Russell Brand preaching revolution on Paxman Last Night

lufties

old hippy wrote: »

People fear the likes of RB because he's not a politician, he goes for the more populist approach. He actually makes a lot of sense and that's seen as dangerous by the establishment. They may yet tame him but I hope not.

The Illuminati won't be impressed, thats for sure

jank

old hippy wrote: »

And condemning millions to poverty, suffering from starvation, inequality and knowing that their misery will continue. All down to the perfect, perfect capitalist system.

The usual fallacy that one thinks capitalism is a zero sum game which of course has been disproven time and time agin.

When was there a time in the world history when people were not poor and struggling? Your post suggests that there was a time when the world was 'better' and that capitalism made it worse. Of course that is idiotic and a stupid assertion.

What capitalism does is bring people out of poverty. The facts are there. People today all around the world have a better quality of life and better life expectancy that at any other point of time in history. Go to China and ask one member of the new 300million+ middle class if they have a better quality of life now or at the time of when their grandparents were younger.

Give it time, capitalism is by no means perfect but we are all better off because of it. If you have a better system then we are all ears but that is the problem right there, nobody was a working better alternative. The reason capitalism is still the force of nature around the world is because for better or worse it works.

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

Go to China and ask one member of the new 300million+ middle class if they have a better quality of life now or at the time of when their grandparents were younger.

The irony of exalting the one party dictatorship and civil rights devoid former communist and still centrally planned state 'capitalist' example of Chinese development is completely lost on you isn't it?

You wouldn't know free markets if they bit you on the arse.

jank

Carlos Roca wrote: »

The irony of exalting the one party dictatorship and civil rights devoid former communist and still centrally planned state 'capitalist' example of Chinese development is completely lost on you isn't it?

You wouldn't know free markets if they bit you on the arse.

I am not exalting China's politics, quote me by all means if I did. What I am exalting is the way China changed its economic model from an essentially old school communist system, one which killed millions to a more open capitalist system which has brought china superpower status. In this case capitalism did work. The results of that speak for itself and in fact many commentators believe that because of this new found wealth and new middle class that China is growing ever nearer to having some semblance of a more open political system with better civil rights and individual freedoms. Have a look at modernisation theory.

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

I am not exalting China's politics, quote me by all means if I did.

Honestly, you're a hilarious cliche. I'm laughing in real life. China's development is all about its politics. The politics of state capitalism. You cannot separate politics from macroeconomics.

jank

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Honestly, you're a hilarious cliche. I'm laughing in real life. China's development is all about its politics. The politics of state capitalism. You cannot separate politics from macroeconomics.

You are deliberately confusing the issue and being obtuse. Did you even read the articles I posted? Deng Xiaoping recognised that he had to change the economic system first if China had any hope of being the masters of its own destiny and keeping the communists in power.

Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious.

And of course the immortal words.

It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice

As has been mentioned they know what side their bread is buttered but the irony is the new educated and empowered middle class will be the ones that will be at the forefront of the fight for greater freedom. Again, I really suggest you read what I posted. Just because it hasn't happened overnight I suppose we can blame capitalism :rolleyes:

clairefontaine

Sometimes when I read the Guardian or watch British television I think they are trying to suck the world into an undergraduate conciousness.

lufties

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sometimes when I read the Guardian or watch British television I think they are trying to suck the world into an undergraduate conciousness.

A dumbing down like?

czx

jank wrote: »

superpower status

This term is thrown about too much. Give it time

Da Shins Kelly

I don't really buy Brand. Articulate and mildly amusing at times, sure, but he's a total fantasist, and I'm not sure why people give such weight to the ****e he spews half the time. He's going on about disenchantment and revolution - there has never been a generation of people in the history of the planet less close to revolution than the current one. People really could not give a ****, and it's because we live in a world of iPhones and Facebook and Twitter and endless reality TV shows that act as opium for the masses. If no one cares enough to get off their arses and vote, then they sure as hell don't care enough to take the streets.

