Russell Brand - Moving Right

Eboue said:
I'm going to ignore the debt rambling for the moment because you didn't answer my questions.

Why hasn't socialisn worked so far? What is going to change so that it will work in the future?
Click to expand...

The centralisation and concentration of power. Better checks and balances than the previous socialist governments have had. Two possibilities?

China. Their economy seems to be doing alright? Seems a bit strict but economically working okay but is obviously not environmentaly orientated.
 
Eboue said:
I'm going to ignore the debt rambling for the moment because you didn't answer my questions.

Why hasn't socialisn worked so far? What is going to change so that it will work in the future?
Click to expand...

Because it wouldn't have served a purpose. Imperialism, capitalism has worked very well for us, as you said our quality of live has improved greatly through medicine, the understanding of everything really, as people had incentive to work without being slaves. Even so, some people in this day and age are lazy slobs. That won't change regardless of societies direction.

The thirst for knowledge is generally embedded in us, that's the whole point of our lives, isn't it, to understand? Or is it to drive a nice car? I believe it will change on the premise of our intellect improving every single generation and people understanding just what a messed up, barbaric system we are currently living in. There's no need for people to suffer, to be monetised so someone can have a quality of live. We are becoming a collective society, not an individual one and once the individual society has broken down then capitalism will not work any longer as we will look to share rather than snag.
 
Capitalism is an excellent wealth generator, but it distributes non-linearly. The more wealth you have, the easier it is to generate more. The extreme poor have little means of climbing out of the pit, and the majority in the middle are balancing spinning plates, working against being thrown into the abyss. If things continue the way they are going, it's not unrealistic to suggest we could have another scenario like what happened in France a few centuries ago.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
At a macro level he's not pointing out any really viable solutions (is anyone?) but when he campaigns on local issues - such as the one that prompted this vitriol from The Sun - then he's suggesting a very clear solution.

In fact, that's part of his main premises in his book. A devolving of power from the central to the local. Allowing local communities a bigger say in issues which affect them directly. Which is one "solution" that I think makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

The decentralization of power is an interesting one. It works well in certain situations where societal norms are generally in sync across a given country; but can be equally calamitous when they aren't - racism in the US during the 1960s being a good example. If the federal government had not gradually stepped in to impose a standard, the situation would have festered for significantly longer than it did. So in most instances, I would say the localization of power only works as long as it is socio-culturally in sync with national standards.
 
adexkola said:
Capitalism is an excellent wealth generator, but it distributes non-linearly. The more wealth you have, the easier it is to generate more. The extreme poor have little means of climbing out of the pit, and the majority in the middle are balancing spinning plates, working against being thrown into the abyss. If things continue the way they are going, it's not unrealistic to suggest we could have another scenario like what happened in France a few centuries ago.
Click to expand...

I'd say such a scenario is much more feasible where income disparities are coupled with coercive state practices, such as in the likes of Russia and China, neither of which have much in the way of civil rights.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I had no intention of being condescending, I was just taking issue with your apparent confidence in such a seismic societal change in the very near future.

Pushing it out to the 23rd century sounds slightly more plausible. Still kind of abstract, though. I just hope we crack hoverboards and teleportation first.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, thought it was another sly jab with the wording. My mistake. No-one has a crystal ball but I'd like to believe that we won't be in this unjust system as we continue to progress. I struggled with skateboards, hope hoverboards have a nice big pole to grab onto (oh matron) to centre my gravity.
 
I don't see the problem with Russell Brand raising awareness towards such issues. Better his honest faulty approach than the apathy you get from most public figures bar politicians (who are useless anyways)
 
MajorTom said:
Sorry about that, thought it was another sly jab with the wording. My mistake. No-one has a crystal ball but I'd like to believe that we won't be in this unjust system as we continue to progress. I struggled with skateboards, hope hoverboards have a nice big pole to grab onto (oh matron) to centre my gravity.
Click to expand...

No need to apologise man. I do have an annoying habit of being condescending but try to keep it out of this forum. Too many smart cookies around, so condescencion could easily bite me on the arse!
 
Raoul said:
The decentralization of power is an interesting one. It works well in certain situations where societal norms are generally in sync across a given country; but can be equally calamitous when they aren't - racism in the US during the 1960s being a good example. If the federal government had not gradually stepped in to impose a standard, the situation would have festered for significantly longer than it did. So in most instances, I would say the localization of power only works as long as it is socio-culturally in sync with national standards.
Click to expand...

Good point, well made.
 
