Btw for people from developing countries that still haven't figured it out, the IMF and thw World Bank promote a completely different agenda than the development of your economies. China, India and countries surrounding these behemoths all went against most of the guideslines of these two propaganda machines to achieve their 8 or 9% GDP growth per year. Especially the eradication of tariffs and protective barriers would have eliminated all industrialization in a few years
Why is Brown campaigning for more money for espionage and pillage on TED? Britons and Americans should get out of Africa and actually allow them to progress financially and politically. No country in the world has progressed until white people were kicked out. When will Africa wake up I wonder
Okay...let's start by including India into the UN security council. What reason can anyone have to exclude a quarter of the population from the 'world government'? Lol
A global change is necessary and without a doubt is going to happen. But the problem arises within the transitional time before the change is applicable. For example: CNN interviewed cultivators of cacao beans in Africa who are still being taken advantage of, they’re not organize and thus, sell way below the price equilibrium of demand, while profit in the western world has more than doubled. peoplebreeze com
I think a good idea that can help the African countries develop is to form organizations that can help vendors understand the global market, and know at what price to sell their produce to make a profit that is satisfactory to labor. peoplebreeze com
We live in a world where the lives of educated societies are seems more valuable than those societies where the people are less informed. Meanwhile, it is the means to a good education that is absent not that they’re less capable, because when they’re expose to a good education the whole world can hear them. We have seen the examples on Ted.com – among which many... peoplebreeze com
In that sense, although Climate Change is a big concern, how we go about solving the CO2 emission problem also has to offer government a way to invest that is profitable or else it’s not going to attract investment. peoplebreeze com
Behind every political decisions, if its involves fiscal policy where investment is necessary, the next option that is morally accepted by the people whether its climate change or natural gas refracting it also has to offer government a way to balance their budget, if not - although the choice may seem morally right it’s not going to be financially possible. peoplebreeze com
Why would the Brits call him a complete Dick Head ? He is a global guy looking out for the global security and the global society . It is wonderful that he has his lover on stage with him. Globalization must be good. Prices that are worth paying?? What is the Global interest ?? I would buy a car from this man ! We have the opportunity for a NWO. Thanks Mr Gordon Brown. It is the moral thing to do. Have the complete confidence in this man and message.
Better international institutions wont amount to much if nations don't develop internal resilience. Newer institutions without this could make a whole new round of neoliberal exploitation.
Can the interests of an individual nation be reconciled with humanity's greater good?
BULLSHIT.
This is just Globalisation given the false mask of compassion. Brown is an intellectual light-weight, but fancies himself an intellectual socialist of the traditional ilk. In reality he is a bad tempered, cold, controlling bully who held the state to be supreme over the individual and charged it with the utopian mission of 'saving the world'.
@Hopespringseternal2 We don't elect a Prime Minister, we elect a party and they elect the leader, people seem to keep forgetting this. Everyone could vote conservative, because they like David Cameron, and they could change the leader the day after the election
the new wourld order frame work is now compleat. gopanhagen. unalected dictators will control ,wake up if your not already wide awake. before its all to late. the pen is mighter than the sorwd
I cluod not blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch sudty at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in wrods are the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist & lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae The rset can be a taotl mses & you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef but the wrod as a wlohe & I thgouht slpeling was ipmorantt
If Gordon Brown had involvement of Global Leadership the poorer countries would not elect someone that has NO IDEA what Equality is..
Carbon Tax is yet to come in, this will be global currency and a new era of global control with little to no choice in science and reason.
I fear Science will dictate just as religion would, whats real to the global elite and whats not, disease, injections & global warming myth/weather modification,this cannot be questioned by us, we are prisoners to their agenda.
the point is the system we are facing is on a global scale. and there are already global structures and interests in operation which are under no democratic control whatsoever. if we want to tackle the problem we need some kind of global government. i know our governments don't work these days. but we can learn from the failures and use that knowledge to create a better version. i can't see another way to go. do you?
Why is everything with Gordon Brown being voted down? Lots of Brits here who don't like his domestic politics and have no idea what TED is about, or what?
thats right, we hate his domestic politics because he is self serving where both his personal beliefs (marxist social assumptions) and where his poltical future is concerned
Put it this way, we utterly despise Tony Blair for obvious reasons...Gordon is 10 times worse. He is a despicable fuck-head and has continued to shame the UK to a point where we are now as (if not more) unpopular than the US globally. And the fact that he constantly brings religion into politics and talks about civil liberties while imposing even more draconian laws restricting protest and free speech is disgusting and hypocritical. I could rant on for hours but I love TED too much to taint it.
Gordon Brown failed to sufficiently address the question. The question is a common question presented on a larger scale, that of self-interest vs the common good. With the "self" referring to a single country and the "common good" referring to the global good.
IMO, the problem with the current situation is you have governments/national institutions which have the RESPONSIBILITY to look after the interest of its people. Government officials were elected by the nation's citizens to look after their interest. This is exactly why Chris Anderson raised the question to Gordon Brown of the time he will see a politician pushing a platform that focuses on delivering the "global good" rather than one that just delivers the self-interest of that nation.
It's human nature to want to preserve one's self first.IMO, to achieve a global ethic, the first thing that needs to be done is to let go of the concept of national governments and to establish a global institution.
Global institutions don't work and will never work for the following reasons: 1. whoever leads them will have too much power to make subjective absolute decisions. 2. Governing/ruling/administrating large entities is tougher than doing the same for smaller entities. A "global" entity would be impossible to govern properly.
3. Human emotions (pride, greed, corruption, etc).
1. I think you're referring to dictatorships not global institutions that have the right mechanisms to balance out power such as having separate bodies concerned with the creation, implementation, and enforcement of laws. (executive, legislative and judiciary).
2. You can say this for any institution. How big is big? How small is small? People didn't probably imagine countries (governments) before.
3. This problem exists not only in global institutions. Invalid argument for this.
I think he addressed it wonderfully. He stated his views simply and clearly: The world is better off accepting whatever England and USA want - that is what's best for the world.
What stops individuals from NOT being slaves of large companies? Would you be incarcerated if you've rejected a job offer from General Electric? It's misplaced greed that is the heart of the problem. People ambitious enough to want to earn lots of money, dumb enough to be "enslaved" by big corporations. Again, they've only themselves to blame.
