Michael Moore's Movie: Capitalism, A Love Story - Research Paper Example

Research Paper on Michael Moore’s Movie: Capitalism, A Love Story The purpose of this paper is to address a number of questions based on the film Capitalism, A Love Story written and directed by Michael Moore. The format that this paper will take is to first state the question, give qualifying remarks, provide an answer and draw conclusions should they apply. The paper will utilize a number of diagrams and graphs. Question #1- What are the fundamental differences between socialism and capitalism? What are the historical roots of the two systems? Whilst there are many different interpretations of socialism and how it is applied one of the most fundamental definitions of socialism is that it is a system in which control of the means of production, capital etc., is held in common (Oxford English Dictionary, 2009). Moreover one could argue that socialism can be any political system where governing power of a business entity is controlled by the by the state. Whilst the word ‘socialism’ tends to make a lot of people afraid it is the case that there are a number of state run businesses found in most countries. The historical roots of socialism can be traced back to writings of Aristotle and Plato (EconomicTheories.org, 2009) however the modern development and formalization of the system can be traced back to Karl Marx with his publication of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848. One could argue that it socialism as an ideology had been developed as a response to capitalism or more importantly socialism was developed as a response to what Marx identified as the imperfections of capitalism. It was Marx who argued that it was almost a certainty that capitalism would cause internal class struggles and by having a system in which power was spread evenly to encompass al parties, there would be a theoretic reduction in these tensions. Capitalism is simply a system where the means of production is privately controlled, but once again this is a system which has many different interpretations as to how it is applied. Whilst the traditional origins of capitalism can be traced back to the ancient world it is the case that modern capitalism arose to be the primary means of industrialization over the last four hundred years. Question #2- Why did the U.S. choose to rebuild Europe and Japan along socialist lines, rather than duplicating the American capitalist system? Do you agree with this statement? Wouldn’t you have expected them to base their actions on their own successful system? After the Second World War it is the case that the allied forces spearheaded by the United States aimed to rebuild axes powers. In the film Capitalism: A Love Story the director/narrator, Michael Moore highlighted that the United States did indeed rebuild Europe and Japan along socialist lines. I am inclined to semi agree with this statement. It is the case that these nations were rebuilt with many socialistic influences however I believe there was a political factor at play in this circumstance. Many invading powers in the past had forced conquered nations to adapt an identical system as employed by the host nation. This is the case with the German Anschluss of Austria in 1938, and the Japanese colonial occupation of the Korean Peninsula. Under these regimes the occupied territories were forced to adapt policies that they might otherwise have not adapted organically. In the case of Korea for example it the Japanese implemented a policy that made it forbidden for Koreans to vote or hold office in the Japanese House of Representatives. As such one could argue that the United States probably wanted to buck the trend of what traditionally an occupying power may do to an occupied nation. As such the United States did indeed play a pivotal role in helping to rebuild the economies and political systems of Japan and Germany however the system and design was probably envisioned by the Japanese and German nations respectively It is the case that logically the United States would have wanted to base their rebuilding efforts on mirroring that of their own successful system and in many circumstances they did. One could argue that Japan and Germany are neither entirely capitalistic nor entirely socialistic in their design. It is the case that in Japan and Germany there are a number of businesses that are privately controlled and many businesses that are controlled by the state. The difference is that these nations also incorporate a number of additional benefits such as free health care etc. which the United States does not have. Question #3- Why have the American people never supported socialist candidates for president or other elected offices (with the notable exception of Bernard Sanders in the Senate)? Virtually all the other democracies have been governed by socialists at one time of another. The United States of American has never really thrown their support for candidates that self identify as socialists (With the exception of Bernard Sanders). However it is the case that many politicians in the United States have embraced socialistic ideals. One excellent example of this is Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the ‘New Deal’ economic rebuilding package which incorporated three fundamental elements to improving the American political and economic situation which are relief, reform, and recovery. It has been argued by Outhwaite (2003) that the New Deal signified a shift in American policy away from a laissez-faire system of governance and towards increased intervention in price mechanisms, agricultural production, increased & improved social programs and a growing significance of the influence of labor unions on American industry. Whilst these were and remain highly controversial policies it is the case that they were very socialistic in nature. There have also been a number of rights advocates such as César Chávez who was successful in fighting for workers rights but was ultimately unsuccessful as a presidential candidate in 1976. Having said that, it is the case that almost all other democracies have been governed by outright socialist parties in the past and it is the case that this has not transpired in the United States. Although there may be some individual sympathies for socialistic ideals amongst voters socialist candidates have not nearly attracted the kind of support that wins elections. Question #4- In his movie, Michael Moore provides footage of the windows and doors takeover and the case where the community took back the house from the mortgage company. Why haven’t we seen a far greater number of such citizen’s uprisings in an attempt to rebalance the relationship between business, government, and society? The question why there have not been more citizen and organization uprisings with the goal of rebalancing the relationship between business government and society is tricky. If one were to consider squatting a form of legitimate civil disobedience with the intent of rebalancing wealth then it is the case that there are many examples of citizens occupying property with the