film
6 Nov 2009
Does Michael Moore Have The Answers?
Should we expect documentary filmmakers like Michael Moore to propose solutions to the problems they identify or just watch them get outraged, asks Lynden Barber
When news emerged that Michael Moore's new film was to be about the failings of capitalism, it struck me that we were still waiting to find out what the man from Flint actually favoured as a replacement.
We certainly know what the American documentary-maker doesn't like. The list of Moore hatreds is a long one and includes, in no particular order: greedy corporations, the National Rifle Association, health insurers and the private health industry, Wall Street bankers, the Iraq War, Republicans (especially George W Bush and Dick Cheney), Guantanamo Bay, security officers in downtown corporate headquarters, the Afghanistan War, and shaving.
Fair enough. I'd put many of those on my No Thank You list too. But what does Moore actually believe in? What does the man stand for?
His last documentary Sicko, for example, was a sustained polemic on the need for better healthcare in the US — by which he meant government-supported. Few in this country (or in much of Europe) would disagree with him here. What didn't emerge clearly was a sense of what kind of political system he felt had the best chance of achieving this aim. Would a Democrat administration led by Barack Obama be all that was necessary for the healthy delivery of better healthcare? Or did he have a more radical alternative in mind? (Let's leave aside for now the fact that a good swathe of the US population seems convinced that Obama's healthcare plan makes the President the nearest living equivalent of VI Lenin: I really don't want to have to go there.)
The release this week of Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story means we finally get to learn the answer. I mean, you can't call into question the workings of the capitalist system without implying that it needs to be replaced by something better, can you?
Finally, I thought as I turned up to a screening, Moore will outline his political program. Will it turn out that he supports the Communist Party, or is he espousing one of the more radical Trotskyist alternatives? Surely, if he is going to advocate tearing down the system that brought the United States its historic wealth, we'll finally get at least a vague outlining of his general principles.
So I sat there and watched. I saw a film about bad things being done by bad people. I saw evictions of poor folks and I saw victims of the foreclosures which have multiplied immeasurably in the wake of last December's Wall Street-caused financial collapse (there's now one every seven seconds, reckoned Moore in a recent interview).
Moore uncovers alarming stories of heartbreak caused by jaw-dropping venality. He talks with the widow of a man who was shocked to find out that her late husband's employer had secretly opened a life insurance policy on him while he was still alive. This meant implicitly it was in the company's pecuniary interest for him to die. Now they were reeling in more than a million dollars from his death — and yet refused to give his struggling family a cent. Moore flashes up on the screen the names of some of the companies that have engaged in similar, apparently legal, conduct — they include several all-American brand names, including Wal-Mart.
As Moore leads you through some odd byways, such as the low salaries of US domestic airline pilots, it's hard to figure out where he is actually taking you — or indeed what kind of argument he's trying to construct, other than that "capitalism is bad, folks — very, very bad".
But then, as has long been obvious, Moore doesn't really build arguments as such. His shtick is emotion. I lost count of the number of sequences in which he holds the camera steady as an interviewee tears up.
He comes up with stories that will — or at least should — be shocking to people of any political persuasion. He knows how to make a rabble-rousing doco that talks the language of ordinary Americans. He sells what they like to buy — tabloid stories full of shouting headlines, sentiment and outrage, goodies and baddies.
And Moore is very good at it. In fact, he is a consummate entertainer. He's funny and he knows how to make even a rambling narrative come to life. That old routine where he tries to force his way into some corporate HQ can be very amusing, like when he announces he's there to make a citizen's arrest, or surrounds a Wall Street institution with black and yellow crime scene tape. I like the guy.
But the question remains: what does he think ought to replace all this corruption and greed? Toward the film's end, he finally supplies an answer. The USA needs to move beyond the tired old tug-of-war between capitalism and socialism. What it needs is "democracy" Come again? Don't Americans already have a democratic system?
The context reveals that Moore is being sly. When he speaks of democracy, he means democracy in the workplace. He shows us an example of a workers' co-operative, and also cites the example of German workers' participation on company boards.
