The following is a critical review written in response to Michael Moore's new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story."
by Eric Ribellarsi
Let me start by saying there was much in this movie that was quite rare, and that I think ought to be united with. It is not very often that a popular movie in the U.S. says that the problem in society is capitalism, and opens up a conversation around that in the way that I think this movie likely will. Certainly it is also rare to see a popular movie in the U.S. that shows some of the awful and ugly workings of capitalism, like the housing crisis and the way capitalism grinds people up and leaves them to die. And certainly the movie is fun, and quite hilarious at times in ways that are provocative and that make the movie really accessible to people.
However, if we go through Moore’s entire critique of capitalism, nowhere in the entire movie is there EVER a discussion of the exploitation of labor in the “third world,†and what America’s wealth is actually based on. Moore begins the movie by juxtaposing the eviction of a family in the U.S. from their home, while showing the U.S. is one of the richest countries on the planet and that it ought to take better care of its people. Surely it is true that people in this country shouldn’t be ripped from their homes and thrown out on the streets to die; there is no question about that. But how can we talk about any re-distributing of wealth without ever even acknowledging where all of this wealth came from in the first place? I have to say… the positive aspects of this movie are ultimately ruined by American chauvinism in ways that are deeply disappointing.
Moore talks about how wonderful things used to be in the U.S., pointing to the New Deal and Jimmy Carter, the U.S. Constitution, and so on. He calls for a new “New Deal,†and then argues that capitalism is not part of the United States constitution, even going so far as to insinuate that the U.S. constitution is more socialist because of its repeated use of words like “we,†“people,†and “union.†I remember feeling like I wanted to shake him and say “Michael! This document says that slaves are 3/5’s of human beings, and that private property is a fundamental right, how can you miss the capitalism here?!â€
Let’s be clear, this is a parasitic imperialist empire. None of its wealth can be understood in abstraction from both its historic legacy of slavery, genocide, and colonialism, combined with its modern day parasitic relationship to the rest of the world. None of that wealth would be possible without the children of India and Mexico who have produced all it. Should our goal really be to have a new “New Deal†in the context of an empire waging a war on the world? What kind of an effect would this have on the already existing complete lack of internationalism among people in the U.S.? What good would a new "New Deal" have for the millions of undocumented workers in the U.S. who are super exploited and locked out of these "deals?"
There were many opportunities for Moore to discuss the super-exploitation that people of oppressed nationalities face, both inside and outside the U.S. In one scene, Moore discusses NAFTA, and how it ruined the economy of a U.S. city by sending jobs to Mexico without ever mentioning that NAFTA raped Mexico! Or as one fellow activist pointed out, at the end of the movie, he mentions Katrina and how people were abandoned by the U.S. government, but doesn’t even mention the particular racist oppression Black people faced. There is a real appeal here to an ugly white American chauvinism that is really difficult to stomach.
And of course, there was Moore’s usual “stir shit up, and bring people back to the Democrats,†that makes us sigh and say "here we go again with the Democrats." Moore tries to claim the resistance people had waged against factory shut downs and forced evictions was because they had been inspired by Obama. Frankly, this is bullshit, and it insulting to oppressed people. It is to claim as if oppressed people are fragile and incapable of waging struggle without some sort of legitimacy from the head of the very system that exploits them.
One thing that I think is worth discussing here is also a certain controversy to this question of economic struggles promoted in Moore's film. People like Michael Moore have framed resistance struggles in ways that are completely devoid of any internationalism, and in ways that are objectively American chauvinist (for example, raising demands against war because we want that money to go to ourselves, not because the war is murderous and immoral).
While at the same time, groups like the RCP have dismissed things like economic struggles, insinuating that they are inherently economist and inherently American chauvinist. Are these housing struggles not important ways that people are brought into initial political life and living lessons as to what this system is all about? Surely if we concentrated the attention of people in an imperialist country on themselves that would be wrong, but can we really imagine a revolution where oppressed people do not fight against their own oppression as a part of a larger revolutionary process? Is there really never a place for communists to jump into economic struggles, especially as they begin to spill over into political struggles? There is much more to be said regarding this.
But going back to Moore’s critique… I think there is deeper more fundamental assumptions of Moore’s which need to be uncovered and understood. In one particularly funny scene, Moore shows up at a bank with a money bag and says something along the lines of “hey, I’m here to get the money back for the American people, don’t worry, I’m going to take it back to the U.S. treasury, I’ll make sure it gets there, just put the billions of dollars in these bags.†Setting aside the assumption that this money belongs to “the American people†and not the people of the world for a moment, there is another problematic assumption here. The U.S. treasury belongs to the American people? Is this really “our government,†as Moore calls it throughout the movie, or does it serve the capitalist and imperialist ruling class?
Another example: Moore discusses a theme throughout the movie that sounds like revolution. Toward the beginning of the movie, he poses: “what if the peasants revolted, and stopped taking this?†Well, later he says “the peasants had revolted†and then shows the Democratic Party’s refusal to sign the first initial bailout, spreading the cruel lie that the Democratic Party is the ‘party of the people.’ How many times have we been told this, only to face bitter lessons of betrayal, again and again?