And everyone just refusing to vote? Never going to happen. And anyway, the people who have all the bad ideas are being the most vocal and voting all the time and that's the reason nothing's changing. The people who do actually want to bring about change seem to be doing very little about it.

'The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.'

sonny jim bob jones

Russell Brand is a complete ****head.

Karl Stein

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

And everyone just refusing to vote? Never going to happen. And anyway, the people who have all the bad ideas are being the most vocal and voting all the time and that's the reason nothing's changing.

If I'm given the choice of voting for Eastenders or Coronation street I'm not pushed about voting.

Now give me the option of voting on whether bond-holders should be paid back, or British/German/French banks, or if we can introduce new laws that allow us to seize the property and assets of bankers, property speculators, failed politicians and failed civil servants and, not only am I voting, but I'm going door-to-door to get others out too.

Femme_Fatale

I doubt Russell Brand is seen as "dangerous" to the establishment. It's not the 50s and Britain isn't a fundamentalist christian society.
Politicians actually like to be seen as getting down with the youth.

Karl Stein

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I doubt Russell Brand is seen as "dangerous" to the establishment.

Russell Brand is a modern day 'Jester'. He gets summoned by the King (BBC) so that his legitimate criticisms of the self-perpetuating structures of power can be stigmatised as those of a fool and hypocrite.

If anything the granting of access to the public consciousness of RB and 'his' criticisms is evidence of the dangerousness of the ideas. Let the fool and hypocrite make these arguments and we can dismiss them more easily.

Regarded as pets or mascots, they served not simply to amuse but to criticise their master or mistress and their guests. Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558–1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her. Excessive behaviour, however, could lead to a fool being whipped, as Lear threatens to whip his fool.

The fool's status was one of privilege within a royal or noble household. His folly could be regarded as the raving of a madman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester#Political_significance

jank

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Now give me the option of voting on whether bond-holders should be paid back, or British/German/French banks, or if we can introduce new laws that allow us to seize the property and assets of bankers, property speculators, failed politicians and failed civil servants and, not only am I voting, but I'm going door-to-door to get others out too.

That is a terrible idea which basically amounts to mob rule.

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

That is a terrible idea which basically amounts to mob rule.

Just say it.

'I hate democracy and justice'.

Dempsey

At the moment apathy is the biggest issue. You cant have an opinion let alone lead people unless you have an infallible solution to the the worlds problems

This is the biggest issue that prevents meaningful change.

Karl Stein

Dempsey wrote: »

At the moment apathy is the biggest issue.

Why though? People feel powerless. We don't get to vote on issues that we care about. One poster* here describes the reigning in of systemic corruption as 'Mob rule' - one wonders how much the current system serves him.

Why shouldn't people who cause economic destruction be made destitute? They profit from booms so should lose from recessions, especially those who caused them.

*granted, he shouldn't be taken seriously.

Dempsey

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Why though? People feel powerless. We don't get to vote on issues that we care about. One poster* here describes the reigning in of systemic corruption as 'Mob rule' - one wonders how much the current system serves him.

Why shouldn't people who cause economic destruction be made destitute? They profit from booms so should lose from recessions, especially those who caused them.

*granted, he shouldn't be taken seriously.

I can't define it no more than Russell Brand define a better system than Paxman asked him about.

You dont have to have the ultimate solution at hand to know & question that there is a fundamental problem to be solved.

Karl Stein

Dempsey wrote: »

You dont have to have the ultimate solution at hand to know & question that there is a fundamental problem to be solved.

Oh I agree. The thing is though that those who derive their privileges from the current system have convinced themselves it is a burden to them. They're so duped they actually argue against their own interests. Ask any randroid moron and they'll passionately defend their views.

Dempsey

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Oh I agree. The thing is though that those who derive their privileges from the current system have convinced themselves it is a burden to them. They're so duped they actually argue against their own interests. Ask any randroid moron and they'll passionately defend their views.

And surely they are a minority, not a majority. Whether they can tell there arse from their elbow is irrelevant, so are excuses for their position tbh.

jank

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Just say it.

'I hate democracy and justice'.

