Russell Brand preaching revolution on Paxman Last Night

jank

Johro wrote: »

Nothing stupid about that. There is nothing actually wrong with communist/socialist theory, it's designed to benefit everyone. It's how communist governments have implemented it to benefit themselves where the problem lies. The problem is not with the idea, it's with greedy people.

Corrected. The problem is with people because communism/socialism does not take into account the human condition. To implement a communist/socialist society there has to be a strong state at the top to implement the policies that are meant to benefit us all. This state usually has wide ranging powers especially in communist countries. There is very little personal freedom in communist states and it is no accident that the whole communist experiment was a dismal failure.

Capitalism and free markets in classical liberal democracies work, for all their faults. Nothing else comes close.

KyussBishop

Johro wrote: »

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Attributed to Henry Ford.

I have to say, this is one of the more mind-boggling things I've learned about myself in the last couple of years - it's so fundamentally significant to all of politics/economics/society, and understanding where power lies, that I can't believe it is not wider knowledge. It is staggering that it has been kept relatively unknown for so long, given that it's one of the most important political issues there is.

Whenever I try to discuss it, it is easily the most trolled/rhetoric-attacked topic I've encountered on the forum, and couple that with the fact that it is difficult enough for people, to not get an overdose of cognitive-dissonance when they hear about it.

Another good quote on it:
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

Irish Musician

He makes sense. Name me one politcian who stood at your front door and delivered what he/she said that they would. They all knock on our door and deliver some B.S sales pitch about how they will make our lives better. Its not about the failed promise,its about the lie. I don't vote anymore. I get what he is talking about.

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

Another good quote on it:
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

Actually, I just found a longer version of this quote, which is much better:
"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent"

czx

daniigan wrote: »

Surprised there are people here who mock Russell Brand when he's using his platform to reiterate the issues commonly brought up here in Ireland. So what if he doesn't have a solution? It's nice to see someone of his status be so vocal about it.

but he has money

czx

KyussBishop wrote: »

Actually, I just found a longer version of this quote, which is much better:
"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent"

Finally, KyussBishop reveals the true nature of money

markesmith

Just watched it. Very eloquent, very angry. Might have been on something, but I've got his back on everything he said.

KyussBishop

czx wrote: »

Finally, KyussBishop reveals the true nature of money

Almost your entire post history is made up of one-line (or the rare two-line when you're feeling articulate) 'hit-and-run' sentences of semi-sarcastic replies, which sound as if they are making some kind of a point, but are universally missing the follow-up that would turn that comment into something meaningful.

The closest to actual debate I can see from you, is labelling people Anti-American for criticizing US drone strikes killing civilians.

KyussBishop

Actually, it's a good example of what I said in my previous post; upon any mentioning of the topics I mention above, it is a matter of time only, before that view starts getting trolled - and then just a few posts later...

KyussBishop wrote: »

Whenever I try to discuss it, it is easily the most trolled/rhetoric-attacked topic I've encountered on the forum, and couple that with the fact that it is difficult enough for people, to not get an overdose of cognitive-dissonance when they hear about it.

K-9

Plazaman wrote: »

Elephant in the room here, Jeremy Paxman is an equally irritating twat.

Glad somebody said it, it did take 6 pages.

speedboatchase

markesmith wrote: »

Just watched it. Very eloquent, very angry. Might have been on something, but I've got his back on everything he said.

He's eloquent, sure, but he's not actually saying anything other than 'life is unfair'. He basically sounds like a teenger who swallowed a thesaurus. And saying that that life is unfair and being angry about it is fair enough, but if we learned anything about the failed Occupy movement it's that being passionate isn't enough; you need leaders, solid ideas and the ability to mobilise towards a movement that will evoke the change you want.

They may be bat**** crazy but in the space of three years the Tea Party have gone from nothing to leading the Republican Party, even if they are leading it off a cliff at this point.

clairefontaine

My favorite part was when he blamed his heroin addiction on politicians.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

My favorite part was when he blamed his heroin addiction on politicians.

But he clearly didn't. He made a valid argument about how that class is a result of bad governing.

KyussBishop

speedboatchase wrote: »

He's eloquent, sure, but he's not actually saying anything other than 'life is unfair'. He basically sounds like a teenger who swallowed a thesaurus. And saying that that life is unfair and being angry about it is fair enough, but if we learned anything about the failed Occupy movement it's that being passionate isn't enough; you need leaders, solid ideas and the ability to mobilise towards a movement that will evoke the change you want.

