"We will have to rediscover the progressive,positive ideas of freedom and realise that that Isiah Berlin was (wrong) right. (Not) All attempts to change the world for the better, by gov't, lead to tyranny" There fixed it Mr BBC doco maker, Sheesh, it was quite good, up to that last sentence anyway.
liberty needs both postive and negative liberty - i advocate the resource based economy - which provides more negative liberty than ever dreamed of before and at the same time has evry postive - greater than ones self goals of creating abundance to satisfy all wants and needs - to make wealth as common as air and to do it sustainably through clean energy the most advanced technologys and productive and distribution processes that are known - but suppressed as abundance like air is unprofitable
WHat your saying is silly Liberty is Liberty. IF we want to use these bollocks terms then Liberty is implicitly both positive and negative liberty. THe problem is that positive liberty has an end and has the potential to undermine status Quo and power bases. Go back and read ideas about the spirit of the Enlightment, Renaissance, etc. Read the Constitution and the documents surrounding it. Liberty is and has well been understood. These are facist experiments
@Ryukikon i agree i meant - i agree the concept of liberty has to offer both - and the resource based economy offers more liberty however you want to slice it
Freedom must be negotiated. It can never be imposed. It must be noted that if one man has one vote, as under Anarcho Syndicalism consensus is (sought) and not imposed. From this freedom for the many is obtained since power is devolved back into the hands of the many and away from the few.
It curious and not a little baffling why Adam Curtis felt the need to distort Isaiah Berlin's idea of Negative Liberty since the central thrust of the documentary could have stood without this distortion. In "Two Concepts of Liberty," Berlin defines and highlights the pros and cons of each without exalting or preferring one over the other. He only warns that both can be misused in the name of, or in an ostensible quest for, liberty for all. I urge viewers to read the essay for themselves.
"All attempts to change the world for the better, from the French Revolution to communism, did lead to tyranny".
No - most of Western Europe, most notably the Scandinavian countries, had 40 near unbroken years of a democratic and moderated balance between Capital and Labour. It's called Social Democracy. Sweden, according to those who know these things, has still to this day rejected the neoliberal economic policies of the US and UK so still has a higher standard of living.
"Not all attempts to change the world for the better lead to tyranny."
That's all very well, but the question is who defines this "better"? All attempts to change the world for the better, from the French Revolution to communism, did lead to tyranny.
Watch Curtis' All Watched over Machines of Loving Grace. Remember that he's not trying to be completely scientific theory but rather inspire insight in the viewer. It's fascinating to see that as of today we have found no solution to the 'simple' problem of how to create democratic values. The world is basically a giant construction site with a lot of people who have never held a shovel in their entire life.
@Diggensek Brilliantly put. That's exactly the feeling I get from them as well. Instead of depicting the world as being run in an organised and intelligent way (the a conspiracy documentary would do), it shows the way naive and contradictory ideologies spiral out of control and have far more influence than they ever should have.
This is a good attempt at trying to objectively explain our recent History. There is One fundamental problem being outline without realization. We all want to correct everybody around us except our selves. Gandhi words I paraphrase: to change the world we need to start first with ourselves. Jesus Said I paraphrase. Wow you hypocrites you want to remove splinters out of your neighbors eye, but you fail to see your own. This is why humanity failed and will fail if the approach does not change.
@ObeeLektro 'I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking him to change his ways, no message could have been any clearer, gotta look at yourself, you gotta make that change...' haha MJ had it sussed!!!
The conclusion is flawed. The film points out that supposed proponents of negative liberty were in fact promoting positive liberty. It then concludes that negative liberty is a trap, a failed ideal.
Where is the logic? If proponents of negative liberty deceive themselves, then it is THEY who are flawed for failing and falling into the trap. Since the evils they perpetrate are as a result of positive liberty, then IT is flawed, not negative liberty.
It be nice to think that across Egypt and the middle east this is a real people's revolution spawned by a collective unity, brought together by the internet and social networks not seen since the fall of the eastern block.
But lets see first what comes in its place, who gains power, and what will happen as there is no way to know except retrospectively what was the true cause of the revolution. Anyone know the song at the end btw? It's not the Internationale is it?
I think Egypt is proof people can revolt and bring about positive freedom in the... positive sense of that term. And it didn't require us (Americans) to kill a single person to do it.
Look out for the thought police. We think you might commit a crime. We are basing our analysis on the fact that you are not super rich. We can tell by looking at your credit report. OBEY.
typical BBC whitewash under cover of 'general overview' - i meant to say earlier that i've got all the gen on neo-cons like Michael Ledeen, Eliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle et al and to paint them as humanitarians for supposedly opposing the use of mass murder, assassination, rape, torture and other state-sanctioned terror is laughable and 180 degrees wrong but then that's the "bent and twisted" journalism of the BBC for you -even implies 9/11 & 7/7 weren't False Flags
@Redcarpet01 Yes they were. But what sort of a drooling impecile makes the non sequitur strawman that petitions constitute proof? Back up one remove & consider the voluminous body of factual material known as the EVIDENCE. Any halfwit who's done even the most cursory investigation into the events of 9/11 and 7/7 will unhesitatingly adjudge the official versions of what happened as the crazy nutjob Coincidence Theories that that they are. Have yr parting shot & run along, yr type unnerves me
Any chance that these various models and rationales are really just lies and excuses for the powerful to usurp the powerless??? Methinks Curtis gives these people waaaaaay too much credit... eg was Cheney really so naive to believe "We would be welcomed as liberators."?
what is truly disappointing is that Curtis buys into the twin paradigms of negative vs positive liberty.When I first watched this series I found myself as a libertarian feeling kinda like the kid who keeps putting up his hand in class only to be ignored.Why is the implication that corperatism is the natural state of freedom and enterprise the accepted wisdom? how about the concepts of small business on a local level being the norm not the exception? why do we need some kind of management.
And so we end up here, in the new international corporatocracy, with rapidly shrinking freedoms, a rise of corporate security as a police force (who are even allowed to dress like police), a growing divide between the obscenely wealthy and the desperately poor, and a system that just takes and takes from the poor as everyone seems concerned about them having a "free ride", until inevitably the poor will rise up and history will repeat itself as they take their pound of flesh by force.
I can't help but think about the leaders of the world today reading the Tao Te Ching. I don't know what would happen, but it seems to be a point of view that they haven't been exposed to, or plain ignore. The "citizens" would probably need to have the Tao Te Ching state of mind in order for it to make things "better". Although, as I've thought about before, if everyone was a Taoist, then no one would be a Taoist...
It seems to me that Curtis fails to support his conclusion. Why should I believe that the notion of negative liberty is misled, or that policies based upon that notion per se have failed? He has only demonstrated that liberal democracy fails to exactly the degree that it sacrifices its own principles in favor of mimicking policies based upon the ideal of positive freedom that Isaiah Berlin so wisely criticized. If anything, he makes an unwitting case for an even purer form of liberal democracy.
How the fk do you engineer a market economy ? That is a contradiction itself. Markets emerge spontaneously. Unions or labor cartels themselves emerge spontaneously in a market. We cannot control the universe.
Even though the US is the protagonist of this series , it is interesting to see the influence the nation of France has had and probably still having on the events all over the world. Maybe its fitting to end the series with the French National Anthem after all !!!!
contd..... The US right wing on the other hand , after seeing this series might just say that France is behind all evil in the world . From all Communist revolutions to third world nationalism and to Islamic revolutions in Iran Iraq as well , its the French who inspired them all . Time for Freedom Fries
Adam curtis says at 9:30 : "we have to rediscover the positive positive ideas of freedom . not all attempts to change the world for the better lead to tyrrany "
This confuses me a lot . What "progressive ideas " is Curtis alluding to ? Was such an example covered in the documentary ? This topic is quite esoteric and hence the video a little difficult to grasp . Any help in understanding it will be greatly appreciated
I dont think it's that dificult to do at all, true that actually Adam Curtist in this film seeks to show how what we have today is a perverse form of positive freedom maskerading as negative freedom.
But it cannot be the case that all attemps to change the world for the better will always turn into tyranny, the issue for Berlin was one of supreme truth overiding morality ect to dire consiquences, wih a one size fits all ideal that will always happen, we are all different.
I have retorted a bit more than that, in other places, sadly it appears you do not really understand what actually happens in a negative freedom society, Adam actually brezzes over it. It is an illusionary system, I could if I wanted formulate a better critic, but as things stand, I have too much else on. But as I said I do not think it is that dificult at all. And he certainly is not one of the greatest thinkers of the last century, he has stupidly condemed humanity.
