In his sixth major pseudo-documentary film, Michael Moore essentially attempts to summarize the underlying thesis of all of the others. “Capitalism: A Love Story” is anything but an ode to the American form of the economic system of the title. It is, rather, a loosely scripted and altogether mean-spirited screed in which Moore shows his disdain for anything that rewards human greed.
The problem with the film is not in its entertainment value. As with all Moore polemics (including his several books, which largely speak to the same theme), this film is all about finding a way to make misery funny.
Moore is nothing if not a consummate entertainer, and, while his shtick (seeking out the “bad guys,” microphone in hand, to try to get them to “confess” their sins) has grown just a little tired since he first introduced it in “Roger and Me” two decades ago, it still works fairly well, even when he tries to corral Wall Street traders as they hustle out of the New York Stock Exchange.
As with most of Moore’s cinematic “studies” of a subject, he is all over the place, both figuratively and literally. In “Capitalism,” he is on Wall Street one minute and in D.C the next. He rails against inside traders and on-the-take politicians. He despises corporate greed and human greed. He uses the down-trodden and those dealt a cruel hand by fate as props, including the weeping widow and the homeless family as victims of the nasty system he scorns.
It is easy to see why Moore is despised by those on the political right, although in this film he is no less hard on many on the left. Connecticut’s Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, in particular, gets hit very hard for an alleged ethics violation that may have bordered on criminal conduct, if the charges Moore presents are true. (Dodd claimed it was an innocent, albeit stupid, mistake when it was first revealed in the mainstream media.)
Moore never pulls a punch. He’s like a heavyweight boxer who only knows how to throw haymakers. When they connect, those blows are potent. When they miss, you can chuckle, shrug, or just dismiss him entirely. Too often, in this film, you’re only left with those three options.
In a large sense, Moore misses his mark because he mistakes what he should be aiming at. It isn’t capitalism, per se, that is the problem; it’s capitalism in twenty-first century America that is.
Stated more precisely, it’s capitalism cum corporatism that is the evil Moore’s wrath should be directed at.
Capitalism, lest we forget (as Moore apparently has), is what provided many Americans with a better life in the years following the Industrial Revolution and, even more meaningfully, in the decades between World War II and the Viet Nam War. The ability of many entrepreneurs to benefit from their own enterprises during those years led to an explosion of wealth that elevated the lifestyles of a large percentage of American workers as well as the owners of the businesses in which they worked.
When it is thoughtfully regulated and controlled, capitalism can provide an effective means for satisfying individual greed, which, lest we forget the many failures of socialist “experiments,” is an endemic part of the human condition that must be acknowledged and appeased. “Keeping up with the Joneses,” was the catch phrase of the 1950s, not because the Joneses were evil, but because everyone wanted a larger piece of the pie, and if the Joneses could get it, why shouldn’t we (everyone else)?
But somewhere along the way, capitalism in America got twisted. We don’t talk about keeping up with the Joneses anymore, because the focus of our current form of capitalism isn’t on the individual. It’s on the corporation.
Thus, we see Congress passing laws, not based on what is good for the consumer (or the worker) but based on what is good for mega-corporations. And they, in turn, serve only themselves (i.e. their top managers and corporate executives first and foremost, their shareholders almost as an after-thought, and the public only if it can’t be manipulated into submission in most cases).
Freedom of choice (for consumers), a key element of capitalism at its best, has been replaced over the last forty years with freedom from restraint (for corporations). “Don’t tread on me,” is much more likely now to be a cry from corporate board rooms than from individual citizens.
If Moore had approached his subject from this perspective, he would have focused on the strange legal construct that American capitalism now serves. Think for a moment about the nature and existence of a corporation.
It is, by law, given all the rights and immunities of a real person, with precious few of the concomitant responsibilities. It cannot be thrown in jail, and any and all efforts to punish it are met with cries that the innocent (shareholders and workers) will be the ones who suffer most if it is (an often all-too-true fact).
