The Gramscian
BHASKAR SUNKARA
Frequent readers of my infrequently read rants might be surprised to hear me, a denouncer of the moralistic and the messianic in all their forms, say that Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, is an astounding achievement and light-years ahead of the political curve.
Sure, the attacks on capitalism focus a bit too much on the sphere of circulation (the market) and not enough on the sphere of production, but Moore does delve into the tyranny of the capitalist workplace and the alternative of worker management. He covers the inspiring workplace occupation at Republic Windows last year, the sit-down strikes at Flint that birthed the UAW and the scattered resistance to foreclosures across this nation. The work is really missing a simple explanation of the concept of surplus labor that could have explained in concrete, materialist terms what’s inherently exploitative in the capitalist mode of production, but its overarching tone is a consistent “us vs them” one–fundamentally a call for class struggle.
Though commentators have questioned how unethical “dead peasant” policies Moore covers really are, they are missing the point. The very name “dead peasant” shows what our ruling class thinks about us. We’re inferior, mere subjects of our natural superiors and forced to obey our masters or starve. As John Lennon would say, “You’re still fucking peasants as far as [they] can see.” Capitalism, a revolutionary advance over feudalism, is rotten down to its core with the same original sin of class rule.
I do have some lingering problems with the simplistic characterization of capitalism and the FDR nostalgia, but I trust Moore’s judgment. He isn’t ignorant and is familiar with Marx’s ideas as an explanatory frameworks, but he’s decided to meet Americans on more familiar terrain. The welfare state, democratic rights, unions, all these have good connotations with the American people and for good reason. They were struggle for and won. The portions of the left who think that these were just clever ploys given freely by the bourgeoisie to fool working people will never understand this.
Moore’s latest is a mix of some rowdy populism, funny slapstick and a real subversive backbone. Yes, I just can’t shake the feeling that if he gave me 15 minutes with the script I could have made things a bit clearer, but given the ideological hegemony of our class enemy I can’t complain. Too often it’s crude anti-consumerist, pop-Heideggerism that passes for radicalism in Hollywood (Fight Club), but Moore’s work is different.
The watchword for this film isn’t socialism, it’s democracy, the foundation for the transformation that socialists would like to see. In a few candid interviews with various agents of the ruling class, the neoliberal wariness for real democracy is on display. “One person, one vote” does leave the door open for working people voting in their own economic interests and like Kissinger said about Allende’s popular support, “[The ruling class doesn’t] see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” There are a few hundred dead Italians that can testify to how deeply this hostility to popular “irresponsibly” runs.
The corporate control of our election process and the Democratic Party are highlighted by Moore, who uses the opportunity to subtly counterpoise what we have now to the ideals of democracy. So, go watch it. And do flier outside the theaters so something more tangible will come out of Michael’s call for action. Yes, Moore isn’t a socialist, but instead one of the Naomi Klein-esque rabid liberals that appear to most to be as far left as our political paradigm allows and I may sound a bit too enthused, but my cynicism was temporarily abated by the way the film concludes–an Americana rendition of “The Internationale.” The final stanza of “The Internationale” (not the cute little Billy Bragg verison) sings,
Labourers, peasants, we are
The great party of workers
The earth belongs only to men
The idle will go reside elsewhere
How much of our flesh they feed on,
But if the ravens and vultures
Disappear one of these days
The sun will still shine
This is the final struggle
Let us group together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race
and stands counterpoised to the way the film starts–showing the decadence, inequality and suffering that ravaged the late Roman Empire. I don’t think that capitalism is in danger of imminent collapse, but it’s important to remember the dark times that befell Western civilization after the fall of Rome. Perhaps this century will be one faced by the choice between socialism or barbarism.
I have a feeling that somewhere Antonio Gramsci is smiling, hoping that this flawed masterpiece was just a few warning shots for a, forthcoming, war of position in our unions, our campuses and our communities that will put a radical, democratic discourse into the mainstream where it belongs.
Or, conversely, we can just keep talking about where David Letterman’s penis has been and whether or not Barack Obama wants to kill grandma. I guess that is a moral choice.
see Chris Maisano’s (significantly better) review.
p.s.: I took a phone call and missed around two minutes of the film that apparently covered how a workplace cooperative functioned.
my money’s on david letterman’s penis!
Your mention of the DSA flier and Gramsci relates to the event Boston DSA had tonight. We fliered Michael Moore screenings with that flier and a plug for an introduction to Democratic Socialism talk. About everyone who was new had found out through the fliering or from a friend (or spouse) who got it at the film. I led the workshop with my dusted off “rap” from my days as the organizer for YDS. The discussion went well, with people leaving positive about DSA and our politics. The Gramsci part came up because people asked about overcoming opposition to the word (or ideology) of socialism. They wanted to know how to do it. I simply said it starts with having conversations such as these and spreading the word. It’s about breaking down people’s bias. Such work is slow, but necessary.
I agree with Bhaskar’s view about capitalism being an advance on feudalism. I was surprised at a minority in my crowd who disagreed with me when I presented that concept. One person felt the systems were basically the same, and another participant felt that folks had certain rights as serfs and vassals had certain obligations which meant feudalism wasn’t that much of a step back. Of course, I disagreed. Their views, however, show that even among radicals there’s no real consensus of just how good or bad capitalism may be as a system.
