I need to clarify my response to the Herod piece Chuck0 posted.
I agree with Herod's gist that countries like France have great healthcare due to past struggles of unions, protest movements, and the like.
My beef was with Herod's opening paragraph about how Moore has never directly attacked capitalism, when at the end of Fahrenheit 911 he gave a monologue where he seems to do just that.
I took my original complaint about Herod's 1st paragraph as a springboard to gripe about many, many people I've met locally who oppose universal healthcare -- maybe something they've never even considered before -- simply because now Moore has made a film about it. AND HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE WAIT TIMES IN FRANCE?? JESUS CHRIST!!!
Likewise, I am frustrated that many leftists or anti-capitalists seem to want to agree with Moore-haters, -- "Hey, I hate Moore, too, bro -- but for different reasons..." -- which sometimes seems like a cowardly way of staying with "the masses"' hatred of Moore but still being a bit different and staying true to the magical chimera that is "working class authenticity." The meat of Herod's piece about great healthcare being the result of popular movements is spot-on. It didn't happen because elites had an attack of conscience.
-B.
B. wrote:
"Hi: James Herod, in the article Chuck0 posted, says Moore never attacks capitalism "per se," but that isn't true. At the end of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore provides s a monologue about how class divisions, exploiter and exploited, are hardwired into the US economic system, and how many if not most things in this society won't change unless that class system is abolished. Dunno if he uses the 'c' word itself -- capitalism -- but a rose by any other name...."