They may be bat**** crazy but in the space of three years the Tea Party have gone from nothing to leading the Republican Party, even if they are leading it off a cliff at this point.

While I actually agree about leadership and Occupy failing because of a lack of this (their decentralized idea was a good one - in theory - but in reality just guaranteed a lack of focus that pushed people away), the Tea Party is an astroturf movement (again, with significant funding from the Koch's) not a grass-roots one.

'The Left' in general, has completely failed to put together any kind of a viable (and lasting) protest movement, and has failed to actually put together a coherent narrative for dealing with the current problems - the bits and pieces needed to do this are out there though, but are not getting put together or gaining many voices.

The reason this is not happening though, is because the discussion isn't happening in the first place, and the discussion (online and everywhere) is very successfully muddied by more well-organized/funded groups - preventing people from learning about solutions (or spreading FUD to smear the solutions).

This is where Brand (and Occupy) have done something useful: By promoting an actual discussion taking place, so people can find and learn about the solutions in the first place - there's no point people not talking about it until they have all the solutions, because if they don't talk about it they never learn the solutions.

czx

KyussBishop wrote: »

Almost your entire post history is made up of one-line (or the rare two-line when you're feeling articulate) 'hit-and-run' sentences of semi-sarcastic replies, which sound as if they are making some kind of a point, but are universally missing the follow-up that would turn that comment into something meaningful.

The closest to actual debate I can see from you, is labelling people Anti-American for criticizing US drone strikes killing civilians.

Still better than copypasta quoting, italics and (brackets)

I label people anti-american because they are

Karl Stein

czx wrote: »

I label people anti-american because they are

Anti American what? Anti American foreign policy?

sparesandwich

Anti-American daytime TV. **** you Doctor Phil you're probably not even a real doctor. Probably.

czx

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Anti American what? Anti American foreign policy?

The core of American identity: capitalism, individualism etc

Femme_Fatale

Being anti American is hating all Americans.

KyussBishop wrote: »

the discussion isn't happening in the first place

The discussion isn't happening?

czx

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being anti American is hating all Americans.

Here's some copypasta

(The term anti-Americanism, or anti-American sentiment, refers to opposition or hostility to the policies, culture, society, economics, international, or superpower role of the United States)

KyussBishop

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The discussion isn't happening?

Yes - for there to be any real change, there needs to be a fundamental change in how economics is taught/practiced (as that is at the core of the problem), and discussion of that subject is in a dire state everywhere.

Consider the number of people out there with a deep (not just current affairs) interest in politics? Probably not that huge a number. Now consider the number of people with a deep interest in economics as well? Probably quite small. Then, how many people are interested in politics, economics and learning about the faults in economics? (which are not widely known) Tiny amount.

So, all the things we need to be talking about, don't get talked about (and most people are bored to death by these subjects as well), and all the things we need to talk about are easily distracted from and muddied, by people promoting the status quo or more extreme versions of free-market stuff (who there are a lot of) - they want the debate to be about one, and only one thing: free-market capitalism and nothing else (and largely they succeed at this).

You get a hint of these discussions on boards sometimes, but that always quickly turns into left vs right trench warfare; there is not nearly enough discussion of a good enough standard, to even begin getting to the bigger issues.
I've been trying for a long time to discuss certain issues I think outshine almost everything else in importance, and it's a set of such immediately trolled topics, that it's impossible to have a discussion on.

Johro

jank wrote: »

Capitalism and free markets in classical liberal democracies work, for all their faults. Nothing else comes close.

Not really. You end up with an obscenely rich few, who got rich through the labour of low paid workers who don't even know if they'll have a job tomorrow. Capitalism is great for big business, I grant you that. It offers little else.

Johro

I would have though that now especially, when we're in the middle of an economic crisis that, let's face it, the financial institutions and their supposed monitors created, more people would be interested in changing the status quo, which is not so far off from 'business as usual'.
There isn't less money in the world.
It's how it is distributed is where the problem is.

IM0

you see in general people want to buy shiny new things, drink beer, go to the cinema, and so on. now if you deconstruct capatalism and democracy you are left with none of those things and back to every man for himself and human social evolution back about 10 000 years, be carefull what you wish for

its far from a perfect system but infinately better than the law of the jungle

IM0

Johro wrote: »

Not really. You end up with an obscenely rich few, who got rich through the labour of low paid workers who don't even know if they'll have a job tomorrow. Capitalism is great for big business, I grant you that. It offers little else.

have you ever had a job or wanted one? Im guessing no, unfortunately for you most people are the opposite

Karl Stein

czx wrote: »

(The term anti-Americanism, or anti-American sentiment, refers to opposition or hostility to the policies, culture, society, economics, international, or superpower role of the United States)

So basically anti-Americanism is any opposition to anything that comes from the US?

