Capitalism: A Love Story – Close, But No Cigar
In a recent Huffington Post article, film critic Marshall Fine veritably gushes over Michael Moore’s latest diatribe, Capitalism: A Love Story, calling it “an urgently important piece of work.” The film’s grievances are legitimate and even admirable. Its conclusions and central premise however, are critically flawed.
Michael Moore pinpoints the problem as “two Americas – and most of us are living in the one that routinely gets the short end of the stick. Why? Because that other America – the one in which the bulk of the country’s wealth is owned by the richest one percent of Americans – is so firmly committed to hanging on to what they’ve got and getting more.”
On this point, few Americans would disagree, including myself and certainly including the oft-derided “tea party” movement, which turned out in droves to protest the transfer of billions of dollars of wealth from ordinary citizens in the “short-end-of-the-stick America” to wealthy corporate interests in the “richest-one-percent America.”
But Michael Moore’s analysis of this problem’s root causes is shallow, unsophisticated, and inaccurate. Why are there two such Americas? Because, Moore argues, the Reagan and Bush Administrations “did so much to deregulate and destabilize our economy in the name of the free market.”
Capitalism, as the film’s title suggests, is the culprit and the target of Michael Moore’s misguided polemics. The free market is the problem and more government regulation is the solution. This common line of thought and rhetoric is so tragic not merely because it is mistaken, but because the mistake is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism itself.
Let’s look again at the picture of the two Americas. Let’s call the bad guys Corporate America and their victims Middle America, because they are middle-to-lower class and often caught in the middle between special corporate interests and a corrupt government that rewards and aids those interests in their fleecing of Middle Americans.
How does Corporate America exercise its power and tyranny over Middle America? Moore points it out himself. One of his biggest grievances against corporate America in Capitalism: A Love Story is the seven hundred billion dollar bailout Wall Street received from the government.
Indeed, Moore’s distributor, Overture Films says that Capitalism: A Love Story chronicles what Moore considers “the biggest robbery in the history of this country the massive transfer of U.S. taxpayer money to private financial institutions.” Watch the trailer yourself and see how central the billion dollar corporate bailout is to Moore’s outrage and criticism.
Then remember that capitalism and free markets are based on no interference from the government. In a system of perfect capitalism, the bailouts would not have occurred. Indeed their very occurrence immediately precludes our system of economics from being considered capitalistic. It is not because our economy was so free and unregulated that this occurred, but because our government is allowed to become so involved in our economy.
In a free market, businesses succeed and fail on the basis of their ideas, on their merit in creating value for society. This is determined by the free and voluntary activity of individuals who exchange with others- again, on the basis of what improves and adds value to their lives. In this model, businesses that don’t create value for others… fail.
But in a controlled economy, the government decides who the winners and losers are irrespective of the value they create. In this case, failing businesses which should lose, get propped up as “winners” by the government, with money that is taken by the government, from taxpayers in Middle America, without their free and voluntary consent.
See who the culprit really is? Yes: the government. If the government were restricted to its Constitutionally enumerated powers (minus two centuries of a lot of case law and its many bizarre interpretations thereof), the bailouts would never have occurred. If America were a truly capitalist country, then the government would not be allowed to intervene by taking your wealth and transferring it to businesses that did not merit it.
If you can clearly and emotionally explain to others what I have written above, while vehemently agreeing with them as you should, that the corporations in America are way out of hand in their scope of power and influence, then we may be able to resolve a deep episode of polarization in American history that should never have happened.
For Michael Moore’s fans on “the left” to so deeply resent and abhor the government’s intrusive corporate bailouts, is an encouraging sign and a bright opportunity to clarify what the nature of capitalism and the proper role of government really are. With a little encouragement and clarity from free market proponents, we may yet see the rise of reason in 21st century American politics.
W. E. Messamore blogs at The Humble Libertarian.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Capitalism is an illusion. Perfect capitalism is a perfect illusion. Humans are the problem with capitalism. Greed, avarice, control, power, despotism and all the “deadly sins” are manifested and magnified through the illusion that human beings are little more than narcissists masquerading as actual feeling, sentient beings.
