There have been many screenings in the Bay Area of a privately produced film called Thrive. It is a long documentary, created in a New-Agey, pseudoscientific mode, which would be fairly innocuous if it were not masking a reactionary, libertarian political agenda that stands in jarring contrast with the soothing tone of the presentation.
Foster Gamble, the creator and narrator of the film, is heir to the Proctor Gamble empire. One advantage of being wealthy is that you can make a film for which you choose the cast, director, producer, and staff. One of the disadvantages is that you end up working with people who won't challenge your ideas or politics. That feedback loop is clearly missing from Thrive.
Certainly, progressives can find common ground with some of the stated goals of the film. We may agree on banning GMOs, eradicating pollution, and stopping bank bailouts, but our solutions are very different from the anti-government ones posed by libertarians and by the ones promoted in Thrive. For example, government regulations could have prevented the runaway libertarian agenda that was pushed by Alan Greenspan and his Ayn Randian cohorts. They could have prevented bundled foreclosure loans and derivatives that gambled away people's pensions and savings. And they could have prevented the housing bubble and subsequent foreclosure debacle. At one time, we did have such legislation. That was before the right-wing attack on all things government.
Although Gamble thinks he is creating a political center where the right and left can join together, he proposes only libertarian solutions (e.g., voluntary education, voluntary taxes, and shrinking the government).
Oliver Wendell Holmes reportedly said, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Gamble considers taxes to be theft and doesn't realize that an informed citizenry might create a government by, of, and for the people who pay the taxes. But, this would require a mature citizenry, not one stuck in the adolescent phase of development that focuses doggedly on individual rights with little regard for the individual's responsibility to civil society.
Gamble admits to being "profoundly influenced by Ludwig von Mises," founding member of the libertarian Austrian School of Economics. As an author, von Mises is celebrated by right-wing presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who claims, "When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises."
If I thought the film was libertarian propaganda, it was nothing compared to what I found on the Thrive website. The "Liberty" paper (under the Solutions section) is a real shocker. Peppered with quotes from Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and Stefan Molyneux, there is even an attack on democracy! Gamble lumps democracy in with bigotry, imperialism, socialism, and fascism and says they all -- including democracy! -- violate the "intrinsic freedom of others."
Another disturbing aspect of the film is that Gamble primarily interviewed progressives: Vandana Shiva, Paul Hawken, Elisabet Sahtouris, Danny Sheehan, John Robbins, Amy Goodman, and several others. By speaking with a few of these people, I learned that they did not know the political slant of the film when they were interviewed. One interviewee said he felt this was manipulative. Interviewing admired progressive thinkers and doers in a film that ultimately supports a radical, libertarian agenda does seem odd -- unless there is another agenda at work. Perhaps in next year's election campaigns, we might see Gamble and the thrive movement endorse Ron Paul and the new Americans Elect third party, which is a right-leaning movement masquerading as a "center" party.
This reactionary program sold as a "vision" on the Thrive website is nothing short of a dark fantasy intent on returning us to the 19th century, complete with no taxes, no labor laws, no child labor laws, no regulation of pollution, no social security, no Medicare, no public education, no government programs for the people. Instead, there would be a voluntary type of social regulation. We saw how well that worked in the 19th century.
It is our responsibility to educate family and friends about the reactionary philosophy behind Thrive. This is a great opportunity for discussion and debate!
I'd like to advise those who created and those who support Thrive to carry on. Your energy and effort is much better placed in furthering the idea of a better world.
Wasting time on naysayers isn't productive. They will wake up one day---albeit kicking and screaming the whole way there.
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/progressive-think-tank-slams-thrives-political-agenda/
It’s interesting to read the critiques of our critique. I was struck by the very fair charge that we gave all the crazy conspiracy theory stuff a pass. It’s true. There is so much whack-a-doodle weirdness in ‘Thrive’ that it would have felt like piling on to drag all that in. We were all much too polite to focus on the steaming pile of New Age conspiracy theories and questionable pseudo-scientific claims that constitute the bulk of the film. We actually did Gamble a favor by taking his political assumptions seriously and focusing our remarks to that aspect of the film. I’m glad to see that others are taking the rest of it up. Through my prism as a progressive activist, then reactionary politics of 'Thrive' were the clear and present danger, but there is plenty of other material to work with. This is getting interesting now!
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/
Thrive Debunked
A blog that will fact-check and correct the errors and false statements contained in “Thrive,” a new conspiracy theory documentary released on the Internet.
"Critique is bringing wisdom into play...standards of discernment, so that when we see a movie, say, like 'Thrive', ah, this part is good, and this part is dodgy, and this is a useful enegetic impulse, and this is really appalling..."
