Film Review Of Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story"

[Rakhmetov]

Here are two shocking revelations Moore makes. The first involves something that is actually called "dead peasant insurance." Did you know that companies can take out life insurance policies on their workers, so that they collect the benefits when we die? This is one form of employee insurance they don't have a problem with. Companies don't usually inform a surviving spouse of the money they've made from a death.


The second is the reckless, immoral gambling referred to as "derivatives." I've read that derivatives are so complex they're created by computers and not even the software authors really understand them. Moore asks three experts to explain them to him. All three fail. Essentially, they involve bets placed on the expectation that we will default on our mortgages, for example. If we do, the bets pay off. What if we don't? Investors can hedge their bets, by betting that they will fail. They hope to win both ways.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090930/REVIEWS/909309994

[Pogue]

Is the film itself any good? I heard the scene at the occupied factory is good (obviously its real).

[ellipsis]

has it opened?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It open in NYC and LA. It will open nationally on Friday - comrades should see it and shout at the screen like it's a horror movie!

No... no! Don't privatize that! Oh, no look behind you, they're going to make you give concessions!

Ok, don't really do that... maybe at the end stand up and tell the audience that organizing ourselves and fighting in our own interests is the only way we will win.

[Kukulofori]

I saw an advance screening last night. Michael Moore does that already and it's the whole point of the movie.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, I just like shouting in theaters. Actually, the only recent time I shouted in a movie theater was when the big theater chain was advertising Glenn Beck's "comedy" tour before the movies: "Booooo! Fascism aint comedy."

[Invincible Summer]

Yeah I like heckling the previews/ads... not so much the movie itself though, unless it's really really bad.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'll probably go see this when I get the chance, I never expect too much from Michael Moore's overtly liberal films but there are usually a few interesting facts to learn from them, a la Mengistu's post.

[pierrotlefou]

I saw it today. Was pretty good. The dead peasant thing was pretty disturbing and he does a good job at showing how both the democrats and republicans are fucking the people and that the whole system is at fault. Hopefully liberal democrats will see this and see their new found leadership over america isn't fixing anything either.

[Red Heretic]

I wrote a review of this film as well. I think there were many positive aspects to the film... but ultimately there was a certain American chauvinism and arrogance that removed whatever positive aspects there were to this film. If people are interested check it out:

"Capitalism: A Love Story," A Critique of American Capitalism Stuck in American Capitalism (http://thefirecollective.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132:capitalism-a-love-story-a-critique-of-american-capitalism-stuck-in-american-capitalism&catid=25:blog&Itemid=115)

[Kukulofori]

Removed whatever positive aspects there were? That's absurd. It's a thorough, accessible critique of capitalism that will reach millions of people and likely bring serious questioning of capitalism to be a credible force in American politics.

I responded to your critique. Tldr you're being needlessly sectarian and nitpicking over shit that doesn't matter.

[Psy]

Removed whatever positive aspects there were? That's absurd. It's a thorough, accessible critique of capitalism that will reach millions of people and likely bring serious questioning of capitalism to be a credible force in American politics.

I responded to your critique. Tldr you're being needlessly sectarian and nitpicking over shit that doesn't matter.

Moore said the rich are afraid of us because of our vote, this is absurd they are afraid of us for us for two reasons, one without our labor nothing gets done (meaning general strikes grinds capitalism to a halt) the next is our huge numbers meaning when ever we collectively move the capitalists shake in fear before our collective might.

The reason the police didn't evict the house with the crowd in front of it because they were fearful of sparking a larger crowd demanding more then just a house, same with capitalists giving into the Republic Windows & Door worker demands, the capitalists are terrified of the thought of the proletariat getting angry as large collectives instead of in pockets.

[KurtFF8]

I saw it and liked it a lot.

Certainly there are some shortcomings in it, but in understanding the context this films comes from (major motion picture release in the USA that criticizes capitalism and calls for its abolishing) makes it quite an accomplishment I would say.

We can go on all day about how he fails to take up a specific party line or engages in proper revolutionary theory, but at the end of the day: this film is more of a help to the left in America than a burden by far.

[Red Heretic]

Removed whatever positive aspects there were? That's absurd. It's a thorough, accessible critique of capitalism that will reach millions of people and likely bring serious questioning of capitalism to be a credible force in American politics.

