Capitalism, a Love Story, a film

Michael Moore's film, Capitalism: A Love Story, is just as funny as its title and just as veil-lifting as his previous films have been on their subjects.

Wrapping crime-scene tape around Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Street Pirates is a hilarious and incisive gesture and looking closely at some of the victims of the predator culture brings home the criminality of some of what happens when the bottom line is all that matters. An interview excerpt with an influential columnist with the Wall Street Journal pretty much says it all - the writer takes the usual propaganda device of associating capitalism with democracy and drops the latter component as unnecessary and in-the-way. The Constitutional guarantee and exhortation to seek happiness can apparently be completely satisfied by chasing money.

Speaking of Goldman-Sachs they, according to Moore, are amply represented, indeed are indistinguishable from the government, especially under the Bush Administration, at least when it comes to the treasury and economic policies. But they were there also in force under Clinton, the first Bush and certainly with a vengeance under (over!) Reagan - the Hollywood actor hired by Bankers and other lesser Capitalists to represent their interests. The film confirms that most of the congress and anyone with any chance of getting anywhere near the presidency are employed by the same forces in the form of campaign contributions and shared ideology. Across all these administrations Wall Street sociopaths can be seen moving - into government, shifting a few rules (deregulate), back to Wall Street, make some more money, back to government, tweak it abit (deregulate) and serenely count profits while the economy melts down. The appointment of Larry Summers as his chief economic adviser demonstrates that Obama-the-reformer has in no way escaped the clutches of this cabal. Maybe the change he was talking about was in Oval Office decor (to give him his due, the Woodward book, Obama's War, claims that "enhanced interrogation" techniques and rendition have ended under Obama, a change worth the 10 minutes it took to vote).

The stormtrooper right routinely lies, makes stuff up, distorts data, all to discredit what it perceives as the enemy, usually socialism. They have to since to honestly present their view, that the wealthy should rule, would discredit themselves. So I hate to see Michael Moore use their tactics, even in a minor way, which I'm afraid he does in a segment where he presents airline pilots, deep in debt from their training, underpaid and working part-time jobs outside their profession to make ends meet. For many students in the U.S. this is a sad but true tale but the film implies (by using a visual of a large major airliner while citing the statistics) that pilots make less than $20,000 a year when in fact this figure is only true for the commuter airlines and part-time pilots. Moore, under constant attack by the right, should not give his critics ammunition.

Moore includes in his film something he discovered in South Carolina, lost footage of President Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union Address. In his talk Roosevelt suggested that the nation needed to implement a second "bill of rights". His argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

* Employment, with a living wage,
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
* Housing,
* Medical care,
* Education, and,
* Social security

Roosevelt believed that these rights would guarantee U.S. security, and that our place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice. Unfortunately Roosevelt died before he could use his immense popularity to bring this vision to fruition. The film leaves that task to us.

The Religious/Existentialist Marriage

Conscious Indian, oil on canvas, 1984 Tom Ferguson (detail, collection Patty & Patrick Brennan)

The meaning of the word God, in my neighborhood during my formative years was conventional, literal biblical, bearded guy in the sky taking notes, who’s been naughty, who’s been nice. This got challenged, or should I say devastated, when I walked into a design class in art school conducted by Myron Kozman, Think Richard Dawkins mischievously assailing received wisdom.

The usual response to new information is either denial or paradigm adjustment. My old neighborhood would have chosen the former. Migrating from working class to bohemia made the latter choice feasible for me, still received wisdom I suppose but more thought out this time: Existentialism – Dylan’s line in Visions of Joanna played its supporting role, “We’re all sitting here stranded, doing our best to deny it.” As did Sartre’s learn to think clearly; think clearly about good and evil; do good. In this bleak paradigm there is no God at all, no supernatural. Earth is a rock in space, isolated individuals are subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune, and the nets of chance… and especially there is indifference, even hostility, from a dead backdrop and a ruthlessly competitive life system.

Glimpses of an enlarged, more appealing perspective appeared, in the form of Eastern thought, Buddhism and Hinduism, delivered by Hesse, Huxley, Alan Watts, LSD and The Beatles but these remained occasional, not always consistent, hazy if intense glimpses until Eckhart Tolle’s books brought the various strands into an unprecedented clarity. Others may have arrived at this view before Tolle, and as clearly but I’m not aware of them (Huxley’s book Island comes close). And the point is the view, not who gets credit for it.

The three phases I’m describing, that I went through, could be thought to be incompatible, irreconcilably antagonistic, or they could be seen as paraphrasing each other, pointing at the same thing. The language of Christianity (or any other religion) could be metaphoric, standing for or pointing at a difficult to describe reality. Existentialism could be seen to be pointing directly at the reality itself. Both views must jettison some baggage to arrive at a happy marriage: Religion must recognize the Mythology of its language; Existentialism must quit its pessimistic and arbitrary conclusion that reality is horrifying. When the marriage is consummated we are in the Great NOW where the barricade of mind chatter is set aside, leaving a non-narrative presence, a felt recognition of interconnection, of Oneness, with its healing component, the peace, as the preacher says, that passeth all understanding.