Yawn, really change the tune. What you want is some retrospective type of 'justice' where we just vote to lock people up, take their property even if they have not broken any laws. Direct democracy for Ireland anyway would make the country ungovernable. Its mob rule where the pound of flesh is more important than the constitution.

We already have too much populism. Bet you thought Berte was a great fella back in the day!

jank

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Why though? People feel powerless. We don't get to vote on issues that we care about. One poster* here describes the reigning in of systemic corruption as 'Mob rule' - one wonders how much the current system serves him.
[/SIZE]

I really think you should take reading lessons if that post is directed at me. Direct democracy as I mentioned would be a disaster for Ireland. What makes you think by implementing direct democracy would get rid of 'systemic corruption'? Are you Ben Gilroy™ by any chance?

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

What you want is some retrospective type of 'justice'

All justice is retrospective you silly little person. I'm talking about preventing economic destruction in the first place and this might be aided by the fear of being destitute because of your actions.

Direct democracy for Ireland anyway would make the country ungovernable. Its mob rule where the pound of flesh is more important than the consititution.

Just say it 'I hate hate democracy - I hate justice' .

lufties

jank wrote: »

I really think you should take reading lessons if that post is directed at me. Direct democracy as I mentioned would be a disaster for Ireland. What makes you think by implementing direct democracy would get rid of 'systemic corruption'? Are you Ben Gilroy™ by any chance?

Jank are you a party shill? or a civil servant perhaps? how the hell could you post the way you do ,and be any other way, people like you are part of the problem, perhaps its stockholm sydrome. In today's world we have had our freedom(s) eroded, just look to the cesspit U.S and see whats going on there with regard to wealth distribution and their puppet show administration.

With all that is gone down in Ireland over the last few years, I can't believe how anyone could be so stupid to support any of the establishment parties. Honestly, when I see a photo Gilmore or kenny, I start to feel physically sick. Power to the people, not self serving, greedy dictators.

Wibbs

Dempsey wrote: »

You dont have to have the ultimate solution at hand to know & question that there is a fundamental problem to be solved.

Granted D, but it would be refreshing to see some solutions discussed. Pointing out inequity is good, complaining about inequity is good, but failing to suggest a better way makes it all noise and nothing will change. Saying that some aspects of society are bad and we must change is a cry that's hoarse from every generation shouting it, but as I say show me the plan.

As for not voting en masse? Can't see it happening. Plus the "can't be bothered to vote" crowd tends to winnow out some of the people who shouldn't vote. Personally I think the automatic right to vote isn't so hot. Voting should be seen as a privilege and should entail more than than just the ability to reach a certain age. Again me personally I'd have it so a citizen would require passing a simple exam to get the vote. Nothing difficult, really simple questions like who is the current president, who was the previous incumbent, name three of your local candidates, that sorta thing.

Wibbs

lufties wrote: »

Power to the people.

Again another phrase heard often, looks great on the banners, but ultimately empty.

lufties

Wibbs wrote: »

Again another phrase heard often, looks great on the banners, but ultimately empty.

So that makes it wrong, does it? If there was less greed and more Altruism out there it would mean something. By the way having read(barely) some of your extremely long winded posts, you do seem to be pro everything establishment, would I be right?

Wibbs

lufties wrote: »

So that makes it wrong, does it?

Not wrong, but not very useful.

If there was less greed and more Altruism out there it would mean something.

True, so how do you go about making that happen?

By the way having read(barely) some of your extremely long winded posts, you do seem to be pro everything establishment, would I be right?

You couldn't be more wrong.

lufties

Wibbs wrote: »

Not wrong, but not very useful. True, so how do you go about making that happen? You couldn't be more wrong.

All we as people have is a vote and we need to use it to oust the parasites in power. Protest isn't working it seems, and people dont have time to take action mostly because they are crippled from working long hours or find change is beyond they're control.

I don't know how to fix the world and rid it of greed and poverty, but I do think we could start locally(Ireland) and vote in an educated manner.

We need a government that will look after the national interest, not one full of spin to get votes and on the other hand crucify the people to get browning points in germany.