I'll say Berlin is wrong for many reasons, he warned the powers that be not to do what they have done but then he should also have been inteligent enought to see that they would do what they did. Namely make negative freedom society a prison, and a way of increasing empire by decpetion and stealth.
They have their idea of a better future behind that to a degree but really it's men of power seeking more power.
Posibilities for freedom are far greater than Berlin knows
and in many ways Berlin limits mankind potencial to a negative freedom placid Zombie type existence to a degree as a simple Question what is humanities potencial? Who knows? and for berlin to try and squash us all into a system that limits us, is in some ways an attempt to hold back our advancement, espically as it is limited to a capitalist form of society, you could have a communist Negative freedom society or an anakist one, this system limits people hugely
besides I feel it is the laws role to limit our freedoms, not the system itself, and understand under negative freedom should you act in a way the system says you are not meant to, the system itself restrains you outside of any legal framework.
Negative freedom in that sense is just an extencion of platos cave.
Yeah... if Adam Curtis "knows" 7/7 was an inside job why did he not imply that AT ALL in this documentary?
As far as he explained it, the terrorism of extremist Islam was a reaction to the West's democratic conquests in Iraq, etc. Government conspiracies don't fit into his explanations.
Put it this way, there is no evidence that any Nazi was involved in the Burning of the Reichstag... the significance is the RESPONSE.
This many years after the fact comments like yours are shockingly disturbing to say the least. What will it take for people like you to open your eyes- you seem to be an intelligent individual judging from the fact that you were able to string together a few sentences without butchering them. So why is it that something so obvious continues to elude you? It is an incredibly fascinating phenomenon- one that will eventually lead to the demise of western civilization.
@treblaine All the information and evidence is at your fingertips and if evaluated, assessed, analyzed with an uncontaminated, critically thinking mind will reveal that your Gov. is complicit in state sponsored, false flag terrorism. Denial much?
As for 'rock and roll'- please. We're talking about the inability of the conditioned masses to see how they're being manipulated into draconian, totalitarian rule under the guise of 'protecting their safety and freedom'. Fallacious much? open your eyes
I'm not going to argue with you that post-9/11 (and post 7/7) our freedoms have been and are being eroded. Because I believe that is true.
But it is a fallacy to think that to prove these anti-terrorism laws are illegitimate it is somehow dependant on proving 9/11 or 7/7 were false flag.
Ultimately we should not muddy any analysis of 9/11 with whether the anti-terrorism laws are right or not. Consider my Burning of the Reichstag example, again.
I'm tired my friend. A few years ago i would have engaged you but you are too intelligent to be spoon fed. Face your defence mechanisms, challenge your paradigm and do the uncomfortable deed of opening your mind to the possibility that you have been terribly and outrageously deceived. False flag state sponsored terrorism is nothing new. Please take the time and be prepared for disillusionment, shock, anger, confusion and risk your whole belief system crumble before you,I wish you well
I will open my mind to FACTS, not conjecture and "what ifs" and pseudo-scientific "the buildings fall to fast!" bullshit.
The INDISPUTABLE fact is that commercial jets DID crash into the WTC buildings. When they did collapse they collapsed around the areas that the jets impacted.
I'm not saying false flag never happened or could not happen... just that there is No Evidence of false flag here.
Personally I suspect that in the future most of the ideas of the present will be found to be irrelevant when technology reaches a point that the collective unconscious expands enough to fill in the gaps of our impoverished outlook on our and other peoples existances
Capitalism is individuals creating capital accumlation, which in turn creates economic growth.
However, individuals will only create capital accumulation in certain conditions. The conditions are that there is certainty that contractual promises will be met. The courts have to ensure this. African nations lack this. They are not trusted for business.
I do not say capitalism is the utopia. But nothing else is better as the foundation for a society.
No society in the world has yet been formed as a capitalist society - You seem to think that african countries don't count seeing as there societies are driven by land ownership and cronyism - find me a country in the world that hasn't evolved out of a tribal, or ancestrial system
China is becoming a power. America is concerned about this. The Chinese in turn are concerned that the Americans are concerned.
They will start a Cold War. It is already on its way. But this time the Chinese will be stronger than the Soviets in the first Cold War, as they will have more economic clout. They will also rally all Asian people to undo 500 years of the dominance of the Europeans.
Curiously, America can kill the boy before it is a man.
Well - this war is already happening as an economic war in africa - But what do you think the war will be fourght with - as we have already reached past the point of peak oil production?
and btw, I guess if the world did turn to war that would really fill your boots wouldn't it? I mean war's so cool! Man! Also it probably configures pretty close to the mindset of your average lawyer
I am so bored of arguing with capitalists - it reminds me so much of arguing with communists when I went to school - of course they have lots in common ideologically - they both believe that life can be rationalised it a simplistic way - Obviously the most discomforting/comforting thing to realise about any political or social argument is that time will prove us all wrong.
I'm not going to pretend I understand everything about this series. But it seemed pretty sick that the west uses other countries as guinea pigs to ideologies and structures that never work. Why can't we just leave each other alone.
The point is that Western leaders like Blair saw the idea of negative liberty as a moral absolute. Thus, they felt morally obliged to ensure that it was imposed on other nations. Moral duty was the driving factor , not a desire to pratice on others.
The problem is that negative liberty is just one description of freedom. There are many. The problem in politics is that it is very hard to say what is the most desriable form of government and economic organisation.
this is woefully nieve - just look at the way the west has used the developing world as a test bed for genetically modified crops, chemical trials and a whole lot of other things that they wouldn't fell comfortable trying out in their own backyard
The problem with politics is that it's one of the neccesary headaches of human existence - Politics is just a description of part of human nature - I think a good summation of adam curtis's point of view is that we destroy more than we create when we try to deny essential human truths
Hitler's political ideals were also driven by a moral absolute. In fact if you get into lacan and marx and shit you would realise that there is no real distinction between the desire to be in charge and the desire tor replicate your moral values in other people. You know the thing I keep asking myself in reading your comments is what, apart from pure obstinacy, do you actually care about.
Blair believed he knew what was moral; so did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
But there is a key difference between Hitler, Mao, Stalin on the one hand, and then Blair. The former wanted to control people. Blair wanted to free people. Blair believed that liberty, defined as the ability to choose for oneself, is a first principle of morality.
The invasion of Iraq was motivated out of a desire to make Arabs free free like Westerners - a moral goal. This would also enhance Western security.
The best approach is what I call Liberal Conservatism. You must cherish the customs of a particualr nation. But you should also try to encourage liberal ideas like the rule of law, and capitalism.
The Bush administration tried to impose American style classic liberalism on Iraq. This did not sit with Iraqui history or culture. The same for Russia in the 1990s. A democracy needs to be nuttured.
"Encourage capitalism" - all human societies since the dawn of time have been largely capitalist. Encouraging capitalism is a meaningless ideal. In reality this idea of spreading capitalism is more to do with the dum idea that screwed up people's and nation states would get all sorted out if they did business with us as soon as possible. In russia and iraq this has meant that western concerns strode in and bourght up all the resources and left the average citizen more broke than before
Oh yeah and btw, didn't britain basically chicken out of being a true democracy when cromwell realised that the levellers wanted to see a land and property redistribution. After all it wasn't much after that descision and give up on the purity of the exercise and ask the royal family to come back and provide and convincing puppet show for the lumpen prolitariate.
Capitalism was conceived in 1750 onwards. Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mill and Marx all saw it as something very new.
Capitalism is the consistent accumulation of capital. Before the 1750s, capital accumulation was not sought as much as commodity consumption. Sees Marx's C -M-C relation, and then M-C-M relation for this.
Before 1750, yearly economic growth was 0.1%.Since, it has averaged between 1-3% on a global level. Capitalism has driven this. It has increased living standards.
The British Revolution of 1688, mirrored by the American Revolution of 1776, was premised on limiting the power of government so that people could use their property as they wished.
Democracy can lead to a tyranny of the majority, and oppression of the minority. Cromwell saw this, and aimed to preclude mass attacks on property.
The great English idea has been to create liberty by putting checks on government power. This made England the world's greatest nation for 300 years.
When u see the word democracy, a Western Conservative like Blair really means the Republican ideals of the English Civil Wars -- that is reduce government power, and encourage capitalism.
Capitalism will in turn lead to increasing living standards, and thus civilization.
The alternative is despotism and the bitter fruits of economic organisation that it invariably produces.
