Paxman vs Brand

carlos

bertie said: 

georgenadaintl said:

 More importantly it launched the concept of human rights and things we take for granted these days like free movement of citizens within their own country, pensions for old age and disabled, etc.

did it really ?  

These were all Enlightenment concepts (read: liberal bourgeoisie) that found power and political space to take root thanks to the removal of God's own emissary on Earth, i.e. the King.

Gaze upon these with wonder - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

Compare those with a regime where a small group of hereditary-passed titles have god-like powers over everyone else. I'd say some of those are even too liberal for the 21st century, let alone the 18th century.

Fretwired

It's impossible to say whether the French revolution was good for the people of France. The country was broke and burden of taxation fell on the poorest members of society whilst the rich had lost of tax breaks [sound familiar]. It resulted in a reign of terror and mass murder and two vicious wars in Italy and the low countries before Napoleon came to power in a coup. He then waged war and reduced France to the poor man of Europe, but there wasn't another major [involving lots of nations] war in Europe until 1914 save for a short punch-up between France and the Austrians in 1866 and France and Prussia 1870. Britain and France did wage war as allies in the Crimea but by in large mainland Europe was peaceful and became prosperous.

From our point of view the revolution was good for Britain as we build an empire while Napoleon waged war across mainland Europe and afterwards we became allies with France thus ending 800 years of continuous conflict.

Fretwired

georgenadaintl said:

bertie said: 

georgenadaintl said:

 More importantly it launched the concept of human rights and things we take for granted these days like free movement of citizens within their own country, pensions for old age and disabled, etc.

did it really ?  

These were all Enlightenment concepts (read: liberal bourgeoisie) that found power and political space to take root thanks to the removal of God's own emissary on Earth, i.e. the King.

Gaze upon these with wonder - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

Compare those with a regime where a small group of hereditary-passed titles have god-like powers over everyone else. I'd say some of those are even too liberal for the 21st century, let alone the 18th century.

But don't forget we got there first .... Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

hungrymark

Last time I went in Revolution I was vomiting blue the next morning, that's all I know

Evilmags

VimFuego said:

mags, I know you have issues but what the fuck does north korea have to do with the French revolution. For fucks sake, at least try and maintain a sense of reality. I mean seriously, did you get dropped on your head a lot or something?

Just pointing out that not a single 20th century revolution made the lot of the masses any better. If you start at Russia and go though the lot of them the most common feature is violent death. Generally followed by a totalitarian state, which normally indulges in some form of sosocialism. When that fails (as command economies are want to) their answer is "more socialism" untll such a time that this becomes intenable and the system collapses, leading to yet more misery and poverty. 

Successful 21st century societies should evolve. They will clearly go down cul de sacs and get things wrong. But when the alternative is bloody war and revolution then evolution seems the better option. 

Many revolutionaries produce fine words and principles. But I would rather view them in terms of their actions, and the resulting carnage. And from the utter devastation of Europe unleashed by the French revolution, to then 100million or so killed by communism last century, to the hideous mess in Syria at present Id say the bloodshed is never worth it. 

VimFuego

I would argue that some of the south American revolutions would've improved the lot of the masses, but the US destabilised any regimes that were not US friendly, then sent in their Chicago trained economic hit men to rape as much as they could before they got found out. Still, I guess you could safely ignore that, as it falls outside your selective vision of history.

There was a saying, can't recall by whom now, that goes a bit like this; rights are never given by those in power, they are only ever taken by the oppressed. I guess you're just nervous cos you know you're 1st against the wall come the revolution.

carlos

Evilmags said:

Just pointing out that not a single 20th century revolution made the lot of the masses any better. If you start at Russia and go though the lot of them the most common feature is violent death. Generally followed by a totalitarian state, which normally indulges in some form of sosocialism. When that fails (as command economies are want to) their answer is "more socialism" untll such a time that this becomes intenable and the system collapses, leading to yet more misery and poverty. 

No? I'd think both Portugal and Spain overthrowing the fascist dictators have improved their masses tremendously. And that's just in Europe where 20th century revolutions were few and far between. 

It's debatable whether they would have got there without a revolution, but both Russia's and China's masses were much better off after their revolutions. Russia was one of the poorest countries in Asia/Europe and became a superpower. Lots of death, we all know about that, but suddenly there was social mobility, free education, free healthcare and some redistribution of wealth. Can't think many Russians living under the Czar would have preferred that to socialism (even if a tremendously flawed one).

IanSavage

 

Evilmags said:

Just pointing out that not a single 20th century revolution made the lot of the masses any better. If you start at Russia and go though the lot of them the most common feature is violent death. Generally followed by a totalitarian state, which normally indulges in some form of sosocialism.  

Is that socialism that's just, kind of, 'okay'?

Myranda

20th century revolutions?

1910 - 1920 Mexico overthrew the rather brutal dictatorial regime

1910 republican revolution in Portugal?

1954 the Algerian War of Independence?

1964-1979 the Rhodesian Bush War?

1989 overthrow of communism in Poland and Hungry?