Tea Time

Serve some crumpets with that unreality virus hitting our congress. A mixed metaphor but in zany times like this there are new rules. Orwell would be amused. Grassroots now means any number of people recruited by public relations experts hired by billionaires to convince said persons that their interests align with the funders. Some focus-group derived rhetoric required. Any gathering no matter how small will have first rate sound systems, local right-wing celebrities, sometimes national versions of same, tuned to the focus-group data, and lavish media promotion and coverage. The slogan Take Back Our Country appeals to a certain brand of disenfranchised and argues at the same time that our country has indeed been taken, implying that we had it in the previous administration which again would impress Orwell.

Bryan Burrough, in his book The Big Rich, documents how Texas oil millionaires distorted our democracy by funding right wing candidates, not just in their home state but across the country, and targeting any politician they deemed too “liberal” (communist!). Their efforts helped bring us the red-scare 50s. So today. We’ve lost an honest, compassionate voice in the senate with Russ Feingold’s defeat to a tea-party stalwart worthy of Joseph McCarthy. The people of Wisconsin seem to have forgotten that history. You may not be able to fool all of the people all of the time but you can come pretty close if you pump enough money, vitriol and unscrupulous but clever con artists into the electoral process. So here we are once again, having deviated slightly from the path to extinction, having thus pushed the hysteria button on those who have the wherewithal, motivation and inclination to get us back on track.

Moderation in All Things

On one end of a continuum of theories of governance is Democracy, where the People rule. On the other is Plutocracy where the wealthy class calls the shots. In the public discussion of this polarization in the United States there are those who take a sort of middle position and confusedly think of themselves then as moderates. But is it a “moderate” position to compromise Democracy? The argument might be clarified if we put it in these terms: Democracy demands one person, one vote, Plutocracy demands rule by the rich and “moderation” offers a compromise where the vote is based on dollars, that is, one dollar, one vote. Somehow I don’t think this is what the Greek Philosopher had in mind, that moderation consists in taking a position sort of half way between the extremes. Not when these are false, set up to give the appearance that a violation of the principle of Democracy has parity with it, that Democracy is an extreme. Someone at the table declares they have a right to 100% of the meal so a “moderate” would accept that demand as valid but work out a compromise where that person ends up with only 90%. It is apparently unthinkable in respectable quarters of the U.S. but taking the view that a tiny minority should have disproportionate influence is an extremist position. It is the task of the mainstream media, on behalf of their wealthy and corporate owners, to obscure this simple fact.

Support the Troops Song & Dance

The drawing came out of an experience I had at a night club. A Nashville singer-songwriter had a Support Our Troops sticker on his guitar and stated how proud he was of his nephew for serving in Iraq and urged us to Support the troops – I wanted to shout, “Bring’em home!” but I allowed myself to be intimidated into silence. That failure haunted me enough to try to compensate with the drawing. The text below was printed on the flip-side of the drawing, a pocket-sized flyer I would hand out to folks at demonstrations. When I saw Bush or Support our Troops bumper stickers in parking lots I’d leave one under the windshield wiper. The situation has changed somewhat with Obama’s ascendancy to the throne but the pressure to exercise the violence option is pretty intense, whether that pressure comes from the defense industry, patriarchal ideologues or from within one’s own psyche.

The Bush Administration lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, claiming:

* that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and intended to develop nuclear weapons.

* that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and was involved in 9/11

* Both of these rationales were discredited by the 911 Commission. Despite this the White House continued to portray the war on Iraq as a war against terrorism.


Administration officials advocated for invading Iraq long before 911 as part of their fantasies of empire. The real motives seem to lie here and in the oil riches of the region. War profiteering is a predictable bonus for the administration’s friends and allies in the Military and “Security” Industrial Complex. War is always an opportunity to shrink Democracy and accountability, highly favorable advantages when looting the treasury (since reading Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine I now assign this latter motive a more central role).

The Administration talked of “Freedom on the March” but that was transparent propaganda. Aside from the illegal invasion, measures contained in the Patriot Act and other Administration actions, such as ignoring a Supreme Court ruling on prisoner rights to legal representation, the torture scandal, dismissal of dissent at home and the alienation created by its arrogant relations to the world community put the lie to its pretense of promoting Democracy. The Wikileak revelations certainly support these contentions.

