20091014

lovethedollar

Capitalism: A Love Story

There are many things which need to be said, but which Michael Moore, by his stunt antics and controversy-inspiring reputation, risks driving people away when he says them.

This is actually the first Michael Moore film I've seen, and I think it's pretty good. It starts off a little shaky, though the introduction about Rome was cleverly done, and the film builds up well to tell its message. Its momentum is broken at a couple points by some of Moore's stunts --I think they're supposed to be comic relief. But overall, it works.

Early on it implies the rise of exploitative corporatist capitalism is relatively recent, coming under Reagan's presidency. The history of wealthy private interests turning the institutions of government to support their ends goes back farther, including the impetus of most of the U.S.'s less well known and less celebrated wars. I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact, but Moore does not delve into this history, nor are the names of any recent or classic critics of capitalism to be heard, nor any interviews of the same. This gives the film a certain quality, as a liquid suspension of moral appeals filled with free-floating facts. Long on facts, short on history. It works, but I can't be sure it's the best way to make a documentary. In particular because it doesn't provide so many useful hooks for viewers to go on and find out more for themselves. The bibliography is a truly critical part of any informative piece, whether written or filmed.

Left-but-not-too-left people often come off as too forgiving and supportive of Democratic Party politicians, seeing them as the good guys merely for being less obvious supporters of corporatism. The film shows a little of this tendency, but does show how prominent Democratic Congresspeople capitulated and sabotaged the mass popular opposition to the bank bailouts.

Moore asks several priests about the moral nature of capitalism. (Answer: it is an evil to be eliminated.) He presents both his own Catholic faith and the words of the American founding fathers as in opposition to capitalism as practiced. The Catholic Church has a sordid political history, with the hierarchy of the Church often supporting reactionary and fascist leaders and causes. But there is also a history of priests working with the people against these powers. In this way Moore illustrates the conflict between unadulterated capitalism and the radical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

The film also explores co-ops as a valid alternative to the power-profit system of corporations. It shows us a successful American electronics manufacturer and a baked goods producer where every worker is an owner -not with a mere stock option, but an equal-share-owning decision-maker for the business. This part isn't given as much time and attention as it deserves, Moore should show viewers more about cooperatives, participatory economics, and other from-below alternatives. Worldwide, there are actually millions of people who have gainful employment through co-ops. The film could also use some mention of credit unions as a contrast to banks. As Ralph Nader noted when the news was focused on the banks in collapse, the credit unions were generally doing just fine.

Moore seems to take the change and hope message of Obama's electoral campaign at face value (a message numerous left and independent sources in my observation were skeptical of even then.) Seems to. To his credit Moore actually focuses on the direct action from below by people inspired by the message, rather than on any alleged change from above through the administration. He highlights actions such as the taking of Republic Windows and Doors in a strike, community actions directly resisting home foreclosures (not rallying around a government building, but rallying around the bank's agent and the local police as the family moves back in), and a Sheriff's decision not to enforce or allow foreclosures in his jurisdiction. This is the film's closing argument, intended to inspire we the people watching the film to further actions.

See the movie. But don't stop at the movie. Take its message to act, but inform yourself further to understand the context of the problem and the available solutions.

A few helpful google terms: the shock doctrine; economic hit man; Friedman and Pinochet; mutual aid; Noam Chomsky; participatory democracy; Edward Bernays propaganda; Walter Lippmann public opinion
 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Additionally, for clarification I grant that "unauthorized commercial use" generally only applies if the work itself is the object of exchange, and specifically that a site with click-through or advertising income is welcome to share it (attrib, no-deriv, otherwise non-com), so long as the work shared is openly available to all and not subject to sale or paid access. Any elements of my works that might be original to others are Fair Use, and you are left to your own to make sure your own use of them is likewise.