The world biggest restaurant is McDonald's, not some michelin-starred restaurant like El Bulli. Why? Because capitalism accedes to the needs of the ignorant masses, those with enough money to waste it.
This probably the worst stand up comedy routine I've ever seen.
But seriously folks, this is really quite inane. She is from the generation, or close to it, that has helped unleash this demon onto our culture. After showing her own vulgarity & courseness, she goes onto complain when the culture of vulgarity she celebrates goes beyond the bounds she can tolerate.
It incomparably stupid to insist that abstinance campaigns won't work when they have worked for 1,000s of years.
Yes because creating a 'stable and fair' world is not interference, it's perfectly acceptable for people to meddle in the affairs of poor nations, to enforce their views on what people should have and how they should work. And if to achieve that they force one type of government & destroy other systems of living then that's all good.
Global Justice Movement, maybe a better description could be Socialist Imperialism.
Weren't the only one's prepared for the tsunami the remote tribes and the animals that felt something coming? Seems like we dismissed our warning systems.
they are gonna bring in the one world currency anyway, i think we should all take our cash out of the banks and crash the system.... why not stay off work for a couple of days three :) maybe even burn the odd note or two. :) then we the people can take the power back. the Politicians work for us.
Careful Gordon or we'll think you're promoting a New World Order again on the back of nice sounding lies.
Obama nobell peace prize. Gore Carbon Billionaire. Blair £2 Million pa JP Morgan. Federal Reserve privately owned. GE, Haliburton, BAE profits from war. Baxter release 72kg live Bird Flu.
it's a shame an official from the number one (oppressing, resource sucking and narcissist country in history) talks about GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP I hope the intention and deeds meet his words. Because if you ask me, I don't trust an English person...why, because they are the culture of discipline and manor accompanied by Grand theft of auto of another nations.
You obviously know nothing about Britain and it's history, or you'd know that by the standards of world super powers they were far less oppressive and did more good for people than any other empire. Moreover, the intellectual forebears of liberalism such as John Stuart Mill were overwhelmingly British. Not to mention Britain's role in defeating Hitler whilst most nations lined up to suck his cock and help with the holocaust. Or the fact 50% of inventions are attributable to the British...
It offends my sense of morality but I'm more offended by the stupidity of this "billionaire playboy". This is why money can sometimes be vulgar. Populism and anti-intellectualism come to mind. How good is a society when those at the top of the hierachy are oil merchants and money lenders i.e bankers? Make no mistake about it. I love money. It buys manual labour. But it can never buy refinement and intelligence. Better a "bel esprit" than a "billionaire" (although my ambition is to be both lol)
Exactly. Adrew Carnegie was an example of both great spirit and amazing entrepreneurial skill. Take a look at Rockefellers - did they earn their money because of how intelligent they are or how hard they worked? No, they inherited their fortune. Bankers are modern nobility. Most of them come from a families that were already in the business. There's no one new. Still the same names after 5 and more decades.
Morality is a human constuct, designed to help individuals best survive in a community. Simply calling right wingers "selfish" does not discredit them at all. At least not in my opinion.
I'd argue it's more a natural consequence of our evolution than a human construct; given that humans are social animals and require a system of morality to bind and regulate communities, we have evolved the psychological predispositions which are the building blocks of morality.
But that's another debate. I wasn't trying to discredit right wingers by pointing to evidence that they're selfish, only challenge the crazy notion that left wingers are more selfish.
Serbfree, you don't get it, do you? The majority of Britain is white, it is not possible to make anti-white laws without major repercussions. And by the way, Gordon Brown is white, so why would he discriminate against his own "race".
Realy Brits? Do you mean the French, the Vikings, the Angles, the Saxons, the Normans, the Picts, the Romans, the Greeks or the Irish? Britains immigratory history is so complex that you are an interracial person yourself. Who is the real Brit? The First Brits?
In response to the thought experiment (which Gordon Brown surreptitiously dodged past): I would save whichever person(s) that best serve my self-interest. In this case, I would assumingly opt for the Nigerian family simply because seeing 5 human beings, of which a few might be vulnerable e.g children, women, die is much more tormenting than seeing one Brit die.
It's a bit tenuous trying to couch desires to avoid empathatic pain in terms of pursuing self interest. If you define self interest like that it has no meaning - you could say someone who devotes their life to charity is acting in self interest because they are fulfilling a strong desire to help others. Technically it's true, but it's not really what we mean by the term.
@John1Rawls It is what I mean by the term. Altruism is self interest. There's no dichotomy that I see here. Empathy is one of human's many biological propensities. And fulfilling natural inclinations can often be good. Heck, even Hitler wanted to create an efficient car that his people can all afford. But of course, you have the liberty to believe that we are serving a greater good in acts of charity. As long as you feel good about it.
If that's the notion of self interest that you're employing, then sure, I agree. I think it also goes by the term 'tautological egoism' or something.
Although there were experiments recently that supposedly showed that as long as an empathatic link is establish, humans can be motivated to help others in need entirely independently of their own altruistic pleasure/pain at helping/not helping. It's still really self interest though, since the desire to help is of your own mind.
Because it is no longer Darwinism. Now, it is about technology, and who can shoot first, or who has more support, is not Darwinism. So "Survival of the Fittest" is no longer relavent, it is now Social Darwinism, which was, by the way, a nazi ideal.
By the way, if the idea of muslims living as free and equal citizens in Britain offends you so much, why not just retreat into fanasy? You could, say, imagine yourself stabbing muslim girl for daring to not be born into the same faith and race as you. Or what about slowly torturing an old muslim grandad to death? After all, they're not part of your culturally defined group so it's not like they are human, right?
It's your kind of attitude which keeps backward countries from progressing.
You obviously don't have a clue. British crime statistics are far lower than those of more intolerant countries which persecute minorities. There is no anti-white discrimination enshrined in law whatsoever. You're just making shit up to justify your irrational hatred of different people.
Sorry, but for all your wishes the British people are simply too civilised to accept the BNP and Nazi state you pine for. We'll continue to be culturally diverse thanks - it's what brought us so much success.
