Print
Comment
Email
RSS
Twitter
Michael Moore: Socialist or Froot Loops Bird? (Or Both?)
Michael Moore: Socialist or Froot Loops Bird? (Or Both?)
Posted Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 2:19pm
This is part of TBM’s dialogue on Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story. The first two entries were from James Scurlock and James Ledbetter.
James2:
Oh, how I loathed watching this film! The editing was shoddy, the cinematography grungy, and the middle of the film all too saggy. When the film was over the audience I was with in Midtown Manhattan clapped; I thought they had come down with a case of Stockholm Syndrome.
But we’re not here to discuss Michael Moore, auteur. To critique a Moore movie for its aesthetic is to tell a toucan that it should get a nose job. Some things are too innate to change.
So we’re left with the substance of Moore’s argument: Capitalism is evil. Is he right? Of course it’s evil … sometimes. As both of you have mentioned, Moore finds the right examples to start us down that path. My eyes got begrudgingly tingly during the dead peasant insurance policy segment. But of course capitalism occasionally sucks. So does democracy. So does socialism. So does pastoralism. The great flaw in Moore’s argument is that he never shows us that capitalism sucks all the time. Ledbetter, you began to point this out by saying capitalism helped build Papa Moore’s factories.
I don’t think Moore actually hates all of capitalism; it’s just the catch-all buzzword he’s using to say he hates greed. At the end of the film he says capitalism is so evil it must die. Then, in its place, democracy will flourish. Moore’s inexact language here is frustrating. First, capitalism and democracy are not polar opposites. What does it mean to replace capitalism with democracy, especially in a country whose democracy has fostered and nurtured capitalism more than any other? These are weighty questions that Moore refuses to engage with. Perhaps we can make more sense of them during this discussion. What do the rest of you think? (And readers, we’d like to hear from you, too. Comment below or e-mail me.)
Comments
greed revisited
Ken Burns new documentary about our National Parks frames this debate of capitalism vs. socialism. Naturalists, like John Muir, and Teddy Roosevelt sought to set aside public land without development by capitialists. Gifford Pinchot was the first national forester under President Teddy Roosevelt. Pinchot set up National Forests, that were managed lands allowing for logging operations. Timber capitalists, like J.P. Weyerhauser, and Sol Simpson (1890) bought up millions of acres and set about building massive timber empires.
Nineteenth century economics sought to exploit natural resources without any consequences. Modern day ecology shows that sustainability is "best practice" for all living systems.
Greed could be viewed as "ego-centric" management, seeking to maximize profits with no regard to living systems. Modern day capitalists are beginning to recognize social capitalists. For instance, Apple Computers recently pulled out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they are opposing green industry.