Russell Brand.........

[pastafarian]

The arrogance of the aged. Just because you didn't manage it, doesn't mean that this generation can't.

Didnt manage what exactly? I presume you are referring to people say over 50.

Is that the generation who in the 50`s,60`s,70`s and 80`s did more than any previous generation to bring awareness of hunger and disease in third world countries,form groups and societies to combat racism and homophobia.Sought to replace slum housing in this country.increase the welfare state,lobbied for workers rights. Is that the "aged" you are talking about?

The arrogance of youth eh,or should i say simply the arrogance of You

and no im not over 50

 

[Soulman]

Didnt manage what exactly? I presume you are referring to people say over 50.

Is that the generation who in the 50`s,60`s,70`s and 80`s did more than any previous generation to bring awareness of hunger and disease in third world countries,form groups and societies to combat racism and homophobia.Sought to replace slum housing in this country.increase the welfare state,lobbied for workers rights. Is that the "aged" you are talking about?

The arrogance of youth eh,or should i say simply the arrogance of You

and no im not over 50

Agreed. His arrogance and ignorance really knows no bounds.

 

[BadFish]

I am afraid that the post was quite right. As you get older, your experience of life is such that you realise that what you thought as a young person is not quite so workable, given human nature and the complexity of modern society. It would help if you were less vague -the answers and solutions are out there -where?
The sentence about resources -I am sorry but I can't understand this??

The line in question is a fair observation but not a hard and fast rule. Or am i going to hit a certain age and think "actually on reflection wealth is shared fairly, people are not living in poverty across the world,the planet isn't heating up and we are not rapidly exhausting our resources"? Or perhaps it is more of a case of hitting a certain and and not giving a ****?

I apologise for my vague answers but as discussed on this thread earlier I don't think it necessary for me or anybody else to have all the answers. As you say human nature and societies is far more complex that that and single one size fits all answers aren't really going to be workable. there are plenty of interesting ideas floating about and if we can switch our focus and realign our values away from money and self then we can continue to make incremental changes as we go. I don't see age as any barrier to stopping us encouraging the changes we want to see and nurturing the ideas we agree with.

 

[brighton fella]

Reading through various things you have been saying, I suspect that you would actually support left-wing politics, but it seems you have somehow been persuaded to resort to "leftist" stereotypes, rather than actually understanding what it is.

me a leftiedo me a favour, atleast give me some credit ! been called some names in the past but this takes the biscuit.

where shall I start. firstly I detest leftist true socialism and everything that it stands for. true socialism is not a lot different from that of Marxism if im being honest.
anyone under this system who's prepared to graft and really make a go of things is penalized for doing so.. if he's not clobbered by trade unionists the government will step in and make up some silly legislation. despite the myth the working class man is being held back and made to suffer. the system prevents capital from ever reaching its full potential.
I don't trust the system one tiny bit and never will do, besides shady little clubs known as the fabian society are behind socialism.. the orchestrators of socialism itself.

yet capitalism on the other hand does the complete opposite, it gives the working class man the incentive to make something of his life without being penalized for it.
it gives the working class man the opportunity to open up a business for himself, it gives him the opportunity to employ people without the usual silly infringements and red tape that go with it.
if capitalism is served correctly it wins by a country mile.. socialism coming a very poor 2nd.

the difference's between the right and left is the left are usually the mugs out of the two..
lefties take note..charity at any cost should always begin at home.

 

[BadFish]

me a leftiedo me a favour, atleast give me some credit ! been called some names in the past but this takes the biscuit.

where shall I start. firstly I detest leftist true socialism and everything that it stands for. true socialism is not a lot different from that of Marxism if im being honest.
anyone under this system who's prepared to graft and really make a go of things is penalized for doing so.. if he's not clobbered by trade unionists the government will step in and make up some silly legislation. despite the myth the working class man is being held back and made to suffer. the system prevents capital from ever reaching its full potential.
I don't trust the system one tiny bit and never will do, besides shady little clubs known as the fabian society are behind socialism.. the orchestrators of socialism itself.

yet capitalism on the other hand does the complete opposite, it gives the working class man the incentive to make something of his life without being penalized for it.
it gives the working class man the opportunity to open up a business for himself, it gives him the opportunity to employ people without the usual silly infringements and red tape that go with it.
if capitalism is served correctly it wins by a country mile.. socialism coming a very poor 2nd.

the difference's between the right and left is the left are usually the mugs out of the two..
lefties take note..charity at any cost should always begin at home.

Both systems would work well if they were served correctly. The trouble is neither are and probably never will be. I think we would all be better off without the petty squabbles of left and right and worked together to deal with those who ruin both and either systems.

Greed and corruption are our enemies not each other.

 

[Hastings gull]

The arrogance of the aged. Just because you didn't manage it, doesn't mean that this generation can't.