1989 protests lead to the fall of the berlin wall

Revolution occurs when the suffering of enough people is great enough that they revolt. Now, IF some a-hole then takes power, that's the fault of the revolutionaries for letting their guards down, not the revolution itself.

carlos

When Portugal ended the fascist rule in the 70s it was a revolution and nobody died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

Fretwired

Myranda said:

20th century revolutions?

1910 - 1920 Mexico overthrew the rather brutal dictatorial regime

1910 republican revolution in Portugal?

1954 the Algerian War of Independence?

1964-1979 the Rhodesian Bush War?

1989 overthrow of communism in Poland and Hungry?

1989 protests lead to the fall of the berlin wall

Revolution occurs when the suffering of enough people is great enough that they revolt. Now, IF some a-hole then takes power, that's the fault of the revolutionaries for letting their guards down, not the revolution itself.

I wouldn't quote the Rhodesian war ... when Mugabe dies they'll be a second revolution when the world will learn of the genocide that's gone on for decades. An evil man.

Evilmags

georgenadaintl said:

Evilmags said:

Just pointing out that not a single 20th century revolution made the lot of the masses any better. If you start at Russia and go though the lot of them the most common feature is violent death. Generally followed by a totalitarian state, which normally indulges in some form of sosocialism. When that fails (as command economies are want to) their answer is "more socialism" untll such a time that this becomes intenable and the system collapses, leading to yet more misery and poverty. 

No? I'd think both Portugal and Spain overthrowing the fascist dictators have improved their masses tremendously. And that's just in Europe where 20th century revolutions were few and far between. 

It's debatable whether they would have got there without a revolution, but both Russia's and China's masses were much better off after their revolutions. Russia was one of the poorest countries in Asia/Europe and became a superpower. Lots of death, we all know about that, but suddenly there was social mobility, free education, free healthcare and some redistribution of wealth. Can't think many Russians living under the Czar would have preferred that to socialism (even if a tremendously flawed one).

Franco died in power in 1975 and Spain voted on a constitution in 1977. There was no revolution here. As for Russia, Stalin alone murdered twenty million people. Mao's great leap forward and cultural revolution is estimated at over fifty million. If genocide strikes you as benificial....

Skipped

Towards the end he (Brand) said:
If we can engage that feeling instead of some moment of lachrymose sentimentality trotted out on the tv for people to pore over emotional porn....

That sounds like what I have been banging on about for the past year. In a period where we are surrounded by real poverty Cinemas are packed with punters who are blubbing at a portrayal of poverty by actress Anne Hathaway.....
Huh?

Evilmags

Real poverty in the UK?? Not the case at all. Im currently in a country with 27% unemployment and 2 million people using foodbanks. And people are so fucked elsewhere that they immigrate here. Everyone in the UK has housing, healthcare and education, there is no absolute poverty in the UK. Google "barrio chabola madrid" in images. That is in Europe! You dont see that in the UK. 

VimFuego

mind you, people only have that cos of the welfare state, something we should all be grateful for. It really is wonderful.

Skipped

There are millions of people in the uk who have no access to benefits.
Immigrants (as opposed to Eu citizens) have no access to benefits. When their minimum wage hours are cut they can make 1 trip to the food bank, and after that.........

Going back to Les Miserables (and what Grant said)......
Here is a conversation I had with someone who had just seen that movie:

Skipped : "Look.....Anne Hathaway is not living in poverty. I get that you were moved by the portrayal but if you got such a buzz from Faux Empathy just imagine how you would feel if you actually helped a real person who is in desperate circumstances. Perhaps on the way home from the Cinema?"

"Oh come on Skipped.....Are you seriously telling me that there are young women selling their bodies on the streets of Manchester so that they can feed their child?? Is that really what you are telling me?"

Me:  " Er.....YES I AM.

http://www.theprisma.co.uk/2012/07/15/prostitution-in-the-uk-part-1-poverty-the-driving-force/

Evilmags

There is a welfare state here too.... 

If the UK stopped its welfareism it would create enough jobs to employ twice the amount of people it gives wellfare to. Taking money off one group of people by force and giving it to another does not strike me as compassion. Just vote buying at massive social and economic cost. 

VimFuego

Christ mags, you're boring. How do you not bore yourself?

johnnyurq

Evilmags;67327" said:

There is a welfare state here too.... 

If the UK stopped its welfareism it would create enough jobs to employ twice the amount of people it gives wellfare to. Taking money off one group of people by force and giving it to another does not strike me as compassion. Just vote buying at massive social and economic cost. 

What a crock of old shite.

Supposing what you propose is in any way possible the political and business will is not there to do it, they have no interest in proper employment and retaining wealth here. It is all about the fast and cheap to get pound/buck.

Now low paid, cheap and/or zero hour contracts with no workers rights that I can believe could happen.

What we have is not true wealth but a huge credit and debt headache that is only getting bigger and worse.

Put your dogma aside and apply some logic and critical thinking FFS.

IanSavage

Evilmags said:

 As for Russia, Stalin alone murdered twenty million people.

He must have got up VERY early in the morning.