I heard him say the same on Bill Maher's show and have puzzling over it since then. I think what he is saying that if we had a democracy, we would have to replace capitalism as we know it as capitalism in this world economy doesn't work properly except to create a corporate elite, or corporatism, as it is being called these days without competition in the market.

Regardless of the above, a democracy will have to have some kind of economy. I think Moore envisions one of a more liberal bent such as espoused by John Kenneth Galbraith. Just finished his, "The Good Society", which pretty much outlines what would have to change within the existing capitalisitic/corporate dominated free market US economy...it was written in 1995 and it is interesting to see how things have changed, yet the basic concepts for society are very much the same.

Thanks for the comment, lalucas. You may be correct about what Moore is thinking, but in my view, he hasn't thought it through. The way I see it, capitalism - even the kinder, gentler capitalism envisioned by Galbraith and his ilk - is inherently inconsistent any kind of genuine democracy. Because of the built-in tendency for the rate of profit to fall, any economic system founded on the profit motive will always contain within it the seeds of the eventual destruction of whatever ostensible democracy it purports to espouse. That's because eventually, the pursuit of profit becomes incompatible with supporting a relatively high standard of living for workers. That leads not only to boom-and-bust cycles, but also, over time, to a pervasive income inequality, matched by the pervasive power inequality that is necessary in order to maintain that income inequality. Or, to put it more simply, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and then the rich have to make sure they can keep a tight rein on things, lest the poor (who vastly outnumber them) become angry and try to take their goodies away.

Moore points out that we have more votes than they do, but how much good has THAT done us? Votes are a total facade in this ostensible democracy. The real power is in campaign contributions and lobbying, and that takes money, and guess who has plenty of that to throw around? The other real power is in propaganda, and there again, the rich have done a fabulous job of using the mainstream media, talk radio, and so on to convince the masses that (a) they live in a democracy, and (b) in order to preserve that democracy, they have to vote for policies that will keep rich people happy.

That's why I find Moore ultimately disappointing. He doesn't follow the logic of his position through to its end. In order to have real democracy, we have to replace the profit motive with another economic system. In my book, that system is socialism, not watered-down capitalism a la Galbraith.

I agree with just about everything you say except the last sentence. The new world order requires a new economy, some hybrid of systems past and future. I see the beginnings of it in what Pres. Obama has started but it is only beginnig to sprout. With what we have, the only way to restore a level playing field is to tax the wealthy and redistribute it via "Cash for Clunkers" and the "First Time home Buyers Incentive". The money that is being "hoarded" by the wealthy needs to trickle down and trickle out to the masses, who then need to spend in order for the free market to work properly. The price is going to have to be controlled so, again, the free market can work.

Finally, the new piece, would be a new incentive toward philanthropy. This will be another effort toward redistribution, which of course is not popular with conservatives. But if philanthropists organized and spent in our own country as they do abroad, not all would be left to the government to "fix".

That is the best I can work out at this point in time. I guess we will have to see how it all turns out.

Even if you're right - and you probably are - Moore's great value is that he's only a couple of steps ahead of his audience. People don't make changes in one big leap unless there's a full-blown catastrophe and they don't have any other choice. Otherwise they take baby steps behind somebody like Moore who isn't trying to drag them the whole way in one shot but only the next step past where they are.

I don't really care if he hasn't gone all the way as long as he keeps taking the next step.

the guy is brilliant but a tad mean, and bitter

Thanks for reading this, Kathy. I agree with brilliant, and bitter - though on that, I can hardly blame him, given what's happened to his hometown. I thought the scene with his dad at the site of his dad's former factory was quite touching.

Mean? I don't know. Self-important, a touch crude, occasionally insensitive, yes - but ultimately I think he's coming from a place of compassion, so mean just doesn't fit for me.