So, does Hitler's point sound familiar? Sound awefully similar to yours, which is all non whites(note how all whites are good, everyone else evil) are criminals, taking up OUR space, and making our culture impure.
One last thing, OBJECTIVE and ANALYTICAL??? Your whole spiel is basically, all blacks evil, all whites pure in mind and culture. GET RID OF EVIL BLACKS. Analytical?. You can't even be stuffed finding out what percentage of whites and whites are criminal, "ALL NON WHITES ARE CRIMS!!!!"
Part two of the response to your polemic diatribe. Genocide: "Is the Murder of a whole community or race." There is no murder, absolutely none. Interbreeding is not murder. And also, WHITE is not a race. Neither is black. Included in the "white" race: Slavs, Caucasian, Germans, Scandinavians, Greeks, etc. You don't seem to realise that.
So you're not a racist? Would you agree Hitler was a (self proclaimed) racist?Okay, these people are spoiling our culture, taking up space and killing people
Oh dear, serbfree, what delusion are you living in? May I mention right now, that I do not call a person a single word before I look it up. A Racist is one who is racist, and racism is the exclusion, ridiculing, etc. of one because of or based on their race. (I looked that up in the dictionary).
And a moron is one with an IQ of between 35 to 50(yes, I looked that up too).
YOU ARE BEING RACIST!
Stop fooling yourself. There is no genocide. Interbreeding is not KILLING a race.
Ethnic cleansing and genocide eh? That sounds serious. Would you please provide more details of white British people being killed by the government for reasons of ethnic purity? Oh wait, you equate 'not killing muslims' with 'killing whites'.
I for one wish all BNP supporters would fuck off and form their own country, then the rest of us with half a brain could sit back and laugh as the population of incredibly stupid, cowardly and insecure little men failed to achieve a single notable thing.
I mean, imagine if the BNP achieved their dream and all got to live in an all-white Nazi utopia. Without an out group to persecute, they'd lose their only real purpose in life. Most likely they'd have to find some other irrelevant difference to make a big deal about other than race, like hair colour, and descend into a war of blondes versus brunettes. Without tolerance, a country cannot succeed. That's why Britain has done so well for itself - tolerance is the most British of values.
Yeah, I'm sure that's just around the corner. We don't round up and torture muslims to death for daring to not be christian, and therefore we are submitting to their cultural values, right?
It's a shame so many people are so cowardly when it comes to cultural change that they actually contemplate these extreme, non-sensical nightmares of a muslim state arising if we don't treat 'the other' as second class citizens.
@serbfree Hey you do realise you are being a racist? There's no sort of, you are being an exact example of a racist. Now that that's out of the way.
You do realise that not 100% of crime is asian? Let's just say, for argument's sake, 60% of crime is by "Asians", that means that there is a lot of non-Asian crime. This is what you racists always do, you generalise: Since the "majority" of crime is by Asians(it isn't, by the way), all Asian are evil, and all whites(even if criminal) are crimeless
Taken to task by Daniel Hannan? The guy who is widely regarded as a traitor in Britain because he unfairly attacked the NHS and only wants those born rich to have access to healthcare?
Thankfully there's nothing British about the BNP - their authoritarian and intolerant values are distinctly un-British. They're a joke - Britain didn't achieve what it did with their attitude. Sorry mate, if you wanna live in a country that does support your backward desires how about moving to Saudi Arabia?
Wow, what a talk! I am sure the fellows at TED were thrilled to hear this one. I wonder if TED would have entertained the same talk from someone else...
I subsribe to Plato. Using his famous allegory of prisoners in a cave, he describes that it is better to be the poorest man in the universe and yet have gained knowledge, than to go back the enlightened way of life.
@linkin622 All the crazed neo-cons would just get their guns out and start mouthing off as they stuffed their faces with burgers. So thanks, but I think he'll politely decline your request, we don't need that crap in the United Kingdom thanks.
oh thats right i heard that ya'll turned in your guns....so you cant give anyone any crap......governments should fear the people keep your eye on the U.S. come2010 lots of our "leaders" are gonna get , how do you unarmed sheep say it ? oh right SACKED
Yep, we gave up our guns. We forced the government to ban them. We were fed up of children being slaughtered in schools. What awful people we must be.
Our criminals never had them in the first place. We have very, very minor gun crime in the UK. Mostly it's knives, which have far less potential for the kind of mass murders you get in the US.
mostly its knives ? dude think about what your saying...does it really matter to a victim of a violent crime whether he got stabbed to death or shot to death...my point is he should be free to decide if he wants to be able to defend himself and his family or depend on someone else..like me to shoot his attacker
No.... Some of them did.... But you know what did reduce after the banning of bearing firearms, massacres like Virginia Tech.
Do you have any idea how many people are killed when some "psycho" decides to go into a restaurant, or a school, or even the streets, and decides to kill people? Here they report on only the major ones..... many a year. That is what the government tries to reduce. Deaths as a result of firearms reduced drastically, and when they do, it was unavoidable, even with a gun.
Let me rephrase that. After the banning of carrying firearms, deaths as a result of them dropped drastically, and often when people were killed by them, it was unavoidable, like for example while they were sleeping. It was extremely effective in reducing deaths as a result of crime overall.
We are not preaching to you. Keep your disgusting guns if you want, along with your blow up dolls of George Bush who devastated the planet. We don't want a gun culture thanks. It's our prerogative, just as it's your prerogative to maintain a gun culture that ends in the slaughter of thousands of people each year. That's your choice. We've made ours and we are quite happy with the decision we've made thanks, as are the parents of those children slaughtered by guns in our country priot to the ban.
disgusting guns ? if a golf club was used as murder weapon are golf clubs then disgusting ? or is the person who uses it for that purpose ? a gun is a tool and nothing more and just like any other tool it can be misused.........blow up doll ? really ? grow up .....devastated the planet ? i think not , keep the drama to a minimum plz
Civil rights in the US was a fleeting moment. The Gordon Brown's of the world have been stealing these rights piece by piece for decades - Might makes right "bullyism".
What he means is one world control, nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.
People like Brown are trying to engineer a global communist state with everything they disagree with sanctioned.