I responded to your critique. Tldr you're being needlessly sectarian and nitpicking over shit that doesn't matter.

Hey Kukulofori, thanks for your response, I replied on the site.. but I'd just like to say that nitpicking and sectarianism are hardly my intention.

My thinking here is that we, as communists, need to raise sights and contribute to the development of revolutionary consciousness as best that we can. Certainly there is much to be united with in this film, there is not question about that.

But the fact of the matter is that I don't think you can talk about American capitalism without talking about U.S. imperialism. American capitalism IS U.S. imperialism. That is the mode of production for the US and how its economy functions... by exploiting the majority of humanity. If we pretend that this isn't the basis of the economy, we end up promoting and defending solutions to this crisis that are really harmful to the world revolution, the international proletariat, and ultimately humanity.

[the last donut of the night]

I just watched the movie today and found it to be astounding. No, Moore isn't a communist, or a socialist -- he's a social democrat. A Green/Ralph Naderite. This movie, in the later parts, makes various mistakes on its critique of capitalism -- it focuses too much on the financial sector, laissez-faire policies, and the U.S. It basically advocates democratic socialism.

However, this movie is astounding because it reaches out to a large audience on the premise of capitalism. It pokes fingers at capitalism. It makes people think. Alternavely, it hints at the s-word -- socialism.

I used to be a liberal. What got me into being a communist wasn't Karl Marx, or Bob Akavian, or the Internationale posted up on Youtube. It was the kind of stuff on "Capitalism: A Love A Story". Stuff that made me think about this current economic system, and class struggle. It opened my curiosity. This movie may reignite a larger debate on socialism in this country.

[Pogue]

How popular has it been?

[Jimmie Higgins]

How popular has it been?

In total sales it's tied for 6th with the rollerskating movie behind the zombie movie and 3 animated kids movies. I saw FOX news talking about how the movie is a failure because it came in 7th, but it also isn't playing in as many theaters as "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs". On a per-screen basis, the movie is outselling the other "top 10" movies (aside from maybe the Zombie one, but who could blame people for wanting to see that).

I went to see it on a Tuesday night and it wasn't that crowded - then again neither were any of the other movies. It's probably doing less than 911 did, but that movie only had conservatives shitting on it, this movie has liberals and conservatives shitting on it. Even favorable reviews say "aw why'd he haft take on the whole system, corruption is the real problem, not capitalism" and call Moore "shrill" (apparently "shrill" or "egomaniac" is the liberal euphemism anyone to their left because that's what Cindy Sheehan and Ralph Nader get called in the US press).

[Orange Juche]

Just saw the film, and loved it.

While I do recognize it's downfalls - not discussing the full effects of capitalism (the third world), being light on Obama, and allowing Bernie Sanders to spread the myth that he's a socialist when he's really a social democrat... theres far too much good to it that those are, in the context of a movie thats actually being released in major theaters, forgivable.

It exposes the failings of capitalism in a populist way that Americans who watch it can relate to, it takes away the stereotypical myth of an godless beast that wants to burn your church down and enslave your friends and family. It talks about it in away that an regular, politically unenlightened, average Joe can digest. It brings the idea of an anti-capitalist alternative in a word that Americans love to fling around so much - democracy. And really, that's all socialism is about. It ends with Michael Moore saying Capitalism is evil - and evil cannot be regulated. That it needs to be destroyed and replaced with democracy.

I think this is the most important film of our time. Not because of the film itself, but because it's going to inspire a whole new generation of people to look outside the box, to challenge capitalism, to become anti-capitalists. This film is going to be a big spark in overcoming the cold war scare tactics and propaganda. Because it's going to get more people to think from a perspective that was previously socially "forbidden."

[Prairie Fire]

First of all, I will give Moore credit for making certain ideas mainstream (what other remotely progressive or even politically challenging material are you going to see at a multiplex cinema?), and for his interviews with the working people of the United States and coverage of their struggles, which helped to energize me a bit.

On the flipside, it must be stated that "Capitalism: A love story" is not a condemnation of capitalism.

It is a "middle class" lament.

It is an Obama promotional video.

It is periodic social-democratic indulgence to release latent tensions that threaten to burst the restraining tethers of bourgeois society.

As usual, I don't care for Mikes theatrics. In general, I think that "street theatre" is an impotent mode of political agitiation, and his clown tactics rarely yield constructive results. On the other hand, I recognize that he has to maintain an element of mass appeal, so he packages his film as a comedic documentary, as opposed to the conventional stuff on PBS.

