Spirit Level documentary needs your support

Katharine sez, "Dartmouth Films are working with the Equality Trust on a documentary film of 'The Spirit Level, which aims to take the message of the book -- that more equal societies are better for everyone -- out to a wider audience. With growing unease over the last year about tax avoidance & the social effects of inequality (and the success of movements such as Occupy and Uncut), the film hopes to put pressure on governments and political parties from all ends of the political spectrum to pursue fairer policies. The film's campaign is live for three more weeks only at Indiegogo, and you can support the project by pre-buying the film or following the film on Twitter."


  1. Wait, what?  Occupy is a success?  When did that happen?

    Not meaning to take anything away from this documentary project, I’m just amazed that the Occupy folks achieved their goals and stopped being beaten by the cops.  I would have thought that would have made the daily news, frankly.

    1.  Depends on what you mean by goals.  Did they achieve justice and proper separation of commerce and government?  No.  Did they change the conversation?  Hell, yeah.  Politicians haven’t been forced to solve the problem – but we didn’t expect that; it’s a hard goal.  They’ve been forced to talk about it.  Suddenly corporate-driven corruption of economic policy is part of the debate.  It’s a start.

      1. Corporate-driven corruption of economic policy has been part of the debate since the country was founded.  Jefferson and Washington talked about it, Eisenhower talked about it.  Herbert Hoover and both Roosevelts talked about it.  You can’t plausibly credit Occupy with starting a conversation I’ve personally been part of since the 1970s.

        It seems to me that the big difference today – and this has not  been changed at all by Occupy – is that most lawmakers either accept corporate-driven corruption of economic policy as inevitable, or they actively work towards it as a desirable goal.  That used to be rare, didn’t it?

        1. Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear there.  I was crediting Occupy with a local change, not a long-term one – there was a specific period last year when mainstream news reports that had been desperately avoiding talking about the collapse and the reasons for it suddenly couldn’t discuss anything else; I think Occupy can take some credit for that.

          Sadly, whether the change you discussed used to be rare depends on timescale.  It was rarer in the 70s than now.  On the other hand, we’re still doing well (more here in the UK that in the US, admittedly) compared to, say, the bad bits of the 19th century.

          I do not wish to consider long-term decline inevitable just because in-our-lifetimes decline happens frequently.

          1.  Ah, I think I understand now.

            I’m sympathetic to both the Occupy protesters and the Tea Partiers, although I’ve found most of those I’ve physically met to be personally objectionable – the Occupiers for their lack of personal hygiene and the Teabaggers for their lack of analytical thought.

            But for all their flaws, at least both groups are actively expressing their discontent with our corrupt and unsustainable system of greed and hypocrisy.  They’re out there taking lumps for their beliefs, where people can see them, even when the media refuse coverage.  We need more people like them.

Comments are closed.