Certainly there are positive aspects to this movie, and much to be united with and learned from. But I think if we really want to break free from capitalism… we’re going to need a much deeper analysis than this. We’re going to need internationalism, actually taking a stand on the side of the people of the world, and saying “hell no!†to ugly American chauvinism and this whole society. Our liberation won’t come wrapped in an American flag, it’s going to have to reject that flag.
Share Link: 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
K. Lofori
said:
 |
... I think you're being a bit unfair? You criticise a movie about American society, targeted to Americans, for not being about starving African children and not criticising current wars hard enough? Seems to me like you want the movie to be something it's not. Jimmy Carter? He was quoted once. And if you think he was seriously considering calling senators a revolt I think you're reading in a bit deeply, especially considering that right after that he talks about how futile those actions are in a capitalist economy. I do agree that the American identity has to be rejected. However, he was referencing what was effectively a beloved part of an American legend, not launching a Marxist critique on the foundation of the country. |
eric r
said:
 |
... hey K Lofori, welcome to our site. I think you raise some good questions. You criticise a movie about American society, targeted to Americans, for not being about starving African children and not criticising current wars hard enough? Seems to me like you want the movie to be something it's not. I think there is a view here that is pretty popular, that imperialism is something that is a different subject than today's modern capitalism, and that it is another topic altogether. That is not my analysis. My analysis is that the actual economic system of the US is an ultra-globalized capitalism, imperialism.. and that to talk about capitalism in the USA, we have to talk about imperialism. This isn't 1800s anymore, there has been a fundamental transformation of the way that things are produced in the world, and in the US in particular. American capitalism IS the of starving children in Africa, and a new "New Deal" in the USA would actually be formed on the basis of the exploitation of the rest of humanity. And I have to say to you as a comrade in this struggle, the way you refer to Africans here comes across a bit chauvinist, though I am sure that was not your intention. That is not some question that is off to the side. |
RoB
said:
 |
... Just read a conservative celebration of Capitalism: A Love Story: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=34819 |
eric r
said:
|
... geeeeez. good find Rob. I thought the quote in that piece, "Bluntly, can capitalism be saved from the capitalists themselves?" really captured something. This very much struck me as a framework to save capitalism.. much in the same way that FDR did. |
Jacklondon
said:
 |
... I saw the Moore film at Wheeler Auditorium, U Cal Berkeley with a huge collection of college-age youth. It was good to see their reactions. They really cheered at a lot of things. The conclusion that capitalism is "evil" and we need "democracy". is weak. We need communist revolution and Moore won't say so. His chauvinism and economism were disappointing, but I'm delighted that he said, "I thought we should cut to the chase and identify the core problem, namely capitalism." People are indeed looking at the core problem more and more, and he has helped things along, for sure., the process leading to proletarian state power. -- REVCOM.US |
eric r
said:
|
... hey Jacklondon, welcome to our site.  My analysis is a bit different. I don't think that the main problem with Moore's analysis is that it does not call for revolution, but that the analysis itself is wrong. I think many intellectuals develop critiques of capitalism and imperialism that are far short of revolution, but that we really should embrace for the positive role they play in the development of revolutionary consciousness. The problem here in my view is that Moore develops a critique of capitalism that actually ignores the actual production relations of this society, and thus, fails to actually critique capitalism. One other thing, if you would like to argue for the RCP's position, that is of course fine, but please refrain from link hooking your posts. Tthe RCP's views are not ours, but we would of course love to have that position within this mix and ideological struggle. However, tagging all of your posts on our site and facebook page is a bit spam-like. revcom.us isn't the only place where people are talking about proletarian revolution. this site is also about that. But really comrade, welcome to our site, and I encourage you to stay and participate in the discussions! |
Grrrrrrrr
said:
|
... Righteo. Moore doesn't give us a clear picture of the structure of the system and its grotesque history. I agree with what you said up there. Of course I would have been delighted if he'd called for a proletarian-socialist revolution. Had he done so, it never would have made it to the screen!  Still, it's helped get people thinking about the actual problem in the world. Unite the many to defeat the few, eh?  |
Spiro Agony
said:
|
... Hey, do you folks promote the National Day of Protest Aginst Police Brutality (O22) as does the Revolutionary Communist Party? They've got a really terrific lineup for a Symposium at UC Berkeley on the Cultural Revolution, on Nov 6-8. |
Ben
said:
 |
... I think it should be set up so that in the same way that you can "tweet" these articles, you can also post them to your facebook page. |
eric r
said:
|
... hey Ben, we actually used to have that feature but somehow it stopped working. Thanks for pointing it out, I fixed it |
Upcoming Events
- The Mountains Tremble: A Report Back from the Revolution in Nepal
August 02, 2010 (7:30 PM)
(Default)
Login
Latest Comments
people revolution revolutionary against national movement political struggle dictatorship question society through communist oppressed democratic students masses democracy working police system proletarian within between bourgeois process government leadership forces maoist liberation capitalism country important classes