Bit of a drive-by post here- David Ruccio has a good post from earlier in the week about the movie Up in the Air and how it serves as a commentary on modern capitalism. I saw Up in the Air and really enjoyed it, and was also struck about how timely it was, particularly when showing clips of interviews with people who have been laid off (I think the interviews were fake, but archetypal).
Whether or not Rietman intended it (he started writing the screenplay 6 years ago), “Up in the Air” is a serious comedy about contemporary capitalism. Clearly, in the midst of growing unemployment, a character whose job it is to fly around the country firing employees, and with a minimum of legal exposure, will strike a discordant note with many viewers (that he’s played by Clooney doesn’t make what he does any less objectionable). Apparently (so I have discovered), capitalism has found a way of profiting from doing exactly what Bingham does; there are many firms that specialize in what is euphemistically called corporate downsizing and outplacement services…
And Bingham is the perfect stand-in for capital: he loves the “phomey” simulacra world of air travel (“Everything you hate about travel is why I love it”); he has no connection to anyone or any place..
One of the ironic twists of the movie is that Natalie, fresh out of college and as nihilistic as Clooney, has devised a computer video program (she wants to name it The Terminator, but her boss refuses), which will enable the firing of employees from a remote location, thus replacing Bingham and his co-terminators (or at least keeping them grounded). He is thus forced to try to justify the in-person services he provides, which cannot but fail to convince viewers. Firing workers humanely makes as much sense as the idea of humane executions.
The film exhibits a difficult ambiguity: on one hand, it includes interview segments featuring a combination of real people and actors who relate their experiences of being fired, which would be difficult to watch in any climate, and are even more gut-wrenching in the midst of the current crises; on the other hand, it is permeated with product placement…
Viewers may indeed root for Bingham to make a connection—but not with family members or Alex. We want him to ultimately side with the people he’s firing.
I think that a lot of people don’t understand that laissez-faire capitalism is about making the most efficient use of capital, including human capital. Laissez-faire capitalism see all regulation (norms and boundaries) as introducing inefficiency. So what does anyone expect is going to happen with that kind of attitude?
The US in not a social democracy in which labor is treated as a factor of production that is superior to capital because it is human and has rights and values. The ruling elite that represents the interests of capital ownership believes that the US is based on capitalism and that workers are simply human capital.
There are essentially two political stances in the US. The conservative (neoliberal) position is that economic efficiency is equatable with policy in a capitalistic country like the US. The other is the liberal (Keynesian) position that neoliberal economic models based on theoretical assumptions that are non-empirical and aggregation that is guilty of the fallacy of composition are not capable of capturing real conditions or factoring uncertainty. Efficiency is the servant of effectiveness, and the primary responsibility of government is social order and general welfare.
What is not generally known is that Keynes was actually quite conservative and he suggested his theory of unemployment at the time of the depression because he feared mass unrest leading to socialism, the big fear of elites in countries of the developed world at the time. He realized that it was important for governments to promote order by providing for the general welfare, especially in times of disorder.
What is also ignored is the fact that Adam Smith, the supposed father of laissez-faire based on the “invisible hand” of free markets, never said any such thing. See Gavin Kennedy’s Lost Legacy of Adam Smith, and his blog of the same name. Smith was a moral philosopher, who also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before The Wealth of Nations. He was a liberal at a time of government control, but he did not promote laissez-faire.
Keynes and Smith are both badly understood across the spectrum, but primarily by the right. I really enjoy Kennedy’s blog because of his persistence in myth-busting. Sadly, the invisible hand is thrown around far too often to police all such instances.
Nick, I would say that beyond misunderstood, co-opted for their purposes.