You disappoint me, as you do not normally go in for such silly remarks. It is NOT arrogance at all; just that you have seen that what you held dear as a youth, is not necessarily practical to the degree that you expected. When I started teaching in the early 70s, I was a real social missionary but after years of working with problem children - and parents - I have tempered my ambitions for them. Doubtless people in other professions will say the same.
Your final sentence was irrelevant -at no time have I ever said that the present generation should not change things, when change might be warranted. Of course they should -what I do find odd, is when ridiculous unrealistic platitudes are trotted out, often with exaggeration and generalisations to try and back up the point, and, lets be honest, in this respect, it is you, above all others on NSC, who would need to look the sense of what you post.

 

[Buzzer]

The internet has caused a kind of unification that has never happened before in the history of man, it's very exciting, and you can be part of it - instead of being the miserable thorn in the side of this radical social and political revolution that we are about to experience.

THere's no unification of radical politics. It's writ large amongst certain groups but certainly it's not universal and mass appeal is nothing new. Back in the 1100's the Western World united in the crusades. In the 1500s the Reformation tore apart the same part of the world. In the late 1960s, students in France, UK, America, Germany...were saying EXACTLY the same as you are now.

It appears that your mistake is the same that many other right-leaning people make in assuming that without capitalism, we would be left with socialism, or even worse, communism. This is simply untrue.

What's untrue is that you think I assume that. I don't.

Sorry to be patronising, but I'm pretty confident you don't actually know what left wing politics is.

And the same accusation could easily be levelled at you when you describe UKIP as 'far-right'.

 

[Hastings gull]

The line in question is a fair observation but not a hard and fast rule. Or am i going to hit a certain age and think "actually on reflection wealth is shared fairly, people are not living in poverty across the world,the planet isn't heating up and we are not rapidly exhausting our resources"? Or perhaps it is more of a case of hitting a certain and and not giving a ****?

I apologise for my vague answers but as discussed on this thread earlier I don't think it necessary for me or anybody else to have all the answers. As you say human nature and societies is far more complex that that and single one size fits all answers aren't really going to be workable. there are plenty of interesting ideas floating about and if we can switch our focus and realign our values away from money and self then we can continue to make incremental changes as we go. I don't see age as any barrier to stopping us encouraging the changes we want to see and nurturing the ideas we agree with.

Thanks for this -I do largely agree with you. There is no hard and fast rule. We should not discard any ideas which are genuinely intended to improve humanity, and age should not have a bearing on the matter, though in general, I suppose, we do tend to moderate our burning desire for changes as we get older. What is important is that what is suggested is such that large swathes of the population can identify with it - a handful of dreamers shouting out slogans is hardly going to carry the population with them.

 

[El Presidente]

Just out of interest - how do you define a right or left winger?

Is it about whether you agree with Brand or not?

Kaz = Left winger

Buckley = Right Winger

 

[W.C.]

Kaz = Left winger

Buckley = Right Winger

He's not very left footed though is he?

 

[BadFish]

Thanks for this -I do largely agree with you. There is no hard and fast rule. We should not discard any ideas which are genuinely intended to improve humanity, and age should not have a bearing on the matter, though in general, I suppose, we do tend to moderate our burning desire for changes as we get older. What is important is that what is suggested is such that large swathes of the population can identify with it - a handful of dreamers shouting out slogans is hardly going to carry the population with them.

I agree, slogans are designed to pique our interest and encourage us to explore further. I can't say I agree with everything I have read in Brand's book so far and haven't find anything particularly new our earth shattering. However I still consider our good exposure to a cause I believe whole heartily in (can you tell? ).

I am getting on a bit but still like to consider by self in possession of a little burning passion about a few things. I really hope my kids and grandkids grow up in a fairer world than we did and am willing to support those who are fighting for that. Even if they are rich, not funny, irritating, a bit mental and I am not in complete agreement with everything they say.

 

[The Spanish]

The arrogance of the aged. Just because you didn't manage it, doesn't mean that this generation can't.

Yes, as believing you can do something in spite of people with vast life experience being unsure, is not arrogant at all, is it?

 

[JCL666]

Yes, as believing you can do something in spite of people with vast life experience being unsure, is not arrogant at all, is it?

If everyone listened to the generations before them, nothing would change.

In fact I would say the patronising arrogance of previous generations is a partial factor in motivating people.

 

[Buzzer]

Page 96:

Sure, the ISIS insurgents right now rampaging through Iraq, somewhat making a mockery of the initial impetus of the West’s invasion, may be fuming and Muslim, but beneath their militant goals we will find love.

The Yazidi religious minority community in Iraq says 3,500 of its women and girls are still being held by the so-called Islamic State (IS), many being used as sex slaves. A few have managed to escape and here tell their harrowing stories.

 

[Hastings gull]

If everyone listened to the generations before them, nothing would change.

In fact I would say the patronising arrogance of previous generations is a partial factor in motivating people.

Do you mean for the better or worse?! Of course the generation before might be "stick in the mud" and probably less willing to change, accepted, but as a general rule, you would ignore advice from those with much experience of life at your peril. A balance is what is needed. Older people have "been there and done it" and above all learnt from their mistakes, and so their attitudes might not be as patronising as you naively think. Whilst there will always be folk who cannot abide change at any price, I feel sure that the majority, irrespective of age, would see the logic of eg different systems, so long as it is explained in a clear and meaningful way and in a manner with which people could identify. Change does come about with time - the much greater acceptance, even by oldies, of same-sex marriage would be an obvious example.