And the larger a corporation gets, the more indestructible it becomes (as witness the bailouts for the largest banks and automotive companies just this year). Corporations largely control our legislative agendas. They donate heavily to politicians who desperately need their “contributions” to attain (and stay in) office, and they are most effective at lobbying Congress and state legislatures, largely because they can afford permanent staff for just that purpose.
Corporations increasingly control the information Americans receive via their news media. You think you get all the news, fair and balanced, that’s fit to print? Check out the ownership of your favorite news source.
Put it all together, and you have a system that worships at the feet of institutions that care only about themselves, that seek to control what the masses want, that ignore the needs of society and the future of the planet, that, in sum, represent the worst that humanity can be.
We live in the Golden Age of the Corporation. It is the fatted calf of our decadent society. Corporatism is the evil. Capitalism is just the vehicle.
Thanks for enlarging upon Moore’s polemic. Too bad you dislike him. He is a great voice in America, such as Theodore Dreiser and Upton Sinclair of bygone times.
Jim –
I don’t dislike him. I think he’s great. Not sure he’d put him in the same class as Dreiser or Sinclair, but he is a legitimate voice from the left who packages his messages in highly entertaining presentations.
In this film, however, I think he would have been more effective — and more on target — to focus on the point I addressed in my column.
-Ed
You hit on some valid points here.
Moore does not pull punches, and perhaps it’s his method of sharing his message that leaves me cringing at times. He tends to be a bit rude when dealing with people.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what his lifestyle is after raking it in with his books and movies. I’d like to feel he donates to charity, helps those homeless folks he speaks of. I am not judging, as I don’t know. I did read of a 12K donation he made to a man who ran an anti-moore site. The donation (anonymous) was for his wife’s medical fees. Impressive.
Capitislism as we know it, died out when the mom and pop shops were bought out creating 711’s a la’ corporations. Corporations remind me of huge robots, amassing wealth for the top few with no moral compass or compassion for humans.
At the end of the day, I applaud anyone who can portray the human experience.
I’m so relieved that I’m not the only who views MM’s latest film as the abortion that it is. I remember getting irritated as I watched this film in the theatre. I loved “Roger & Me” and “Bowling for Columbine ” was okay, but like all of his films since, “Capitalism” is a subpar effort and just feels gimmicky. I know a movie is not like a court proceeding, but he doesn’t present the facts accurately and he just knocks you over with his pov. At least he’s entertaining.
It’s two hours of MM just constantly opining about how capitalism is evil and how socialism is some sort of prize. He constantly hammers you over the head with his capitalism must be eradicated completely message without telling you the rest of the story. And oh yea, I almost forgot, capitalism makes the baby Jesus cry. No, seriously , he includes a “capitalism is unchristian” angle.
MM presents capitalism as some sort of conspiracy. The only conspiracy here is the conspiracy to make as much money as possible (the goal and duty of any business). I reject the notion that capitalism is inherently “evil.” I think there are some bad people out there and in their quest for wealth, things get swept under the rug or a tire blows out once in while, but I don’t think capitalism itself is evil. And I don’t think the people involved are any more evil than anyone else. But they aren’t saints, either.
Capitalism is the only economic system that creates opportunities for people to achieve their goals and dreams and to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle (which I’ve grown accustomed to, and especially after experiencing real poverty as a little girl, I’m not prepared to give up). And there’s nothing wrong with wanting to make money, in it of itself.
Moore’s take, holding the European model as a shining example of all that is right and relevant with the world, has no depth and made me want to hurl my big tub of popcorn at the screen. Yes, the government over there takes care of your needs. The state provides you with health care, benefits and a warm jacket in the winter, if you can’t afford it. But now tell the rest of it. What about the part where, there are no miracles, either. No opportunities for advancement. Your life never really changes. No upward mobility; not really.
