NetworkedBlogs
An Open Letter to Michael Moore
Dear Mr. Moore,
With the release of your latest movie today, Capitalism: A Love Story, you've apparently decided to attack not just a particular issue of interest, like General Motors, or health care, but the very economic system of capitalism itself. In reading some of the comments you've made in interviews promoting the film, and in comments on the film from others, I get the distinct feeling that you are criticizing something you don't really understand. As someone who really does love capitalism, I'd like to invite you to better understand what capitalism, and more specifically, free market capitalism, is really all about.
In an interview with CNSNews, you made some interesting remarks, such as "capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film... I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal [to finance the film]. The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there." Yet, Mr. Moore, you did get the funding, and you did get the movie out there. As nobody was forced either to provide you with funding or to pay to see the film (assuming you were using the term "steal" facetiously), "the system" did work. I'm aware of no other economic system where a person from your background, starting with no connections, no aristocratic background, and no elite education could have done so. No government program made your movie possible, and no government program forced people to watch it — people voluntarily lined up to pay money to see your work.
That's the most basic foundation of free market capitalism: voluntary exchange. You saw a market for a product — left-wing documentaries — and you pursued every means of getting the necessary finances required to produce it. Because you were successful in providing a product for that market, you were able to fund successive ventures and accumulate massive wealth. Now I must confess: I've never seen any of your films; I have no idea whether you're a skilled documentarian or a talentless hack. But in a capitalist system it doesn't matter — I have the choice whether or not to provide you with funds. I have no power over you or anyone else, however.
Now consider if, instead of a free market capitalist system, we had a nationalized film industry — a "socialist" system. A National Film Board, Documentaries Division would take applications for grants for government funding to produce documentaries. Of course, being a government agency, there would be forms to fill out, and guidelines to meet. Depending on who was writing those guidelines, and how the applications are judged, there are many ways that system could work out. If a center-right government were in power, perhaps only documentaries praising Ronald Reagan and the war in Iraq or maybe criticizing activist Supreme Court decisions would be in vogue. With a center-left government, there might be affirmative action requirements to meet, with a certain percentage of documentary grants reserved for, say, minority or women filmmakers. And, regardless of what party or what kind of government were in place, there would be graft and corruption involved; perhaps an influential Congressman would make sure his son got a grant, or maybe they could be given out as rewards or incentives for favorable movies about someone or a particular issue.
The bottom line is this: in a capitalist system, when you were turned down for funding or distribution from one source, you were able to "beg, borrow, and steal" until you got your product to the market. Under a government system, you'd have no recourse once your grant was turned down. There was still no guarantee under our capitalist system that you could make your films — there's no right for any of us to achieve our dreams — but you had the right to try as long as you were willing to, and you ultimately succeeded.
You also provide supposed examples of where "capitalism tried to kill" one of your movies and one of your books. Now I don't personally know the details of what happened with Disney and HarperCollins. I would say first of all that corporations don't always act in the true free market capitalist spirit; often, they try to use the power of the government to get special treatment and protection from competition. But that isn't capitalism, that's not an open market. Remember: free market capitalism is simply individual choice and voluntary exchange; fraud or coercion are not part of the equation (the purpose of government in a true free market society is to protect individual from fraud and coercion). If Disney and HarperCollins were actually trying to suppress your work — to prevent people from seeing it through fraud or coercion — then they were acting unjustly. On the other hand, if they simply weren't wanting to fund your project because they thought it a bad investment, or even because they disagreed with it philosophically, you weren't actually wronged; you still had the right to make the movie or write the book and try to get someone else to buy, publish, or distribute it. In fact, the fact that your book was published and your movie did hit the screens is proof that you were able to use the free market system to get your product to market.
Finally, I've heard you talk several times about "greed" equating with capitalism. First, I would submit that greed is a fundamental human failing, not the result of any economic system, and one that is not conquerable by any alternative economic system. But even greed, in and of itself, isn't a vice that is necessarily bad... at least in a truly free market capitalist society. There's a famous quote from Adam Smith that "it isn't from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest". If I'm being provided with a delicious steak, I don't care if the supplier was a happy, benevolent man or a greedy scrooge — I'm still enjoying that delicious steak. Now, obviously if that steak is laced with harmful chemicals because of the supplier's greed, that's a different story — but not a problem of capitalism. Duplicitously selling someone a harmful or tainted product is certainly fraud, and fraud is acting against the tenets of free market capitalism. One may still call the person trying to (legally) maximize his steak production simply for the love of money greedy, but he is doing no wrong — he is simply supplying consumers with product they desire and are willing to voluntarily purchase.
The world is not perfect, and human nature is flawed. Nobody, even the most ardent advocate, thinks that markets are perfect — even the most free of free markets in the most capitalist of capitalist systems. This letter only scratches the surface of what free market capitalism really means and is. But the most important thing is this: in a free market capitalist society, each individual is, to borrow a phrase from my favorite TV show, the master of his own domain. He is free to pursue his own dreams, to buy and sell with others in mutually beneficial exchange, with problems occurring when the elements of fraud and coercion are introduced. But these are part and parcel of capitalism, but rather deviations from it.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX
With the release of your latest movie today, Capitalism: A Love Story, you've apparently decided to attack not just a particular issue of interest, like General Motors, or health care, but the very economic system of capitalism itself. In reading some of the comments you've made in interviews promoting the film, and in comments on the film from others, I get the distinct feeling that you are criticizing something you don't really understand. As someone who really does love capitalism, I'd like to invite you to better understand what capitalism, and more specifically, free market capitalism, is really all about.
