I saw Michael Moore's new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, on Friday night. I went to the 10 PM showing, which turned out to be a good choice. There was hardly anyone there. Who knows. Maybe attendance was low for all of the showings. Regardless, the fewer morons present, the better. It makes it easier to enjoy a movie when fewer people are there talking or letting their cellphones ring.

I thought the movie was pretty good, though it was a little scattershot in it's approach and loosely focused. My biggest complaint is that Moore never bothered to actually define capitalism. Rather, he assumes the audience knows what is meant by capitalism. Key concepts are included without definition as well, e.g., profit, profit motive. It seems to me that these definitions are crucial. Examples are present of various aspects of capitalism, but there's never a clear statement about the essential concepts. For example, Moore never tells us the difference between benefiting one's own labor and capitalist profit (expropriation of another's labor) that underlies the capitalist economic system. Furthermore, he never explicitly discusses capitalist profit generated by merely moving capital around. It seems to me that making these conceptual factors clear would be important. He does a fine job at showing how capitalists scam and screw people and gives examples of people on the receiving end of capitalism. But the actual mechanisms of how this screwing takes places are largely unspecified.

Also, I thought his juxtaposition of democracy with capitalism a little vague. Yes, workplace democracy is a fantastic idea, but he never reveals what worker-owned means of production and workplace democracy might mean social relations. He also never clearly presents why worker-owners and democratic, non-hierarchic workplaces are anti-capitalist. Maybe the was worried about people calling him an anarchist, communist or socialist?

In the end, the documentary illustrates why capitalism is bad, particularly the means by which the ruling class is able to mobilize the government against the majority of the country. This should come as no surprise to anyone though. The parts about dead peasant insurance and Citigroups's plutonomy documents are definitely angering. Of course, that's the goal: to get an emotional response from the audience. However, the lack of thoughtful analysis of capitalist social relations, development of crucial concepts, and a clear alternatives to capitalist social relations left me disappointed. I wasn't even expecting alternatives I agreed with, but just saying "let's have democracy" isn't enough.

Having said all of that, it is worth seeing. If anything the film should cause viewers to have an actual conversation about capitalism and its consequences. Of course, I saw this by myself so I really didn't hit the conversation part. Then again, most people who might see this movie are probably sympathetic with Moore's cause, so I'm not sure how much useful discussion might result anyway. Who knows. I'm a pessimist like that. I also have little hope for reformist policies that circulate through our political system (e.g., healthcare reform). Here we have a chance to literally break capitalist control of healthcare. Instead we'll likely receive a few regulation changes and a new legal obligation to purchase for-profit insurance. So much for change.

Anyway, go see it. Even if you don't like his politics, there's enough in there to at least make you think about what capitalism means for most of us.