Wibbs

lufties wrote: »

All we as people have is a vote and we need to use it to oust the parasites in power. Protest isn't working it seems, and people dont have time to take action mostly because they are crippled from working long hours or find change is beyond they're control.

OK but who do your replace the parasites with? That's a big problem right there.

I don't know how to fix the world and rid it of greed and poverty, but I do think we could start locally(Ireland) and vote in an educated manner.

Again I agree, but this requires a politically engaged and educated electorate, who have a decent choice of candidates.

We need a government that will look after the national interest, not one full of spin to get votes and on the other hand crucify the people to get browning points in germany.

Part of the problem with democracy is the need to get votes to get in in the first place. This begets spin as a near given. Look at the extreme example of this in the US. Then you have the national interest problem. Irelands voters are incredibly parochial. It's much more about the guy who fixes the potholes on your road than the wider needs of the nation, hence we get local chancers* working on national problems. That would need to change too. That won't come from the people, at least at first, we'd need to radically change the structures and how we vote for national politicians.




*some even with convictions for fraud getting in spite of if not because of such cute hoorism. Indeed history would show that it is often beneficial to a candidate to show cute hoorism to gain reelection.

lufties

Wibbs wrote: »

OK but who do your replace the parasites with? That's a big problem right there.

Again I agree, but this requires a politically engaged and educated electorate, who have a decent choice of candidates.

Part of the problem with democracy is the need to get votes to get in in the first place. This begets spin as a near given. Look at the extreme example of this in the US. Then you have the national interest problem. Irelands voters are incredibly parochial. It's much more about the guy who fixes the potholes on your road than the wider needs of the nation, hence we get local chancers* working on national problems. That would need to change too. That won't come from the people, at least at first, we'd need to radically change the structures and how we vote for national politicians.



First up I would say my first choice would be direct democracy, its a differerent way of doing things and it gives the public a way of deciding their own destiny. Representative democracy isnt working.

I'm not fully sure that I'd give my vote to Sinn fein, but I do think Pearse doherty is/will be a good leader.

The principal of my vote( I dont even live in Europe let alone Ireland), will be change, not populism, and this goodie and that, but real change.

KyussBishop

Dempsey wrote: »

At the moment apathy is the biggest issue. You cant have an opinion let alone lead people unless you have an infallible solution to the the worlds problems

This is the biggest issue that prevents meaningful change.

It's worse than apathy though, because even the available solutions are held outside of acceptable discourse and disparaged - maintaining things as they are, and maintaining the current status of political power, is equally about controlling what topics do and do not qualify as acceptable/'serious' discussion, in media and politics.

The range of topics that always receive a response, where you get treated as 'unserious', coupled with disparagement, that are usable as solutions (to the current crisis and/or to future ones):
- Using EU bonds to fund debt (either to offer lower interest rates, or to have Europe as whole pay it back), likely coupled with public works projects

- Creation of a public bank (which again can offer lower interest rates on debt), at either a local or EU level (which can both fund public works projects)

- Create money, to provide full employment on public works projects and boost aggregate demand (increasing demand at same time as supply, avoiding inflation), and remove money from circulation using taxes (overall effect, is no more need to increase national debt in any EU country, or fund punitive interest rates on that)

- Debt forgiveness or a 'debt jubilee' for the population, to reduce the crippling effect of private debt (far more important than public debt), which is holding down aggregate demand - and in general, this helps boost aggregate demand

- Leave the EU and return to a local currency, and devalue the currency (preferably aided by leveraging the new currency, with a public bank funding public works)

- Devaluation in general (including within the EU)

- Investigate fraud in banking/finance and put people in prison, so there are consequences against fraud (instead of incentivizing it, by showing people can get away with it)

- Regulate banking/finance to prevent another crisis, instead of ensuring another crisis, by not enacting any real reform

- Have government actually seriously discuss or promote any of this, within the EU

- Co-operate directly with other EU nations, and examine splitting the union


There's plenty of ability to both pay for any of this sustainably, and to get out of the economic crisis while at it (restoring full employment along the way), but this stuff (usually the poster putting it forward) gets attacked/disparaged and held outside of acceptable discussion, so that most of the time it's not even possible to talk about (the original points usually get lost in the shítstorm such discussion generates).

