You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Russell Brand - class warrior or complete bell end
March 29 2024 1.30am

Russell Brand - class warrior or complete bell end

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 16 of 41 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

 

View npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 27 Nov 14 8.46am Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote matt_himself at 27 Nov 2014 12.48am

Quote NickinOX at 27 Nov 2014 12.41am

Quote matt_himself at 26 Nov 2014 10.57pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 26 Nov 2014 8.52pm

Quote ghosteagle at 26 Nov 2014 5.37pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 26 Nov 2014 3.17pm

Needless to say, I simply don't accept the premise that private property is based on "oppression, theft or murder". Maybe in the 11th century, but today? Don't be daft.

On the contrary, private property is one of the biggest guarantors of freedom we have. Certainly more robust than the flimsy protections provided by a universal suffrage democracy and representative government.

Abolish private property and you have two options:

1. Anarchy. During periods of which oppression, theft and murder tend to thrive.

2. Some kind of collective organisation running things "on behalf of" individuals. Again, the historical precedents of this aren't good.

You realise that number two is the form of government we currently have right???

Ha ha, fair point. Depending on how you interpret "collective".

I honestly think you're all completely bonkers wanting to abolish property. Quickest possible way to murderous tyranny there is!

One massive blocker for me is that the Kumar Rouge declared private property illegal.

That didn't end up well. The largest genocide in history. However, it will probably be deemed 'progressive' by the sorts who think that a caliphate under ISIS is 'progressive'.

Misguided fools.


Apart from the Holomodor, the Great Leap Forward, the Holocaust, etc.

Mind you, you do have a point as many were committed by socialist governments (including some nationalist ones). The good of the many...


I would suggest you look at the percentage of the Cambodian population that the right on Socialist brothers in the Khmer Rouge slaughtered for what constituted the greatest genocide in history.

These people were sick f***s.


Funny enough, this thread jumped immediately to mind last night when I saw that the Killing Fields was on!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 28 Nov 14 12.29am Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote elgrande at 26 Nov 2014 5.33pm

So I have worked hard all my life,managed to keep a roof over my head,clothe and feed 4 children,seen them grow up to be good members of our society(all working and paying their taxes).
And own my own home,and all the time I have been doing it wrong and a bad member of the human race because I own things,


f*** off back to a nice communist state and enjoy yourself.


Just genuinely interested how you drew that conclusion from my post?

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 28 Nov 14 12.59am Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote Johnny Eagles at 26 Nov 2014 3.17pm

Needless to say, I simply don't accept the premise that private property is based on "oppression, theft or murder". Maybe in the 11th century, but today? Don't be daft.

On the contrary, private property is one of the biggest guarantors of freedom we have. Certainly more robust than the flimsy protections provided by a universal suffrage democracy and representative government.

Abolish private property and you have two options:

1. Anarchy. During periods of which oppression, theft and murder tend to thrive.

2. Some kind of collective organisation running things "on behalf of" individuals. Again, the historical precedents of this aren't good.


Just start this by saying that it's easy to regard private property on an individual level, from home-ownership to clothing. But these aren't commodities that would disappear in a post-PP society. Instead, the idea that these things are financially contingent, that a roof over your head and clothes to protect you from the cold should be only for those who can pay for them would be rejected and we collectively would see it as a fundamental human right to possess these things.

Anyway. To state that the possession of private property in the 11th century is different to how it is today is fundamentally wrong. Regardless of it has sold on down the line, it has come in to private possession through exploitative means originally. Considering we are challenging the very fundamental idea of private property you have to look at what moral basis it stems from, and most of those who had the temerity to move public land in to private lands did so under the heading of religion.

Your point about private property as a producer of freedom I genuinely find baffling. Given that private property is an extension of capital investment, you are essentially arguing that freedom is either bought or inherited, which I find very dangerous. It would suggest that those with more valuable property, take the Qatari royal family, possess more freedom because of it; which I don't necessarily dispute, but how can you regard that as a protection against tyranny? If anything it is an enforcement of tyranny, as you are allowing previously public spaces to be controlled and manipulated by non-representative bodies.

As for what abolishing private property leads to, all it really leads to is either communism or anarchy. That sentence alone will probably have plenty on here pissing their pants, but sit down for a moment and think about those ideologies as basically collective ownership. It doesn't have to be Stalin's purges or Khmer Rouge, it doesn't have to be toiling the fields all day or eating rye bread and drinking water for dinner. There is nothing intrinsic within the abolition of private property which dictates any of that, and history shows us many examples where anarcho-syndicalist communes have operated very functionally.