My issue with Brand is that he apparently wants to make politics accessible to your average Joe but insists on speaking in a stream of eighteen syllable words whenever he's interviewed, which would be fine if he wasn't determined to open up politics to the average Joe. Always think it's a bit hypocritical.
 
adexkola said:
I don't see the problem with Russell Brand raising awareness towards such issues. Better his honest faulty approach than the apathy you get from most public figures bar politicians (who are useless anyways)
Click to expand...

Neither do i, but his point of view should be backed up with viable solutions rather than drawing attention to himself by simply identifying problems.
 
JohnLocke said:
The centralisation and concentration of power. Better checks and balances than the previous socialist governments have had. Two possibilities?

China. Their economy seems to be doing alright? Seems a bit strict but economically working okay but is obviously not environmentaly orientated.
Click to expand...

Those same additions could be applied to capitalist societies which aren't starting from behind the comparative eight ball.

China has a massive, cheap labor force, doesnt have to deal with unions and an OHSA, doesn't care about environmental concerns and doesn't have to worry about the gridlock and incrementalism of democracy. If that's the shining city on the hill of socialism, it's not a convincing argument for its superiority to capitalism. I realize you haven't come out and said that but Major Tom has.
 
Eboue said:
Those same additions could be applied to capitalist societies which aren't starting from behind the comparative eight ball.

China has a massive, cheap labor force, doesnt have to deal with unions and an OHSA, doesn't care about environmental concerns and doesn't have to worry about the gridlock and incrementalism of democracy. If that's the shining city on the hill of socialism, it's not a convincing argument for its superiority to capitalism. I realize you haven't come out and said that but Major Tom has.
Click to expand...



Of course os not a good example. China is capitalist...

No country have been given a proper run under a real socialism system. Its usually boycotted way before it has a decent chance to be successful.
 
Raoul said:
Neither do i, but his point of view should be backed up with viable solutions rather than drawing attention to himself by simply identifying problems.
Click to expand...

Or divert the attention on himself to reputable experts in the subject matter who know what they're talking about.

I don't know if he has done either. And yes, doing one of those would be more beneficial than just throwing questions out there.
 
Eboue said:
Those same additions could be applied to capitalist societies which aren't starting from behind the comparative eight ball.

China has a massive, cheap labor force, doesnt have to deal with unions and an OHSA, doesn't care about environmental concerns and doesn't have to worry about the gridlock and incrementalism of democracy. If that's the shining city on the hill of socialism, it's not a convincing argument for its superiority to capitalism. I realize you haven't come out and said that but Major Tom has.
Click to expand...

I think you might be slightly confused if you think my words hail China as the shining example.
 
MajorTom said:
How will capitalism work within a world state?
Click to expand...

Just as it does in the United States i suppose. Wendt's argument is the world state would be crudely analogous to a federalized nation with semi-autonomous states, much as in the US.
 
MajorTom said:
Because it wouldn't have served a purpose. Imperialism, capitalism has worked very well for us, as you said our quality of live has improved greatly through medicine, the understanding of everything really, as people had incentive to work without being slaves. Even so, some people in this day and age are lazy slobs. That won't change regardless of societies direction.

The thirst for knowledge is generally embedded in us, that's the whole point of our lives, isn't it, to understand? Or is it to drive a nice car? I believe it will change on the premise of our intellect improving every single generation and people understanding just what a messed up, barbaric system we are currently living in. There's no need for people to suffer, to be monetised so someone can have a quality of live. We are becoming a collective society, not an individual one and once the individual society has broken down then capitalism will not work any longer as we will look to share rather than snag.
Click to expand...

I promise I'm not trying to be rude but none off what you say really makes any sense. The first part is vague rambling, the second is not a bad point but it's a point that can be applied to capitalism too and again, capitalism has already demonstrated a marked superiority to socialism in creating maintaining and distributing quality of life improvements. If we want to focus on reducing suffering and raising quality of life across the board, surely it's better to start with the system which inherently does the best job of it. As for the third part, look up what has happened in self proclaimed collective societies. Knowing the history of them, I can only conclude that humans are incompatible with them or they simply aren't a good idea to begin with.
 
Raoul said:
In terms of the End of History ? No I don't.

I do believe Alexander Wendt's Why a World State is Inevitable, which imo is one of the greatest pieces ever written and will be recognized as such when the world state eventually happens (although probably not for the specific reasons he puts forth).
Click to expand...

Haven't read, but that's for the link.
 
George Owen said:
Of course os not a good example. China is capitalist...

No country have been given a proper run under a real socialism system. Its usually boycotted way before it has a decent chance to be successful.
Click to expand...

China is not capitalist. They still run industry from the top government levels. They're some weird hybrid, but by no means are they capitalist. If they are capitalist what is Hong Kong?
 
Eboue said:
Those same additions could be applied to capitalist societies which aren't starting from behind the comparative eight ball.