The Sultan of Brunei is a capitalist. Capitalism (as an ideology and not a description of average human behaviour) makes it's on despots. If you want to check out what the world is like having purely free market values and no givernment regulation - why don't you go and live in the congo. I mean africa for years has been plagued by bad, corrupt and useless government and look at what things are like there.
Why can't you just accept that there is no human system which is perfect and that life is full of "complimentary" ideologies - oh yeah and btw, seeing as thought the whole of the western world has been mortaged to the chinese - we are all communists now.
oh well, we can all use existentialism as a way of obfuscating - China is run by a "self-proclaimed" communist party and therefore for the purposes of argument (and sanity) we must take them by they're word. No african nation is capitalist huh? - Well I guess the most ironic part of this argument is that if we start arguing about the definition of the word "capitalist" we're going to end up back with Marx - wasn't he the person who first defined the term "capitalism"
Marx was not the first to define capitalism. The first works describing capitalism were by Adam Smith, who built on the work of the Physiocrats and Adam Ferguson. Marx explicitly writes his book Das Kapital as a reply to Smith some 60 years later.
Go to China. Speak to its people. Look at its economy. See the actions of its government. The label is Communist. The actions are strongly capitalistic. That is why China is growing.
Okay, here we go - while it is true from a narrow definition of the term "growth" that china has grown in terms of the balance of payments - this only describes the ascpect in which it has began to produce and manufacture many of the most useless goods in the world - people used to say that the chinese were all bean counters - no wonder they are good economists.
Tell you what I am kinda bored of the argument - can I ask you this question - It what ideological way would you define Italian society - A recent survey estimated that a least 10% of all commerce in Italy passed thrrough the influence of the Mafia. I gather from your dismissal of african capitalism you think that societies which are hegemonically corrupt are not capitalist? So I guess Italy is not capitalist - Is there any part of the world which is capitalist in your definition?
Capital accumulation exists on an extensive level in European Union nations. It is questionable that it exists in the Congo, parts of Ethiopia, etc. Indeed, ,many Aftcian nations are in a totally land based economy, with lord and serf. That is not capitalistic.
The Mafia exhibits self-interest. But it is not capitalistic. It does not operate by the rule of law which forces compliance with voluntarily assumed obligations to others. They are criminals.
Please go into lengthy and protracted detail on how capitalism is defined by the rule of law - Which laws does "capitalism" need to work properly in your view - maybe capitalism should be defined in legal parathesies in the dictionary - also since we talked about china - which rule of of law is truely capitalist - chinese which does not tolerate free speech or freedom of association or american capitalism, which at least pays lip service to both?
Capitalism can only work if there is a rule of law. By rule of law, I mean that the state will make sure people keep the promises they make to others.
If there was no rule of law, then business would become dysfunctional. People would get out of bad contracts as the state and the courts would not enforce it. Capital accumulation would stop! There is no capitalism without law.
China ensures contractual obligations are met. Thus, she has a rule of law.
Your term a "rule of law" seems to be flexible enough to emcombass any craziness - all societies have by definition a rule of law - can't you see this how this is obviously a glib parammeter?
Btw, the one part of american law which China does not respect very much if at all is copyright law - The asiatic mindset in general is less focused on the individual and more on families and ancestry - so the the idea of ideas and inventions being "individual" property is not a familiar idea to them - there's is a town somewhere in china for example where the only industry is reverse engineering
I assume you do not know who Adam Smith is. His book, which is one of the most influential ever written, praises 4/5ths of the consequences of capitalism and calls for more of it!
He is the inspiration of free marketeers the world over. The Chinese read him more than Marx now.
You seem to confuse the pursuit of self interest and hard-nosed barter with the economic system of capitalism. Read economic history. Capitalism is the consistent accumulation of capital.
The only thing I know about adam smith was that he was also most concerned about the existance of cabals and monoplolies - would you as a capitalist be in favour of breaking up organisations and companies when they acheieve an unfair maarket share? -
Also adam smith believe that face to face capitalism was the engine of economic morality - good knows what he'd make of the internet or our faceless banking system.
The most famous free market advocates also dislike monopolies.
Why? Because monopolies become abusive, and empirically it is shown they charge higher prices and supply less output.
Thus, I support the law precluding monopolies.
The key point is this: capitalism does not mean no law, and thus total freedom. Capitalism only works with law. No law, no capitalism. But it is the type of law that is relevant. High tax, redistribution of wealth, etc, is bad law!!
Well considering the only alternative I have to buying a Microsoft operating system is to get a Mac (vomits with violent force into a bucket), yeah, I sure would like some competition.
At the moment, the main competition between Operating systems is merely between different version of windows.
Ideally though it should not be split up... what if Sony made an operating system? Playstation 3 is almost a computer.
Could you imagine a system of world governance which could define -owning too much property as a form of monopoly? My perfect world system would be one in which not only the poor had to put up with the indiginity of "compulsory purchase" but so did the rich
Presuming you are confused: capital accumulation = the addition to the capital stock of a society in period 2, following the capital investment in period 1. Capital is defined as the assets within a society.
Capital accumulation was undertaken on an extensive scale from the 1750s. It increased living standards. Before the 1750s, societies merely produced an output each year which was very similar in size and value to the previous year. Growth was small due to no capital accumulation.
I guess you must be an economics student huh? Well I ain't and it would take a lot of work to approach your level of understanding about the subject - So the reason why you don't understand a lot about social philosophy is clear - after all our brains aren't an unlimited resource.
200 years later, the communists aimed to get economic growth through capital accumulation. But their growth would be managed and directed by the state -- the government.
In contrast, free marketeers belived that capital accumlation produced the best results morally and economically when left to the individual. So, capitalism became defined as individuals accumulating capital, and communism as the state accumulating capital.
And I guess that's the most important thing - to be the winner. Oh anyway - in the most part I agree with you that capitalism in most regards is a good system or description of human behaviour - what we will disagree on is whether it is a way of looking at human affairs which is flexible enough to really be used as an all encombassing ideology. There's always an exception to every rule.
Do you think it would be fair to say that the difference between an economist and a scientist is that at least scientists admit when they don't know something?
The people care not what you think they deserve. They want safety and for you to respect their concept of liberty instead of a falsely imposed US version which is not even in keeping with our own.
This program should only be analysed on the basis of its own initial constraints. Thought provoking as it is, it is not trying to sum up everything ad infinitum based on an idea. It provides an erudite summation of events, and allows the viewer to form an opinion for themselves (or find out more) based on what they have seen.
Is that not the basis of freedom itself? You decide.
PS. Does that make me an economist or a psychopath?!
I'm going to get a bit dry, no emotions here, sorry.
The program is designed to extrapolate a thought equation: Game Theory. The program hypothesises that this theory, first practised in the cold war, has inexorably grown into a behemoth in the modern world. From these bases an argument is formed surmising concepts of liberty in a fluid, fundamentally chaotic, global environment.
And this "negative liberty" thing failed, because it completely left untouched the corporate-banking dictatorship that holds the exclusive power to secretly mints as much whim currency as it pleases, and secretly give as much of it as it cares to, to certain members of society who it favors, for whatever reasons it pleases.
Isaiah Berlin wasn't wrong -- he was right. But his ideas were perverted and mis-implemented by the corporate banking clique, who used it create their new dictatorship.
wow... i had thought in my head about this freedom. I think government should provide security first because we all want to be safe. And I think rest can be left for free market, which doesn't interfere with basic human rights and safety and security of the people. Government should provide basic needs for it's citizens to live and improve. Unfortunately we don't see that at all in this so called Capitalist Democratic society.
You have to wonder; have any of these Neo-Conservatives ever read a little book called 1984. I think they might liken reading it to looking in a bloody mirror.
7/7 looks like it had complicity. And those muslim terrorists seem like they were part of the practice terrorist drills they were carrying out on the same day: they were playing a role, as part of the training. It has the same hallmarks as 9/11.
think too that maybe noam chomsky summed up the situation best (u know, the whole gov. is not the solution bit) when nhe reasoned that the reason the say that is because u have a democratic say in what goes onnin gov and the simple fact is that the gove dont want the public having as say. they what u marginalized, in the hands of the fortune 500 (those 'private tyrannies' again to quote mr chomsky) and they expect u to accept cause feudalismnis the wave of the future dont u know
when that soldiers asked what he's trying to do, and answers 'trying to change these people... i dont know', this sums up for me the disconnect between the shit told to them of what their trying to do in iraq and what they are actually doing. dirty fuckers.
disappointing that Curtis fails to make explicit connections between negative liberty and consumerism. Negative liberty is not without purpose, as he seems to suggest, it exists so that corporations can profit, as citizens (consumers) attempt to satiate their material desires. Century of the Self is a far better documentary overall.