The show begins, as does most Moore films, with a montage of old media clips and clips from his own child-hood home films, showing a flurry of 50's American nuclear families enjoying themselves in decadence (ie. Waterskiing) and working in industry, representing American capitalism in it's consumeristic, not-yet-moribund state during the early cold war.

So, early in the film it becomes clear that by no means is Moore criticizing capitalism. On the contrary, he exhalts it to the high heavens, and waxes nostalgic about it during his youth.

He shows this montage of clips representing how good capitalism was at one point, all with only the most minimal references to Imperialism (how can anyone do a serious documentary about capitalism by focusing on the one country that is the recipient of all of the finished goods,wealth and flow of capital?). He states, without irony, that the US auto-manufacturing sector rose to prominence because of the destruction of the of the manufacturing sectors of both Germany and Japan (including horrific crimes against humynity like the attacks on civilian population centres at Dresden,Hiroshima and Nagasaki). What Moore is more quiet about is how these defeated countries were then turned into proxies of the United States, and markets for their exported goods (he does point out that the United States re-wrote the constitutions of the defeated Axis powers, but paints this as a very positive thing rather than imperialism).

So, it is not Capitalism that Moore is criticizing; it is the post-cold war polarization in wealth. It is the decimation of the "middleclass", and their subsequent loss of socio-economic privilages.

Moore than goes on to feature a lot of stuff about "What does Christianity think of Capitalism?". This may ruffle the feathers of the more materialist and anti-thiest, but I actually don't criticize Moore for this approach. The United States is a deeply religious country, so he is finding his way to make some ideas acceptable to the existing level of conciousness of the people ( I myself began as a Christian Marxist, despite the obvious contradiction). Scoffing at the religious sentiments of millions of American workers negates them, so Moore instead doesn't directly tell them "abandon all ye Gods!" when he is (supposedly) targetting capitalism.

The only issue with this is, from a materialist point of view, it becomes pure bourgeois metaphysics. Moore literally asks the Catholic priests and Bishops "is Capitalism a Sin". By doing this, he takes the root of the problem with capitalism out of the material world of tangibility, and places it onto the no-no list of devine preferences.

So now, the crimes Capitalism are put into the same basket as worshipping idols and un-wed intercourse: There are no tangible negative effects from doing these things, but the faith considers them morally repugnant. :rolleyes:

Moore could have settled for a comprimise that showed Christian attitudes towards socialism ( " 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Acts 2:42-2:45)
And the contrasting attitudes towards Capitalism ( "...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Jesus Christ, Matthew 19:23-19:24), but did not attribute the ills of capitalism to moralism and the displeasure of a deity. This would have been a preferable stance.

So, next. Moore, at one point, looks at the rash of home foreclosures in the states and says "This is capitalism".

Well, yeah, but not in it's entirety.That is only one of the symptoms, and it becomes meaningless because Moore doesn't raise issues with the fact that even during the golden prosperity of the cold war (built on the backs of rampant military expansion) workers were still confined to exploitive relations. So, ultimately, again it is not capitalism that Moore is raising issue with. It is the disenfranchisement and polarization of the "middle class" in the face of monopoly capital that he really takes issue with. So,at no point does Moore draw the conclusion that capitalism is inherently exploitive, despite all of his "capitalism is evil" rhetoric.

At one point in the film , the couple that is being evicted in Peoria releases a pearl of wisdom, but also a chauvenistic comment. While the husband says something along the lines of "there needs to be some kind of uprising of the have-nots against the haves", his wife mourns how the loss of their family property is a loss of a bit of her "heritage".

It struck me as slightly white supremacist and chauvenistic, as that land that her home is built on is undoubtedly stolen land, the result of genocide against aborginal peoples, so her claims of "heritage" are most likely preceeded by older (millenia old) claims by first peoples driven from their land in much crueler and brutal ways.

I'm not endorsing their eviction or justifying it, I'm just offering historical perspective.

Through-out the film, Mike endorses "socialism", but of course by "socialism" he means Sweden, not the USSR.

He literally drools over the "socialism" of Germany where Unionized workers have a say in choosing their board of directors (of course, at the end of the day, they don't own the factory that they are working in), and gives a cheer for the "New deal" policies of FDR.