They work with large globalist multinationalists to remove freedom, buy up government & enforce conformity to their twisted view.
The world is huge, there should be seperation, should be people living in forests or mud huts. there should be freedom to live how you want, but these control freaks dont want that.
So if you believe in the ultimate value of freedom, I assume you want people to be born into a situation where they are most free to pursue their own path in life.
So I assume you wouldn't want people being born into a situation of poverty where they couldn't possibly have any freedom to choose anything other than survive.
So I assume you support a global system of redistribution, given that the very richest gain less freedom from their excess resources than the poorest would if they had it.
Someone born in a mud hut in Namibia isn't poor, they only become poor when cretins in the 'developed' world force their monetery system and values on them. Ultimately people like Brown meddling in Africa only helps to create poverty.
People in the monetery world are not free, they are chained by money, freedom is only for the elite like Brown, whose earnings allow some choice.
Globalisation will only ever create mass poverty & relative slavery for the many.
Heh, you sound like the French anthropologist who claimed that the idea that smallpox is a bad thing is a western notion, and so it was culturally insensitive of Britain to distribute vaccines in India.
I'm sorry but material deprivation isn't a pleasant thing no matter what country you're born in. Sure, relative deprivation is also a bad thing, but this isn't something the west has forced on anyone - there's always been inequality in all socities.
So the alternative is you drag/force people from the bush to have them die in abject poverty.
Without birth control there never will be material comfort, only an ever increasing mass of deprived. Redistribution of wealth /globalisation at the current birth rate only ensures that those in the 'material' world will become poor whilst a few in the poor world will get a few more possessions.
And all the while those at the top like Brown & the few who fund him will become vastly richer.
Uh...where'd you get the idea that material aid would be forced on people, or that it couldn't possibly be coupled with birth control?
I don't understand your argument - material resources aren't good for people, and yet redistribution is bad because it would make those who are currently rich poor? Sounds to me you just want the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor and are justifying it by claiming that the poor really like the position they are in.
Globalisation means that the poor in western countries are having their jobs redistributed to the 3rd world simply because we have no trade protection & the people there have to work for next to nothing. Obviously this is yet to destroy the more well off & those with featherbed government paid jobs, but it will.
Brown & co are not redistributing wealth, they are creating slaves. Int. socialism/globalisation is not about wealth for the many, it is poverty for the many & wealth for the few.
He's not talking about economic globalisation; he's talking on global cooperation on international issues such as climate change. It's strange you equate global economic liberalisation with socialism - surely economic freedom is something conservatives/libertarians strive for? International socialism is more about instituting global equality and the protection of human rights. If anything it stands against economic globalisation if it would increase inequality.
But he is an internationalist socialist & he sees nothing wrong with redistributing jobs from the west to the third world.
Today for instance 1700 UK steel workers sacked because people like Brown have helped to redistribute their jobs & that's just today.
He talks about the west giving money to help poorer countries deal with global warming when the fastest growing polluters are 3rd world countries because globalists like him are engineering the shift of jobs to lower paid 3rd world 'slaves'.
Gordon Brown is hardly a socialist. He's barely left of centre. This support of global free market economics you attribute to him would be a captialist aspect of his politics.
The argument for subsidising the 3rd world is so that they can develop their economies in a way which isn't polluting, which is more expensive. If left to their own, they could rightly claim that every developed country has polluted, so why not them? They're going to develop themselves either way, it's human nature.
Given that ever country that has applied far left politics has failed & given that even communist China has embraced capitalism then deciding how far left Brown is can only be judged by what he does.
Signing the UK into a totalitarian EU state without a vote. Leaving thousands to freeze to death in the UK this winter while spending 10 billion on foreign 'aid'. Preciding over the worst invasion of privacy & human rights in UK history.
Like all leftists he feathers his own nest at our expense.
You really don't understand a thing about politics whatsoever, or you'd know how contradictory you're being. Refusing to give aid to freezing people is a right wing policy - it reflects the attitude that those who can't afford to heat their homes deserve their fate and should suffer for it. The same attitude which causes them to oppose the social safety net and institutions like the NHS which help the 'filthy plebs' at the expense of those with more money than sense.
Given that much of Nazi Germanys political ideology was actually socialist then to pin the term right or left as to whether a pensioner freezes to death is a joke. But then the left likes to pretend that all 'nice' policies are theirs & the nasty people are everyone who doesn't act like them.
The truth is that socialism has a history of brutality, murder & failure.
Is Brown helping the 'plebs' by destroying their jobs, is Brown helping the 'plebs' by deliberately destroying their security?
No - because Brown isn't a socialist, the point i've been making all along. If he was, his first priority would be the welfare of the people - not maximising the wealth of those already born wealthy, which is characteristic of right wing politics.
Nazi Germany called themselves 'national socialists' in order to appease the communists. If you knew anything about their policies, you'd understand they had a completely different model for both the economy and society.
Actually the Nazi method of appeasing communists was with a club or a bullet but that's another story.
So what measure is there of what a 'socialist 'is. Is it industrial based socialism as was followed to destruction in Russia. Is it Maoist socialism eating itself up in a paranoid drive to create a universal peasentry. Or is it socialism Blair/Brown style, where they drip feed communism while working hand in glove with multinationals, removing freedom/identity, creating universal subjugation
By the way, psychological evidence suggests that those with right wing views tend to be more selfish, more willing to cheat others and less easily motivated to help people. Which isn't really surprising, since right wing philosophy is generally based on the idea that humans are universally as selfish, greedy and morally bankrupt as themselves.
How does that figure into your view that left wingers only wish to feather their own nests?
No, not subjective observation - empirical fact. Read Batson's study.
So, presumably because of Pinochet's actions in Chile, capitalism is all about rounding up one's political opponents and torturing them slowly to death?
And if a guy bombs an orphanage and says it was done in the name of capitalism, it thereby proves that capitalism is evil, right?
Socialism is a political ideology. It places the values of equality, social justice and community spirit over economic freedom. Nothing more.
Socialism was effectively born in the Terror of revolutionary France with the 50k murdered for not being revolutionary enough, and you might quote Pinochet but he's a bit player compared to genocide & mass murder of socialist despots.