The Administration exploited fear of terrorism among the population to distract from its deeply undemocratic agenda. This agenda includes dangerous and expensive militarization, continued transfer of power and wealth to the already powerful and wealthy, and denial of environmental pollution that threatens the viability, even the survival, of our civilization. Administration policies harmed our standing in the world of nations and undermined our security by creating resentment and animosity toward our country. Obama, despite preposterous accusations (socialist, Islamicist, etc;), has made barely detectable change in Bush’s policies. The hysterical animosity toward him is amplified by Fox news, made easier by racism, the other mainstream news outlets and by his own betrayal of his base. The most zealous members of the ruling elite, via their media, reacting to modest reform as if it were revolution, are laying out a warning to all comers: threaten our privilege, profits and power, however mildly, and you will be demonized.

Know Thyself

Arrival, oil painting by author, 48 x 60"

Some 2,500 years ago a city smaller than Atlanta produced painting,
sculpture, architecture, theater, poetry, literature and pottery which
stand as monumental foundation for the Art we experience around us in the
west today. In 1982 I stood before the Acropolis in Athens, awed at the
sophistication of a people whose technology was mightily primitive
compared to what has developed since. Yet they were able to construct an
incredibly advanced civilization which despite our tools, we merely echo.
Another aspect that we mirror is a missed opportunity: Instead of
building a just and gentle society providing all with basic necessities
and leisure to enjoy a creative, celebratory life, they constructed
impressive art and implements of war and domination (I know, I know,
Sparta was only a stone’s throw west).

In their invention of democracy however they laid a foundation for the
possibility which we have, so far, squandered. Until our time it
has been by and large a pleasant if utopian dream. With the development of
nuclear weapons, and a consuming population growing exponentially, that
utopia is an imperative that will emerge when we have put an end to war,
domination, injustice and environmental degradation. Imperative because,
if we are not successful we will perish in the uninhabitable environs of a
wasted life system, well underway.

Perhaps Greek’s greatest gift was the admonition Know Thyself, for that is
the means by which we might yet save ourselves. What do those two words
mean? If Self is consciousness then attending to one’s consciousness would be
following that dictum. This would mean becoming the observer, noting the
passing thoughts and emotions and noting also, they are not YOU… YOU are
the observer. Thus released from the captivity of those thoughts,
emotions… karma… one is ONESELF, the consciousness that exists in, indeed
IS , the great now, the eternal moment. That moment is not one of a series
but, as the eternal qualification indicates, is the core out of which the
temporal world emerges and recedes. Some traditions refer to this as
illusion, recognizing that what seems so physical and permanent is
an insubstantial if beautiful pageant, which felt knowledge frees one
to join the exhilarating dance of life.

Shock Doctrine - I'm shocked!

This drawing was done in the early 80s when Reagan was using such terms to manipulate us, "Stay the course! If you're just patient, you'll see great prosperity. Any day now, trust me."

Naomi Klein has done us all a favor and lifted the veil that has hidden the manipulators of the levers of power, revealing a very disturbing reality. The ruling economic theory from the great depression to Reagan was Keynesian, a theory characterized by the notion that government should intervene to protect the people from the worst excesses of capitalism. With Reagan came the beginning of the ascendancy of the Chicago School of Economics in our fair land, led by Milton Friedman, a former fringe group that cleverly, and viciously, insinuated itself into a global movement. Characterizing itself as “pure capitalism” it sold a seductive elixir that promised prosperity for all, in the form of trickle down benefits, as an automatic result of a market freed from government regulation. Not surprisingly the Chicago School was heavily funded by large corporations.

Implementation of the theory, Disaster Capitalism as Klein puts it in her subtitle, is everywhere hindered by the resistance of those who will “initially” have to bear the pain of its enactment. The “initial” suffering in every case that it has been tried is actually permanent. When not permanent, that is invariably because its rules were thrown out. When throwing out the Chicago School rules created relief and an improvement in the economy the “Chicago Boys” did not hesitate to claim credit. In fact it was it’s earlier failure in the 1920-30s that nudged Keynesianism into being, partially at least as a reaction to the competing appeal of socialism, an idea that had not quite yet been totally demonized. The program is best introduced in dictatorships where the pesty population can be persuaded, using the usual methods, to stand out of the way. Failing that the next strategy is to have everything in place awaiting some crisis under cover of which the new rules can be quickly slipped in place. Notice how, for all the talk of “freedom”, the theory virtually requires extreme anti-democratic measures.

In her enlightening book Klein walks us through a thoroughly depressing series of successes for the “boys”: Chile, Argentina, Brazil, England, Poland, China, South Africa, Russia and of course the U.S., where Katrina and 911 were used as crisis leverage points by Friedman’s friend Paul Wolfowitz and the other, ah… vultures around W. Success in these cases is a bit different than the advertisement. It would seem that since the adherents proselytize relentlessly, with religious fervor, and since their “successes” always result in the impoverishment of the many and the enrichment of the few, and since they call this success, this must be their actual goal. But like the republican party and conservatives in general, a politician can’t very well state to the electorate, and expect to be elected, that, “When I’m elected I’ll work as hard as I can to bring back Fuedalism.” So seductive, flowery, and divisive rhetoric must obscure the betrayal until it is way too late.