I understand I won't convince many/any on here, but I think it's good to think about these things, and to bring it back to the thread topic, I admire Brand for at least raising unpopular opinions and bringing them back in to public conversation. But the next time you have to pay for a piss at clapham junction, or your rent goes up, or you have to fork out £25 to go up the shard with some girl in the vague hope she'll sleep with you, remember that it's an absolute f*cking joke that someone makes you do that, and it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that we could live in a society where that didn't happen.

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Pawson Palace's Profile Pawson Palace Flag Croydon 28 Nov 14 10.13am Send a Private Message to Pawson Palace Add Pawson Palace as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 28 Nov 2014 12.59am

Quote Johnny Eagles at 26 Nov 2014 3.17pm

Needless to say, I simply don't accept the premise that private property is based on "oppression, theft or murder". Maybe in the 11th century, but today? Don't be daft.

On the contrary, private property is one of the biggest guarantors of freedom we have. Certainly more robust than the flimsy protections provided by a universal suffrage democracy and representative government.

Abolish private property and you have two options:

1. Anarchy. During periods of which oppression, theft and murder tend to thrive.

2. Some kind of collective organisation running things "on behalf of" individuals. Again, the historical precedents of this aren't good.


Just start this by saying that it's easy to regard private property on an individual level, from home-ownership to clothing. But these aren't commodities that would disappear in a post-PP society. Instead, the idea that these things are financially contingent, that a roof over your head and clothes to protect you from the cold should be only for those who can pay for them would be rejected and we collectively would see it as a fundamental human right to possess these things.

Anyway. To state that the possession of private property in the 11th century is different to how it is today is fundamentally wrong. Regardless of it has sold on down the line, it has come in to private possession through exploitative means originally. Considering we are challenging the very fundamental idea of private property you have to look at what moral basis it stems from, and most of those who had the temerity to move public land in to private lands did so under the heading of religion.

Your point about private property as a producer of freedom I genuinely find baffling. Given that private property is an extension of capital investment, you are essentially arguing that freedom is either bought or inherited, which I find very dangerous. It would suggest that those with more valuable property, take the Qatari royal family, possess more freedom because of it; which I don't necessarily dispute, but how can you regard that as a protection against tyranny? If anything it is an enforcement of tyranny, as you are allowing previously public spaces to be controlled and manipulated by non-representative bodies.

As for what abolishing private property leads to, all it really leads to is either communism or anarchy. That sentence alone will probably have plenty on here pissing their pants, but sit down for a moment and think about those ideologies as basically collective ownership. It doesn't have to be Stalin's purges or Khmer Rouge, it doesn't have to be toiling the fields all day or eating rye bread and drinking water for dinner. There is nothing intrinsic within the abolition of private property which dictates any of that, and history shows us many examples where anarcho-syndicalist communes have operated very functionally.

I understand I won't convince many/any on here, but I think it's good to think about these things, and to bring it back to the thread topic, I admire Brand for at least raising unpopular opinions and bringing them back in to public conversation. But the next time you have to pay for a piss at clapham junction, or your rent goes up, or you have to fork out £25 to go up the shard with some girl in the vague hope she'll sleep with you, remember that it's an absolute f*cking joke that someone makes you do that, and it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that we could live in a society where that didn't happen.

1) I hardly think 20p for a piss is a liberty nor something that would even bother me unless I don't have any change haha- in Bulgaria everywhere charges 1 1ev (50p) to use their facilities

2) Rent goes up, as does every other item. Inflation will always make things more expensive it's just a fact of life I am afraid.

3) I don't see how this is relevant when it's just a perception of value. There are lots of things I would like to do but don't feel the price justifies it so I choose not to do it. I don't think the system is f***ed because of it. I am sure there are many fans who think £560 for my ST in the Upper is a joke but I am more than happy to pay it.

Hardly a f*cking joke is it really chap- I don't know what kind of Utopia you are imagining but I'd be more worried about the lack of schools and hospitals than having to pay 0.000625% of my salary to got for a slash.