Thing is I dont actually support an ism, but you do, the ism that has a history of mass murder.
Nice values you quote there, like the big round eyes of the big bad wolf, but the reality of socialism is very different, it's no different to Fascism.
I'm not even a socialist. I just think it's pretty weak to attack anyone who believes in certain ideals just because some people happen to have used those ideals as a way of gaining and abusing power in the past.
Even Marx said at the end of his life "All I know is that I am no Marxist.", and that was before his ideas were abused to the extent they were by the USSR and China.
Do you honestly believe that there's some hidden agenda of socialism itself to bring suffering to the world?
By the way, the French revolution was more liberal than socialist. Moreover it's generally accepted by the French that the revolution was worth it - innocent people died but then far more were dying at the hands of the idle nobility. Arguably it didn't fundamentally change much, but you can hardly make a convincing case that things were a lot better under absolutism. Unless you judge a society by how it treats those born richest.
I didn't say that revolutionary France was socialist, only that it was effectively born there. The notion that there is a collective form of government which justifies mass murder in its defence & impletation.
The fact that the Terror killed thousands of the poor & revolutionaries as well as nobility has no doubt escaped you.
Socialism is a them and us mindset, like Aryan & Jew Fascism. It is a hate fueled philosophy, the idea isn't abused when it leads to murder, murder is its pure expression.
I really do suggest you go read The Communist Manifesto if you want to understand the theory of socialism, as distinct from its historical manifestations. You sound to have just lapped up all this anti-socialist propaganda - you don't really know what it is all about, you just associate it with all that governments have ever done wrong.
Socialism might talk a lot about class divisions, but it ultimately strives to demolish them for the good of all, not just the workers.
Yes, but you forget about human nature, & socialism is a blueprint which sounds 'nice' but actually leads to the destruction of human rights and murder.
I have actually read the communist party manifesto, I have actually pretended to be one to understand the mindset & I found no difference between it and the worst expression of Fascism.
Fascism ultimately is just as good on paper, but in reality human nature changes it.
Socialism says it cares, but actually socialists only care about the ism.
What about human nature? Socialism has it's own theory of human nature - that it is determined by social relations, and thus if you build a socialist society human nature will improve to meet its needs. I don't agree with that but it's no worse than the capitalist 'everyone is greedy and selfish' bollocks, which empirical psychology refutes.
As I say, I'm no socialist, but if you just portray it as just pure evil like you're doing you undermine the valid points which can be made against it.
So you want to sideline the violent history of socialism so that we can focus on say its effect on freedom or scientific advancement, which is a bit like ignoring the fact that snake has a deadly bite, focusing instead on the fact that it has a slippery skin.
Most UK political socialists for instance show a publicly acceptable version of their personal views, the left knows that the public will not accept their totalitarian system overnight, they are instead inching us into the socialist abyss
You're confusing the theory and practice once more. Hiding behind an ethically-attractive theory is the best way of covering the backs of those who want to gain power. Think of socialism like christianity - the fact of the crusades doesn't mean Jesus propagated violent conquest.
Yeah, sure, every British socialist really wants a totalitarian state. Just like every right winger wants to abolish the NHS, state education and police and enslave all those born poor under wealthy buisness owners...
But the reason we end up with the poor living as bonded slaves is because capitalism has that dark element lurking at its core. Just as socialism has murderous oppression & the destruction of human freedom lurking at its core.
Socialism like Christianity, well yes. Both have sought to enforce their particular view of the world through eradication of the opposition and violence. Both consider their doctrine to be the only acceptable way. Both lead to totalitarian control & stagnation.
I don't think a tenet of capitalism is the ideal of inequality and lack of social justice , nor is authoritarianism a value of socialism. They might be an inevitable outcome of the ideologies when they're put into practice, but you can't claim they're 'at the core' of the ideologies. They're unintended side effects.
Again, i'm talking about the theories themselves, not the way they've been implemented historically. I agree christianity has brought suffering - doesn't mean it's evil itself
But if some gentle nursery rhyme appeared innocent & yet was so worded to push some deep psychological button so that the child would grow up into a psychopath, then would that make the rhyme evil, or merely an incidental cause of evil.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter where the blame lies, all that matters is the consequences.
Socialism is such a rhyme, seemingly virtuous, but its application leads to evils. That's why there are so many examples of socialist mass murder.
The point is that all ideologies that have been implemented have been associated with human suffering. Russia was just as bad under the Tsar's as it was under communism and it's little better under capitalism - the extent of the suffering is dictated by the national culture, which promotes totalitarianism in all its forms. I think the message is that all human political theories have tragic consequences. That's why any extreme generally ends in tears - capitalism, conservatism or socialism.
@John1Rawls Has anyone tried "Ubermensch" yet? Maybe the ills of society have to do with culture instead of governance? China's thriving under socialism, aren't they? But I've to agree with you. Extremism usually produces negative results for its proponents often lack the flexibility for varying problems. But let's give extreme ubermensch a chance, yeah?
@Rundogz So what do you propose we do for the poor? Enslave the rich? Capitalism simply makes poverty more salient because they have no safety nets to hide behind. The poor are not poor because some rich man rob them of their lands and graze their fields. They are poor because they fail to satisfy the needs of the market.They've only themselves to blame although I'm not exactly sure why poverty is necessarily an evil. We do live in an anti-intellectual society that values money over intelligence
I think the poor are poor because most often they are born or are forced into a situation where they have no options. Other people 'own' 'the land, other people have taken their birthright by fair means or foul.
I wouldn't enslave the rich, but I do think that society fails to give people opportunity & birthright. Large companies destroy freedom and individual wealth. People should be given the means to have something to offer. Be it land & crops, a trade or skill, rather than being slaves.
International corporate interests do amazing things in advancing technology and perhaps present the opportunity to right some of the world's wrongs, but they shouldn't force the necessity of a global government to protect their interests, much less the increase of taxes and prices in an extended financial crisis.
Lets not for get that the unelected "Prime Minister" Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for nearly 10 years prior to no being elected PM.
It was Brown's "I've abolished boom and bust" arrogance that lead the "UK" into recession. The man is responsible for failing to see the dangers and to take action to protect us.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I was excited when Gordon Brown promised to make Africa and poverty a top priority during a speech made to the Labour party a couple of years ago. Happy to see that he is still talking about tackling these issues. Well done!