But workers' democracy was also a basic principle of immediate post-revolutionary Soviet Union — the word "soviet" refers to the workers, soldiers and sailors councils that were meant to be the instruments of grassroots power. At least, it was until 1921, when the Bolsheviks sent troops across the ice to crush the rebellion of left-wing military men and civilians at the naval fortress of Kronstadt. Workers' self-management was also a central principal of another radical movement which was influential at the start of the 20th century — anarcho-syndicalism — associated in the US with the International Workers of the World, or the "Wobblies".
So is Moore an anarcho-syndicalist or a communist? He talks about moving "beyond socialism" — yet what he advocates sounds quite a lot like socialism. Or is he merely thinking of the kind of democratised industrial relations system in Germany, where workers can elect representatives on to corporate boards? Alas, the film doesn't explain.
Nor did he make matters any clearer when he was a guest on ABC TV's Lateline Business last week. Asked by host Ali Moore to explain what his system to replace capitalism would look like, Moore paused for an awkwardly long moment before uttering the words: "I dunno".
He continued, "Am I supposed to know that? I can tell you that cancer is bad. Now, do I have a right to say that without having to now give you the cure for cancer? I mean, it's enough to point out, doing my job as a documentary filmmaker, that something here is really, really wrong, and it's really hurt millions of people. That's my job.
"My hope is that when people see my films, that someone or someones out there, some people out there are going to leave the theatre and go, 'You know what, we can do better than this. We can come up with something different, because this isn't working.' So it's not really up to me to figure that out."
Thank you, Michael Moore — loved your film! But as deftly as it exposes some of the problems with capitalism in its current state, foisting off all responsibility to figure out an alternative, well, that's really not very helpful at all.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Hi Lynden,
I saw the film last night and likewise I appreciate Mike’s work. Two points:
1. As I’m sure you’d agree, it is important that we have alternative media/docos etc. not bank rolled by big business and restricted to their views.
2. I think people need to get off Mike’s back and not expect him to solve or offer solutions to vastly complex problems. He’s a documentary maker, do we expect Pilger to solve the problems of places he visits?
Mike is doing an enormous service by expanding awareness. Yes it is tabloid, statistics can be manipulated, etc, but he also reaches a wider audience who is attracted to this type of spin and who wouldn’t normally watch a doco. I wish the media would cut him some slack and report what everyday people actually think. Cheers.
douglas jones
Maybe he like the rest of us find it easier to complain than to bother about a solution.
However one might note that the treatment of the latest bust by the media and blogs has been rather similar though perhaps with much greater assurancxe that all is getting better. This despite the fact that the grand toxic sums bandied about initially can in no way have been liqidated.
One remembers the many theories apportioning blame and suggesting correction, one was reregulation but reading the blogs from America one gathers this is being strenuously resisted by the banks and to a lesser exetnt by the shadow banking system, who continue to behave as before. A cry taken up in the latest weekly Guardian.
Then there was the idea that maybe , since efficient market theory and rational persons seem contrary to the observed that maybe the economic models provided assurance for the players not warranted by theory which had left out animal (irrational )behaviour much pushed by the behaviourist economists.
Examaning what happened many conclude that once regulation was gone the lure of easy profit from every transaction seemingly at no risk gave perverse incentives and capitalism based on companies legally required to make a profit obliged, even if much of this stuck to the fingers of the executives. Greed was not good the economy would not self regulate.
One expected given the lackof knowledge by punters claimed as a feature,curing by eduction would rapidly follow simple easy to read, as is necessary, articles explaning the market and the money illusion. But know just complaints, some quitestylish as is talked of here.
One should not forget the loyal opposition who concentrated on the present government reckless spending forgetting that the 1929 crash was made worse and longer by strict monetary policy, howver thebpunters were frightened and the oppositions cahnce of power was by that much increased, a perverse incentive maybe?
Equally one should not forget in examaning economic paradigms that currently theenvironment is taken as endless resources unlimiting. Still true Herman Daly for one would argue not.
Isn’t Moores definition of capitalism flawed? Shouldn’t he be calling it corporatism?
Thanks for the article. I’ve been keen to go out to see this - definitely will now.
Echoing the comments above, I think it’s absolutely fine for a filmmaker like Moore to get out there exposing the problems with the current system without providing his own solutions. Most people, I would argue, do not have an end point in sight or utopian societal goals- but rather see what is more immediate and apparent, the things that can be improved in the current system.