My mom told me that she didn’t pay one mark while attending the University of Bonn (then West Germany) Over there, the government paid (and I think still does) for your entire education (K – Ph.D). While that may sound appealing, you are not truly free to choose your own path, either. Because they pay for it, they tell you based on their own criteria what you can do and where you get to study. Here, there are many paths to success and our educational system (thank whichever unnamed deity) is very forgiving. My mom says that, over there, for the most part it’s all based on a high stakes standardized exam and there are no mulligans. If my parents stayed in Germany, and I ended being raised there, do you think my dyslexic ass would be in law school today?
If your answer is anything other than “hell no, they would have thrown you in a labor camp along with all of the other undesirables!”, there is something you need to understand about Moore’s utopia. “Free” is a misnomer. Our way of life, comes at a cost.
Over there, if grandma gets sick and starts coughing up blood and you take her to the ER, a guy in a white coat will give her some morphine and send her home to die. If that same doctor did that here, all the med mal lawyers would jump his ass and he loses his medical license.
And since when is “big” a bad thing? Personally, I like big. I like big houses, big cars, big margaritas–big everything! I like the free market. I like choices. Look, Big Oil and Big Pharm are all in it to make money. And while they’re at it, they’re also providing you with a means of transportation and saving lives. Big Pharm with all their greed has come up with AZT, protease inhibitors and whatever new cocktails that now make AIDS more like a chronic condition rather than a fatal disease.
And Moore’s pulling words from the United States Constitution out of context was just. . .what was that, anyway? Yeah, Michael, I’m really sure that’s what the Framer’s intended. Look, I don’t think you have the right to a roof over your head; I don’t think you have the right to transportation; I don’t think you have the right to health care. I don’t think you have the right to anything–except for the right to go out and pursue it–to earn it, free of discrimination and government encumbrances.
All we need are some good regulations. If the corporations try anything, we’ll sick the lawyers on ’em. Winston Churchill said it best, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
And word, VD.
The hypocrisy is what really bumps me more than his message. Years ago I dated this guy who just idolized MM. And he would drive me nuts with his “capitalism is crushing the underclass” all the time (annoying yes, but he was just so gorgeous, don’t judge me!). I’d walk in with my Starbuck’s and he would condescendingly ask me how I was enjoying my “cup of children’s tears” (and of course, I would take a big sip, smile, and in my best little girl voice say, “mmmm, delicious! I requested an extra shot of oppression and the dusting of emotional abuse really adds that special something, don’t you think?”
:-* ).
He’s one of these guy’s who walks around quoting Nietsche and Chomsky all the time, as though that’s the same as working for Doctors without Borders. It was actually quite hilarious. He would just randomly dive into these soliloquies against materialism and the injustice of it all and something about children.. . He would wax on, ad nauseum, about how all evil emanates from corporate America and how it needed to be destroyed (just like his hero, MM!). It just kind of killed the mood if you know what I mean.
And it would have been fine if it didn’t ring hallow for me and how seriously can you take someone like this, anyway? His entire Stanford tuition, not to mention his super wicked cool Porsche, was paid for by “corporate america” vis-a-vis his corporate lawyer parents (did someone just say, “irony!”?). Personally, I would show a bit more appreciation towards the source of my good fortune if I were him. What was even more awesome was, when I would invite him to come volunteer with me at any number of the great causes I was involved in, he no longer seemed so concerned with helping the needy.
Shocking, I know. 😉
Ashley –
There are many forms of capitalism, just as there are many forms of socialism. I don’t think it is helpful to have a simplistic definition of either system, which is a major flaw in Moore’s film.
But let’s not kid ourselves, unregulated capitalism is a high-risk business (pardon the pun). It has led to significant crises in our country over the last 100 years, and each time it has been due to a significant laissez-faire attitude by government policy makers.