Understand this man is talking about taking the productive jobs out of industrialized countries and moving them to 3rd world nations where slave...i mean cheap labor is found. Thus breaking down industrialized economies(as it is happening now) only to have the process repeated in 100 years. "Global citizens" ..more like global slaves. What a joke.
it all sounds good when the people at TED are talking about globalism. if the kind of people who are at TED would make good global leaders but they arnt the kind of people who obtain political power. only sociopaths are capable of achieving political office. globalism will simply put even more power in the hands of even fewer people.
Police State Britain - which we all detest - is no doubt the price that has to be paid for 'global citizenship'. Let's all look forward to the Global Police State which is coming.
Current politicians on TED? Bad idea. TED is a platform for franknes (in my opinion) and you can just feel the squirming and evading politician speak from Gordon. What say you?
Abolition of private property, heavy progressive income tax, abolition of all right of inheritance, central bank, government control of communications, transportation, factories, labor, farms, regional planning, and control of education.
There is so much wrong, with so many points that he makes, that It is not hard to understand why with 'leaders' like him, that there is so many wars and so much poverty and suffering in the world.
This is a man not speaking his own words. None of it was from within, I found this very unconvincing. There are uncontrollable homelessness issues within the UK. Why not focus on your own problems, which is why you get paid. To believe this crusade into deprived countries out of compassion to help others is just pushing it too far. Somebody smells the bucks and wants to jump in!
What a bunch of whiners. Personally, I think Brown was genuine and his point was way ahead of his time.
Those of you who are from Britain don't appriciate what you have in your country. Your politicians, despite all the cock-ups like expense scandal and illegal wars, are still the best in the world.
we give ourselves freedom of participation as a mutual pact. A new world government, even if it eliminated countries like the USA, isn't a bad thing necessarily. You don't know what sort of changes would occur if such a situation were to happen.
also, just a pure logical thing; if no one gives us our freedom, then how can we have freedom?
What did this guy say that warrants punching him in the face?? Protect genocide victims? Encourage ethics and politics to operate with the whole world in mind, not just self-interest or creeds? Having a single dominating world government would be dangerous, but he's just pointing out the need for people to pull their heads out of their asses and realize our actions have an impact on others--which means both that some unsustainable practices must stop, but also humanitarian things must be done
There is no one world. Its only one government. No free trade, only one system controlling all trade.
Almost 1million people were killed in UN's trade sanctions on Iraq in the 90's. Gaza has become the world's biggest prison and Iran can't do any trade with most countries in the world only because they have decided to go against the interests of Israel and USA.
This is the one world. Where every muslim needs to think twice before entering USA incase he's taken in as a suspected terrorist!
Why can't this dipshit just leave the world alone and let them live the way they want to?!
Why do these guys have to go around imposing their ideals of life and society over other countries and societies?
This is colonialism all over again. Just in a much more subtle and less brutal way. Though none the less imposing your ideals on other nations and controlling them through IMF, World Bank, foreign restrictions, wars and food shortages.
if that's the case, why have any nationalized government at all? why have a state or regional government? why local government? why not just anarchy?
government isn't just a fairly decent thing, it's a necessary thing. and as times change it's pertinent to change policies. Arguably the people making those decisions are doing it poorly, but change needs to happen if peoples opinions change. Otherwise our social species will fail.
Btw for people from developing countries that still haven't figured it out, the IMF and thw World Bank promote a completely different agenda than the development of your economies. China, India and countries surrounding these behemoths all went against most of the guideslines of these two propaganda machines to achieve their 8 or 9% GDP growth per year. Especially the eradication of tariffs and protective barriers would have eliminated all industrialization in a few years
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Why is Brown campaigning for more money for espionage and pillage on TED? Britons and Americans should get out of Africa and actually allow them to progress financially and politically. No country in the world has progressed until white people were kicked out. When will Africa wake up I wonder
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Okay...let's start by including India into the UN security council. What reason can anyone have to exclude a quarter of the population from the 'world government'? Lol
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
A global change is necessary and without a doubt is going to happen. But the problem arises within the transitional time before the change is applicable. For example: CNN interviewed cultivators of cacao beans in Africa who are still being taken advantage of, they’re not organize and thus, sell way below the price equilibrium of demand, while profit in the western world has more than doubled. peoplebreeze com
peoplebreeze1 1 month ago
I think a good idea that can help the African countries develop is to form organizations that can help vendors understand the global market, and know at what price to sell their produce to make a profit that is satisfactory to labor. peoplebreeze com
peoplebreeze1 1 month ago
We live in a world where the lives of educated societies are seems more valuable than those societies where the people are less informed. Meanwhile, it is the means to a good education that is absent not that they’re less capable, because when they’re expose to a good education the whole world can hear them. We have seen the examples on Ted.com – among which many... peoplebreeze com
peoplebreeze1 1 month ago
In that sense, although Climate Change is a big concern, how we go about solving the CO2 emission problem also has to offer government a way to invest that is profitable or else it’s not going to attract investment. peoplebreeze com
peoplebreeze1 1 month ago
Behind every political decisions, if its involves fiscal policy where investment is necessary, the next option that is morally accepted by the people whether its climate change or natural gas refracting it also has to offer government a way to balance their budget, if not - although the choice may seem morally right it’s not going to be financially possible. peoplebreeze com
peoplebreeze1 1 month ago
Why would the Brits call him a complete Dick Head ? He is a global guy looking out for the global security and the global society . It is wonderful that he has his lover on stage with him. Globalization must be good. Prices that are worth paying?? What is the Global interest ?? I would buy a car from this man ! We have the opportunity for a NWO. Thanks Mr Gordon Brown. It is the moral thing to do. Have the complete confidence in this man and message.
3877michael 5 months ago
Better international institutions wont amount to much if nations don't develop internal resilience. Newer institutions without this could make a whole new round of neoliberal exploitation.
sgtmcwallace 10 months ago
Gordon Brown is a world statesman.
mekvle 1 year ago
Can the interests of an individual nation be reconciled with humanity's greater good?
BULLSHIT.