In an interview with CNSNews, you made some interesting remarks, such as "capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film... I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal [to finance the film]. The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there." Yet, Mr. Moore, you did get the funding, and you did get the movie out there. As nobody was forced either to provide you with funding or to pay to see the film (assuming you were using the term "steal" facetiously), "the system" did work. I'm aware of no other economic system where a person from your background, starting with no connections, no aristocratic background, and no elite education could have done so. No government program made your movie possible, and no government program forced people to watch it — people voluntarily lined up to pay money to see your work.
That's the most basic foundation of free market capitalism: voluntary exchange. You saw a market for a product — left-wing documentaries — and you pursued every means of getting the necessary finances required to produce it. Because you were successful in providing a product for that market, you were able to fund successive ventures and accumulate massive wealth. Now I must confess: I've never seen any of your films; I have no idea whether you're a skilled documentarian or a talentless hack. But in a capitalist system it doesn't matter — I have the choice whether or not to provide you with funds. I have no power over you or anyone else, however.
Now consider if, instead of a free market capitalist system, we had a nationalized film industry — a "socialist" system. A National Film Board, Documentaries Division would take applications for grants for government funding to produce documentaries. Of course, being a government agency, there would be forms to fill out, and guidelines to meet. Depending on who was writing those guidelines, and how the applications are judged, there are many ways that system could work out. If a center-right government were in power, perhaps only documentaries praising Ronald Reagan and the war in Iraq or maybe criticizing activist Supreme Court decisions would be in vogue. With a center-left government, there might be affirmative action requirements to meet, with a certain percentage of documentary grants reserved for, say, minority or women filmmakers. And, regardless of what party or what kind of government were in place, there would be graft and corruption involved; perhaps an influential Congressman would make sure his son got a grant, or maybe they could be given out as rewards or incentives for favorable movies about someone or a particular issue.
The bottom line is this: in a capitalist system, when you were turned down for funding or distribution from one source, you were able to "beg, borrow, and steal" until you got your product to the market. Under a government system, you'd have no recourse once your grant was turned down. There was still no guarantee under our capitalist system that you could make your films — there's no right for any of us to achieve our dreams — but you had the right to try as long as you were willing to, and you ultimately succeeded.
You also provide supposed examples of where "capitalism tried to kill" one of your movies and one of your books. Now I don't personally know the details of what happened with Disney and HarperCollins. I would say first of all that corporations don't always act in the true free market capitalist spirit; often, they try to use the power of the government to get special treatment and protection from competition. But that isn't capitalism, that's not an open market. Remember: free market capitalism is simply individual choice and voluntary exchange; fraud or coercion are not part of the equation (the purpose of government in a true free market society is to protect individual from fraud and coercion). If Disney and HarperCollins were actually trying to suppress your work — to prevent people from seeing it through fraud or coercion — then they were acting unjustly. On the other hand, if they simply weren't wanting to fund your project because they thought it a bad investment, or even because they disagreed with it philosophically, you weren't actually wronged; you still had the right to make the movie or write the book and try to get someone else to buy, publish, or distribute it. In fact, the fact that your book was published and your movie did hit the screens is proof that you were able to use the free market system to get your product to market.
Finally, I've heard you talk several times about "greed" equating with capitalism. First, I would submit that greed is a fundamental human failing, not the result of any economic system, and one that is not conquerable by any alternative economic system. But even greed, in and of itself, isn't a vice that is necessarily bad... at least in a truly free market capitalist society. There's a famous quote from Adam Smith that "it isn't from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest". If I'm being provided with a delicious steak, I don't care if the supplier was a happy, benevolent man or a greedy scrooge — I'm still enjoying that delicious steak. Now, obviously if that steak is laced with harmful chemicals because of the supplier's greed, that's a different story — but not a problem of capitalism. Duplicitously selling someone a harmful or tainted product is certainly fraud, and fraud is acting against the tenets of free market capitalism. One may still call the person trying to (legally) maximize his steak production simply for the love of money greedy, but he is doing no wrong — he is simply supplying consumers with product they desire and are willing to voluntarily purchase.
The world is not perfect, and human nature is flawed. Nobody, even the most ardent advocate, thinks that markets are perfect — even the most free of free markets in the most capitalist of capitalist systems. This letter only scratches the surface of what free market capitalism really means and is. But the most important thing is this: in a free market capitalist society, each individual is, to borrow a phrase from my favorite TV show, the master of his own domain. He is free to pursue his own dreams, to buy and sell with others in mutually beneficial exchange, with problems occurring when the elements of fraud and coercion are introduced. But these are part and parcel of capitalism, but rather deviations from it.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX
Comments