"it exists so that corp. can profit" is exactly the problem. They profit off of the people, and try to squeeze as much profit out of the people as possible. Corp. manipulate people to make them think whatever it is they want them to think, so that they can make more profit off of them. Any system design based on "maximizing profit from consumers" is a destructive, downward system. But that's all we have today...
@digimaton Whether or not you believe consumerism lends purpose to human life I do not know, but this comment seems to suggest it. Having seen other documentaries by Curtis, he seems to reject this notion. Thus, I do not believe he would not attempt to make such a connection between negative liberty and consumerism.
I believe we exist for a greater purpose than to satiate our material desires and for the commercial institutes of man (corporations) to profit off of us.
At first glance it looks as if you were trying to lend purpose for its existence, but what you were getting at is the motive behind it? That makes sense, as it would allow for greater exploitation of consumers.
In that case, yes, Curtis could have make an explicit connection. Curtis seemed only to suggest that negative liberty was good because it reduces the possibility for despotic/tyrannical governments, but he forgot corporations are capable of despotic rule as well (to an extent).
@CollegeSmart1 precisely. Governments? corporations? one and the same. See Sheldon S. Wolin, 2008, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Princeton University Press.
It seems the end of this video asserts that purpose and meaning are to be found in some sort of positive liberty that he calls "progressive.' This completely ignores that most of the world finds meaning in religion. Others find meaning in family and community. If "progressive" means finding meaning in government then run, don't walk, from progressivism
Who are "proressives" to tell us what we can find meaning in?
Do you make such ridiculous comments to get attention?> Because if you are pissed off about something, the marines and the army should not bear the brunt of your rage. I think you should rethink your outlook. You obviously didn't pay to much attention to the video
they are just pawns, they are all human beings though.. calling them worthless is in essence no better than treating them as expendable lives in a statistical effort to make the whole world just like us.. can you imagine a world where every country was like america?? where would disillusioned, sexually repressed american bankers go to get some illegal under-age male poontang, without the fear of it being caught on CCTV?
The Marines/Army are being used to political ends. The Marines/Army are not political tools to be used by politicians for political gain. The Marines/Army are a military force to be used to a Militaristic end. They kill combatants and destroy stuff that could be used by said combatants... other than that it would be akin to you using a sledgehammer to type a response on your keyboard. If you did that, one could logically say that you weren't humane. Which wouldn't be true as well.
Shock therapy didn't work last time... let's turn it up to 11! Can't wait for the next time America sends a bunch of fucking economists into another country they just demolished and rape it financially too.
One of the best doc's I've EVER watched. Fantastic. Explains the evolution of all the things that are screwing up the world right now. Another Curtis classic.
It assumes that we have "negative" liberty already. I would argue that when half of your income is taken in the form of taxes YOU DO NOT HAVE negative liberty. And so this program's logic is fallacios.
And towards the end when they keep repeating the phrases like we live in a society with "no purpose" and yet it is very vague about how we could have "positive" liberty that doesn't lead to violent supression.
That is extremely harsh. I think that's a whole different subject and you're just expecting to much. In the time given, it was a fucking excellent documentary.
The system is dead. START NEW NATIONS! What is So great about Washington DC? Why are you continuing to call your congressmen. Its over, done, finished, cease to be of value.
If you are in the army or an officer/law enforcement personnel, you must understand that you are a citizen as well, you are with us. You must help us. You must listen to your conscience.
This documentary was absolutely fantastic through and through. I slightly dispute that the Iraq war was based mostly on altruism. That would never have recieved elite support in the way the war did. But either way this still gets 10/10.
I agree with the general sentiment of the series, but I find it intresting that in the final scene when they are describing the normative benefits of positive liberty they are playing the part of the French National Anthem which translates to english as thus:
"We will have to rediscover the progressive,positive ideas of freedom and realise that that Isiah Berlin was (wrong) right. (Not) All attempts to change the world for the better, by gov't, lead to tyranny" There fixed it Mr BBC doco maker, Sheesh, it was quite good, up to that last sentence anyway.
subbvert 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So by attempting to enforce negative liberty the governments have succeeded in creating positive liberty?
JohnLHume 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohnLHume 3 months ago
liberty needs both postive and negative liberty - i advocate the resource based economy - which provides more negative liberty than ever dreamed of before and at the same time has evry postive - greater than ones self goals of creating abundance to satisfy all wants and needs - to make wealth as common as air and to do it sustainably through clean energy the most advanced technologys and productive and distribution processes that are known - but suppressed as abundance like air is unprofitable
MrIzzyDizzy 5 months ago in playlist The Trap The Lonely Robot Adam Curtis
@MrIzzyDizzy
WHat your saying is silly Liberty is Liberty. IF we want to use these bollocks terms then Liberty is implicitly both positive and negative liberty. THe problem is that positive liberty has an end and has the potential to undermine status Quo and power bases. Go back and read ideas about the spirit of the Enlightment, Renaissance, etc. Read the Constitution and the documents surrounding it. Liberty is and has well been understood. These are facist experiments
Ryukikon 5 months ago
@Ryukikon i agree i meant - i agree the concept of liberty has to offer both - and the resource based economy offers more liberty however you want to slice it
MrIzzyDizzy 5 months ago
Freedom must be negotiated. It can never be imposed. It must be noted that if one man has one vote, as under Anarcho Syndicalism consensus is (sought) and not imposed. From this freedom for the many is obtained since power is devolved back into the hands of the many and away from the few.
TempoTemple 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It curious and not a little baffling why Adam Curtis felt the need to distort Isaiah Berlin's idea of Negative Liberty since the central thrust of the documentary could have stood without this distortion. In "Two Concepts of Liberty," Berlin defines and highlights the pros and cons of each without exalting or preferring one over the other. He only warns that both can be misused in the name of, or in an ostensible quest for, liberty for all. I urge viewers to read the essay for themselves.
Tankotoka 7 months ago
"All attempts to change the world for the better, from the French Revolution to communism, did lead to tyranny".
No - most of Western Europe, most notably the Scandinavian countries, had 40 near unbroken years of a democratic and moderated balance between Capital and Labour. It's called Social Democracy. Sweden, according to those who know these things, has still to this day rejected the neoliberal economic policies of the US and UK so still has a higher standard of living.
NormanArches 8 months ago
Summary of this documentary: I look at my Mercedes Benz.
I go to the grocery store. Someone steals the mercedes and replaces it with a donkey cart.
I test drive the donkey cart.
I conclude that all Mercedes cars suck.
f0b0m 8 months ago
"Not all attempts to change the world for the better lead to tyranny."
That's all very well, but the question is who defines this "better"? All attempts to change the world for the better, from the French Revolution to communism, did lead to tyranny.
Epicur100 8 months ago
Watch Curtis' All Watched over Machines of Loving Grace. Remember that he's not trying to be completely scientific theory but rather inspire insight in the viewer. It's fascinating to see that as of today we have found no solution to the 'simple' problem of how to create democratic values. The world is basically a giant construction site with a lot of people who have never held a shovel in their entire life.
Diggensek 8 months ago in playlist The Trap The Lonely Robot Adam Curtis 4
@Diggensek Brilliantly put. That's exactly the feeling I get from them as well. Instead of depicting the world as being run in an organised and intelligent way (the a conspiracy documentary would do), it shows the way naive and contradictory ideologies spiral out of control and have far more influence than they ever should have.
Sodhats 8 months ago
This is a good attempt at trying to objectively explain our recent History. There is One fundamental problem being outline without realization. We all want to correct everybody around us except our selves. Gandhi words I paraphrase: to change the world we need to start first with ourselves. Jesus Said I paraphrase. Wow you hypocrites you want to remove splinters out of your neighbors eye, but you fail to see your own. This is why humanity failed and will fail if the approach does not change.
ObeeLektro 9 months ago 2
@ObeeLektro 'I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking him to change his ways, no message could have been any clearer, gotta look at yourself, you gotta make that change...' haha MJ had it sussed!!!
savethecolumbians 8 months ago
the conclusion is that Fascism has come to the western world again!!!
MrLlmnm 9 months ago
The conclusion is flawed. The film points out that supposed proponents of negative liberty were in fact promoting positive liberty. It then concludes that negative liberty is a trap, a failed ideal.
Where is the logic? If proponents of negative liberty deceive themselves, then it is THEY who are flawed for failing and falling into the trap. Since the evils they perpetrate are as a result of positive liberty, then IT is flawed, not negative liberty.