This is just Globalisation given the false mask of compassion. Brown is an intellectual light-weight, but fancies himself an intellectual socialist of the traditional ilk. In reality he is a bad tempered, cold, controlling bully who held the state to be supreme over the individual and charged it with the utopian mission of 'saving the world'.
The road to hell is paved with 'good' intentions.
xxeternalbeautyxx 1 year ago
What An Absolute Cunt that man is
Foodjunky9 1 year ago
What a hypocrite!
Irondukesteve 1 year ago
VOTE LIB-DEM! TWENTY TEN!!!
DackIsBack 1 year ago
@DackIsBack vote lib dem? look where it got the UK they decided the tories would be better... Political leaders are all a pack of liars the end
Simsyland 1 year ago
Pay no heed to this despotic, unelected, Fabian, low life, he wont be around any longer, than two and a half weeks more.
Never in the history of Britain has an alleged Prime mentalist been hated so much, by the very people that he wasn't elected to represent.
Hopespringseternal2 1 year ago
@Hopespringseternal2 We don't elect a Prime Minister, we elect a party and they elect the leader, people seem to keep forgetting this. Everyone could vote conservative, because they like David Cameron, and they could change the leader the day after the election
pooh1234567890 1 year ago
If i see him (Gordon Brown) i can't believe anything he says... its just his presentation not what he says.
xzaz2 1 year ago
Nice except who the fuck voted for Gordon Brown????????HMMMMMMMM ........
What a puppet for a the NWO.
Adnan248999 1 year ago
A friend told me about the GiveYourVote-project:
"UK policies affect millions of people worldwide, on issues such as climate change, poverty, migration and war.
However, only a minority UK citizens has a say in the political process.
This is not only unjust, but often disastrous for those affected. We believe people should have an equal say in the politics that affect them.
In the 2010 UK elections, were making this happen."
twitter . com/giveyourvote
facebook . com/giveyourvote
GlobalDemocracyNews 1 year ago
if you want genuine global democracy, then voteworldparliament.
TheModestAgnostic 1 year ago
the new wourld order frame work is now compleat. gopanhagen. unalected dictators will control ,wake up if your not already wide awake. before its all to late. the pen is mighter than the sorwd
fingleweed 1 year ago
Spelling is important.
TheModestAgnostic 1 year ago
I cluod not blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch sudty at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in wrods are the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist & lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae The rset can be a taotl mses & you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef but the wrod as a wlohe & I thgouht slpeling was ipmorantt
Slavestorms 1 year ago
well done gordon!! i think he did well here!! nice to see him smiling naturally!
fishakid 2 years ago
If Gordon Brown had involvement of Global Leadership the poorer countries would not elect someone that has NO IDEA what Equality is..
Carbon Tax is yet to come in, this will be global currency and a new era of global control with little to no choice in science and reason.
I fear Science will dictate just as religion would, whats real to the global elite and whats not, disease, injections & global warming myth/weather modification,this cannot be questioned by us, we are prisoners to their agenda.
tommyaceshow 2 years ago
What's worse than big government? Big global government!
djangothecat 2 years ago
the point is the system we are facing is on a global scale. and there are already global structures and interests in operation which are under no democratic control whatsoever. if we want to tackle the problem we need some kind of global government. i know our governments don't work these days. but we can learn from the failures and use that knowledge to create a better version. i can't see another way to go. do you?
fatalmystic 2 years ago
I would like to see a female sword swallower.
Notsorandomnumbers 2 years ago 4
Why is everything with Gordon Brown being voted down? Lots of Brits here who don't like his domestic politics and have no idea what TED is about, or what?
Gnometower 2 years ago
thats right, we hate his domestic politics because he is self serving where both his personal beliefs (marxist social assumptions) and where his poltical future is concerned
Syphered08 2 years ago
Put it this way, we utterly despise Tony Blair for obvious reasons...Gordon is 10 times worse. He is a despicable fuck-head and has continued to shame the UK to a point where we are now as (if not more) unpopular than the US globally. And the fact that he constantly brings religion into politics and talks about civil liberties while imposing even more draconian laws restricting protest and free speech is disgusting and hypocritical. I could rant on for hours but I love TED too much to taint it.
killalmostwise 1 year ago
There is only self-interest for all perceptions can be traced to one's own brain and perception is the "stuff" that makes up life.
cherylwens 2 years ago
Gordon Brown failed to sufficiently address the question. The question is a common question presented on a larger scale, that of self-interest vs the common good. With the "self" referring to a single country and the "common good" referring to the global good.
phyte0450 2 years ago
IMO, the problem with the current situation is you have governments/national institutions which have the RESPONSIBILITY to look after the interest of its people. Government officials were elected by the nation's citizens to look after their interest. This is exactly why Chris Anderson raised the question to Gordon Brown of the time he will see a politician pushing a platform that focuses on delivering the "global good" rather than one that just delivers the self-interest of that nation.
phyte0450 2 years ago
It's human nature to want to preserve one's self first.IMO, to achieve a global ethic, the first thing that needs to be done is to let go of the concept of national governments and to establish a global institution.
Thoughts?
phyte0450 2 years ago
Global institutions don't work and will never work for the following reasons: 1. whoever leads them will have too much power to make subjective absolute decisions. 2. Governing/ruling/administrating large entities is tougher than doing the same for smaller entities. A "global" entity would be impossible to govern properly.
3. Human emotions (pride, greed, corruption, etc).
DrQuijano 2 years ago
@DrQuijano
1. I think you're referring to dictatorships not global institutions that have the right mechanisms to balance out power such as having separate bodies concerned with the creation, implementation, and enforcement of laws. (executive, legislative and judiciary).
2. You can say this for any institution. How big is big? How small is small? People didn't probably imagine countries (governments) before.
3. This problem exists not only in global institutions. Invalid argument for this.
phyte0450 2 years ago
Comment removed
thanks2all 2 years ago
I think he addressed it wonderfully. He stated his views simply and clearly: The world is better off accepting whatever England and USA want - that is what's best for the world.
2:44
I don't think I agree with him.
DrQuijano 2 years ago 2
"The world is better off accepting whatever England and USA want - that is what's best for the world."