So, here "Socialism"= New Deal. "Socialism"= Capitalism with concessions.

No worker control, no expropriations from the borugeoisie, no abolition of private property, no abolition of class.

Pension, pseudo-nationalized health care, giving the Unions a say in managment... this is "socialism".

He points out how historically the National guard under Roosevelt was used to protect striking workers in Michigan. He ignores all of the other times when the national guard (or other state forces of the US) was used to put down strikes, which has usually included wholesale murder of strikers and union organizers.

He unloads all of the crimes of American capitalism onto Reagan and Bush Jr, and absolves Jimmy Carter and FDR in the act. Bless their heart, they were just trying to help (at least he does shy away from Clinton nostalgia though).

And then, in the midst of all of the legitimate humyn misery portrayed in his film by the American people, a messiah emerged.

That's right, and his name was Barrack Obama :rolleyes:. The movie starts to wind down on a high note. Obama was elected, and this signalled the dawn of a "New America".

How so? Who knows. Obama has so far continued the wars of aggression in the middle east, voiced the same unconditional support for Israeli aparthied, clings to the same founding myths of the United States, still maintains the same capitalist system in place (in fact, he kept them on life support with public funds), and America is hardly "post-racial" as examplified by the case of proffesor Gates among others.

So the film winds down as an Obama campaign ad. Things were horrible in the United States, but then Obama came, parted the red sea, and lead his people out of bondage in Egypt. Roll credits.

While to his credit, Moore features the fantastic action of the Republic windows workers, who occupied their factory in lieu of un-paid wages, he ends their story on the high note that they got their wages and the struggle ended peacefully. So, here Moore reinforces the moral of his story: If the workers and opressed people fight tooth and nail, the capitalists will part with some of their ill-gotten gains. :rolleyes:
Don't really challenge capitalism, just take your bribe and go home.

He also portrays some worker owned and operated industries in the US (like the re-claimed industries in Argentina portrayed in Naoim Kliens documentary The Take,), but he portrays this syndicalism as being a new stage of capitalism. Collective capitalism as opposed to the top down pyramid model.

Now, of course the factory syndicalism in the US becomes meaningless, because the overwhelming majority of the American economy is still in privately owned hands with a devision between ownership and labour, the United States bourgeoisie still exists and thrives, and political power rests in their hands. All that Mike is advocating is Argentinian style syndicalism in the work place, swedish style social programs in society, and Jeffersonian democracy for all!

Together, these elements do not equal socialism, but I don't think that is his intentions.

The whole thing ends with the Internationale (Billy Bragg lyrics) sung over the credit role. I can't tell if this was admirable or vulgar. Considering the pace and content of the rest of the film, about shrinking "middle class" privilage where "Socialism"= Concessions from the bourgeois state, this appropriation of the battle hymn of all humynity striving for emancipation seems like so much tasteless and degrading appropriation of socialist iconography as "revolutionary chic". At least they didn't defile the good version of the song.

From start to finish, as usual, Moore plays the loyal opposition wrapped in "radical" rhetoric. While this has succeeded in ruffling the feathers of the overt reactionaries (like the National Post in my country, which featured a front-page article where they photo-shopped Moores trademark glasses and ballcap onto Karl Marx), it boils down to same old same old.

Any condemnations of the still ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti are absent from the film. Why condemn them? Just make sure that the American working class gets their cut of the plunder, because that is what "socialism" is (apparently).

In the end, it becomes just another band-aid on the growing cracks in a damn that is about to burst. Just as the bourgeois economists of the recession declared "we are all socialists now", and defiled the legacy of working class emacipation by linking it to their own fascistic self-serving bail out, Michael Moore declares that workers need to fight for their right to more consessions. Over all, Mikes "middle-class" woes become like the old Kruschevites around the world who lament the days when the USSR still existed to pressure the USA into "acting right".

The working class doesn't need concessions, nor should they aspire to a relatively less expolited position as the "middle class" beneath bougeoisie.

If anything Useful can be taken from this film, it is the knowledge that no problems have been solved in the United States, and the conditions that give rise to revolution have not been alleviated at all (if anything, the situation is more dire).

[Axle]

One of my brother's classes had him watch it for extra credit. He called me up and asked if I wanted to see it with him.

I'm proud to say that my formerly politically-moderate little brother's eyes have been opened and I took full advantage of that to explain a few things to him on the ride back to his apartment. I swear, I didn't know someone could take to socialism as fast as he did.