We keep going on the same course, based on the promise (lie) that recovery is just around the corner, but it never is (and we have yet to see the issue of unsustainable private debt explode yet).

This helps prevent any real discussion from taking place, because people don't accurately see just how bad things may get, and how (as undesirable as they may look) the available solutions are actually a better alternative in the long run.

Wibbs

lufties wrote: »

First up I would say my first choice would be direct democracy, its a differerent way of doing things and it gives the public a way of deciding their own destiny. Representative democracy isnt working.

OK but it's damned hard to implement once you get to a certain size of electorate. AFAIK the Swiss operate a form of this, maybe emulate their system? However since the current representative democracy is what we have and turkeys won't vote for xmas I can't see this idea ever happening, unless we had an actual people on the streets revolution. I would argue for more referenda though. Thankfully because of our constitution we get to vote on changes to it and hence we had the EU referenda down the years while the rest of the EU nations had far less choice, or none. Then again when we voted "incorrectly"...

I'm not fully sure that I'd give my vote to Sinn fein, but I do think Pearse doherty is/will be a good leader.

I like Pearse myself, but can't like the party behind him. And no I'm not trotting out the tired "ah sure they're all ra heads", I have grave issues with what passes for their economic theories.

The principal of my vote( I dont even live in Europe let alone Ireland), will be change, not populism, and this goodie and that, but real change.

Cool, but take direct democracy, that's arguably more populist in action. What happens to the minority view in such a system?

lufties

Wibbs wrote: »

OK but it's damned hard to implement once you get to a certain size of electorate. AFAIK the Swiss operate a form of this, maybe emulate their system? However since the current representative democracy is what we have and turkeys won't vote for xmas I can't see this idea ever happening, unless we had an actual people on the streets revolution. I would argue for more referenda though. Thankfully because of our constitution we get to vote on changes to it and hence we had the EU referenda down the years while the rest of the EU nations had far less choice, or none. Then again when we voted "incorrectly"...

I like Pearse myself, but can't like the party behind him. And no I'm not trotting out the tired "ah sure they're all ra heads", I have grave issues with what passes for their economic theories.

Cool, but take direct democracy, that's arguably more populist in action. What happens to the minority view in such a system?

Well DDI are not getting the media courage they need for a start, and I would't say they are populist, The minority in a system would have to lump it i'd imagine, but it seems to work in switzerland. Also its a damn sight better than enda kenny feathering him own nest at the sacrifice of the majority living in Ireland.

Yea i'm not completely sold on sinn fein, Steven donnelly seems to be on the ball as an independent. I think Irish are way too conservative to vote the likes of boyd barrett in.

Wibbs

lufties wrote: »

Yea i'm not completely sold on sinn fein, Steven donnelly seems to be on the ball as an independent. I think Irish are way too conservative to vote the likes of boyd barrett in.

I've a lot of time for Steven Donnelly, a man actually qualified in international finance surrounded by failed teachers. Boyd Barrett on the other hand I think is a complete and utter... well I'b be polite.

Ush1

Democracy...the worst system apart from all the others.

Do you want a society that's fair? The more you put in the more you should get out.

Or do you want a society that is more un darwinian which forces charity to the weaker?

Or something in the middle?

The Pheasant2

I must say I'm a big fan of Russell Brand, I always enjoy his stand up routines and films and I've always been certain that he's an erudite and talented individual. However, in this case I simply can't endorse his views:

Encouraging voter apathy, especially from a person with such scope and influence over young people (cue Helen Lovejoy) is downright irresponsible.

How can you refuse to vote and then complain that nothing gets changed?

Many people say they don't vote because they aren't given the options they'd like on the ballot or that they wouldn't choose any of the options provided.

Why not spoil your vote then? A spoiled vote is still a vote. If all the people who choose not to vote for the reasons outlined above spoiled their votes; it would at least signal to the government that a sizeable number of the electorate are dissatisfied. Doing nothing results in nothing.