There is no accountability in capitalism perfect or imperfect. As long as power and wealth is concentrated and directed towards a few controlling interests; and in return directed against everyone else, accountability or social responsibility is negated and rendered impotent. Those with the gold rule.
The religious proponents of unfettered capitalism in the US are laughable because no major religion on the earth encourages capitalistic behavior that is Darwinian at its core – survival of the fittest. Humans have the capacity to move beyond such primitive, anachronistic, savage, and narcissistic behavior. Cooperation, compassion, brotherly and sisterly love, genuine concern for others beyond one’s profit margins are all the “better angels” of human behavior.
Corporations and governments for that matter, are little more than sepulchers of amoral (at best), generally immoral (yet shrouded in legality), deadened narcissists that are using a golem of dollars and cents to wreak havoc and keep people in fear with debt, loss of income, government control scenarios and the like. It is amazing that “We the People” are the government, that elects its representatives – illusion of representation – and we have been told to fear and loathe that to which we are inextricably connected. The ultimate self loathing scenario.
Yet we have been told through artful propaganda that corporations, capitalism and the so-called “free market” is preferable to “ The People” and their government; while the “The People” at large have no say or participatory representation within the boardrooms that rule society at large. This seems more fascist than democratic :
“Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6 ]”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Money rules all and people are always left dead and dying in their wake.
“In a free market, businesses succeed and fail on the basis of their ideas, on their merit in creating value for society. This is determined by the free and voluntary activity of individuals who exchange with others- again, on the basis of what improves and adds value to their lives. In this model, businesses that don’t create value for others… fail.”
We are told, lies are spun to create value within the minds of those others that capitalists are creating. M ore illusion, smoke and mirrors. There is little merit in economic models that imposes its creation of value and values for society at large that by definition exclude, do harm and promote violent anti-human behavior for those that cannot comply or will not comply to its will. There is little free or voluntary individual activity expressed or encouraged in corporate economical models. Most ideas that are spawned in the capitalistic model are all contingent upon self preservation and profit with little regard for anyone or anything in its way. Look at the healthcare system where thousands of people died each day due to no healthcare. We have been told that healthcare is a privilege not a basic human right.
The idea or perfect capitalism is pretty much like going to heaven: no one knows for sure; it does not and cannot exist in this world; only benefits the believers, and sooner or later everyone that holds to this model will die believing it and will take thousands with them to the grave.
You have written a lot! Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I see it, your main thesis is that capitalism is an inherently savage, Darwinian system.
Would you care to define clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by capitalism? Because language is equivocal (especially in political science it would seem!), we may mean different things when we use this word, in which case we will spend the rest of this thread talking right past each other.
John, whether we like to admit it or not, human beings are narcissists masquerading as actual feeling, sentient beings. We all look out for number one first, whether we call whatever we’re doing selfish or not, it always is. This will never be changed, no matter what economic system we have deployed – it has been ingrained in us through billions of years of “me first” evolution. As such, shouldn’t we design an economic system around humanity, rather than redesign humanity around an economic system? From what we know, capitalism operates best when humans are . . . well, human.
If you are suggesting that accountability is absent in capitalism because you aren’t sent to a labor camp for turning a profit, you are right. But, by more reasonable definitions of accountability, capitalism is at the pinnacle. Even if I hold all the gold, as you say, I still have every incentive to keep that gold and make more gold. The only way I can do so is by giving people something they want. If I don’t give the people something they want my gold will dwindle away. If I direct my gold “against everyone else” in that I harm other people or steal from them then I will certainly be punished in the court of law in a capitalistic system. It is the government-control systems that you must worry about, because the government is accountable to nobody and truly can harm and steal without recourse.
I have nothing to say about your religious gripe because religion and economic systems are (luckily) independent from each other in our nation. But, it will be a scary day in this nation when the economic systems are run by religious nuts (i.e. environmentalists).