[h9socialist]

In any event, it's a movie that's having some impact, and is compelling some people to re-think their ideas on the subject. THAT'S GOOD! This movie could not have found daylight 5 years ago. There is at least a small modicum of progress that this represents.

[Devrim]

From İnternationalism, paper of the ICC in the US:
http://en.internationalism.org/inter/152/review

“Capitalism: A Love Story”-- A Review

Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism, A Love Story" opened at the end of September, touted as an "anti-capitalist" polemic. The film contains some very moving depictions of workers confronting mortgage foreclosures and factory shutdowns. There is footage from the factory occupation in Chicago last December. When the workers talk, they confirm what we wrote in Internationalism at the time, that the workers did not want to lose their jobs, that they wanted to fight for their jobs. It was the unions and the politicians who stressed that the workers should get what they were "legally" entitled to, which totalled about $6,000 for each worker for vacation and severance money
The bishop of Chicago came to visit the workers and told them that he himself was the son of a steel worker and he understood that their struggle was just and then he blessed them and gave them communion. There was very moving footage of other workers coming as individuals and families to donate food to the workers to show their solidarity.
There was also moving footage of a group of 20 or 30 community people in Miami declaring an eviction null and void and then moving the evicted family back into their home. A guy from the bank comes and tells them they are trespassing and then nine police cars come. There is a lot of yelling and arguing and then the cops and the bank guy leave and the family stays in the house. (At the end of the film, during the credit crawl, we read that the family was permitted to stay in their home permanently.)
The film is filled with the standard Michael-Moore-is-the-focus-of-the-story antics. These antics include Michael Moore trying to meet the chairman of the board of GM, or trying to place the entire board of AIG or everybody at the NY Stock Exchange under citizen's arrest, or putting yellow crime scene tape around the stock exchange, or driving an armored truck up to Bank of America and announcing that he's there to pick up the $10 billion in bailout money.
The big problem is Moore's politics. His attack on capitalism is largely provocative, not substantive. It's as if he decided to turn all the rightwing hysterical accusations about Obama's "socialism" upside down. The global meltdown crisis of 2008 is attributed to Reagan's deregulation policies that began in the 1980s and continued through the Bush Bush I-Clinton-Bush II years and the supposed defacto takeover of the US government by Goldman Sachs who pushed through policies to benefit their company at the expense of the taxpayers and their competitors. In other words, the real problem is not a generalized capitalist economic crisis but rather the greed of a few elite political/business figures. True, Moore says capitalism is evil, and even interviews three or four catholic clergy who declare that Jesus would have been against capitalism, but in essence his opposition to capitalism is actually opposition to deregulated capitalism. He includes footage of demonstrations by a couple dozen people from leftist groups like the Answer Coalition against the corporate bailouts or foreclosures as the emergence of a mass anti-capitalist movement in the US.
He seems beside himself in how to deal with Obama, who he sees as making Wall Street quake in their boots with his calls for change and points out that they responded by contributing to his campaign. He denounces all of Obama's economic advisers as henchmen for Goldman Sachs, but he is still enamored of Obama.
Against capitalism, the alternative is "democracy" in Moore's view. He interviews Vermont's Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who claims to be an advocate of democratic socialism, which is defined as the government serving the interests of the middle and working class folks, to protect their rights. Moore has found historically lost footage of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union message, about a month before his death, in which FDR called for a second Bill of Rights for Americans after the war, which called not for socialism or for the destruction of capitalism, but a welfare state type state capitalism:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Moore laments that FDR died before he could create this wonderful society in the US, but he says that in the post war period the US sent FDR's people to Europe and Japan where during the reconstruction of Italy, Germany and Japan as well as other countries in Europe, this vision of society was implemented. Just as he did in Sicko, he idealizes the European state capitalist social wage as the glorious goal for Americans. Moore's anti-capitalism would in no way destroy the capitalist state, or implement working class control over the means of production; instead it would turn America into France or Germany or Japan or Norway - all of which are capitalist societies, where the working class has to struggle to defend itself against exploitation. Moore ends the movie with a call for everyone to join him in the struggle for this society with a popularized version of the Internationale, which sounded more like Bobby Darin singing Mack the Knife than a revolutionary song.
Jerry Grevin. 9/20/2009