Read Bastiat, "The Law."
surfrnsk8r 10 months ago
In a democracy it should not be the leaders that are to blame however stupid their ideas may be.
yet the people that support/ vote for those stupid ideas.
Who's more foolish the fool or the fool who follows him.
Obi Wan- Star Wars
tdreadnats 10 months ago
@nuscholar 1979
It be nice to think that across Egypt and the middle east this is a real people's revolution spawned by a collective unity, brought together by the internet and social networks not seen since the fall of the eastern block.
But lets see first what comes in its place, who gains power, and what will happen as there is no way to know except retrospectively what was the true cause of the revolution. Anyone know the song at the end btw? It's not the Internationale is it?
DavidJamesCei 1 year ago
@DavidJamesCei Its the French national anthem, La Marseillaise.
milikowski 10 months ago
I think Egypt is proof people can revolt and bring about positive freedom in the... positive sense of that term. And it didn't require us (Americans) to kill a single person to do it.
nuscholar1979 1 year ago
Tony Blair Killed Britain.
THEOLDBROKENTREE 1 year ago
Shit bag American's kill em all!
THEOLDBROKENTREE 1 year ago
Look out for the thought police. We think you might commit a crime. We are basing our analysis on the fact that you are not super rich. We can tell by looking at your credit report. OBEY.
smartification1 1 year ago
typical BBC whitewash under cover of 'general overview' - i meant to say earlier that i've got all the gen on neo-cons like Michael Ledeen, Eliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle et al and to paint them as humanitarians for supposedly opposing the use of mass murder, assassination, rape, torture and other state-sanctioned terror is laughable and 180 degrees wrong but then that's the "bent and twisted" journalism of the BBC for you -even implies 9/11 & 7/7 weren't False Flags
AlanWattParrot 1 year ago
@AlanWattParrot Well they weren't false flag operations. Only a paranoid, ignorant fool would claim they were.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
@Redcarpet01 Well, they were false flag operations. Only a brainwashed, ignorant fool would claim that they weren't.
AlanWattParrot 1 year ago
@AlanWattParrot No they weren't. Petitions calling for investigations aren't proof of anything.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
@Redcarpet01 Yes they were. But what sort of a drooling impecile makes the non sequitur strawman that petitions constitute proof? Back up one remove & consider the voluminous body of factual material known as the EVIDENCE. Any halfwit who's done even the most cursory investigation into the events of 9/11 and 7/7 will unhesitatingly adjudge the official versions of what happened as the crazy nutjob Coincidence Theories that that they are. Have yr parting shot & run along, yr type unnerves me
AlanWattParrot 1 year ago
@Redcarpet01 *imbecile
AlanWattParrot 1 year ago
Any chance that these various models and rationales are really just lies and excuses for the powerful to usurp the powerless??? Methinks Curtis gives these people waaaaaay too much credit... eg was Cheney really so naive to believe "We would be welcomed as liberators."?
rgs11 1 year ago
what is truly disappointing is that Curtis buys into the twin paradigms of negative vs positive liberty.When I first watched this series I found myself as a libertarian feeling kinda like the kid who keeps putting up his hand in class only to be ignored.Why is the implication that corperatism is the natural state of freedom and enterprise the accepted wisdom? how about the concepts of small business on a local level being the norm not the exception? why do we need some kind of management.
enyoowenhedzdown 1 year ago
@enyoowenhedzdown Because we're not talking about what ordinary people think, but what elites think.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
And so we end up here, in the new international corporatocracy, with rapidly shrinking freedoms, a rise of corporate security as a police force (who are even allowed to dress like police), a growing divide between the obscenely wealthy and the desperately poor, and a system that just takes and takes from the poor as everyone seems concerned about them having a "free ride", until inevitably the poor will rise up and history will repeat itself as they take their pound of flesh by force.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
that is understood no unions that means low pay and the poor will for the islamic tyranny.
1776Dawes 1 year ago
LOVE IT
1776Dawes 1 year ago
R D LAING Institute ROFL
A lobotomizing psychiatrist lunatic to sponsor a chat about freedom o_O
He should be in Nuernberg for crimes against humanity
MrDeicide1 1 year ago
As Bill Hicks sad: "a piece of sh**"!!
zg76 1 year ago
I can't help but think about the leaders of the world today reading the Tao Te Ching. I don't know what would happen, but it seems to be a point of view that they haven't been exposed to, or plain ignore. The "citizens" would probably need to have the Tao Te Ching state of mind in order for it to make things "better". Although, as I've thought about before, if everyone was a Taoist, then no one would be a Taoist...
armenianweirdo 1 year ago
It seems to me that Curtis fails to support his conclusion. Why should I believe that the notion of negative liberty is misled, or that policies based upon that notion per se have failed? He has only demonstrated that liberal democracy fails to exactly the degree that it sacrifices its own principles in favor of mimicking policies based upon the ideal of positive freedom that Isaiah Berlin so wisely criticized. If anything, he makes an unwitting case for an even purer form of liberal democracy.
wusundowma 1 year ago
How the fk do you engineer a market economy ? That is a contradiction itself. Markets emerge spontaneously. Unions or labor cartels themselves emerge spontaneously in a market. We cannot control the universe.
rayyf69 1 year ago
Even though the US is the protagonist of this series , it is interesting to see the influence the nation of France has had and probably still having on the events all over the world. Maybe its fitting to end the series with the French National Anthem after all !!!!
mihir1310 1 year ago
contd..... The US right wing on the other hand , after seeing this series might just say that France is behind all evil in the world . From all Communist revolutions to third world nationalism and to Islamic revolutions in Iran Iraq as well , its the French who inspired them all . Time for Freedom Fries
mihir1310 1 year ago
Comment removed
mihir1310 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Adam curtis says at 9:30 : "we have to rediscover the positive positive ideas of freedom . not all attempts to change the world for the better lead to tyrrany "
This confuses me a lot . What "progressive ideas " is Curtis alluding to ? Was such an example covered in the documentary ? This topic is quite esoteric and hence the video a little difficult to grasp . Any help in understanding it will be greatly appreciated
mihir1310 1 year ago
Paul Bremmer.. that guy is a real piece of work.
Watch the documentary "No end in sight".
isair81 1 year ago
great vid but prove Isaiah wrong...please this commentator is no better than T.blair
RusselBertrand 1 year ago 2
@RusselBertrand Reality and time will take care of that.
darkcowboyhero 9 months ago
@darkcowboyhero reality sides with Berlin, and time will only strengthen his assertions...
RusselBertrand 6 months ago
@RusselBertrand
I dont think it's that dificult to do at all, true that actually Adam Curtist in this film seeks to show how what we have today is a perverse form of positive freedom maskerading as negative freedom.
But it cannot be the case that all attemps to change the world for the better will always turn into tyranny, the issue for Berlin was one of supreme truth overiding morality ect to dire consiquences, wih a one size fits all ideal that will always happen, we are all different.
099749 6 months ago
@099749 right your incomprehensible 4 paragraph retort to one of the greatest minds of the 20th century completely changed my perspective.....
RusselBertrand 6 months ago
@RusselBertrand
I have retorted a bit more than that, in other places, sadly it appears you do not really understand what actually happens in a negative freedom society, Adam actually brezzes over it. It is an illusionary system, I could if I wanted formulate a better critic, but as things stand, I have too much else on. But as I said I do not think it is that dificult at all. And he certainly is not one of the greatest thinkers of the last century, he has stupidly condemed humanity.
099749 6 months ago
@RusselBertrand cont...
I'll say Berlin is wrong for many reasons, he warned the powers that be not to do what they have done but then he should also have been inteligent enought to see that they would do what they did. Namely make negative freedom society a prison, and a way of increasing empire by decpetion and stealth.
They have their idea of a better future behind that to a degree but really it's men of power seeking more power.
Posibilities for freedom are far greater than Berlin knows
099749 6 months ago
@RusselBertrand cont...
and in many ways Berlin limits mankind potencial to a negative freedom placid Zombie type existence to a degree as a simple Question what is humanities potencial? Who knows? and for berlin to try and squash us all into a system that limits us, is in some ways an attempt to hold back our advancement, espically as it is limited to a capitalist form of society, you could have a communist Negative freedom society or an anakist one, this system limits people hugely
099749 6 months ago
@RusselBertrand cont...
besides I feel it is the laws role to limit our freedoms, not the system itself, and understand under negative freedom should you act in a way the system says you are not meant to, the system itself restrains you outside of any legal framework.
Negative freedom in that sense is just an extencion of platos cave.