China has a massive, cheap labor force, doesnt have to deal with unions and an OHSA, doesn't care about environmental concerns and doesn't have to worry about the gridlock and incrementalism of democracy. If that's the shining city on the hill of socialism, it's not a convincing argument for its superiority to capitalism. I realize you haven't come out and said that but Major Tom has.
Click to expand...

I just used it as an example, I don't know of there is a better one but I certainly wouldn't use it as a shining pilar of what we should be aiming towards.

My main point was (in my last long post) that capitalism is failing and we are in an age that doesn't offer up much alternative, but one must be sought.

The failings of socialism have little to do with capitalism failing now.
 
adexkola said:
China is not capitalist. They still run industry from the top government levels. They're some weird hybrid, but by no means are they capitalist. If they are capitalist what is Hong Kong?
Click to expand...

They are definitely hybrid. Communist state structures control power, capitalist structures generate wealth. But they will soon reach a tipping point where sufficient numbers of citizens become financially and socio-culturally vested in capitalism that they will push the communists at the top out through, probably, a soft revolution.
 
Eboue said:
I made the deduction. You think socialist systems are superior, he named the most prominent. I'm happy for you to ccorrect me by giving examples which you do think we should aspire to.
Click to expand...

You could have looked at Denmark or Finland for their social programs but I understand your need to look to China as it fits with your view.
 
MajorTom said:
You could have looked at Denmark or Finland for their social programs but I understand your need to look to China as it fits with your view.
Click to expand...

My need to look at China? John Locke mentioned China. You're quite condescending for someone who just complained fifteen minutes ago. Please elaborate on Denmark and Finland.
 
Eboue said:
My need to look at China? John Locke mentioned China. You're quite condescending for someone who just complained fifteen minutes ago. Please elaborate on Denmark and Finland.
Click to expand...

Then you implied quite stupidly that China was my ideal country. Actually, you didn't even imply, you outright said that. If you want to know about the social programs of those two countries and they are bloody good programs then google them. I'm going do some weights, listen to some music and have something to eat.
 
JohnLocke said:
I just used it as an example, I don't know of there is a better one but I certainly wouldn't use it as a shining pilar of what we should be aiming towards.

My main point was (in my last long post) that capitalism is failing and we are in an age that doesn't offer up much alternative, but one must be sought.

The failings of socialism have little to do with capitalism failing now.
Click to expand...

Is it failing? Certainly we could benefit from more regulation but what measures would you use to determine that it is failing and failing in comparison to what?
 
Eboue said:
Could you list of a few of the most prominent and explain why you think they failed?
Click to expand...

ill give you only one example. Chile 1970-1973.

democratic election led to the victory of Allende, socialist.

in 1971 when the cupper was nationalized, Nixon reaction was: "It's time to kick Chile in the ass"

he ordered Kissinger to feck chilean economy and they did. CIA agents were infiltrated and the rest is history. It ended with the militar coupe of september 11, 1973.


on a funny note, China (communist right?), where the first ones to acknowledge the militar government as legit, because they already had their eyes on the future business they could do, plus, the fact is was a DEMOCRATIC socialism, wasn't good received by China leaders.
 
Last edited:
MajorTom said:
Then you implied quite stupidly that China was my ideal country. Actually, you didn't even imply, you outright said that. If you want to know about the social programs of those two countries and they are bloody good programs then google them. I'm going do some weights, listen to some music and have something to eat.
Click to expand...

Let's recap. You claimed that socialism was a better system. John Locke brought up an example of a prominent socialist system. I then discussed said prominent example in the context of you promoting the system. You took exception to my conclusion so I asked you to give your own examples, lest there be another misunderstanding. You then named two examples. I disagreed with them being socialist countries but in deference to your childlike sensitivity, I politely asked you to elaborate. You then threw your toys out.

I'm going to eat an apple, check my email and listen to my coworkers talk about reality TV. I'll be around if you'd like to make a tit of yourself again later.
 
George Owen said:
ill give you only one example. Chile 1970-1973.

democratic election led to the victory of Allende, socialist.

in 1971 when the cupper was nationalized, Nixon reaction was: "It's time to kick Chile in the ass"

he ordered Kissinger to feck chilean economy and they did. CIA agents were infiltrated and the rest is history. It ended with the militar coupe of september 11, 1973.


on a funny note, China (communist right?), where the first ones to acknowledge the militar government as legit, because they already had their eyes on the future business they could do, plus, the fact is was a DEMOCRATIC socialism, wasn't good received by China leaders.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to grant that American intervention makes Chile an example of not being given a proper run. However that still leaves us without an example of a successful socialist country.
 
