Michael Moore’s newest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, is an emotionally devastating movie that effectively dispels the notion that capitalist principles are at the root of American greatness. Through careful editing of archival footage, insightful interviews, and his own home movies, Moore paints a portrait of a nation whose greatness has been systematically undermined by those who claimed to be merely perpetuating its traditions.
Moore begins his documentary by inviting the viewer to take a glance at his childhood, portrayed here as an idyllic slice of Americana of the kind that conservatives often cite when making their pleas for a return to “American values”. Moore talks movingly about his father’s union job, his modest home, and the pleasure his family took in luxuries such as Christmas morning. Moore, however, states that this way of life was not made possible by unbridled, competitive capitalism of the variety proposed by contemporary conservatives, but by the thrift and modesty of hard-working men like his father. By directly attacking a main conservative talking point, Moore begins his convincing assault on the economic system that has for far too long been allowed to be manipulated by corporate pirates in the spirit of “American values”.
The most effective sections of this film are those in which Moore shows us lives that were destroyed by policies made possible by deregulation of the American financial system. Homes have been stolen from hard-working families whose only crime was dealing with a bank that chose to participate in risky financial dealings, and use these families’ futures as collateral. One family shown in the film is compelled to clean out their own house and destroy their belongings before the bank seizes the home, in the hopes of securing a check from the bank for a pitiful sum. Even more egregious is the obscure policy of “dead peasants insurance”. As the name implies, this policy allows large companies to secretly take out life insurance policies on their workers, and to then collect exorbitant sums of money when they pass away. An economic system that encourages industries to take a vested interest in the demise of its workers can not be defended by any sane progressive, or for that matter any sane American.
Moore also brings to light a shocking memo from CitiGroup, issued to a select group of powerful shareholders in 2006. This memo clarifies what many astute observers already knew: that America is swiftly becoming a nation by, for, and of the incredibly wealthy. This memo speaks approvingly of an American society in which all political power if effectively in the hands of the wealthy. The memo gloats about the growing disparity in wealth distribution in America. The author(s) of the memo advises the readers that the USA is becoming a “plutonomy”, a state in which the country is governed, either directly or indirectly, by the small group of people who control the majority of the wealth. This memo only serves to confirm that those who are benefitting from the current economic system are deliberately depriving the American public of both their financial security and their political clout.
One concern I had with the film was Moore’s insistence that the root of the problem of inequitable wealth was capitalism itself. Although I am a progressive, if Moore is trying to insist that socialism will cure all of our ills, he is a far less intelligent man than I had previously thought.
At the movie’s otherwise stirring conclusion, he proposes that capitalism be replaced with “democracy”. Although this sounds like a nice idea, democracy is a political system, one that is best accompanied by capitalism. Moore should have more clearly made the point that capitalism is not inherently structured to destroy equality, but that if the wrong people are allowed to shape it then that occurrence will be inevitable.
Despite the above issue, and in spite of some over the top grandstanding by Mr. Moore, Capitalism is a must-see movie for anyone interested in exploring the root causes of our current economic crisis. It shows that America has not been undone by irresponsible homeowners, or by lazy workers, or even by illegal immigrants. Rather, the entire American public has been betrayed by a select group of powerful men whose unquenchable thirst for wealth is threatening to tear apart the fabric of this great nation. Although it is clearly aimed at progressive audiences, I urge people of all political biases to see this movie, and to strive to reclaim our country from those who have discreetly stolen it from us.
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.
James Butler
Latest posts by James Butler (see all)
- Bill Clinton Rallies Stony Brook Students Ahead of Midterm Elections - November 2, 2010
- President Clinton to Appear at Stony Brook University - October 26, 2010
- Stony Brook, Meet Carl Paladino - September 20, 2010
I’ve not yet seen the film but what comes to mind when I read your fifth paragraph is that I’d like you to read an essay entitled “Henry George and the Reconstruction of Capitalism.” It is available online, among other places, at http://wealthandwant.com/, a website created because ‘A democratic republic alone is not enough to produce general prosperity.’
Here’s an excerpt from the essay:
“A little Socialism here, and a little Capitalism there; a concern for the public sector here, and a concession to the profit motive there; a sop to the “underprivileged” here, and a bow to incentive there — put them all together, and what have you got? Nothing but a great big rag-bag, a haphazard pastiche of odds and ends without any bones and without any guts!
Nevertheless, there is a Middle Way. There is a body of socio-economic truth which incorporates the best insights of both Capitalism and Socialism. Yet they are not insights that are artificially woven together to form a deliberate compromise. Instead, they arise naturally, with a kind of inner logic, from the profound ethical distinction which is the system’s core. They arise remorselessly from an understanding of the meaning of the commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” This Middle Way is the philosophy associated with the name of Henry George.
I like to picture economic theory as a vast jigsaw puzzle distributed across two tables, one called Capitalism and the other, Socialism. But mingled with the genuine pieces of the puzzle are many false pieces, also distributed across both tables. Most of us are either perceptively limited to one table, or else we are unable to distinguish the genuine pieces from the false. But Henry George knew how to find the right pieces, and, therefore, he was able to put the puzzle together — at least in its general outlines. I don’t claim that he was infallible, or that there isn’t further work to be done. Yet if I find a little piece of puzzle missing here or there, it doesn’t shake my confidence in the harmony of the overall pattern he discerned. It doesn’t make me want to sweep the puzzle onto the floor and start all over again from scratch.”
I commend it to your attention.
On re-reading the essay referenced above, I think you might like this paragraph:
“We will begin with the Capitalist table. George considered himself a purifier of Capitalism, not its enemy. He built upon the foundations laid by the classical economists. The skeleton of his system is essentially Capitalist. In fact, Karl Marx referred to George’s teaching as “Capitalism’s last ditch.” George believed in competition, in the free market, in the unrestricted operation of the laws of supply and demand. He distrusted government and despised bureaucracy. He was no egalitarian leveler; the only equality he sought was equal freedom of opportunity. Actually, what he intended was to make free enterprise truly free, by ridding it of the monopolistic hobbles which prevent its effective operation.”
and then this:
“In fitting together the economic jigsaw puzzle, George took only two pieces from the Socialist table. But what large and what strategic pieces they were!
The first of these was his insistence that all persons come into the world with an equal right of access to the goods of nature.
The second was his contention that the community has a right to take that which the community produces.
Actually, these pieces had landed on the Socialist table only by default. They had originally been part of the theory of Capitalism, as outlined by John Locke, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith. But Capitalism in practice ignored them, and so became a distorted caricature. George’s notion was to rescue these lost elements, and restore balance and proportion to the Capitalist table.”
Great review. While I did not see the movie, after reading your description and comments, i most likely will.