099749 6 months ago
Godwin's Law sates: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
It's this kind of humorous observation that would have been outlawed by the Nazis!
chief294 2 years ago 9
@chief294 You clever bastard haha
I genuinely lol'd at that.
enisylo 1 year ago
7/7 was an inside job. adam curtis knows this very well. it is bankrupt and corrupt journalism to reinforce this falsity.
playonwords55 2 years ago
@playonwords55
Yeah... if Adam Curtis "knows" 7/7 was an inside job why did he not imply that AT ALL in this documentary?
As far as he explained it, the terrorism of extremist Islam was a reaction to the West's democratic conquests in Iraq, etc. Government conspiracies don't fit into his explanations.
Put it this way, there is no evidence that any Nazi was involved in the Burning of the Reichstag... the significance is the RESPONSE.
Treblaine 2 years ago
This many years after the fact comments like yours are shockingly disturbing to say the least. What will it take for people like you to open your eyes- you seem to be an intelligent individual judging from the fact that you were able to string together a few sentences without butchering them. So why is it that something so obvious continues to elude you? It is an incredibly fascinating phenomenon- one that will eventually lead to the demise of western civilization.
playonwords55 2 years ago
@playonwords55
"So why is it that something so obvious continues to elude you?"
Because an internal conspiracy for 7/7 (and 9/11 too) defies logic and fails all test for the burden of proof.
I have no doubt that the UK govt is guilty of complacency and/or incompetence and if anything THAT is what they are covering up.
"(this) will eventually lead to the demise of western civilization."
Hyperbole much? Didn't they say that about Rock n Roll?
Treblaine 2 years ago
@treblaine All the information and evidence is at your fingertips and if evaluated, assessed, analyzed with an uncontaminated, critically thinking mind will reveal that your Gov. is complicit in state sponsored, false flag terrorism. Denial much?
As for 'rock and roll'- please. We're talking about the inability of the conditioned masses to see how they're being manipulated into draconian, totalitarian rule under the guise of 'protecting their safety and freedom'. Fallacious much? open your eyes
playonwords55 2 years ago
@playonwords55
I'm not going to argue with you that post-9/11 (and post 7/7) our freedoms have been and are being eroded. Because I believe that is true.
But it is a fallacy to think that to prove these anti-terrorism laws are illegitimate it is somehow dependant on proving 9/11 or 7/7 were false flag.
Ultimately we should not muddy any analysis of 9/11 with whether the anti-terrorism laws are right or not. Consider my Burning of the Reichstag example, again.
Treblaine 2 years ago
@Treblaine
I'm tired my friend. A few years ago i would have engaged you but you are too intelligent to be spoon fed. Face your defence mechanisms, challenge your paradigm and do the uncomfortable deed of opening your mind to the possibility that you have been terribly and outrageously deceived. False flag state sponsored terrorism is nothing new. Please take the time and be prepared for disillusionment, shock, anger, confusion and risk your whole belief system crumble before you,I wish you well
playonwords55 2 years ago
@playonwords55
I will open my mind to FACTS, not conjecture and "what ifs" and pseudo-scientific "the buildings fall to fast!" bullshit.
The INDISPUTABLE fact is that commercial jets DID crash into the WTC buildings. When they did collapse they collapsed around the areas that the jets impacted.
I'm not saying false flag never happened or could not happen... just that there is No Evidence of false flag here.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Personally I suspect that in the future most of the ideas of the present will be found to be irrelevant when technology reaches a point that the collective unconscious expands enough to fill in the gaps of our impoverished outlook on our and other peoples existances
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Capitalism is individuals creating capital accumlation, which in turn creates economic growth.
However, individuals will only create capital accumulation in certain conditions. The conditions are that there is certainty that contractual promises will be met. The courts have to ensure this. African nations lack this. They are not trusted for business.
I do not say capitalism is the utopia. But nothing else is better as the foundation for a society.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
No society in the world has yet been formed as a capitalist society - You seem to think that african countries don't count seeing as there societies are driven by land ownership and cronyism - find me a country in the world that hasn't evolved out of a tribal, or ancestrial system
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Hasn't every capitalist society been bailed out recently by the IMF? doesn't this prove that the market has no "invisible governing hand"?
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
The future will be one of war.
China is becoming a power. America is concerned about this. The Chinese in turn are concerned that the Americans are concerned.
They will start a Cold War. It is already on its way. But this time the Chinese will be stronger than the Soviets in the first Cold War, as they will have more economic clout. They will also rally all Asian people to undo 500 years of the dominance of the Europeans.
Curiously, America can kill the boy before it is a man.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
Well - this war is already happening as an economic war in africa - But what do you think the war will be fourght with - as we have already reached past the point of peak oil production?
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
and btw, I guess if the world did turn to war that would really fill your boots wouldn't it? I mean war's so cool! Man! Also it probably configures pretty close to the mindset of your average lawyer
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
@churchillwinstonspen
China is no boy.
It has The Bomb.
Treblaine 2 years ago
I am so bored of arguing with capitalists - it reminds me so much of arguing with communists when I went to school - of course they have lots in common ideologically - they both believe that life can be rationalised it a simplistic way - Obviously the most discomforting/comforting thing to realise about any political or social argument is that time will prove us all wrong.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
"Islamists" did not attack Britain on 7/7, the New World Order did. Muslims were used as patsies, at most.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago 2
@paleopeneyes No, Islamists did. We know from the literature they were researching
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
Ha ha! 2:15 that is priceless!
stueyAfor1 2 years ago
I'm not going to pretend I understand everything about this series. But it seemed pretty sick that the west uses other countries as guinea pigs to ideologies and structures that never work. Why can't we just leave each other alone.
30Galleons 2 years ago 3
I agree 30Galleons. The west need to fix the problems at home first.
baalisgod666 2 years ago
The point is that Western leaders like Blair saw the idea of negative liberty as a moral absolute. Thus, they felt morally obliged to ensure that it was imposed on other nations. Moral duty was the driving factor , not a desire to pratice on others.
The problem is that negative liberty is just one description of freedom. There are many. The problem in politics is that it is very hard to say what is the most desriable form of government and economic organisation.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
this is woefully nieve - just look at the way the west has used the developing world as a test bed for genetically modified crops, chemical trials and a whole lot of other things that they wouldn't fell comfortable trying out in their own backyard
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Comment removed
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) Britain has GM Crops. We have been doin it for years. If you don't know that, you are nieve;
2) I know Blair. He is religiously motivated. He is not a bad mad. His intention was pure. The consequences were not. Yet there is a difference;
3) The West, and in particular Great Britain, have done more to end human suffering than other civilization in history.
In short, I know the players. I know our approach. It is as I described. You hold false premises, and end up in bedlum.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
The problem with politics is that it's one of the neccesary headaches of human existence - Politics is just a description of part of human nature - I think a good summation of adam curtis's point of view is that we destroy more than we create when we try to deny essential human truths
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Hitler's political ideals were also driven by a moral absolute. In fact if you get into lacan and marx and shit you would realise that there is no real distinction between the desire to be in charge and the desire tor replicate your moral values in other people. You know the thing I keep asking myself in reading your comments is what, apart from pure obstinacy, do you actually care about.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Blair believed he knew what was moral; so did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
But there is a key difference between Hitler, Mao, Stalin on the one hand, and then Blair. The former wanted to control people. Blair wanted to free people. Blair believed that liberty, defined as the ability to choose for oneself, is a first principle of morality.
The invasion of Iraq was motivated out of a desire to make Arabs free free like Westerners - a moral goal. This would also enhance Western security.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
The best approach is what I call Liberal Conservatism. You must cherish the customs of a particualr nation. But you should also try to encourage liberal ideas like the rule of law, and capitalism.
The Bush administration tried to impose American style classic liberalism on Iraq. This did not sit with Iraqui history or culture. The same for Russia in the 1990s. A democracy needs to be nuttured.
It took Britain 300 years to evole her democracy.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago 2
"Encourage capitalism" - all human societies since the dawn of time have been largely capitalist. Encouraging capitalism is a meaningless ideal. In reality this idea of spreading capitalism is more to do with the dum idea that screwed up people's and nation states would get all sorted out if they did business with us as soon as possible. In russia and iraq this has meant that western concerns strode in and bourght up all the resources and left the average citizen more broke than before
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Oh yeah and btw, didn't britain basically chicken out of being a true democracy when cromwell realised that the levellers wanted to see a land and property redistribution. After all it wasn't much after that descision and give up on the purity of the exercise and ask the royal family to come back and provide and convincing puppet show for the lumpen prolitariate.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Capitalism was conceived in 1750 onwards. Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mill and Marx all saw it as something very new.