 


Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 28 Nov 14 11.02am

I kind of like the idea of a society without personal ownership, but that's the kind of thing that requires society to change, it can't be forced upon society - it has to embrace it and gravitate towards it - Typically one would imagine it would require technological breakthroughs of the kind that could produce a post-scarcity society (nanotechnology or other for of subatomic manipulation on a relatively easy basis).

Until then, value will always reside in possession, because possession are reflective of the limited nature of resources, on which our 'human life' is dependent. The necessity of ownership tends to be less established in more primitive societies, because the primary function of objects is to provide provision to the tribe, rather than to individuals (the prosperity of the tribe is more essential to the individual, than individual prosperity - the individual alone cannot prosper).

The classic problems of the 'Great' Socialist experiements is that they saw themselves as remaking a glorious perfect society, rather than progressing towards it - As Orwell said, the most important role that English Socialism could play would be to Humanize Socialism. Communism and Marxism, tends to be very academic and detached from the human beings its discussing (other than the suffering of the working classes).

Leftwing apologists often single out Stalin, but Lenin and Trotsky were great belivers in the idea of 'liquidation of disent' and of sacrificing others on mass to achieve an ambition.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
sanitycheck Flag 02 Dec 14 3.21pm

[Link]

Brand clashes with reporter over the New Era Estate rent row

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Johnny Eagles's Profile Johnny Eagles Flag berlin 02 Dec 14 3.25pm Send a Private Message to Johnny Eagles Add Johnny Eagles as a friend

Quote sanitycheck at 02 Dec 2014 3.21pm

[Link]

Brand clashes with reporter over the New Era Estate rent row


I actually have to agree with Russell Brand on that one. The journalist was being an idiot, attempting to make a pathetically cheap point and not even succeeding very well.

Brand's still a bell-end though.

 


...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
sanitycheck Flag 02 Dec 14 3.49pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 02 Dec 2014 3.25pm

Quote sanitycheck at 02 Dec 2014 3.21pm

[Link]

Brand clashes with reporter over the New Era Estate rent row


I actually have to agree with Russell Brand on that one. The journalist was being an idiot, attempting to make a pathetically cheap point and not even succeeding very well.

I'm in agreement. The guy clearly went into it looking for a reaction.

I notice that this is the top story on the dailymail site right now. Brand's right really, there is what amounts to a campaign to attack him for speaking up.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Pawson Palace's Profile Pawson Palace Flag Croydon 02 Dec 14 4.11pm Send a Private Message to Pawson Palace Add Pawson Palace as a friend

He does himself no favours by taking an aggressive attitude because that is what they are looking for rightly or wrongly.

 


Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
sanitycheck Flag 02 Dec 14 4.19pm

Quote Pawson Palace at 02 Dec 2014 4.11pm

He does himself no favours by taking an aggressive attitude because that is what they are looking for rightly or wrongly.


To be British and to display passion for any cause is now taboo.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Pawson Palace's Profile Pawson Palace Flag Croydon 02 Dec 14 4.24pm Send a Private Message to Pawson Palace Add Pawson Palace as a friend

Quote sanitycheck at 02 Dec 2014 4.19pm

Quote Pawson Palace at 02 Dec 2014 4.11pm

He does himself no favours by taking an aggressive attitude because that is what they are looking for rightly or wrongly.


To be British and to display passion for any cause is now taboo.

No- there is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive it's not the first time he has lost his cool when put under the spot light.

I'm not having a dig at him, but it might help his perception considering the length of this thread which seems to be mostly negative.


 


Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
sanitycheck Flag 02 Dec 14 5.22pm

Quote Pawson Palace at 02 Dec 2014 4.24pm

Quote sanitycheck at 02 Dec 2014 4.19pm

Quote Pawson Palace at 02 Dec 2014 4.11pm

He does himself no favours by taking an aggressive attitude because that is what they are looking for rightly or wrongly.


To be British and to display passion for any cause is now taboo.

No- there is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive it's not the first time he has lost his cool when put under the spot light.

I'm not having a dig at him, but it might help his perception considering the length of this thread which seems to be mostly negative.


Common sense and unfortunate truths unsettle people. That's why this thread is so long and negative. No more negative than most of the other threads in general of course, which often appear to double as an alternative to seeking mental help.

I do agree with you that Brand would be better served by keeping his cool, but again there's a passion to it and passion isn't consigned to merely being faintly assertive .

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 16 of 41 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Russell Brand - class warrior or complete bell end