This blog post examines the structural problems of American capitalism highlighted by Michael Moore in his film Capitalism: A Love Story, and the potential for democracy he presented as an alternative.
There’s one filmmaker I admire. He wielded significant influence in changing America’s healthcare system. That’s Michael Moore, widely known as the director of the film SICKO. I watched another of Michael Moore’s works, Capitalism: A Love Story. This film was released in 2009. Long ago, this film became the spark for the Occupy Wall Street movement. Through this film, Michael Moore critiques capitalism, which has been revered almost like a religion in American society. He argues in the film, using various examples and evidence, that individual poverty stems not from personal laziness or lack of ability, but from systemic societal problems.
Praise and admiration for American capitalism have been the driving force sustaining the United States. Yet Michael Moore questions its very foundation. Was it truly the adoption of capitalism that enabled America’s growth? The era’s circumstances played a significant role in America’s rise. Germany and Japan, their industrial bases destroyed by World War II, collapsed. Seizing this opportunity, America experienced explosive growth in exports and domestic demand across most industries, including manufacturing. This era served as the foundation for the growth of the American middle class. However, growth inevitably has its limits. The resurgence of Japan and Germany, coupled with the rapid advancement of developing nations, pushed the United States into an economic downturn. It was during this period that President Ronald Reagan took office. The Reagan administration is often credited with revitalizing the U.S. economy through revolutionary tax policies and economic planning. Indeed, during Reagan’s tenure, the United States solidified its position as the center of the global economy. Yet, looking beneath the surface, the methods used to stimulate the economy ultimately exposed the U.S. economy and financial system to long-term risks. Mass layoffs of American workers occurred, while those remaining were burdened with increased workloads at the same wages. Corporate labor costs decreased, while productivity conversely increased, benefiting companies and shareholders. However, policies were implemented to reduce income tax rates for the wealthy. So, to whom did these gains ultimately flow? On one side, people suffer years of unemployment, unable to find work. On the other, employees are chained to their companies day and night, overwhelmed by a deluge of tasks. Under the banner of labor flexibility, regular positions dwindled while non-regular ones proliferated. Consequently, the power of individuals facing corporations and vast social structures grew increasingly feeble. Gradually, the foundation for their own exclusive league began to solidify.
The wealth gap widened, and the middle class began to collapse. Household debt steadily increased. Even with hard work, people couldn’t afford homes. Even with hard work, they could barely scrape by, barely managing to pay off student loans. This rising household debt presented an opportunity for the US stock market and corporate executives. They offered loans up to 90% of a home’s value and lured citizens with complex derivatives. Companies secretly purchased expensive life insurance policies in their employees’ names, pocketing massive payouts upon the employees’ deaths. The employees’ families were unaware of this, and the benefits never reached the families who actually needed the insurance money. This outwardly growing American society began to show cracks when the subprime mortgage crisis erupted. Mortgage lenders and investment banks went bankrupt, and people lost their homes, ending up on the streets.
Amid the U.S. economic crisis, President George W. Bush appealed for passage of a $700 billion budget bill. It was a bill to bail out the financial sector using taxpayer money. Meanwhile, Wall Street had steadily increased its influence over the government. Starting with Donald Regan, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, followed by Robert Rubin, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Larry Summers, who served as Treasury Secretary, they implemented policies tailored to their interests. The government lost its role of monitoring and controlling the financial sector, while Wall Street poured massive bailout funds into the government, effectively placing it under its control. Ultimately, the budget passed, and the taxes of citizens struggling to make ends meet despite hard work were offered as a sacrifice to Wall Street’s performance-based bonuses.
Angry citizens took to the streets shouting, “Occupy Wall Street!” Meanwhile, laid-off workers staged protests against their companies. Their demonstrations seemed to show that hope still existed in America. Citizens brought food to the isolated laid-off workers, and police protected them. The sight of American citizens supporting the laid-off workers was deeply moving. Ultimately, the companies accepted the laid-off workers’ demands.
Michael Moore knows how to effectively convey his message. His films possess the power to persuade, move, and spur people to action. However, they reveal limitations by presenting only examples that unilaterally support his arguments. Collecting and editing only the material he deems necessary, presenting it as the whole truth, offers only a one-sided interpretation of the phenomenon, making his claims extreme. This approach has appeal; it strongly highlights problems and communicates them effectively. Yet, unconditionally siding with one side is not appropriate for solving problems. I believe it is undesirable for the conclusion to boil down to a conflict between the 1% and the 99%. The voice of the 99% will grow quieter as it becomes 98%, then 97%. Ultimately, the fundamental problem remains unresolved. It’s not about confrontation or choosing sides; the right and left must come together to find common ground. In that sense, rather than solely targeting the greedy 1% in the film, I believe studying them is also necessary. I wonder why they made such choices within their lifestyle, culture, and way of life. I want to understand them too. I want to find points of rupture within their culture and enable them to reflect.
Isn’t there that famous proposition that humans are social animals? I hope we can find humanity within them, believing they are beings who at least know how to live together, or once knew how to live together. In truth, the word ‘humanity’ carries too many meanings to be defined by a single definition. We know that both the astonishingly altruistic goodness of a primitive tribe and the brutal cruelty seen in countless wars and massacres throughout human history, where members of the same species mercilessly kill each other, are both facets of humanity. We have examined diverse cultures and found clues to solutions we need within them. We must seek solutions to the problems facing both America and us with a deeper perspective and from diverse viewpoints.
Michael Moore’s films are compelling because they frame our familiar way of life within an unfamiliar perspective. They offer us a fresh viewpoint, one we’ve missed amidst the daily grind. His films are critiques of his own society while also serving as mirrors for other societies to reflect upon their own. Moreover, his films, told from the perspective of the relatively disadvantaged with a critical eye, can shatter the illusions of capitalism that the privileged class has ingrained.
Michael Moore does not reject capitalism. He simply argues for restoring proper capitalism through democracy. However, I hope we can move beyond the notion that humans are beings who pursue only economic gain. If we maintain this value unchanged, poverty and greed will always exist. The solution lies in seeking values beyond the economy. It is not a demand to make us rich enough to stand against the 1%. What matters is changing the standard of what it means to be human and rediscovering the humanity we have lost.
