solve anything.
However, actively promoting a Socialist candidate gives you the opportunity to raise the questions that need to be raised and smashes the whole boring and futile conservative versus liberal "debates" to smithereens.
Being practical, being realistic, talking "belief systems" and values, promoting platforms, touting the latest celebrity who shares our values" and the whole rotten mess of horse-race partisan electoral politics is a boring, useless, mindless exercise in futility. If you are going to do that, you may just as well get behind Obama and the "lesser of two evils" line of reasoning.
Two Americas
I think that you are speaking too much in generalities. I certainly would find nothing wrong with a socialist candidate like Stewart Alexander. But there is certainly nothing wrong that I can find with the platform of Rocky Anderson either. Also, if you had seen Moore's film Capitalism: A Love Story, you would have noticed how Moore practically twisted himself into intellectual knots when he, justifiably, criticized the capitalist system but yet in interviews after the film could never adequately explain why he never once offered socialism in his film [while not even uttering that apparently forbidden word in his film] as an alternative to a system which he was most critical of and that was capitalism.
I do agree that the cause of those on the left would be much better served if web sites like Common Dreams devoted more space to candidates like Stewart Alexander as well as Rocky Anderson. But attempting to claim that if anyone advocates for someone like Rocky Anderson is grounds for believing that that person is also a supporter of Barack Obama is just plain bizarre if not an extremely stupid thing to imply.
I didn't say that "if anyone advocates for someone like Rocky Anderson" they are "also a supporter of Barack Obama." Read it again.
I am not talking about personally liking a platform, I am rejecting that as a basis for advocacy.
Advocating for Socialism is not merely another platform, another set of beliefs. Can you see that? Also, the Anderson campaign is about Anderson. The Alexander campaign is not about Alexander. Can you see that? The Anderson campaign is about how better to manage and run the current system. Socialism is about overturning the current system. Can you see that?
Therefore, Alexander is not merely an alternative personal choice while Anderson is.
In all of these ways promoting Anderson is akin to promoting Obama, while advocating for Socialism is not. If people cannot see the difference, the profound and fundamental difference, then there is no sense in arguing about which is "better."
I was merely pointing out that as the election is growing closer we have a lot of shilling for candidates going on here. Yet with so many here professing to be on the left, I am the only one even mentioning a candidate that is unambiguously on the left. Do you not find that interesting and worthy of examination?
I am not promoting, defending or apologizing for Moore. I am countering right wing smears against him which are being repeated by people here, attacks that are based on opposition to his advocacy for organized Labor and the working class.