aim of turning it into low-income housing cooperatives. In an article by Ferguson (2002) writing for the Village Voice, the author identified that a group of 250 squatters operating in the Lower East Side of New York City through their occupation were able to convince Mayor Bloomberg to convert eleven squats into low income housing co-ops. Under the agreement the squats were sold to the Urban Homesteading Alliance Board who as an entity must secure funds to bring the building up to code and will ultimately rent the properties to needy tenants. Ultimately this is just a drop in the bucket for a number of different organizations across the country trying to reach the same goals. There appear to be far fewer examples of citizen uprisings in businesses with the intent of rebalancing the relationship between worker and employer. The most logical conclusion as to why this practice is not as widespread as the occupation of homes it is probably the case that laid-off workers may see the occupations as being a waste of time that could otherwise be spent seeking gainful employment in another facility. Furthermore in the case of a business closing down it is unlikely that any occupation will force owners to reopen the facility, in fact it may serve as a bigger deterrent in getting owners to reopen a facility insofar as management may view the workers as being more risky and hostile in the future. Question #5- Why didn’t the workers who took over the windows and door company (or the thousands of other group of workers made redundant by factory closings) take over the business and run it as a new company (e.g. as a cooperative)? Why didn’t the go the next (logical) step? As far as the occupation of businesses with the intent of running them again as a new company, the situation gets a lot trickier. There are not many modern examples of this practice and this is almost certainly because of the increased complexity of running a business. A large business entity such as the Chicago Window and Glass Company (As highlighted in the film) is more than kiln operators, forklift drivers, and glass cutters. Today’s complex business environment requires the input of dedicated IT personnel, accounting staff, dedicated direct sales professionals, account managers, advertising departments, and logistics specialists to name a few. Without these components businesses face an uncertain future, more over it is the case that workers with this kind of training and experience are more desired in today’s modern workforce If a company were to go out of business and the workers were to try and reopen the facility as a and run it on their own it may be the case that a great deal of the staff who have a more specialized functions within the company would simply make a move to another company or industry. It may be the case that the remaining workers fulfill functions in the company that gave them very little experience in capital procurement, IT infrastructure, sales etc. It is also the case that the company was facing bankruptcy because of a downturn in the economy. Should the workers try to run the facility on their own it may be the case that they will simply face the same economic climate as the precious owners and as such risk plunging the coop owners into more debt. Question #6- The following link lists Jimmy Carters speech seen in the beginning of the movie: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html. Do you feel any of the speech still holds true today? Why or why not? I am of the opinion that a great deal of Jimmy Carters speech does indeed hold true today. It is the case that a great deal of the speech was dedicated to American energy policy and decreasing the dependence on foreign oil. However this has been a significant platform of almost every president and presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter and according the CIA World Factbook (2009) imported oil still accounts for over two thirds of American consumption. Much of Jimmy Carters speech was focused on a growing trend of average American citizens who are loosing faith in the American government and feel that the government no longer represents them. One need not look further than the elections turnout rates for 2008 and compare that to 1976 (When Carter was being elected) and it is the case that according to the United States Election Project (2009) average voter turnout rate only increased by approximately three percentage points. One could make the argument that this signifies that the average voter simply does not think that their vote even counts or is going to make a difference. Finally much of Carters speech dealt with how we can improve confidence in America and ultimately the target of that speech was that change was going to have to come from the ground up. This remained one of the primary platforms of President Barack Obama and the “Yes We Can!” campaign speech. As mentioned earlier I believe that much of the speech does hold true today and it is may be good if U.S. were to reduce dependence, on foreign oil an American citizens had increased faith in the government however in many respects these elements have not changed much since Carter was in power. Question #7- What were the key components of FDR’s second bill of rights? If he had lived to see the end of World War II, do you think he would he have had the power/authority to implement these proposals? Or would they have ended up as merely an interesting historical footnote? The key components of FDR’s second bill of tights were, The ability to have a job in which one can earn a living wage. Protection against unfair competition as well as monopolies. A home. Free medical care for all Americans. The right to free education. The ability to enjoy recreation in terms of holidays. Before we answer the question we must address a few issues. It is the case that some qualifiers must be given. In regards to unfair competition and monopolies, in the United States since 1890 there has been anti monopoly legislation in the form of the Sherman Anti Trust act which provides federal statutes against cartels and monopolies and requires that the federal government investigates all business entities that are suspected of engaging in this behavior (Cornell University Law School, 2009). In this respect it can be argued that there was no need for FDR to implement this proposal. It is also the case that there are a number of separate federal and state minimum wage laws as outlined in the Fair Labor Standards act of 1932 (Cornell University Law School, 2009) aimed at ensuring that workers earn an amount of money guaranteed to at the very least earn a wage that one can theoretically survive, furthermore the act also prohibited child labor, and guaranteed time and a half and overtime wages for some occupations. Some States do guarantee a mandatory vacation stipulation in their state laws but by and large this is not a guarantee. Lastly there is the issue of Education, while it is the case that university education is not free to American citizens it is the case that there is free education to all Americans up to the age of 18. It is the case that