This film is already making inroads into politically naive elements of the New Age and Occupy movements, and as such it must be taken seriously as a dangerous Trojan Horse for a deeply reactionary neo-libertarian ideology, which if actually enacted, would be a catastrophe for the 99%. Eliminating the only credible counter-point to unchecked corporate power (i.e. government as elected by the citizens) would complete the corporate coup, and deliver us to the tender mercies of the 1% overlords, who would have no restraints on their capacity to plunder the common wealth for their private benefit. 'Thrive' is not the answer to the many crises which beset our world.
The film is preposterous. The first half goes into great crazy detail over a specific pattern that seemingly appears everywhere and the energy it has or can be harnessed from, but they never get to a payoff at the end on how said energy could make the world better. Once it de-volved into the Paul talking points, it showed its Libertarian rump very clearly, especially in dissing public education.
Plus, it looks like a sightly bigger budget public access show from the '90s...
When has socialism been more humane, i.e. weaning from people all their ingenuity, independent thought?
Libertarian? Does anyone here even know the definition? What film did you and Ms. Kelly actually watch?
What's so ridiculous is constantly handing over one's own rights, one's own ingenuity, to a govt that obviously has interest in neither - what we have is a govt that gets bigger and co-opts all it touches by propaganda or outright force. Isnt it laughable that the left now applauds endlessly wars to take over oil and stop other coutnries from trading oil in currencies other than dollars....just like the right? Isnt it laughable that the left now loves assassination of US citizens and applauds the NDAA bill allowing detainment of US citizens indefinitely by the military with no due process?
I can see where folks that think this joke of a govt and its joke predecessor are great solutions, and growing it yet more is a great solution, would think anything else other than a dictator would be "libertarian".
You all should actually watch the film with an inquisitive mind rather than the obviously fear based one. This is a ridiculous misrepresentation, and about as irresponsible a conversation as one could have.
http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/hagelin.html
Richard Dalby is correct. The egoic mind needs to be addressed now. It may appear counter intuitive to an insulated egoic mind but none-the-less, the insulated egoic mind based on dichotomous reaction is what is the issue now. One cannot go beyond what one has not mastered, but one cannot master what one does not attempt to go beyond. To run, one must first learn to walk. Take the first step and may your words not divide us any longer. Find out our common ground, unite us, you are too powerful a speaker to waste this opportunity. Unless your goal is to divide us? So far you are doing a good job of it.
Open yourself to real possibilities possible from higher states of consciousness. When heart coherence is achieved through mindfulness practice and other tools, then we will experience what Richard is talking about as a natural progression. You too easily dismiss the idea of people coming together as one and creating a better world. You too easily trust what you were ;proerammed to believe in school...i.e.democracy is the best...it's the rule of the majority. Where is Richard wrong in saying that democracy assures that 49% are left dissatisfied?
As for these beliefs keeping people from being active....well I am a very active citizen in many arenas including education and the environment, and I share the beliefs he has outlined above. So back to you with your lol. Shame on you for judging so erroneously.
Notices for showings of this documentary are being posted all over the North Bay, so it is clear that there is a well-funded campaign to get this film into wide circulation. Given the stakes in the upcoming 2012 elections, and the emergence of a powerful world-wide Occupy movement to take back public space and reclaim our democracy, the time of political reckoning is at hand, so we can no longer afford to waste our time with distractions, sideshows and ideological dead-ends.
Make no mistake, the actual policy solutions that are hinted at in the documentary constituted the norm in the first Gilded Age of 'laissez faire' capitalism, in the McKinley Era at the end of the 19th century. That was a time when there was no social safety net to prevent families from tumbling precipitously from marginal employment and insecure housing to abject penury and homelessness.
One would think the recent global economic collapse would have finally buried the quaint notion that markets are self-regulating. Even the high priest of neo-liberal economic orthodoxy, former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, a devoted Ayn Rand libertarian, recanted publicly on this point, testifying before Congress in 2008 as the ashes were still falling from the ceiling in the aftermath of the bonfire of the wealth of an entire generation: "Our model could not comprehend this outcome..." This religion should be dead. Only money keeps it alive.
You have any idea how many people would stay for three hours of discussion after a long movie? Or have much energy to enter into any discussion after a ten minute presentation of concerns? A GENUINE offer would have been to offer even 10 minutes right after the movie and before the discussion. It would also have shown respect for the audience as able to evaluate the issues raised on their own.
No, libertarians reach out to others too often only as potential converts and without demonstrating the respect needed for mutual dialogue and learning. If I am wrong we will see a change in their approach. I doubt that I am wrong.
"Community is not some add-on to our other needs, not a separate ingredient for happiness along with food, shelter, music, touch, intellectual stimulation, and other forms of physical and spiritual nourishment. Community arises from the meeting of these needs. There is no community possible among a group of people who do not need each other. Therefore, any life that seeks to be independent of other people for the meeting of one's needs is a life without community."
Gamble, unfortunately, comes on so strong that she seems to want to perpetuate the separatism plaguing the planet which I am sure is not her intention.