John, you seem to believe that the government and corporations have some evil ploy to “wreak havoc and keep people in fear with debt, loss of income, government control scenarios and the like.” While I do agree to some degree of that, the far scarier reality is that people generally want these government controls, taxes and subsidies out of benevolence, not disdain. It is those that try to help others through government that end up doing the most harm. Stopping an evil set of cheats is far easier than a wide-spread group of do-gooders.
Perhaps you should re-examine your own argument briefly. You will find that you are arguing in the right direction, you just take a rogue turn. You seem to realize that government is a real problem, and that they should not have heavy controls and taxes. You seem to realize that the government should not be in bed with corporations and enact regulations and subsidies that help some while hurting more. You seem to see the value in the personal choice to perform charity work and help your fellow man, not to have government force you to do so at the point of a gun. You seem to believe that violence is bad and any government that holds the power to be indiscriminately violent towards its own people is a dangerous government. However (and it’s a big however), instead of taking the path that will lead to freedom, opulence, and happiness for all people in this nation, you go down the road that you openly condemn. Like Fascism, socialism and communism rely on a “authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.” Socialism cannot be implemented without the authoritarian government forcing its people to work and produce in the corporatist government owned industries. Socialism leads to the same end as fascism, economic collapse and governmental tyranny.
Ultimately, we’re after the same end: more freedom, wealth, and happiness for all people. We have just chosen different paths of achieving those goals. Yours depends on the government telling people what to do, telling them to be happy and telling them that they are wealthy. My path includes opening up all freedom to people and letting them create their own destinies unbound by any “authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.” Keep going on your quest to educate yourself and others about the end, perhaps you will find that the means are those that you have so strongly opposed.
To believe in any generalized sense, and as premise for any useful human argument, that “human beings are narcissists masquerading as actual feeling, sentient beings”, is the assertion of sociopaths. This comment thread needs a reboot to be relevant, now, regardless of the present definition of capitalism.
Thanks for the article – I tend to agree that Mr. Moore has a latent Libertarian streak tainted by politics and special interest. On his stated motivations, one can perceive that he is a left-leaning Enterpriser, even if only borderline – certainly not centrist. But like any power-possessing body of government (he runs a small nation for his entourage, essentially), he has still bent to special interests himself, and has lost his way.
As a result, I hope Mr. Moore’s diatribe can be “capitalized on” [ jab jab ] by those that support personal AND economic liberty, because whether our citizens know it or not, they are tired of trading one for the other every time the balance of power changes.
It is humorous that Moore vilifies the very system that allows him to make a movie, produce it, distribute it and collect revenue that allows him to come back to the trough over and over…
Wonder if he were a Cuban citizen and vilified Castro and his form of government if he would be so successful? Or would he receive accolades for a searing docufantasy of Chavez, with his newly acquired powers to ‘make law’ and to seize all of the TV stations except one-Globalvision (maybe this is so Hugo can ‘feign’ a free media)
You think the true absence of capitalism would enhance Mr. Moore’s outlandish critiques? I am betting he would be enjoying his sustenance for the rest of his days via the generous support of the State.
I am still waiting for him to commit all of his proceeds to a favorite charity…
Even the first experiment in settling our country failed miserably in Jamestown because they tried to go it alone and embrace a ‘communistic’ system of commerce… Everyone had to ‘produce’ and ‘contribute’ all of the fruits of their labor in order to ’share’ for the greater good.
“During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford’s own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.” (this is an excerpt from Rush Limbaugh’s the real story of Thanksgiving found here: http://bit.ly/9M478 ) and I paraphrase… but Bradford learned quickly that the form of socialism did not work… he made a bold decision and assigned one plot to each household and determined that each household would grow what they saw fit… since they owned it they worked much harder and harvested much more than their family could use… unleashing the powerful self-interest coefficient that creates surplus leading to commerce and trade… real capitalism at it’s best… So much bounty they decided to share it with their Indian friends who had helped them their first winter…
Capitalism works best when Gov’t stays out of the picture – and even Michael Moore could exercise the glory of producing for the only reason that makes sense: Self Interest
Good points, all!
No answer to my question, Mr. Hinton?