Judging by some of the posts in this thread you'd swear we were living under the shackles of the aristocracy in 18th century France rather than in a modern, first world democracy.

lufties wrote: »

In today's world we have had our freedom(s) eroded,

How can you possibly argue this? We live in the most liberal and equal society in history. Sure there's still big problems regarding inequality, especially with regards to wealth but things will change provided the people call for it. That's what democracy means: literally "rule of the people", and deciding not to exercise your right to bring about this change will only perpetuate unequal distribution of wealth.

iliketomoveit

Robert Webb AKA "The other one from Peep Show" wrote an interesting article directed towards Russell over this:
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there

Tribb

I have to laugh at people who think we can get rid of "greed". We simply aren't going to change human nature, people for the most part act through self interest. This assumption should be a pillar of any political system we wish to implement.

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

Granted D, but it would be refreshing to see some solutions discussed. Pointing out inequity is good, complaining about inequity is good, but failing to suggest a better way makes it all noise and nothing will change. Saying that some aspects of society are bad and we must change is a cry that's hoarse from every generation shouting it, but as I say show me the plan.

As for not voting en masse? Can't see it happening. Plus the "can't be bothered to vote" crowd tends to winnow out some of the people who shouldn't vote. Personally I think the automatic right to vote isn't so hot. Voting should be seen as a privilege and should entail more than than just the ability to reach a certain age. Again me personally I'd have it so a citizen would require passing a simple exam to get the vote. Nothing difficult, really simple questions like who is the current president, who was the previous incumbent, name three of your local candidates, that sorta thing.

To be honest W I'd be quite guilty of letting cynicism creep in and entertaining thoughts of not bothering with the charade lately. I'd consider myself to be fairly well educated and also consider voting to be a privilege. Being voted for, is also a privilege mind and I am having a good few doubts that our current crop of politicians are worthy of the privilege.

Joshua J

People will talk about the priviliage and importance of voting and in the same breath dismiss criticism of politicians lying as "sure they're politicians, of course they lie". How can anyone vote for someone when they're not sure if that person, once elected, will keep their word. It's a ludicrous situation and a pointless waste of time. An illusion of choice, big business and lobby groups decide policy, not your vote.

KyussBishop

Tribb wrote: »

I have to laugh at people who think we can get rid of "greed". We simply aren't going to change human nature, people for the most part act through self interest. This assumption should be a pillar of any political system we wish to implement.

It's not about getting rid of it (an inherent part of human nature), it's about not rewarding an incentivizing it in the first place - which our current system does, by letting people away with massive worldwide-economy-destroying fraud, and not even bothering to enact any reforms to stop them doing it again (nevermind investigating and putting people in prison for the fraud).

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

I've a lot of time for Steven Donnelly, a man actually qualified in international finance surrounded by failed teachers. Boyd Barrett on the other hand I think is a complete and utter... well I'b be polite.

We need people like Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and on the other side Shane Ross, at least you get to hear scathing criticism of Government from left and right wing politics!

I didn't read the SF budget manifesto this year but going on Dohertys interview on Vincent Browne there seemed to be less populism in it than before, less of the "there's something for everybody in the audience" approach.

We need more independent thought in the Dail, lessening the power of the whip system would be a start. I might not have agreed with Creighton and Matthews over abortion but I don't think they should have got expelled for voting on a conscientious matter for them, also something they put in their own election manifesto as important to them.

That's why abolishing the Seanad wasn't reform and was a retrograde step without any reform of the Dail. It may be a talking shop but at least there is decent debate there, there was no point abolishing one talking shop to leave another one!

jank

Carlos Roca wrote: »

All justice is retrospective you silly little person. I'm talking about preventing economic destruction in the first place and this might be aided by the fear of being destitute because of your actions.

So the state should have sweeping powers for the sake of populism cause it makes us feel good? The idea we can pass laws and then charge people for past discretions that at the time was not illegal is a step closer to a police state. Throwing a few bankers in Jail is just all about revenge, the pound of flesh and would do nothing to solve the actual fundamental problems that culminated the economic issues of the past few years.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Just say it 'I hate hate democracy - I hate justice' .

