Capitalism: The Movie.

I went to see Michael Moore’s latest film, “Capitalism: A Love Story.”

I confess to sneaking a few candy items into the theater, in my pocket. It seemed like a non-capitalist thing to do.

The film was typical Moore; entertaining, some good stuff, a lot of overly simplistic and artfully tweaked mistruths at times. Still, I enjoyed it.

First off, he has to stop saying Capitalism needs to be replaced by Democracy. It really, really annoys me. I understand what he’s getting at, but one is an economic system and the other is not. This is a not-so-subtle subterfuge. It’s this kind of soft-laziness that builds in his movies to make them seem unseemly. He could build a strong case — and had some good material — if he didn’t fall back on soft lies and theatrics (though the theatrics are entertaining).

My friend and I agreed that the problem isn’t the concept of capitalism being evil, really, but that capitalism plus human greed will always be destructive. It does no good to throw the bums out of the government only to replace them by new bums; humans will always be seduced by money. I also added that capitalism will continue to create problems as long as we neglect to be citizens and instead, are happy to be consumers.

Again, human greed.

It is, of course, impossible to remove human greed from any equation, and since it is the great corrupter, we will always have material for Michael Moore films.

At one point, Moore discusses the constitutions of Japan, Italy, and Germany post-World War 2, and how they incorporated FDR’s “second” Bill of Rights concepts while the United States did not. “I can’t say I really think the German constitution concept in which the government is allowed to take over any private property or industry when it deems it to be better for the people to be anything to desire,” I said. “That just sounds like Chavez.”

Still, Moore had a couple of things that were worth seeing the film.

N.D. Sen. Kent Conrad, for example, made it briefly into the film. Apparently he’s been receiving favorable loans and rates, much of which might be going into hair care products.

Moore talked about companies profiting from the death of their employees (“Dead Peasants” insurance). He talked about the low pay pilot’s receive. And, what really hit home, was his direct dealing with how American Christianity has somehow become tied into capitalism when, really, what Jesus preached had nothing to do with anything capitalism espouses.

I have to agree: I don’t think Jesus would have been a capitalist. He expected us to work and take care of each other. Have money? Give it to the poor. The poor will inherit the kingdom. Jesus, who had no home of his own, has more in common with the newly foreclosed-and-homeless than anyone. So, I appreciated that segment of the film the most, and wished it had been longer; it is a topic I’ve been chewing on for years. (I’d recommend reading Shane Claiborne’s Jesus for President book — it’s a book I read when it first came out, and have read more than once since).

To be honest, I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with having “In God We Trust” on our money, because it seems like a bit of a conflict of interest.

Really, my main complaint about the film was one of focus and continuity. The heart of the film was less about capitalism-is-evil and more about the unfair things that happen economically to the middle class in general, and who we can blame (some leaders deserving such blame, I might note). It seemed to jump around a bit, from pilots’ wages to foreclosures, to Christianity, heartbreaking shots of Katrina aftermath, and of course, his last hurrah and harangue at the Bush administration (conveniently setting up Obama as the Big Hope while pillorying Timothy Geithner and neglecting to note that Obama appointed him to his current position). There was good material, but too much seemed unrelated and strung together in a suggestive — but false — manner to make his point. I’ve seen better conversations on similar themes in the film “Maxed Out.” Too often, Moore’s film slipped back to an attempt on class warfare, poor vs. rich, a film made by a popular filmmaker who just got me to pay $8.50 (almost three cupcake sales) to sit in the dark for about two hours.

My friend said tonight, as we pulled into the driveway, that people who were shown protesting the Bank of America probably still had accounts there and that they had the power to close them yet did not. The point being, and one hinted at by Moore, was that we have the ability to do something more than be a victim. We can, in whatever sense the case calls for, vote. It might not seem like much, but we can try to do something.

We can vote. We can stop consuming. We can do some things.

Sometimes, though, life crumbles because there is no guarantee of security, despite all of FDR’s promises, and in these times, we need to help each other.

The ultimate class warfare would be to stop looking for a second bill of rights and stop expecting the government or corporations to do anything besides screw us over, and to instead help each other. I think of what Claiborne says, regarding the Bible: what if we actually lived it?

That’s pretty easy to say, less easy to do.

I don’t think capitalism is evil. The love of money is, however. It is the root of it. So I guess the question is, is the love of money the foundation of capitalism?

That’s a problem.