Capitalism is the consistent accumulation of capital. Before the 1750s, capital accumulation was not sought as much as commodity consumption. Sees Marx's C -M-C relation, and then M-C-M relation for this.
Before 1750, yearly economic growth was 0.1%.Since, it has averaged between 1-3% on a global level. Capitalism has driven this. It has increased living standards.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
The British Revolution of 1688, mirrored by the American Revolution of 1776, was premised on limiting the power of government so that people could use their property as they wished.
Democracy can lead to a tyranny of the majority, and oppression of the minority. Cromwell saw this, and aimed to preclude mass attacks on property.
The great English idea has been to create liberty by putting checks on government power. This made England the world's greatest nation for 300 years.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
When u see the word democracy, a Western Conservative like Blair really means the Republican ideals of the English Civil Wars -- that is reduce government power, and encourage capitalism.
Capitalism will in turn lead to increasing living standards, and thus civilization.
The alternative is despotism and the bitter fruits of economic organisation that it invariably produces.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
The Sultan of Brunei is a capitalist. Capitalism (as an ideology and not a description of average human behaviour) makes it's on despots. If you want to check out what the world is like having purely free market values and no givernment regulation - why don't you go and live in the congo. I mean africa for years has been plagued by bad, corrupt and useless government and look at what things are like there.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Why can't you just accept that there is no human system which is perfect and that life is full of "complimentary" ideologies - oh yeah and btw, seeing as thought the whole of the western world has been mortaged to the chinese - we are all communists now.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
You are glib.
China has given up Communism. She started that path in 1979.
No african nation is capitalist.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
oh well, we can all use existentialism as a way of obfuscating - China is run by a "self-proclaimed" communist party and therefore for the purposes of argument (and sanity) we must take them by they're word. No african nation is capitalist huh? - Well I guess the most ironic part of this argument is that if we start arguing about the definition of the word "capitalist" we're going to end up back with Marx - wasn't he the person who first defined the term "capitalism"
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
You are wrong on every level. Demonstrably wrong.
Marx was not the first to define capitalism. The first works describing capitalism were by Adam Smith, who built on the work of the Physiocrats and Adam Ferguson. Marx explicitly writes his book Das Kapital as a reply to Smith some 60 years later.
Go to China. Speak to its people. Look at its economy. See the actions of its government. The label is Communist. The actions are strongly capitalistic. That is why China is growing.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
Okay, here we go - while it is true from a narrow definition of the term "growth" that china has grown in terms of the balance of payments - this only describes the ascpect in which it has began to produce and manufacture many of the most useless goods in the world - people used to say that the chinese were all bean counters - no wonder they are good economists.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Tell you what I am kinda bored of the argument - can I ask you this question - It what ideological way would you define Italian society - A recent survey estimated that a least 10% of all commerce in Italy passed thrrough the influence of the Mafia. I gather from your dismissal of african capitalism you think that societies which are hegemonically corrupt are not capitalist? So I guess Italy is not capitalist - Is there any part of the world which is capitalist in your definition?
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Capital accumulation exists on an extensive level in European Union nations. It is questionable that it exists in the Congo, parts of Ethiopia, etc. Indeed, ,many Aftcian nations are in a totally land based economy, with lord and serf. That is not capitalistic.
The Mafia exhibits self-interest. But it is not capitalistic. It does not operate by the rule of law which forces compliance with voluntarily assumed obligations to others. They are criminals.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
Please go into lengthy and protracted detail on how capitalism is defined by the rule of law - Which laws does "capitalism" need to work properly in your view - maybe capitalism should be defined in legal parathesies in the dictionary - also since we talked about china - which rule of of law is truely capitalist - chinese which does not tolerate free speech or freedom of association or american capitalism, which at least pays lip service to both?
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
I am a City of London lawyer.
Capitalism can only work if there is a rule of law. By rule of law, I mean that the state will make sure people keep the promises they make to others.
If there was no rule of law, then business would become dysfunctional. People would get out of bad contracts as the state and the courts would not enforce it. Capital accumulation would stop! There is no capitalism without law.
China ensures contractual obligations are met. Thus, she has a rule of law.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
Your term a "rule of law" seems to be flexible enough to emcombass any craziness - all societies have by definition a rule of law - can't you see this how this is obviously a glib parammeter?
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Btw, the one part of american law which China does not respect very much if at all is copyright law - The asiatic mindset in general is less focused on the individual and more on families and ancestry - so the the idea of ideas and inventions being "individual" property is not a familiar idea to them - there's is a town somewhere in china for example where the only industry is reverse engineering
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
@NinjaVsPredator
Yeah, those people who violate copyright law are the lowest of the low
(goes and watches another video that has been illegally uploaded to youtube)
/sarcasm
Treblaine 2 years ago
Oh yeah, did you name yourself after a drunk because you like to drink a lot?
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
I assume you do not know who Adam Smith is. His book, which is one of the most influential ever written, praises 4/5ths of the consequences of capitalism and calls for more of it!
He is the inspiration of free marketeers the world over. The Chinese read him more than Marx now.
You seem to confuse the pursuit of self interest and hard-nosed barter with the economic system of capitalism. Read economic history. Capitalism is the consistent accumulation of capital.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
The only thing I know about adam smith was that he was also most concerned about the existance of cabals and monoplolies - would you as a capitalist be in favour of breaking up organisations and companies when they acheieve an unfair maarket share? -
Also adam smith believe that face to face capitalism was the engine of economic morality - good knows what he'd make of the internet or our faceless banking system.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
The most famous free market advocates also dislike monopolies.
Why? Because monopolies become abusive, and empirically it is shown they charge higher prices and supply less output.
Thus, I support the law precluding monopolies.
The key point is this: capitalism does not mean no law, and thus total freedom. Capitalism only works with law. No law, no capitalism. But it is the type of law that is relevant. High tax, redistribution of wealth, etc, is bad law!!
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
Would you support the breaking up of Ruppert Murrdochs Media empire then, or Microsoft?.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
@NinjaVsPredator
Well considering the only alternative I have to buying a Microsoft operating system is to get a Mac (vomits with violent force into a bucket), yeah, I sure would like some competition.
At the moment, the main competition between Operating systems is merely between different version of windows.
Ideally though it should not be split up... what if Sony made an operating system? Playstation 3 is almost a computer.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Could you imagine a system of world governance which could define -owning too much property as a form of monopoly? My perfect world system would be one in which not only the poor had to put up with the indiginity of "compulsory purchase" but so did the rich
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
I do like to drink. Scotch or brandy. What is wrong with a drink?
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
It's a progressive depressant. It corrodes the liver and the kidneys.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Presuming you are confused: capital accumulation = the addition to the capital stock of a society in period 2, following the capital investment in period 1. Capital is defined as the assets within a society.
Capital accumulation was undertaken on an extensive scale from the 1750s. It increased living standards. Before the 1750s, societies merely produced an output each year which was very similar in size and value to the previous year. Growth was small due to no capital accumulation.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
I guess you must be an economics student huh? Well I ain't and it would take a lot of work to approach your level of understanding about the subject - So the reason why you don't understand a lot about social philosophy is clear - after all our brains aren't an unlimited resource.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
200 years later, the communists aimed to get economic growth through capital accumulation. But their growth would be managed and directed by the state -- the government.
In contrast, free marketeers belived that capital accumlation produced the best results morally and economically when left to the individual. So, capitalism became defined as individuals accumulating capital, and communism as the state accumulating capital.
Capitalism won.
churchillwinstonspen 2 years ago
And I guess that's the most important thing - to be the winner. Oh anyway - in the most part I agree with you that capitalism in most regards is a good system or description of human behaviour - what we will disagree on is whether it is a way of looking at human affairs which is flexible enough to really be used as an all encombassing ideology. There's always an exception to every rule.
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
Do you think it would be fair to say that the difference between an economist and a scientist is that at least scientists admit when they don't know something?
NinjaVsPredator 2 years ago
>>>"I think government should provide security first because we all want to be safe."
Anyone who would give up *essential* liberty for temporary security - deserve neither. Ben Franklin
harleykman 2 years ago
The people care not what you think they deserve. They want safety and for you to respect their concept of liberty instead of a falsely imposed US version which is not even in keeping with our own.
landenberg2341 2 years ago
blair shat down the side of his camel.
blatspanner 2 years ago
This program should only be analysed on the basis of its own initial constraints. Thought provoking as it is, it is not trying to sum up everything ad infinitum based on an idea. It provides an erudite summation of events, and allows the viewer to form an opinion for themselves (or find out more) based on what they have seen.