 

[Soulman]

If everyone listened to the generations before them, nothing would change.

In fact I would say the patronising arrogance of previous generations is a partial factor in motivating people.

Or perhaps if people today did listen to the generations before, then the mess we are witnessing might not be a problem. The 50's 60's and 70's were mentioned, was the UK in any wars in that period apart from early 50's in Korea and Malaya, i grew up in those times and there did not seem to be the threats there are nowadays.
Maybe the arrogance of some of the new generation are patronising the previous generation.

 

[Hastings gull]

Cheers for the reply, sorry to patronise earlier but I wanted to provoke you into this response.

I'm not saying socialism is the answer, I don't think I would want to live in a socialist world either. However you can't deny that many of the best political concepts applied in this world are socialist, some great examples in Scandinavia and here in the UK too such as our NHS, welfare or social housing. I don't think many of us would complain if our transport and utilities were renationalised so we have more affordable bills and fares, rather than wealthy foreign investors getting rich of us by selling us back our own services. The only way we could possibly tackle poverty and inequality is by applying some form of socialism, using the wealth gained at the top to support those at the bottom, which currently isn't happening.

The bit where you are absolutely wrong is where you say capitalism offers the working class the opportunity to make something of his life without getting penalised for it - because that is absolute nonsense. There are a handful of working class people who do hit the jackpot in this capitalist game, but that is increasingly rare. A vast majority of working class people stay working class for life, they are incentivised to work hard not through the possibility of reward, but out of necessity - life on benefits is horrific, with worst case scenario poverty or even homelessness. Hard working people will often never own their own home or have a liveable disposable income, many will have to live off credit cards or spend their lives struggling to pay their bills. It is essentially modern day slavery - regular people being forced to work in unrewarding meaningless jobs which sole purpose is to make the rich even richer.

Capitalism was great before the corporations engrossed it. Hundreds of failed businesses every day cannot compete with the corporations, who will either buy you out or outcompete you. Long gone are the days where typical working class people can look to business as a realistic alternative to joining the rat race.

I believe, as I've said before, the first step would be applying socialism for the poor and keeping capitalism for the rich. We need to let the rich compete with one another and enjoy the rewards of wealth for their innovation - however it is their duty to support the rest of society who are responsible for allowing them that wealth in the first place. Increasing personal wealth by billions of pounds every year for doing nothing should be outlawed, especially when you consider our public services are being destroyed for a fraction of that and what kind of difference that wealth would make for regular people.

Perhaps you were not around when British Rail was in existence, but trust me, the service was appalling. Nationalised industries, whilst wonderful in theory, do not largely provide a good service, as they tend to be huge and inefficient organisations where the average worker has little motivation to work for the public. This is what the communists found out, when the industries were all taken into government control. To say that then the bills would be lower is a huge leap of faith, and one that you throw in to lend a bit of credence. It may sound romantic, but your view that socialism will not provide the wealth at the top to support those at the bottom - had you been able to visit East Germany, this would have been glaringly obvious.
As ever, the second para is the customary exaggeration, concentrating on the lives lead by a small minority, and the sneering mention of meaningless jobs. I think roughly 70/75% of British people own their own home, or are currently paying for it, which is a long way from the scenario you are conveniently trying to portray. And yet again, your usual assertion that people are getting rich for doing nothing, according to you -somehow I really doubt that. You would be more believable if you stopped using the example of a minority as the norm.

 

[Soulman]

Don't you think that international conflicts could be more frequent these days because of corporate greed?

Consider that 7 out of the 10 richest corporations are oil companies. Also in 2011 alone, the richest 10 arms companies sold over $200 billion in arms and military services. Then consider that the relationship these companies have with world governments, particularly but not exclusively in the US.

Corporate greed has not just sprung up though has it. Most of the slaughter, killing, terrorist activities are not due to corporate greed in my opinion.
I don't think that ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaida and the bombings etc have been due to corporate greed.

 

[spring hall convert]

Absolutely agree that there were some fantastic global movements in those era's - but the 80's the decade when capitalism became more sinister, greed took over with the corporations, and we began to find ourselves in the mess we're in today.

Privatisation is key to this (essentially stealing from the people of this nation for little or no benefit to those people.)Not suprising as there hasn't been a left-wing party to vote for in this country since John Smith died.

Voting has become utterly meaningless. The differences between the 3 main parties are miniscule when you compare them to Foot vs Thatcher. In reality, we've had a broad coalition government since 1997.

 

[spring hall convert]

The ruling classes can no longer control our thought through the mainstream media and social media is currently beyond their control (although they are doing the best to change that). The internet has unified not just communities, but the entire world - ideas spread like wildfire and the status quo simply doesn't have the resources to extinguish them, despite the propaganda perpetually spewed out in the mainstream media.

Look at the current institutional child sex abuse scandal for evidence. The information is all out there if you want to find it.