Lol. I'm watching American football as I type. I think Americans are some of the kindest, most polite people of any country.

I despise the ***** who craft and execute foreign policy and describe any criticism of it anti-American though. **** them and anyone like them.

conorhal

IM0 wrote: »

you see in general people want to buy shiny new things, drink beer, go to the cinema, and so on. now if you deconstruct capatalism and democracy you are left with none of those things and back to every man for himself and human social evolution back about 10 000 years, be carefull what you wish for

its far from a perfect system but infinately better than the law of the jungle

10,000 years ago people were actually more likely to be dependent on each other and cognisent of the need for social solidarity for their survival.

The real problem as I see it is the removal of this interdependency from our society, everybody sits in their own silo and loks out for their own immediate interests. This is of course a product of the technology and wealth that comes with western society. We have less need to depend on a neighbour (or even know who our neighbour is for that matter).
This agressive consumerist society that we have constructed leaves people apathetic about anything that's not a new iPhone.
The unions used to say of solidarity that 'five fingers make a fist', but modern consumerism has conspired to scatter the metacarpals of that hand across the graveyard of a defunct society and ensure that there isn't a finger let alone a fist to raise againt it.

Another major problem is that this new society defined by consumerism has led to an abandonment of any kind of collective morality. Morality it seems has become the only taboo in a society that trends towards a near sociopathic individualism.
Large companies used to be rooted in society and in communities. I'm thinking of the likes of Guinness for example, a company that built houses, social clubs and even hospitals for their employees. Quaker companies like Cadbury's were often a prime example of how a company had a moral center, an obligation to its employees as well as it's shareholders. This was often based on the morality of it's founders.
Companies today have no morality, sure the ocassionaly fake it, in much the same way that a sociopath occasionally remembers that the need to fake the odd human emotion so that people don't get suspicious of their true nature, but companies in a global economy see only cash, never people, and they have shaped the morality of society to reflect that, something we are the poorer for.

czx

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So basically anti-Americanism is any opposition to anything that comes from the US?

Lol. I'm watching American football as I type. I think Americans are some of the kindest, most polite people of any country.

I despise the ***** who craft and execute foreign policy and describe any criticism of it anti-American though. **** them and anyone like them.

The definition given is pretty clear.

Well done on the multi-tasking

clairefontaine

conorhal wrote: »

10,000 years ago people were actually more likely to be dependent on each other and cognisent of the need for social solidarity.

The real problem as I see it is the removal of this interdependency in society, everybody sits in their own silo and loks out for their own immediate interests. This is of course a product of the technology and wealth that comes with western society. We have less need to depend on a neighbour (or even know who our neighbour is for that matter).
This agressive consumerist society that we have constructed leaves people apathetic about anything that's not a new iPhone.
The unions used to say of solidarity that 'five fingers make a fist', but modern consumerism has conspired to scatter the metacarpals of that hand across the graveyard of a defunct society and ensure that there isn't a finger let alone a fist to raise againt it.

The other major problem is that his has led to an abandonment of any kind of collective morality. Morality it seems has become the only taboo in a society that trends towards a near sociopathic individualism.
Large companies used to be rooted in society and in communities. I'm thinking of the likes of Guinness for example, a company that built houses, social clubs and even hospitals for their employees. Quaker companies like Cadbury's were often a prime example of how a company had a moral center, an obligation to its employees as well as it's shareholders. This was often based on the morality of it's founders.
Companies today have no morality, sure the ocassionaly fake it, in much the same way that a sociopath occasionally remembers that the need to fake the odd human emotion so that people don't get suspicious of their true nature, but companies in a global economy see only cash, never people, and they have shaped the morality of society to reflect that, something we are the poorer for.

Morality has been slowly eroded by the psych industry who through various labels of pathology have let people loose of moral accountibility. Even sociopaths are somewhat exempt because they cant help it, their brain made them do it.

So there is no such thing as an asshole, just a pathology.

My brain made me do it.

clairefontaine

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So basically anti-Americanism is any opposition to anything that comes from the US?

Lol. I'm watching American football as I type. I think Americans are some of the kindest, most polite people of any country.

I despise the ***** who craft and execute foreign policy and describe any criticism of it anti-American though. **** them and anyone like them.

American football shouldnt even count as a sport.