Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story has been met with a lot of cynical and dismissive criticism.  The criticism mainly being that; Moore is exploitative, that the film is also a capitalist product and that it is actually a pacifying love letter to capitalism rather than a vitriolic debunking.  While these are to an extent fair complaints, they are not reasons to dismiss the film outright, especially when a lot of Capitalism is very enlightening.

   The most disturbing example of American capitalism gone too far is the revelation that some companies take out secret life insurance policies on their employees, so that they can remain profitable in death.  Moore goes on to show that the families of the deceased receive none of the payout and that in some cases shareholders actually complain that not enough employees are dying.  That this policy is given the disturbingly sneering title of “Dead Peasant Policy” really drives home the extent to which wealth gaps in America have twisted the perspective of the wealthy elite.

    You may have noticed that up to this point, I have been referring to the film as a depiction of ‘American Capitalism’.  This is because, despite the implied breadth in the title, the film focuses solely on American capitalism, and surprisingly doesn’t offer any comparison to European forms.  I’m not sure if this is designed to hide the fact that capitalism can work in a more regulated form from American audiences, or if it is simply meant to imply that capitalism countries works.  Which you believe depends on whether or not you think the purpose behind the film is to instigate a change in the system or demand a new one. 

    It becomes clear from the film that Americans have a highly idiosyncratic view of what capitalism means, and that they have a rabid aversion to anything remotely socialist.  Though touched upon, the ironic absurdity that the people who complain the most about America becoming a socialist nation, are actually the ones who would benefit most from any so called ‘socialist’ policies, is not explored as fully as it should be.  Why Americans remain so determinedly opposed to public run services is suggested as being due to anti-soviet propaganda having a deep hold on the American psyche, but it I imagine there must be more to it than that.  The extent to which Americans fear public run services makes it all the more surprising when watching the film that American fire and police departments are not run by private businesses, when everything else, including parts of the justice system, are.

    One glaring fault in the film is that it is not aimed at people who might disagree with it.  It mainly serves to satisfy smug left-wingers who will tut-tut knowingly at the ignorance of their countrymen.  A film like this can only really be useful if it is designed precisely to convince people who will go into the film disagreeing with it. Instead, it seems designed to satisfy people who are already sympathetic to its ideology that some form of public awareness is growing, and that they can sit back and let the necessary changes happen. 

    Towards the end, Capitalism takes on a more optimistic tone, showing that communal public action can change things and America need not be beholden to the financial elite.  The reminder that the top 1% of rich people in America have more money than the bottom 95% combined is nicely balanced by the idea that that the bottom 95% hold the majority of the voting power, meaning if they want to, Americans can force the financial institutions to become fairer and less driven by greed. 

    Another Idea the film touches on that I found especially interesting, is that the richest 1% have a vested interest in keeping alive the myth that any American can become rich with enough hard work.  Capitalism reveals that the destruction of unions, workers rights and fair wages mean that a large portion of the country remain, and will always remain, wage slaves.  As long as educational and financial institutions remain driven by profit rather than public welfare those at the bottom face impossible odds of becoming in anyway successful, especially in a climate where Banks can freely ruin millions of lives by selling unregulated toxic mortgages.

    Capitalism has Moore’s usual stunts and personal story segments, but I found that in this film, they were actually the strongest rather than the weakest sections.  They simply but effectively drive home the humiliation and betrayal a lot of people feel towards a system they were told was the greatest in the world.  While Moore trying to perform a citizens arrest on the CEOs of banks is a but juvenile, it does a great job of showing how the elite are protected by a top down ideology where wage slave cops and security guards will protect them when they have no real reason to, and in fact can only stand to gain from letting someone like Moore in the building.  Capitalism has several examples of this; house repossessers and security guards that do not question the motives of the people paying them, or the ethical lapses that their jobs entail. 

    Possibly the films best scene shows how people can circumvent this.  A family who have been kicked out of their house decide to by-pass they law and reclaim it by squatting in their former home.  They rally the support of their friends and neighbors who help them move back in and stop the repo-men.  When the repo-men justify their actions by saying “I’m just doing my job”, one crowd member reminds him that “he has a choice”, that he does not have to be complicit with a system he finds unethical.  The man eventually agrees and allows the people to take their house back.

    Scenes of people banding together to fight those sorts of injustices are the standout moments in Capitalism, they show that there is hope, and that people working together can make changes simply by choosing not to participate in a system they consider to be immoral.  The optimism in these scenes though is slightly tainted by the elephant in the room.  The sanctity of American democracy is never challenged.  The extent to which the successful grassroots political action in the film can be scaled up nationwide has arguably been proved somewhat false by Moore’s previous films as well as other sources

    I really recommend people see this film; it is great food for thought, and a great lesson in what not to let happen overseas.  Put aside any cynical responses to the film (e.g. It’s a capitalist product too, Moore is making money of these peoples tragedies, how is he any better than corporations and why should I believe him etc).  While these are reasonable points, they totally miss the bigger picture; that the benefits of people hearing what he has to say are more important than any technical or arguably ethical lapses in the film.  As you can probably tell form this review, there is a lot to talk about and some contradictions to mull over after seeing Capitalism.  I recommend seeing it with people who have opposing political views, even if you lose the argument after the film you get the pleasure of watching them squirm for a few hours (though expect to a fair bit of squirming yourself).

3/5 Stars