So if anyone actually succeeds in doing anything substantial in a career sense in our present system, pdq, then I guess he cannot be considered a legitimate spokesman on behalf of the general public, the poor, and those in need?

That sounds like a very good method for ensuring that any progressive messages which would initiate radical social change in the USA will never reach the general public at all....because only a message that HAS a great deal of money behind it (which can only be done if it's highly profitable) CAN reach the general public at all in the present system of film distribution as it exists in North America.

There are a great many independent individuals of a progressive type who would like, I'm sure, to make a movie about the kind of things Michael Moore is addressing, and they would like it to reach an audience of millions. But....if they do not have a lot of money already and a lot of connections in the business already...that won't happen. Their movies will hardly be seen by anyone, won't be spoken of in the media, and won't play in the cineplexes across the nation. No one will know what they said.

You've got to already be a major player in this capitalist system to be able to afford and get major exposure. Moore is a major player.

I fear that the kind of personal moral nobility you seem to demand of people who represent views that worry you is based on your inner and unspoken desire for those people to simply not be in any position to make their views known. Then and only then will they meet your stringent requirements for moral purity...because then you'll get exactly what you want: they won't be heard.

What bothers you about Moore, I suspect, is his message, not his moral fibre.

Moore has not said he's against capitalism. He has said he's against greedy and unscrupulous and dishonest and antisocial business practices that damage 95% of society for the benefit of 5% of society. Rule by a tiny elite is what that is. It's not democracy.