Eboue said:
I'm willing to grant that American intervention makes Chile an example of not being given a proper run. However that still leaves us without an example of a successful socialist country.
Click to expand...

there is none that I'm aware of, but like i said, has never been given a proper run without external influences.

I'm not saying Socialism (economic system) is the way to go, because its probably not (countries and economy's are just too big and dealings go way beyond just food and housing, for example, so we need a system that's up to date with the world.)

But capitalism as an absolute is not the answer as well. We agree i suppose, a mixture would be the best way to go. But a real hybrid. And not only by adding the word "communism" or "socialism" to your political party name, but be real. Norway is way more communist than China, for example. Norway, Germany... they are the modern socialists every country should be trying to imitate.

("I will let you go as far as you can, but only if you can take the rest of us with you, or at least keep us close"... that would be my political party motto)
 
Last edited:
Eboue said:
Is it failing? Certainly we could benefit from more regulation but what measures would you use to determine that it is failing and failing in comparison to what?
Click to expand...

For all the reasons I listed in my first post, and more. It's a system of governance that is failing the majority of people. Or are you happy with the way things are and the way they are heading?

It doesn't have to be a comparison as to what it's failing against. There is currently no ideal to mark it against, or if there is I don't know about it, but that doesn't detract from its failings. I'm sure we could pick and chose different aspects of different systems and come up with something better than what we've got.

I honestly don't know how you could assume that it's not failing. We are in for some shitty times in the next few years (uk) and that's pretty obvious.
 
JohnLocke said:
For all the reasons I listed in my first post, and more. It's a system of governance that is failing the majority of people. Or are you happy with the way things are and the way they are heading?

It doesn't have to be a comparison as to what it's failing against. There is currently no ideal to mark it against, or if there is I don't know about it, but that doesn't detract from its failings. I'm sure we could pick and chose different aspects of different systems and come up with something better than what we've got.

I honestly don't know how you could assume that it's not failing. We are in for some shitty times in the next few years (uk) and that's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the UK but in the US I'm optimistic that we came through the recession and things are looking up.
 
Eboue said:
I can't speak to the UK but in the US I'm optimistic that we came through the recession and things are looking up.
Click to expand...

You may have "came through" the recession but who paid for that? Why are there still huge gulfs in social class? Why is.... Lots of things I couldn't be bothered typing on my phone here. I appreciate that it's lazy to say that, but the failings are there for all to see.

It's basically more of the same with capitalism and everyday your rights and freedoms will be ebbed away to serve the elites.

America is the most brutal player in world affairs, and it's in the name of chasing down profit. That won't change in the current system. I'm not just talking about economic growth but the need for social change too, and our current vein of social thought is entrenched in capitalism. Of one form or another.

I'm not having a go at Americans here either, but the government and foreign policy is a monster. And you have two sides of the same coin to pick from year after year. All supporting the current system which benefits the rich and forgets about the rest. It's the way it's been set up across most "democratic" states.

What the electorate want and what they get are poles apart, but that's the democratic capitalist state at its finest. It's working, honestly
 
Eboue said:
Let's recap. You claimed that socialism was a better system. John Locke brought up an example of a prominent socialist system. I then discussed said prominent example in the context of you promoting the system. You took exception to my conclusion so I asked you to give your own examples, lest there be another misunderstanding. You then named two examples. I disagreed with them being socialist countries but in deference to your childlike sensitivity, I politely asked you to elaborate. You then threw your toys out.

I'm going to eat an apple, check my email and listen to my coworkers talk about reality TV. I'll be around if you'd like to make a tit of yourself again later.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Sorry for responding with a way you could get information about the socialistic aspects about those countries, next time I shall stop with my plans and reply to you with haste about them. You are making a tit out of yourself by claiming I threw my toys out of the pram by going for something to eat and doing some weights. Mental.

Where did I say they were socialist countries? China isn't a socialist country but that didn't stop you from saying it is to fit your argument. Now, lets see what you have done with the time I have been gone to find out about those aspects. So enlighten me - what have you read? I bet it is nothing because you don't really want to know. A more natural recap would be me championing socialism, which has never been tried to any true nature of the philosophy and you championing capitalism. A system that with every single note that comes in circulation has debt on it. How the hell can any sane man be an advocate of that?

My country is no better but let's use yours as it is considered the wealthiest nation on earth. Only once since 1776, the formation of America, has your country been in a position of credit in 1836. That's right, one year out of the entire history has your country been in profit. Quite the feat. What a system, what a bastion to the glorification of capitalism. Every single note, or piece of fractional banking owes 105% on that currency created. Recipe for success right there. One of your Presidents was going to nationalise the FED, still would have had a similar situation but one that would've been under a fractionally small amount of more control. What happens to him - gets assassinated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.