Imagine if Moore had spelled out an alternate vision for society. Odds are that most people would not find it to be particularly compelling, even those who have made similar criticisms of the current capitalist system. I can imagine him getting a whole lot of ridicule for putting forward ideas which were "hopelessly idealistic or unrealistic." This way, he can continue to speak to a relatively large audience, press their buttons, and leave it up to them to start thinking about a way forward. I think Moore would be happy if even half of those who saw his films left and started to seriously grapple with these issues or decided to get active politically. Really, I think this is what Moore is about. He is aimer for a broader audience than perhaps those who read NM or who are already active politically. In this, I think he judge himself a success.
What an idiotic article. Name one person in history who has ever proposed a ‘replacement’ for an economic system, and not been proved mostly wrong. Progress- if such a beast exists- is reliant on dissent. Utopians have their place as well. But asking Michael Moore to bring capitalism crashing down and then single-handedly conceive its successor is a bit much; particularly within a two hour time-frame, and with the audience he has in mind.
There is plenty of confusion about Capitalism, and we all have been vaccinated against any thought about any alternatives by the pervasive subtle (and not subtle) propaganda of the capitalist Mass Media.
Thinking about what is happening on this planet lately, many people with a still functioning brain are now asking questions and some have enough guts and integrity to think and, against their middle class interests, timidly mention the inescapable answers.
I have nothing to lose, I am old and I am not risking a well paid job in Academia; therefore for what it is worth I take advantage that there is still freedom left on the Internet (before it is gradually eroded) to say the unspeakable.
For what it is worth visit salterre.org , it is a primitive rough draft but you may find some answers about Capitalism and some suggestions about alternatives that are not Trotskyite, Leninist or Stalinist but are just human common sense that somebody with more ability and energy may take up.
Good luck for your future!
http://www.salterre.org
douglas jones
So what might Mr Moore have found had he chosen to attempt definition of problems?
He might have found that consumers are no longer finding happiness in consuming or possessing more. Something else is wanted by these people something not offered by the many choices on offer.
But to change means not only identifying what is wanted but that item(s) offering profit to the entrepreneur and work for the consumers to enable them to purchase the product, are available, at least in the current form of economic theory.
Indeed we have just seen what happens when some factor of production is interfered with, labour is shed purchasing power reduced feeding a spiral of depression.
So are we caught in a system demanding new ventures with consumption necessary being created by advertising and fashions? What of the many new young folk seeking work are new ventures needed just so they can earn money to buy.
If so are there enough resources available both on the production side and on the disposal of waste side? The Rocky Mountain Institute has long suggested ways of reducing the needs of each, only some of which have been put into practice. Some waste of energy or material seems inevitable in our system nature having devised a no wast system but maybe not one adapted to human more limited desires.
It is apparently only the replete of our community who seek a different product from our economy, the impoverished want to eat reproduce possession only a means to this end.
Trickle down in our current system was meant to correct this but has failed to do so .
Production to produce enough wealth to correct the damage capitalism has inflicted
Is still proposed by some.
A perhaps larger concern is how capitalism as practiced tends to increase inequality, as an assumption that we are playing a competitive game with money the prize with an assumed underlying morality that this is nature way survival of the fittest. Yet marked inequality breeds social chaos nota feature desired by a stable economy.
There are other problems and maybe our current system cannot be regulated in a way that satisfies them all But to change means altering not only vested interests but an embedded belief system as well.
the point of mainstream documentaries like moore’s is to simply raise awareness of these issues and try get people to think differently. moore’s documentaries are quite effective in this manner, its like today tonight on the big screen. it reaches a large audience and uses dramatic effects to make a simple biased arguments.
it’s probably better that he doesn’t make any suggestions to fix these issues, because if he did it would just over simplify complex issues
Don’t they say that love is blind?
Do we love capitalism or in love with capitalism?
I guess I’ll just have to see the fillm, tsk tsk
Like just about every other respondent to Lynden’s article I haven’t seen the film. Like just about everybody else I’m happy to put my two cents worth in to the discussion. Like Today Tonight Moore shows the effects of peoples’ actions on other people. The actions shown are usually the product of greed or some equally obnoxious motive. In days gone by ‘our’ behaviour was modified by fear of what might happen to us in the ‘hereafter’ or of what the state might do to us if we were caught. There used to be Money, Religion and the State. Now we just have one left, Money. If you don’t believe me, cast your mind back to the fines and or jail terms meeted out to ‘white collar’ criminals compared to those caught in other unlawful activities. Try James Hardie for size. Mike Moore like his fellow tabloid journalists shows up the dark side of human activity. None of them provide an answer to the problems and the more "serious" journalists, with the exception of 60 Minutes or 4 - Corners, avoid these issues like the plague. I have nothing to say about News Limited, because to me they aren’t journalists, just publicists for what Chairman Murdoch decrees, which co-incidentally suits his monetary interests. So, good on Michael Moore and I’ll see you all at the movies.