And, while Moore may go too far in claiming capitalism is un-Christian, we should also acknowledge that nothing in Christ’s teachings suggests a capitalist model either. In fact, Christ seemed to suggest that the more successful one is in gaining financial/material wealth, the less likely that person is to enter the Kingdom of God. (I’ll spare everyone the chapter and verse, but let me know if you need it.)
My basic point is that when capitalism turns into corporatism, as I assert it has in 21st century America, it does lose its many benefits. For example, in a corporatist system, the ability of the individual to plot his/her own destiny is thwarted, not enhanced, and the likelihood that the common good will be better served is reduced, not increased.
We need to get beyond the current state of political debate where anything that purports to fix a mess created by free enterprise is considered socialism and where anyone who espouses government involvement in our economic system is called a “communist.”
Thanks as always, for your contributions to “Meals.”
-Ed
Ed-
I think you missed one major point of the movie. Too often when we think of Capitalism and want to hammer home a point, we simply bring up the post war era. That’s a nice tactic simply because we saw an unprecedented three decades of growth in wages, productivity, and profits. In other words, it appeared that everyone was winning. Too bad its an utter fallacy to use thirty years as a way to represent an economic history that has three centuries of counter examples. Were one to take a similarly narrowly historic view and just look at the last thirty years, then you would come to a different conclusion. Low rates of profit for corporations but high total profits during an era of increasing poverty, declining wages, and mass informalization.
So which is it? Which era do we look at? The point is to quit looking just at the post war boom (which I might add was a boom for some not for others–ask the black veterans who were patently denied home mortgages and access to federal benefits). Instead, begin to look at the longer history of the system. Why did the regulation break down in the mid-70s through to the repeal of Glass-Steagall? The answer is largely because the capitalists were working hard throughout the entire post-war period to break down the power of any political organization that limited their so-called right to exploit land and people in order to maintain their domination. (People tend to call the post-war era a compromise between labor and capital, but if you look closer it was an offensive by capital throughout–see the Taft-Hartley Act in the late 40s for an example.) During the late 70s the offensive by capitalists–largely through the work of The Business Roundtable–really broke through and was able to force its agenda onto the US citizens. Union busting, deregulation, and the devolution of the welfare state ensued. With it so did the livelihoods of millions of citizens.
So how is that you can attempt to separate Capitalism as a system from the deregulatory and repressive acts of capitalists in their on-going fight for competitive advantage? Regulation occurs in an environment utterly saturated by the capitalist control of the state apparatus. In order to make your claims, Ed, you’ll have to show how you can separate the state from capital.
–David
David –
I’m not sure what “claims” you object to. I don’t think I made any regarding capitalism other than that it no longer exists in anything remotely resembling the system that was originally intended and that carried the country through its major period of economic development.
If you see me as an apologist for capitalism, I failed in presenting my thesis. I’m neither a fan nor a foe of it in the abstract. What I do oppose is the form of capitalism that exists in our country today, which I refer to as corporatism.
-Ed
Just read all of this.
WELL, I agree that corporatism – i.e. the corporatacracy – should be highlighted more by MM, and that his latest film flounders heavily in its unfocused argument. He seems to appeal to often to emotions, and to simple-minded people. Capitalism is a terrible system for many rational reasons, which I won’t bother enumerating here. Suffice to say, Ashley, that there is indeed something very much wrong with wanting to make money, in it of itself.
Ashley, your discussion of the woes of Europe really bother me. I feel a certain personal vengeance in your writing against Europe. Sicko, a much better MM film, characterizes Europe pretty well, I think. having spent time there, I can vouch for it being a healthier society.
I want to point to three films that are much better than Capitalism: A Love Story:
1) The Corporation
2) Zetigeist: Addendum
3) Bigger, Stronger, Faster
Any system that promotes profit above the public good is broken. Dad, you do come off as a capitalist sympathizer. Ashley, you really go overboard with it.
Finally, yes, we do have a right to a meal and a roof. I was very much moved by FDRs additional Bill of Rights. Why can’t we do this as a “great” nation??