all of this was already guaranteed by the time he became president in 1933 Having said that there are two issues such as medical care, and housing that was mentioned in the second bill of rights. Neither of these elements are guaranteed to American citizens and the issue remains of whether or not FDR would have been able to implement it in his lifetime. On a personal level I don’t think that he could have implemented these broad sweeping changes in his lifetime as it is the case that by the time he died in 1945 according to the US Budget Historical Tables (2009) national debt in the United States had grown to over 120% of GDP. The implementation of these massive sweeping reforms would have almost certainly sent the United States on a downward economic spiral, and considering the fact that the United States had just come out of a depression and had just exited the Second World War I believe it would have been difficult for the American people to carry the financial burden of these changes at this point. However that is not to say that it could not happen as Great Britain began the National Health Service in the wake of an economic crisis following the Second World War so it is the case that anything is possible. Question #8- Many in the United States accuse Barack Obama of leading this country towards socialism. What are the pros and cons of this argument? Was FDR’s second bill of rights an attempt to do the same thing? While it is the case that many people have accused Barack Obama of bringing socialism to America the arguments usually listed are that Barack Obama emphasizes stronger labor unions as a means of improving American industry, the massive Wall Street bailout which sees more government control of the banks, and lastly the push for providing free healthcare for all American citizens. The pros of this argument are that it is indeed the fact that after the bailout the US government is playing a much stronger role in the running of the banking sector and as such it is the case that could be considered a strong argument for leading the country towards some sort of increased socialist control. The cons of this argument are that these elements are not socialism by definition. Take Canada for example which has a conservative government in power at the moment, yet the country still has free healthcare. Furthermore by simply emphasizing that unions should play a bigger role in American industry it is not necessarily the case that Barack Obama is demanding that all businesses become coops that control the means of production. On a superficial level I think that FDRs second bill of rights was trying to achieve some of the same things that Barack Obama is trying to achieve, namely free healthcare, but many of the other initiatives of the Second Bill of Rights are not simply a platform that Barack Obama ran on. Question #9- Assuming this second bill of rights had been enacted in 1945 or 1946, how different do you think the United States would be today? Specifically, how would we have handled (a) the housing/mortgage crisis, (b) the collapse of the financial institutions, and (c) the Enron debacle? If it was the case that the United States had enacted the Second Bill of rights the country would almost certainly be a much different environment than it is today. In regards to the housing mortgage crisis one could assume that the circumstance would not have come about because if there was a guaranteed housing one could assume that there would have been a much stricter control over mortgage regulations employed and again almost certainly there would have been some protection against predatory sub prime mortgages. However assuming the housing crisis had arisen anyway, the United States would be stuck with the bill for thousands upon thousands of defaulted mortgages, in an effort to ensure that the families can stay within their homes. In regards to the collapse of the financial institutions it is hard to disseminate exactly what level of control the second bill of rights would have had. Again one could draw the conclusion that there would have been a higher level of control and regulation of the financial institutions and perhaps the financial crisis would have never come about. Having said that if it had transpired, the second bill of rights would have guarantee a living wage for all the laid off employees which would have guaranteed that the government would have absorbed the bad debts of the financial institutions and began to run them as state institutions. Lastly in regards to the Enron debacle, it is an absolute certainty that the US government would have had a much closer role with monitoring the financial progress of the firm and completed peer reviewed audits of the company year over year. As such it is unlikely that the company would have fallen into moralistically and financially unsound position that it had occupied. Question #10- The United Kingdom has been governed by the Labor Party (a socialist party) for the past twelve years (although it seems unlikely that the party will hold on to power at the next election). How much of FDR’s second bill of rights do the British people enjoy today? As anyone can see from the chart above it is the case that in the United Kingdom all citizens enjoy all of the same rights as promised in FDR’s second bill of rights. References Cornell University Law School (2009) U.S. Code Collection Title 15 Chapter 1. [online] Available online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sup_01_15_10_1.html Accessed on December 19th, 2009. Cornell University Law School (2009) Chapter 8 Fair Labor Standards. [online] Available online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/usc_sup_01_29_10_8.html Accessed on December 19th, 2009. Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2009) Holiday Entitlement Frequently Asked Questions. [online] Available online at http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/holidays/faq/index.html Accessed on December 19th 2009. EconomicTheories.org (2009) Aristotle and Plato Communism [online] Available online at http://www.economictheories.org/2008/10/aristotle-and-plato-communism.html Accessed on December 19th 2009. Ferguson, S. (2002) Better Homes and Squatters: New Yorks Outlaw Homesteaders Earn the Right to Stay. [Online} Available at http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-08-27/news/better-homes-and-squatters/1 Accessed on December 19th 2009. Outhwaite, W. (2003)The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, , Blackwell Publishing Oxford English Dictionary (2009) Definition: Socialism [Online] Available online at http://www.oed.com/ Accessed on December 19th 2009. United States Election Project (2009) 2008 General Election Turnout Rates [online] Available online at http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html Accessed on December 19th 2009. US Budget Historical Tables (2009) [online] Available at whitehouse.gov/omb Accessed on December 19th 2009. WorkingRights.co.uk (2009) The Minimum Wage [online] Available at http://www.workingrights.co.uk/TheMinimumWage.html Accessed on December 19th 2009. Read More