I hope those in the “capitalism is no improvement over feudalism” crowd didn’t consider themselves Marxists. If they did, well…I can hear Karl rolling over in his grave…
but…
it’s true to some extent, was it not?
for the most part, even if peasents didn’t own land themselves, usually there was a commons in which the community of peasents worked and as we see from peasent movments all over the world, ‘the commons’ was a ‘right’.
obviously, we must not oversimplify, but in looking towards the future, we must also honestly examine the past, becuase, if there was a commons (at least) that meant that the majority of people did not live in abject poverty, which is exactly how the majority of people live under capitalism.
furthermore, i’m not sure how mucha tv, iphone or imported food are better then the situation that usually existed pre-capitalist
“commons (at least) that meant that the majority of people did not live in abject poverty, which is exactly how the majority of people live under capitalism.”
There is no way to argue with this, because it’s patently false. The commons ensured stagnation, decay and commiseration. Capitalist social relations were a huge advance over feudalism and the growth of capitalist productive forces has created an astounding increase in socially created wealth that has done much to combat eons of underdevelopment.
And this isn’t just a tale of what capitalism has done in past centuries–look at the (fractious and yes uneven) growth of productive forces in China and India. The proletarianization of people who have been peasants since time immemorial, etc., tells me that the bourgeoisie in some parts of the world are still a dynamic force. Yearnings for pre-capitalism are reactionary and ahistorical. Just google earth Seoul then type in Pyongyang.
As i said i’m not yearning for pre-capitalist social forms…not by any means
however, obviously you have not studied the actual existing social relations of pre-capitalist societies and capitalist social relations in general…
furthermore, any calling of the capitalist class ‘as a dynamic force’ betrays your complete misunderstanding of the difference between capital, capitalists and the proleteriat. Capital may be a dynamic force in the world, (producing, distributating, exchanging and consuming commodities is still a very productive part of our lives). But the idea that the capitalists are a dynamic force betrays a yearning to be capitalist and shows a lack of interest in the actual dynamic force in capitalism: the workers.
Your understanding of the commons shows in fact how liberal your understanding of the world is… do you not understand that you are just barfing back centries of liberal capitalist ideology which calls the commons ’stagnent’ (i.e. why would the commons be stangent? becuase it is not producing profit…. altough it was producing social surplus for the peasents who had the right of the commons!)
Your apology of capitalism continues: “Capitalism has created an astounding increase in social wealth…” sure, but who actaully is wealthy? the poor or the rich? (ie for a marxist the fact that the social wealth created by capitalism is not a neutral question, it lies at the very heart of a marxist analysis).
What is ‘eons of underdevlopment’? would a marxist uncritcally use the capitalist buzzword ‘underdevlopment’? Doesn’t marx call for the devlopment of the fully sided human being? does he think capitalism is good because it devlops land for profit? (and also devlops humans as profit making machines?) i highly doubt it…
Where is your examination of the iprovishment of the people that capitalism has wrecked in tis +/- 400 years of existence? What does the need of a labour reserve army mean?, it means that people have to be impovirshed in order to be at capital’s bidding, but that means that pre-capitalism, these people were NOT as imporvished!
Having said all that, yes, with capitalism ‘productive forces’ have been devloped that in many ways there is a possibility that human labour could be freer and more fully devloped then at any time before… but is this capitalism? NO! capitalism might create the possibility, but capitalism is the devlopment of the profit mehinism and as such has no interest in the devlopment of humanity other then as profit-producers!
ps, for someone who calls themselves gramsician, read more of his critique of ‘the manual’
First of all it’s a given that workers create wealth, but capital — directed by the rising bourgeoisie — is what started the (asocial) socialization that created the conditions for this accumulation to happen.
And Marx couldn’t have anticipated Fordism or that powerful worker movements would be able to extract significant concessions from the ruling class. These concessions of course were limited, didn’t put any structural power in the hands of workers and with the decay of Keynesianism and the nation-state probably aren’t coming back in any significant form.
“does he think capitalism is good because it devlops land for profit? (and also devlops humans as profit making machines?) ”
Yes, Marx does, because he sees this as an advance over the muck that came before it and in it the potential for another, form of socialization that would be in the interest of the majority.
It’s simple enough to look at the bourgeoisie in China and see that they aren’t as reactionary and decadent as the aristocracy had become by the 18th and 17th century, on the contrary they are still a dynamic, progressive force. Obviously the growth is coming under the auspices of state developmentalism, but still.
I think calling any section of the capitalist class “progressive” is a bit much. Bhaskar — re-read what I wrote in my piece on “Michael Harrington and the Twilight of Capitalism.” Capitalism is a declining system which consistently misuses the productive forces as it “develops” them. Inasmuch as socialism is a technically feasible possibility–which has been true for quite a long time now–capitalism is NOT “progressive.” (And pre-capitalist social relations aren’t progressive either.)
Bhaskar, i will reply to you but because my reply would be of the longer nature, not going to do that right now…
Jason, while i agree with everything that you said and i’d certainly agree that relations in pre-capitalist society weren’t ‘progressive’, but i’d argue that at certain times, when the people were rising, that there were progressive movements and moments in history.
When democracy (in the pre-capitalist, pre-liberal sense) was rising, there were indeed progressive moments in history.
My less enthusiastic review: http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2009/10/capitalism-love-story.html
The last book that Moore read was “The Coming Insurrection”… that French insurrectionist creed that has been getting some attention lately.