Lux Lucet

Capitalism:  A Love Story.  Michael Moore director.  2 hours and 6 minutes. Rated R for strong language.

Michael Moore wants you to know two things about Capitalism:  1) it’s evil and 2) he hates it.  Moore makes both points abundantly clear in his latest, ironically titled film Capitalism: A Love Story.  That Moore would disapprove of capitalism came as no surprise to me; I expected as much.  But the degree of blatant anti-capitalist hostility manifested in this film left me shocked.  In a way, that’s to Moore’s credit.  He’s willing to clearly speak his mind on the subject, and I can respect that.  This is preferable by far to listening to men who would bore us with ambiguous words designed to hide their true beliefs.  But for all that, in this film Moore also shows himself to be a deeply confused man. He seems not to have a clear idea of what capitalism is, and being unsure of his target, he ends up savaging capitalism for sins properly attributed to socialism, and praising socialism for benefits brought by capitalism. 

Moore’s position on capitalism is evident from the film’s opening, where he presents the viewer with a collection of still photos of bank robberies.  What could such pictures possible have to do with capitalism?  Really, it’s not hard to figure out.  You see, in Moore’s world, capitalism is robbery, or as he states later in the film, “capitalism is a system of giving and taking, mostly taking.” Capitalism, Moore believes, is theft and thoroughly corrupt at the ethical level.  This notion he defends, not by presenting a coherent argument, but through anecdotes such as: families losing their homes to foreclosure, an outrageously sleazy real estate agent buying condos on the cheap, teenagers who were thrown in juvenile detention to make money for a private prison contractor, a  sit-down strike at a Chicago window factory, and the little known corporate practice of buying life insurance policies on rank and file workers, also known as dead peasant insurance.  Of course, none of these anecdotes prove capitalism evil, but they can sway many people by appealing to their emotions.

Of Moore’s anecdotal evidence, I found most interesting his discussion of dead peasant insurance.  What a great name!  And one designed to offend.  This is perfect fodder for a class warrior like Moore.  According to Moore, this practice consists of evil, greedy corporations taking out life insurance policies on rank and file workers without their knowledge or consent.  The corporation names itself as the beneficiary, and so, if the employee dies, the Man rakes in the money and the family is left with nothing.  Outrageous!  Clearly we have in this an example of bourgeois capitalist exploitation of the proletariat.  Or maybe not.  In doing research on dead peasants, I found that by buying such policies, corporations are able to realize a tax savings.  The exploitation, in this case, is not of the workers, but of the IRS tax code.  What makes this ironic is that the income tax is  the spawn of the Progressive Era, a time when big government was in favor and private property under assault.  In other words, both the income tax and the IRS code are the products of socialists who thought very much along the lines of Michael Moore.  Therefore, far from condemning it, Moore should celebrate the exploitation of American workers at the hands of the IRS, corporate America and the insurance industry, for it represents the triumph of his ideology.  

More serious than his use of anecdotes, is the theological case Moore attempts to build against capitalism.  Using shots from the movie Jesus of Nazareth, Moore shows Jesus making dubbed comments such as, “I cannot heal your existing precondition.”  The audience found this funny, but what Moore is doing is setting up a contrast between Christianity and capitalism with this message: capitalism is unchristian.  Jesus, Moore would have us believe, is a socialist. 

Moore, who in his youth briefly studied for the priesthood, comes by this opinion at least in part as a result of his Roman Catholic background.  He interviews several Romanist clergymen in this film who tell us, 

• capitalism is a sin
• capitalism is contrary to the holy books
• capitalism must be eliminated
• capitalism is immoral and radically evil
• capitalism is something contrary to Jesus
• Christ would refuse to be part of capitalism

A movie review is not the place for a full refutation of these confused and unchristian statements.  For an excellent treatment of Rome’s long standing hostility to capitalism, please see Dr. John Robbin’s essay “Intellectual Dishonesty and Roman Catholic Apologetics.” For now, I simply wish to point out that capitalism, far from being a sin, is the economic system taught by the Scriptures,  the 66 books of the Bible.  Webster’s gives the definition of capitalism as, “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods.” The eighth commandment, you shall not steal, lays the groundwork for private property.  And lest anyone think that the Bible defend private property only with respect to items of personal use and not capital goods as well, that is goods used in the production of other goods, let him consider Christ’s actual, not dubbed, words, as he relates the parable of the workers in the vineyard,

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.  Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.  And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went.  Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.  And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’

So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius.  But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius.  And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ But he answered them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong.  Did you not agree with me for a denarius?  Take what is yours and go your way.  I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.  Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?  Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.  For many are called, but few chosen (Matt.20:1-16, emphasis added).

Had Moore been one of the vineyard workers, perhaps he would have attempted to organized a sit-down strike to protest unfair labor proctices.  But in this parable, Jesus approves the actions of the landowner.  Christ compares the kingdom of heaven to the vineyard; the landowner, a capitalist, represents God.  Defending his actions, the landowner refutes the complaints of the workers by stating, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” Thus Jesus, far from “refusing to be part of capitalism,” commends it as reflecting the economy of the kingdom of heaven.  Contrary to Rome and Michael Moore, God approves capitalism. 

Despite the radical, unchristian economic ideas put forth in this film, there was one bright spot:  Moore’s treatment of the 2008 Wall Street bailout did contain some truth.  One scene shows Moore driving an armored car up to the front entrance of AIG’s New York headquarters and demanding the return of the bailout money.  He also tries to make a citizen’s arrest of the company’s CEO.  Needless to say he didn’t get very far. 

Moore is right in arguing that the bailout plan, created by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury secretary Hank Paulson and approved by Congress, was indeed a crime.  It was a conspiracy by the well-connected to steal an enormous amount of money from the American people for the benefit of themselves, all the while telling us this action was being taken to save the country. 

Where Moore goes wrong is attributing this crime to capitalism.  Since the bailout was the result of cooperation between business and political interests, and involved huge public subsidies of private companies, this was in fact a crime of socialism.  And a particular brand of socialism at that: fascism.  As a socialist, I’m surprised Moore doesn’t approve of the bailout.  That he doesn’t demonstrates his hypocrisy.  Moore, you see, is angry, not because he thinks theft by government is wrong per se, but because it benefited the wrong people.  Given the concluding scene in Capitalism, one showing Franklin D. Roosevelt advocating his socialist Second Bill of Rights, Moore is quite comfortable with the idea of governmental theft, so long as it’s done in the name of the people rather than the rich. 

 In conclusion, I recommend seeing this film, not because I agree with its message, which I find appalling, or because Moore’s argument for socialism is logically impressive, it isn’t, but because its emotional appeal is such that it represents a significant challenge to the economic, legal and moral principles on which our country was built, and one capable of swaying many people.  Christians and all who love freedom need to understand that we are in a philosophical and theological war, and an accurate refutation of our opponents must include an understanding of their ideas in their own words.  The film’s R rating for adult language may turn off some from seeing it, and that’s understandable.  I recall two F-bombs being dropped; that was the extent of it.  But more offennsive than the foul language were the ideas being peddled, which, if implemented, will seriously damage our country.