What is the connection between a cooking rat and systemic poverty? This is the intriguing question posed by the video “Capitalism, Poverty, and Ratatouille” by the YouTube channel The Sin Squad. In the video, Natalie, the creator, provides a Marxist analysis of the beloved film Ratatouille, delving into the power hierarchies and hegemony among the characters. She interprets the movie as a portrayal of class struggles, with rats symbolizing the underclass and the staff at Gusteau’s Restaurant representing the wealthy elite. Natalie criticizes the film for its portrayal of bloodline as a means to escape poverty and its stance against stealing of food.
However, I offer a different perspective. In my view, Ratatouille is a beautiful representation of how laissez-faire capitalism can lift individuals from poverty, promote respect for property rights, and encourage people to contribute to society while pursuing their dreams. Throughout this article, I will respond to Natalie’s critiques and present evidence that Ratatouille serves as a positive depiction of capitalism, highlighting how perseverance and talent can transcend social and economic barriers.
Ratatouille (2007), an animation movie by Pixar Studio, is a story about a rat named Remy who has a passion for cooking and a dream of becoming a chef. His father, the leader of the rat tribe, tries to convince him to return to his nature of finding food in trash bins. However, Remy rebels, and later finds himself in one of the most famous and luxurious restaurants in France: Gusteau’s. Remy later forms a friendship with Linguini, so he can cook while being concealed under the toque. The quote “Everyone can cook” by Gusteau, the restaurant’s founder, constantly reminds Remy to keep pursuing his dream despite all obstacles. The movie became a commercial success and was praised for its humor, voice acting, and storytelling. It grossed $623.7 million worldwide and received the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature while also being nominated for others.
After the passing of Gusteau, the restaurant was later owned and managed by Chef Skinner, the film’s antagonist. Natalie argues that the animosity between Skinner and Linguini clearly reflect how the rich exploit and oppress the poor in society. In her opinion, Skinner is the embodiment of capitalism in the sense that he is greedy, dictatorial, and favors mass production over innovation. He sees Linguini as a competitor and inferior to him, so he tries to fire him, but cannot because of his lineage to Gusteau, stating that in a capitalist society, generational wealth “can work as a sort of cheat code to shoot you straight to the top of the ladder.” She claims that in order to survive amongst the wealthy, Linguini and Remy are bound to help and support each other mainly because they share the same struggle of being from the same economic class.
To start with, as the owner and the main chef of the restaurant, Skinner has a vested interest in keeping the restaurant profitable. No one could reasonably argue that Linguini can actually cook. In fact, if Remy did not fix the soup, the restaurant may have received bad publicity since the customer who ordered it was a journalist. While bloodline eventually allowed the restaurant ownership to be transferred to Linguini, I would argue that what saved him from being fired was not his lineage but his valuable cooking skills – or rather Remy’s. Skinner was unable to fire Linguini for it could have caused the restaurant media backlash and management scrutiny which may have hurt the restaurant financially. As Skinner said: “I cannot fire him; he is getting attention. If I fire him now everyone would wonder why.” The relationship between employer and employee is nothing less than mutually beneficial.
Moreover, the relationship between Remy and Linguini perfectly reflects how capitalism works in practice: a mutual exchange of goods or services between two parties. Working together allowed Remy to practice his passion for cooking while also allowing Linguini to keep his current job at the restaurant. Though we do not know the terms of their contract, we can assume it was voluntary because they could have decided to stop working together if they found a better alternative. However, we see no evidence that they gave any importance to each other’s financial ability or social status. The myth that people are categorized into economic classes, where the rich prevent the poor from gaining access to wealth and power is an outdated Marxist hypothesis that has no merit in our reality.
Natalie takes a harsh stance against the anti-stealing message conveyed in the movie, particularly during the bread scene where Remy is starving and skeptical about stealing a piece of bread. She argues that impoverished people are trapped in a cycle of poverty which forces them to steal food to survive. However, the way I have interpreted this message is as respect for maintaining and upholding individual property rights and to encourage people to give value to society instead of taking.
The film portrays Remy as a character with morals and principles. To show us that, unlike other rats, relying on the food waste of others, Remy sees himself as a person of value, where he creates and serves food to others. No one is forced to steal. Stealing is a choice people make. Instead, they may and should choose to engage in society by providing and offering a valuable skill or product in exchange for compensation. Poverty is not an excuse for theft. Though I do not think that eating a small piece of bread will have a significant impact on the owner’s property, I still believe that Remy had no right to steal it. It’s not about the single piece of bread; it is about the mentality of providing value to society instead of being a societal parasite relying on others’ labor to survive.
According to far-left ideology, the economy is a zero-sum game, where people are categorized as oppressed and oppressors. This mentality brings out attitudes of victimization, entitlement, and a disregard for property rights. Instead of encouraging people to turn to themselves for growth, socialism promotes relying on others’ labor and using coercion for their selfish gains. They claim the only way to achieve their egalitarian utopia is through the socialist revolution – a pipe dream that never worked anywhere in the world.
Ratatouille is a beautiful representation of how under a laissez faire capitalist system individuals are provided with an opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, the freedom to pursue their passions, and flourish and prosper in their lives. Gusteau’s Phrase “Everyone can cook,” can be interpreted as, ”Under Capitalism, everyone can be Rich.” Who would have thought that a film about a talking, cooking rat could be used as an example to prove the positives of capitalism? Now, the next time you are arguing with a socialist about the exploitative nature of Capitalism, you may refer to them to watch Ratatouille with unbiased eyes, where even rats can become richer!