I hate the idea of Irish style populist direct democracy where the Joe Duffy types get to control the narrative (if they don't already). Can you imagine trying to pass a budget? We won't want all these cuts, we don't want to pay all these taxes, we don't want the troika telling us what to do. Waaahhha

Ireland is just not a mature enough society for that type of government. All one has to look at the people behind Direct Democracy it becomes plainly obvious what their motives are.

jank

lufties wrote: »

Jank are you a party shill? or a civil servant perhaps? how the hell could you post the way you do ,and be any other way,

Yes, I must be a party shill all the way out in Australia because you can't fathom the idea of someone having a difference of opinion. I think it says more about your lack of exposure to different ideas and people than anything else.

lufties wrote: »

people like you are part of the problem, perhaps its stockholm sydrome. In today's world we have had our freedom(s) eroded, just look to the cesspit U.S and see whats going on there with regard to wealth distribution and their puppet show administration.

Part of what problem? That we talk about theory and ignore all reality and actual proof of what works in the world. You talk about more altruism and less greed. Here is news for you, humans are self interested. Always have been, always will be. Who should we be more altruistic to? The state, the church, ourselves? irish people? Women? Children? It is funny that people who want us to be more altruistic really just want us to behave like how they want us to behave and will use the powers of the state to enforce this 'altruism' Oh the irony. Nobody is stopping you being as altruistic as you want and visa verse but please leave me live my life and I will let you live yours.

lufties wrote: »

With all that is gone down in Ireland over the last few years, I can't believe how anyone could be so stupid to support any of the establishment parties. Honestly, when I see a photo Gilmore or kenny, I start to feel physically sick. Power to the people, not self serving, greedy dictators.

Power to the people, yeah dude. What the **** does that actually mean? Useless lefty claptrap. There was a general election in 2011 in case you did not notice. The 'people' elected the present government and they have a mandate given by the constitution of the country to govern and pass laws, budgets and so on. Now I am not at all pleased with some of the decisions or non decisions during the tenure of this government but I am not going to waste my time saying that the people should take 'power back'. They have the power but as I mentioned Ireland is more interested in treating the state like Santa Clause, where entitlements and benefits are bestowed on us cause we are good and been through a few bad years.

Tis a disgrace Joe!

PhlegmyMoses

jank wrote: »

Power to the people, yeah dude. What the **** does that actually mean? Useless lefty claptrap. There was a general election in 2011 in case you did not notice. The 'people' elected the present government and they have a mandate given by the constitution of the country to govern and pass laws, budgets and so on. Now I am not at all pleased with some of the decisions or non decisions during the tenure of this government but I am not going to waste my time saying that the people should take 'power back'. They have the power but as I mentioned Ireland is more interested in treating the state like Santa Clause, where entitlements and benefits are bestowed on us cause we are good and been through a few bad years.

Tis a disgrace Joe!

But this is actually part of Brand's point. Take Ireland as an example. Do you have any real power with your vote when your choices are:

1. Cookie cutter, old man politician A, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company A\department A?

2. Cookie cutter, old man politician B, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company B\department B?

3. Local politician with radical political beliefs, vested interests in his constituency, rather than the general populace and no real acumen for, or experience in, being involved in large scale government?

Sure, we can find exceptions to this, but can you really disagree with people being apathetic towards voting and the current political system when those are their choices?

The core principle that gives the political system a mandate to continue is that enough people vote, no matter what. In Ireland, we have the added incentive of the "people died for this right" argument, but it's a theme throughout the world. It doesn't matter if the options are awful, they will vote nonetheless.

Come election time, when people read their 5 point plans to resolve complex and systemic problems that have been ingrained in society for years, do they really think "Yeah, this is the one. This time they're really going to sort out the HSE, the economy, crime, the education system and take the bankers to task?" Of course they don't. But we'll still vote them in, because what are the alternatives? And we have to vote, sure.

