Saw this last night with the husband. Our reaction was a 60 minute discussion of the major points of the film followed by frantic rethinking of our plan for a big purchase (new car). No resolution on the big purchase yet, but it’s a purchase of necessity. Really, it is. Though this smacks of hypocrisy when I consider that similar claims (read: twisted justifications) have been made in regards to new tvs, playstations, jewelry, designer duds, and a smattering of other ‘essential’ purchases like a $600,000 home on a $45,000 salary. Sigh.
Finer points from Moore and my reactions:
1) Capitalism has only been successful in practice for a given country (the U.S.) if there is no competition. Well, ok. Historically this is sort of true (for post-WWII US) but this idea is too simplistic and drawn from a very low sample, 1. This is problematic. But there is a deeper point here and that speaks to the principle of competition in a capitalist system, whether or not it’s necessary for it to function well or if too much competition can have negative effects. Ha-Joon Chang’s book, Kicking Away the Ladder speaks to this debate better than I but his point is that unfettered capitalism (high levels of competition) doesn’t necessarily lead towards greater welfare. Drawing from historical evidence, he finds that protection from competition has in fact been a critical component in the growth of most industries and economies. So Moore is on to something, but the nuances of this point are lost in the film.
2) There is a revolving door between the financial industry and elite policymakers (Senate and Executive branch) akin to the one associated with the Military-industrial complex, first warned about by Eisenhower. Carter (as President) warned us of growing consumerism and materialism, linked to this financial industry/government revolving door.
3) Regulation is required for capitalism to work. No kidding and no further comment. Human nature is not strictly benevolent nor generous and capitalism makes it more difficult to resist crushing your neighbor, especially if you never see them.
4) Higher education is funneled to the financial industry. I was once a finance major in undergrad and found the experience deeply at odds with the experience in my political theory classes. Ever since then I have been critical of unfettered neoliberal economic policies inherent in an unregulated capitalist system. I missed my opportunity to sell out and wasn’t even conscious of it at the time. Does that make me a better person? No. Just lucky.
5) The haves are afraid of the power of the political power of the have-nots, but the have-nots can be easily bought off using the myth of the American dream. Yes! With this I wholeheartedly agree. But the power of the American myth is so deeply engrained in our psyche: ‘We can do it!’ ‘You too can pull yourself up from your bootstraps’ and ‘be rich, be happy’. I call bullshit. But it’s hard to vote against the American dream and essentially that’s what we would be doing in electing officials who would enact more redistributive policies. It would be admitting that we can’t be as rich and succesful as the top 1%, or even 15%, and the rich need to subsidize the less wealthy to make up a gap that will never disappear. Europeans seem comfortable with this proposition. I am as well. But those higher on the ladder of success have a very hard time admitting that they are also beholden to the extremely wealthy. Essentially the are the upper middle class that have been bought off by the elites to perpetuate the myth of the American Dream. This is similar to what happens in a country that transitions from elite to popular rule- in order to kep elites happy, they are bought off by the very top to perpetuate the system that guarantees their security. But the kick is, the top elite know damn well it’s a myth, that the American dream won’t come true for the majority of the people. In fact, it is quite literally impossible for most.
The bottom line is this film makes you think, but only if you have the tools to sort through and expand Moore’s overly simplistic ideas. And it’s scattered all over the place, hitting on political and economic points that are related, though somewhat loosely. And Moore’s main point presented dramatically at the end of the film is plain weird- “we need to replace capitalism with democracy”??? Hmmm…. Read Hamilton and Madison for more on how this plan is a bad idea. Not to mention it ignores the basic fact that a financial system is separate from a political system (see Japan, South Korea, China, etc).
Image courtesy of official film website.
November 13, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
I think I need to see this film… if only to firm up my belief that arguing against capitalism is kind of like arguing against human nature or modern civilization. It’s basically pointless. Without having seen the movie, of course, I think the argument is more about closing the gap between the haves and have-nots. There will always be both, so it falls on an entity (government) to tighten up the various safety nets, if so desired. That is, of course, a giant social/political football, and lands in the lap of whomever happens to be in power at the moment. For my money, democracy doesn’t work a whole lot better — those who hold the keys invariably use them for their own ends. In the end, nothing will ever be truly resolved since no 2 parts of the equation are mutually exclusive… everything exists on an infinite continuum of possible socio-political configurations. Ouch. My brain hurts.