My dear Keith, please know that I was being facetious. My comments, singing capitalism’s virtues, aren’t to be taken so literally. We really aren’t so different, you and I. 😉
Okay, being serious for one minute, I agree wholeheartedly that any system that places profits over people is seriously flawed and in desperate need of repair. And while I believe that people should have food and shelter, they are not “rights.” I wasn’t using the word “right” in the morally/socially good/just sense, I meant it in the legal sense. A right is something that can never be taken away from you.
But my real issue with this film (and with Moore, generally) is that, instead of really delving into the real evil of capitalism (“corporatism”), he demonizes capitalism generally (using the techniques you point out) and paints this rosy picture of life in Europe (he specifically mentions Germany)–Which is incomplete, inaccurate, and rife with ulterior motive.
Regarding my comments re socialism and Europe, please allow me to explain where exactly I’m coming from. My comments were really poking fun of what I consider a flaw in Moore’s sophomoric portrayal of the two systems. And also, to point out that, while it’s easy to rail against the injustices of capitalism, the grass isn’t always greener on the other side (I agree that we, society, need to get away from the extreme capitalism vs. socialism is a zero-sum game).
More than half of my family is ethnically and culturally German. I’m an American citizen only because my parents decided that life in Germany sucked so hard (even with their basic needs met) that they decided to take their chances in the U.S. What they have achieved here would have been impossible over there. And I’ve grown up listening to the horror stories of my relatives and their friends (German citizens living in Germany and throughout Europe), including my 19 year old cousin who was raised and educated in Germany. My point, there are other considerations. I think we take many things for granted here.
Personally, I value opportunity, and giving people the chance to succeed and pursue their dreams. And I don’t believe that the German model fosters that (for reasons that would take me a ridiculous amount of text to explain here). I think what you are picking up on is my feelings toward the discrimination and unfairness of that system.
I don’t want to ignite a flame war here, Keith, but I am very interested in knowing what, specifically, about my discussion of Europe offends you (other than my over the top enthusiasm for capitalism and blowing Europe’s healthcare system out of proportion, I concede that and know better). I’m curious where your energy comes from.
Where in Europe have you travelled to? How long did you spend in those countries? In what way is it a healthier society? I would love to know what you observed during your travels and how you reached your conclusions. I agree that Europe offers many wonderful things. What do you think they are?
And finally, do you really believe that making money, in it of itself and without harming anyone, is “wrong?” Really? If so, what about it do you take issue with?
Again, I’m not trying to challenge you or even disagree with you, I’m honestly interested. I find it fascinating.
Anyway, I don’t know if you will read this, but if you do, I hope you will post again–or feel free to email me if this thread is running too long.
Prost!
~Ashley
This turned out to be an exclleent conversation.Stacy’s point about the truth being in the pudding when it comes to just how much entrepreneurialism is celebrated in the U.S. only to the extent that you represent some major institution was brilliant. Max’s comments on libertarianism were also quite good.It’s a debate none of the Ron Paul people are really having, i.e. what is the meaning of libertarianism? For most, unfortunately, it seems to be a kind of enlightened anarchism, in other words. a fantasy. We have no rules, no laws, but everything works fine because we act like upstanding white Protestants. An easy question to ask a libertarian (free market fundamentalist) is: If you are against government regulation, are you against government regulations against fraud? If you are a true libertarian/free market fundamentalist you would have to say, yes, I am against government regulations against fraud, which would put you in the absurd position of saying the market will take care of/protect against fraud.The problem here, as always, is that economics doesn’t take place in a vacuum. It takes place in the context of a civilization. These economic ideologues, however, define their position by overlooking that fact.The discussion of the self-perception of have vs. have not in the U.S. was also entertaining. This point has long been made in relation to Thatcher’s England: everybody in the U.K. was satisfied with poverty in exchange for the chance to be ultra-rich.