Whether you think FG and Labour are doing well or poorly at the moment, they got in because there was no real alternative. Fianna Fáil are a busted flush, the Shinners have a terrible rep due to their leadership's past indiscretions and the rest are just background noise with no real coherent plan on how to resolve things.

I don't necessarily agree with Brand's assertions - and I certainly don't wholly agree with his version of Libertarian Socialism as an answer - but he brings up a valid point about why we bother to vote. It needs to be said as we've heard the other side of the argument - you should vote, people died, you've no right to complain if it goes to tits up, it's the only way things will change - for years now.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not about getting rid of it (an inherent part of human nature), it's about not rewarding an incentivizing it in the first place - which our current system does, by letting people away with massive worldwide-economy-destroying fraud, and not even bothering to enact any reforms to stop them doing it again (nevermind investigating and putting people in prison for the fraud).

Honestly, when I see one of the deadly sins being listed as a reason for controlling people, I get electric shocks of eewwww nooooooo!!!!!!!! going through my system.

The Catholic Church, the most successful guilt trip in history, convinced the Irish they deserve nothing, should be happy with what they get, and then accused them of selfishness anytime they actually did or want anything for themselves. And look what happened with that, an inalienable theocracy who ruled with a wicked hand, and kept the Iriah poor, subservient and miserable.

clairefontaine

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

But this is actually part of Brand's point. Take Ireland as an example. Do you have any real power with your vote when your choices are:

1. Cookie cutter, old man politician A, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company A\department A?

2. Cookie cutter, old man politician B, with no real expertise in the areas he will preside over, with vested and dubious interests in company B\department B?

3. Local politician with radical political beliefs, vested interests in his constituency, rather than the general populace and no real acumen for, or experience in, being involved in large scale government?

Sure, we can find exceptions to this, but can you really disagree with people being apathetic towards voting and the current political system when those are their choices?

The core principle that gives the political system a mandate to continue is that enough people vote, no matter what. In Ireland, we have the added incentive of the "people died for this right" argument, but it's a theme throughout the world. It doesn't matter if the options are awful, they will vote nonetheless.

Come election time, when people read their 5 point plans to resolve complex and systemic problems that have been ingrained in society for years, do they really think "Yeah, this is the one. This time they're really going to sort out the HSE, the economy, crime, the education system and take the bankers to task?" Of course they don't. But we'll still vote them in, because what are the alternatives? And we have to vote, sure.

Whether you think FG and Labour are doing well or poorly at the moment, they got in because there was no real alternative. Fianna Fáil are a busted flush, the Shinners have a terrible rep due to their leadership's past indiscretions and the rest are just background noise with no real coherent plan on how to resolve things.

I don't necessarily agree with Brand's assertions - and I certainly don't wholly agree with his version of Libertarian Socialism as an answer - but he brings up a valid point about why we bother to vote. It needs to be said as we've heard the other side of the argument - you should vote, people died, you've no right to complain if it goes to tits up, it's the only way things will change - for years now.

I never voted when I was in Ireland, largely due to what you mention here. The parties really don't seem all that different, with the exception of SF and I wouldn't vote for them, so I simply abstained.

This was further confirmed in my perceptions when various campaigners would come around and ring the door bell. I'd ask them what their parties stances where on various issues,both economic and social, and none of them could answer the question. I then went down to the local offices to try to get an answer, and no luck there, so none of them as far as I can see have a clue of even where they stand on anything. So really, how can anyone vote on one ignorant platform vs another ignorant platform?

I cant obviously comment on the British system, which Brand is most likely railing against here so I dont know, but what I do know is Brand is part of the establishment, being the court jester, he is still in the court.

Karl Stein

On the court jester dynamic:

By David Cromwell

When someone with interesting things to say is granted a high-profile media platform, it is wise to listen to what is being said and ask why they have been given such a platform. Comedian and actor Russell Brand's 10-minute interview by Jeremy Paxman on BBC's Newsnight last week was given considerable advance publicity and generated enormous reaction on social media and in the press, just as those media gatekeepers who selected Brand to appear would have wished.

medialens.org