The Michael Moores and Ralph Naders are essential information providers.
The regulators still stand condemned of not having done their job. Let us see both the perpetrators and the victims and voice our disgust to those who can fix the system.
I suspect Michael Moore is talking about a form of democratic socialism. In the movie he explicitly discusses worker self-management as a form of economic democratisation. Furthermore, he suggested that this was his solution in an interview on CNN, but when asked directly by Wolf Blitzer as to whether he was a socialist he responded evasively, answering that he was also a "Christian and a heterosexual" but did not deny the proposition. The reason Moore does not put forward his socialist beliefs more explicitly is that he knows that, unfortunately, it is political suicide to declare oneself a socialist in the United States, and as such hopes to repackage the ideas of libertarian variants of socialism as ‘democracy’ so as to make them more palatable.
The question at the start of the article doesn’t beg us to read it. I mean, isn’t it obvious, that it is difficult enough in mainstream USA to say "capitalism is causing bad outcomes" in a movie which many people will see, and so if Michael Moore had any personal opinion about what the solution is, why would he say so. Just to have his film silenced! Fact is that he is advocating for a more complete education in the mainstream, about all the real world consequences of capitalism, and telling us that he believes in democracy. So it is safe for us to interpret that his message is intentionally communicating that the majority of citizens of the USA agree.
Sure he tells it without being shy of the emotions involved, and obviously shy about making any politically one sided discourse about the way into a future of real solutions, but maybe that is what is needed for many people before they can even consider listening to a paper seller, or anything with any remote link to anybody named ‘socialist’, little own communitist, maoist, leninist, or trotskyist. Get real about who the (our) audience is.
Everybody knows this.
Word Sword Sworn
At Hath
That Hat
Inshallah no poetry farce
By Solomon’s Seal will my past
No word not true can last
answering martyns: you mentioned that we used to all have a trio, of money, religion, and state to hate, but now we only have money. Another analysis I read says that the phenomenon of nation states, is held together by an unholy allegiance between bankers,(and corrupt money interests), occultists, (interests in the corrupted interpretations of religious teaching), and legislators, (who used to be only the servants of royalty).
So if we’ve only got money left to blame/hate, then what has happened to the occult and legislators, or did they all become too obvious in their kowtowing to the financial sector? So that begs the question, as to whether the bankers are still, in fact, very dependent upon the legislators and/or occultists. Or even, in fact, dependent upon keeping voters and religious believers in a delusion about what capitalism can acheive.
Kudos to Michael Moore for his shattering of the fallacies, and doing it in a way that shows that the unholy allegiances that started nation states, can turn into a real allegiance between voters, religious work, and … , but hang on, who is going to control the work of bankers in the dawning new age?
Which is, I suspect, the same question as the original article is asking.
Word Sword Sworn
At Hath
That Hat
Inshallah no poetry farce
By Solomon’s Seal will my past
No word not true can last
p.s. having been at a green left weekly preview of the film, can I add that it is among Michael Moore’s best.
Word Sword Sworn
At Hath
That Hat
Inshallah no poetry farce
By Solomon’s Seal will my past
No word not true can last
I didn’t have particularly high expectations of the film, and was impressed. I don’t think it’s his best work, but solid nonetheless. He’s been oft accused of promoting communism, but that’s a total furphy, and can’t be sustained. I don’t think he’s interested in democratic socialism as much as social democracy. America really has lost its way, and he points that out quite clearly. The important thing is awareness, and then solutions and action can follow. Some of those facts, like airline pilot wages and corporate insurance policies on employees are absolutely eye-opening and shocking. The start of the film, with the references to the Roman empire are really quite thought-provoking. How can the US maintain its strength when it’s built on the back of such shocking exploitation? It really is capitalism of the worst order.