Is that not the basis of freedom itself? You decide.
PS. Does that make me an economist or a psychopath?!
jonathan6344 2 years ago
I'm going to get a bit dry, no emotions here, sorry.
The program is designed to extrapolate a thought equation: Game Theory. The program hypothesises that this theory, first practised in the cold war, has inexorably grown into a behemoth in the modern world. From these bases an argument is formed surmising concepts of liberty in a fluid, fundamentally chaotic, global environment.
jonathan6344 2 years ago
The overthrow of Iraq was nothing more than the usual corporate looting by the usual corporate-banking clique of bloodsucking vampires.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
And this "negative liberty" thing failed, because it completely left untouched the corporate-banking dictatorship that holds the exclusive power to secretly mints as much whim currency as it pleases, and secretly give as much of it as it cares to, to certain members of society who it favors, for whatever reasons it pleases.
Isaiah Berlin wasn't wrong -- he was right. But his ideas were perverted and mis-implemented by the corporate banking clique, who used it create their new dictatorship.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
wow... i had thought in my head about this freedom. I think government should provide security first because we all want to be safe. And I think rest can be left for free market, which doesn't interfere with basic human rights and safety and security of the people. Government should provide basic needs for it's citizens to live and improve. Unfortunately we don't see that at all in this so called Capitalist Democratic society.
SecksyMan 2 years ago
1st rate documentary.
veyblu7 2 years ago
You have to wonder; have any of these Neo-Conservatives ever read a little book called 1984. I think they might liken reading it to looking in a bloody mirror.
TheHopefulSpark 2 years ago
7/7 looks like it had complicity. And those muslim terrorists seem like they were part of the practice terrorist drills they were carrying out on the same day: they were playing a role, as part of the training. It has the same hallmarks as 9/11.
Watch the movie "7/7 Ripple Effect".
Neanderthalcouzin 2 years ago
think too that maybe noam chomsky summed up the situation best (u know, the whole gov. is not the solution bit) when nhe reasoned that the reason the say that is because u have a democratic say in what goes onnin gov and the simple fact is that the gove dont want the public having as say. they what u marginalized, in the hands of the fortune 500 (those 'private tyrannies' again to quote mr chomsky) and they expect u to accept cause feudalismnis the wave of the future dont u know
eusurfer 2 years ago
when that soldiers asked what he's trying to do, and answers 'trying to change these people... i dont know', this sums up for me the disconnect between the shit told to them of what their trying to do in iraq and what they are actually doing. dirty fuckers.
eusurfer 2 years ago 2
disappointing that Curtis fails to make explicit connections between negative liberty and consumerism. Negative liberty is not without purpose, as he seems to suggest, it exists so that corporations can profit, as citizens (consumers) attempt to satiate their material desires. Century of the Self is a far better documentary overall.
digimaton 2 years ago 18
"it exists so that corp. can profit" is exactly the problem. They profit off of the people, and try to squeeze as much profit out of the people as possible. Corp. manipulate people to make them think whatever it is they want them to think, so that they can make more profit off of them. Any system design based on "maximizing profit from consumers" is a destructive, downward system. But that's all we have today...
LDRinbrampton 2 years ago
@digimaton You should see " The century of self " by Adam Curtis . He "explicitly " describes how consumerism emerged.
mihir1310 1 year ago
@digimaton Whether or not you believe consumerism lends purpose to human life I do not know, but this comment seems to suggest it. Having seen other documentaries by Curtis, he seems to reject this notion. Thus, I do not believe he would not attempt to make such a connection between negative liberty and consumerism.
I believe we exist for a greater purpose than to satiate our material desires and for the commercial institutes of man (corporations) to profit off of us.
CollegeSmart1 1 year ago
@CollegeSmart1 it suggests nothing of the sort. I think you are missing the point entirely. The "purpose" of negative liberty is self-evident.
digimaton 1 year ago
At first glance it looks as if you were trying to lend purpose for its existence, but what you were getting at is the motive behind it? That makes sense, as it would allow for greater exploitation of consumers.
In that case, yes, Curtis could have make an explicit connection. Curtis seemed only to suggest that negative liberty was good because it reduces the possibility for despotic/tyrannical governments, but he forgot corporations are capable of despotic rule as well (to an extent).
CollegeSmart1 1 year ago
@CollegeSmart1 precisely. Governments? corporations? one and the same. See Sheldon S. Wolin, 2008, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Princeton University Press.
digimaton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@digimaton I think everyone should watch both.
JRD123456 1 year ago
what do you think a militarisitc end IS other than a political end? Talk sense.
xxII00IIxx 2 years ago 2
lol, the war was going on and those bastards call in the economists!
Oil anyone?
whalefish83 2 years ago 3
It seems the end of this video asserts that purpose and meaning are to be found in some sort of positive liberty that he calls "progressive.' This completely ignores that most of the world finds meaning in religion. Others find meaning in family and community. If "progressive" means finding meaning in government then run, don't walk, from progressivism
Who are "proressives" to tell us what we can find meaning in?
Entropy56 2 years ago 3
This was brilliant, thanks for posting
29keyser 2 years ago 9
THOUGHT POLICE
lorerax1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nigger fart
WarmBread123 2 years ago
I'm Shamed of my Country men who choose to treat Iraqis like shit. The U.S marines/army are worthless in my eyes, nothing humane about them.
WeylandYutaniInc 2 years ago
Do you make such ridiculous comments to get attention?> Because if you are pissed off about something, the marines and the army should not bear the brunt of your rage. I think you should rethink your outlook. You obviously didn't pay to much attention to the video
PhysicsIVIajor 2 years ago
they are just pawns, they are all human beings though.. calling them worthless is in essence no better than treating them as expendable lives in a statistical effort to make the whole world just like us.. can you imagine a world where every country was like america?? where would disillusioned, sexually repressed american bankers go to get some illegal under-age male poontang, without the fear of it being caught on CCTV?
gOatbOyvideO 2 years ago 5
The Marines/Army are being used to political ends. The Marines/Army are not political tools to be used by politicians for political gain. The Marines/Army are a military force to be used to a Militaristic end. They kill combatants and destroy stuff that could be used by said combatants... other than that it would be akin to you using a sledgehammer to type a response on your keyboard. If you did that, one could logically say that you weren't humane. Which wouldn't be true as well.
KorlaPlankton 2 years ago
Shock therapy didn't work last time... let's turn it up to 11! Can't wait for the next time America sends a bunch of fucking economists into another country they just demolished and rape it financially too.
ARGH!
retread01 2 years ago 6
Liberty? Admiralty? Pirates? Aliens? Come on Curtis I fucking love you
chrisp3001 2 years ago 2
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
speakingtruly 2 years ago
One of the best doc's I've EVER watched. Fantastic. Explains the evolution of all the things that are screwing up the world right now. Another Curtis classic.
GroundskeeperRonnie 3 years ago 10
I am dissapointed in this program.
It assumes that we have "negative" liberty already. I would argue that when half of your income is taken in the form of taxes YOU DO NOT HAVE negative liberty. And so this program's logic is fallacios.
And towards the end when they keep repeating the phrases like we live in a society with "no purpose" and yet it is very vague about how we could have "positive" liberty that doesn't lead to violent supression.
Live and let live is the best philosophy.
merrimac291 3 years ago
That is extremely harsh. I think that's a whole different subject and you're just expecting to much. In the time given, it was a fucking excellent documentary.
Pinch0fSalt 2 years ago 3
errr liberty and security don't mix too well.
The system is dead. START NEW NATIONS! What is So great about Washington DC? Why are you continuing to call your congressmen. Its over, done, finished, cease to be of value.
lorerax1 3 years ago
If you are in the army or an officer/law enforcement personnel, you must understand that you are a citizen as well, you are with us. You must help us. You must listen to your conscience.
lorerax1 3 years ago 7
Brilliant
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago 2
This documentary was absolutely fantastic through and through. I slightly dispute that the Iraq war was based mostly on altruism. That would never have recieved elite support in the way the war did. But either way this still gets 10/10.
lolharbandhar 3 years ago 3
..bilderberg...federal reserve's dollar hegemony...
feeknocks 3 years ago
I agree with the general sentiment of the series, but I find it intresting that in the final scene when they are describing the normative benefits of positive liberty they are playing the part of the French National Anthem which translates to english as thus:
To Arms, Citizens!
Form your batallions!
March! March!
Until impure blood
waters our fields
I wonder if it was intentional...
DosTacosAnd1 3 years ago 9
I think it certainly was intentional, DosTacos.
paulhcan 3 years ago