Russell Brand preaching revolution on Paxman Last Night

IM0

clairefontaine wrote: »

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.

nah thats more to do with giving names so its easier to group certain behaviours and symptoms together its not about excusing that behaviour or saying its ok, its just about recognising it as a phenomenon, of course there is nothing to stop people hijacking these terms and using them as excuses for certain behaviour.. ADHD springs to mind :rolleyes:

Johro

IM0 wrote: »

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

I'm sorry but that's just bollocks. Pretty lousy guesswork.

Johro

clairefontaine wrote: »

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.

Your brain made you write that post.

IM0

Johro wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's just bollocks. Pretty lousy guesswork.

I was just saying it in a think about it kind of way, no commerce means no jobs...or rather a whole lot less, so basically Im saying if no one consumes poverty grows, poverty grows society gets worse. its the lesser of two evils, would you prefer the law of the jungle where its a strong chance you will die everyday and your family gets raped or something. All of this idealogical stuff is grand until you realise that there is a reason why the system works for the masses, and if that means a bunch of people get to run the world for the better of everybody and society itself so be it. like I say Id rather that than the law of the jungle. society is just a thin vineer, take away that and we very quickly revert to savages again, we are supposed to have evolved from that so get with the times.

jank

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.

Yes, little else, apart from bringing billions out of poverty and the fact that humans enjoy a better quality of life and longer life now than ever in human history.

old hippy

jank wrote: »

Yes, little else, apart from bringing billions out of poverty and the fact that humans enjoy a better quality of life and longer life now than ever in human history.

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

old hippy

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Anti American what? Anti American foreign policy?

I love the States, my mom is American and much of the family live there. I love the music, the culture, the sheery beauty of the country and most Americans I've met there and abroad have been friendly, welcoming and polite. That said, I do not agree with much of its foreign policy and some of its allies have a dubious track records. So; for me - America - yes. American Governments (for the most part) - no.

Jonny7

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.

Blame the economic model, not the way it's implemented

clever

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Blame the economic model, not the way it's implemented

clever

Well, the economic model/theory underpinning our current economies is built upon many false assumptions about how economies work - so yes, it needs to start with fixing the model to at least represent how things work in reality first.

Once we know accurately what is possible economically (which the current dominant theory gets wrong and has us restricted by), we can then get on to the more political/ideological question, of what we should do with that knowledge (which, once we fix the inaccuraces in economic theory, becomes very easy to answer - which is very politically inconvenient to those who have a lot of power).

That's the problem with economics today - inaccurate knowledge about what is and isn't possible, restricting the 'should's (the political decisions), in a way that makes all economics lean to the right, and which is harmful to society.

Wompa1

This thread took a very predictable direction!

old hippy

Wompa1 wrote: »

This thread took a very predictable direction!

Most threads do.

Wacker The Attacker

a) I refuse to watch this interview because Russell Brand is in it.

b) Even if I agreed with every word he said in this interview I'll never watch, I'd never admit in public.

c) Jeremy Paxman is a bollocks as well.

d) If Russell Brand proposes any rational and realistic propositions in this clip, are they viable?

Maximus Alexander

I think this response to Russell by Robert Webb goes here. Interesting and well written.

Good bit of marketing by New Statesman to be honest. Never heard of it until last week.

pookiesboo

Maybe Paxman should do a follow up interview in Brands new $2 million Hollywood mansion to see how that revolution is going.

Joshua J

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think this response to Russell by Robert Webb goes here. Interesting and well written.

Good bit of marketing by New Statesman to be honest. Never heard of it until last week.

I think Rob missed the point TBH. He lists things that their current "democracy" has achieved recently but never addresses its failings. As the saying goes "a stopped clock is right twice a day".

The system is irrecocably broken and as Brand says, nothing short of revolution will change it. The pointlessness of voting seems a bit lost on Rob, I'm not sure he can see the system for what it is or has any desire for a better one. But I shouldn't worry, things are becoming increasingly clear, even to the most avid sycophant, that the current mechanisms are outdated, labourious and unbalanced. Vive la revolution.

K-9

Joshua J wrote: »

I think Rob missed the point TBH. He lists things that their current "democracy" has achieved recently but never addresses its failings. As the saying goes "a stopped clock is right twice a day".

The system is irrecocably broken and as Brand says, nothing short of revolution will change it. The pointlessness of voting seems a bit lost on Rob, I'm not sure he can see the system for what it is or has any desire for a better one. But I shouldn't worry, things are becoming increasingly clear, even to the most avid sycophant, that the current mechanisms are outdated, labourious and unbalanced. Vive la revolution.

I think his point is that while New Labour was just about becoming more and more like the Tories in many ways, in other ways even under Blair, there was substantial and ideological differences.

Rabelais

K-9 wrote: »

I think his point is that while New Labour was just about becoming more and more like the Tories in many ways, in other ways even under Blair, there was substantial and ideological differences.

Labour, under Milliband, are doing a fine job of returning to some sort of ideological principal. Like Ireland, it is difficult to differentiate between multiple parties rushing towards the centre. Neither party in the UK will really tackle the behemoth that is the NHS.

Still, there appears to be a relevant and energetic sort of opposition over there.

K-9

Rabelais wrote: »

Labour, under Milliband, are doing a fine job of returning to some sort of ideological principal. Like Ireland, it is difficult to differentiate between multiple parties rushing towards the centre. Neither party in the UK will really tackle the behemoth that is the NHS.

Still, there appears to be a relevant and energetic sort of opposition over there.

Well we'll see what Milliband is like when he gets into power. For me the problem was Labour and stuff like the Murdoch scandal, unfortunately Labour had to woo the press because there was a palpable fear about Labour taking power in 97 among the markets and journalism. That I can understand, or they wouldn't have got elected in the first place, the cosy relationship afterwards is the problem. Still, Labour did try and target the poorer sections of society and help them, it's a big contrast to Tory policies.

Sinfonia

Agricola wrote: »

Bang on the money. Brand will never be taken seriously primarily because hes a comedian / media personality but also because he's a former junkie who is now filthy rich and tends to make women weak at the knees due to his looks.

That goes both ways though: he'll be dismissed by many because of his celebrity, and he'll be blindly followed by others for the same reason. Equally bad of course.

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish. Then we'd never have any examples to follow of how to chat up women.

Check out this clip of charisma at work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F79vH7lIuig

Jesus, her poor fiance (probably) :P
I'd be having a full-on panic attack watching that.

lufties

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 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.

Great Post! I'm in the airline business and if a carrier opens up a new route and requires you to be stationed there, off you go. If the route closes(which is more and more the norm) then sorry you need to relocate. This is the case mostly for low cost carriers, but only a matter of time before legacy carriers catch up. It's become a very fickle industry altogether, all about money nothing else. Personally I would like to have stability in life, not to be living in anxiety wondering if you are gonna have a job in the morning. Capitalism has run away with itself, serving only a few and sacrificing many.:mad:

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.'