Seriously?
phyte0450 2 years ago 7
Comment removed
dave597 2 years ago
TED is one of the few lights in and for humanity.
lordrazi111693 2 years ago
What stops individuals from NOT being slaves of large companies? Would you be incarcerated if you've rejected a job offer from General Electric? It's misplaced greed that is the heart of the problem. People ambitious enough to want to earn lots of money, dumb enough to be "enslaved" by big corporations. Again, they've only themselves to blame.
cherylwens 2 years ago
I suppose you have the same wisdom to offer to poor countries upon which the IMF forced an oligopoly of big companies.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
The world biggest restaurant is McDonald's, not some michelin-starred restaurant like El Bulli. Why? Because capitalism accedes to the needs of the ignorant masses, those with enough money to waste it.
cherylwens 2 years ago
This probably the worst stand up comedy routine I've ever seen.
But seriously folks, this is really quite inane. She is from the generation, or close to it, that has helped unleash this demon onto our culture. After showing her own vulgarity & courseness, she goes onto complain when the culture of vulgarity she celebrates goes beyond the bounds she can tolerate.
It incomparably stupid to insist that abstinance campaigns won't work when they have worked for 1,000s of years.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
All objectivity derive from cultural relativism.
cherylwens 2 years ago
btw, no one is talking about a one World government.
This is about building a global community which is stable and fair
Currently, the "people" factor is segregated from the global process and all we share is money and products who just create exploitation and poverty.
It is about correcting what is wrong with the globalization process.
(And yes, political opinionated people please bugger off)
SophosVII 2 years ago
The Global Justice Movement has been working on this for decades
SophosVII 2 years ago
Yes because creating a 'stable and fair' world is not interference, it's perfectly acceptable for people to meddle in the affairs of poor nations, to enforce their views on what people should have and how they should work. And if to achieve that they force one type of government & destroy other systems of living then that's all good.
Global Justice Movement, maybe a better description could be Socialist Imperialism.
Rundogz 2 years ago
Weren't the only one's prepared for the tsunami the remote tribes and the animals that felt something coming? Seems like we dismissed our warning systems.
gusphraba 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they are gonna bring in the one world currency anyway, i think we should all take our cash out of the banks and crash the system.... why not stay off work for a couple of days three :) maybe even burn the odd note or two. :) then we the people can take the power back. the Politicians work for us.
alzombie 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
alzombie 2 years ago
Politicians not wanted here thanks. Bugger off.
robzrob 2 years ago 2
Global Individual Equality - YES
Global Government - NO
Careful Gordon or we'll think you're promoting a New World Order again on the back of nice sounding lies.
Obama nobell peace prize. Gore Carbon Billionaire. Blair £2 Million pa JP Morgan. Federal Reserve privately owned. GE, Haliburton, BAE profits from war. Baxter release 72kg live Bird Flu.
globalbankfraud 2 years ago 2
it's a shame an official from the number one (oppressing, resource sucking and narcissist country in history) talks about GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP I hope the intention and deeds meet his words. Because if you ask me, I don't trust an English person...why, because they are the culture of discipline and manor accompanied by Grand theft of auto of another nations.
megalibra82 2 years ago
You obviously know nothing about Britain and it's history, or you'd know that by the standards of world super powers they were far less oppressive and did more good for people than any other empire. Moreover, the intellectual forebears of liberalism such as John Stuart Mill were overwhelmingly British. Not to mention Britain's role in defeating Hitler whilst most nations lined up to suck his cock and help with the holocaust. Or the fact 50% of inventions are attributable to the British...
John1Rawls 2 years ago
It offends my sense of morality but I'm more offended by the stupidity of this "billionaire playboy". This is why money can sometimes be vulgar. Populism and anti-intellectualism come to mind. How good is a society when those at the top of the hierachy are oil merchants and money lenders i.e bankers? Make no mistake about it. I love money. It buys manual labour. But it can never buy refinement and intelligence. Better a "bel esprit" than a "billionaire" (although my ambition is to be both lol)
cherylwens 2 years ago
Exactly. Adrew Carnegie was an example of both great spirit and amazing entrepreneurial skill. Take a look at Rockefellers - did they earn their money because of how intelligent they are or how hard they worked? No, they inherited their fortune. Bankers are modern nobility. Most of them come from a families that were already in the business. There's no one new. Still the same names after 5 and more decades.
asmodeus585 2 years ago
Morality is a human constuct, designed to help individuals best survive in a community. Simply calling right wingers "selfish" does not discredit them at all. At least not in my opinion.
cherylwens 2 years ago
I'd argue it's more a natural consequence of our evolution than a human construct; given that humans are social animals and require a system of morality to bind and regulate communities, we have evolved the psychological predispositions which are the building blocks of morality.
But that's another debate. I wasn't trying to discredit right wingers by pointing to evidence that they're selfish, only challenge the crazy notion that left wingers are more selfish.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Serbfree, you don't get it, do you? The majority of Britain is white, it is not possible to make anti-white laws without major repercussions. And by the way, Gordon Brown is white, so why would he discriminate against his own "race".
Realy Brits? Do you mean the French, the Vikings, the Angles, the Saxons, the Normans, the Picts, the Romans, the Greeks or the Irish? Britains immigratory history is so complex that you are an interracial person yourself. Who is the real Brit? The First Brits?
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
In response to the thought experiment (which Gordon Brown surreptitiously dodged past): I would save whichever person(s) that best serve my self-interest. In this case, I would assumingly opt for the Nigerian family simply because seeing 5 human beings, of which a few might be vulnerable e.g children, women, die is much more tormenting than seeing one Brit die.
cherylwens 2 years ago
It's a bit tenuous trying to couch desires to avoid empathatic pain in terms of pursuing self interest. If you define self interest like that it has no meaning - you could say someone who devotes their life to charity is acting in self interest because they are fulfilling a strong desire to help others. Technically it's true, but it's not really what we mean by the term.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
@John1Rawls It is what I mean by the term. Altruism is self interest. There's no dichotomy that I see here. Empathy is one of human's many biological propensities. And fulfilling natural inclinations can often be good. Heck, even Hitler wanted to create an efficient car that his people can all afford. But of course, you have the liberty to believe that we are serving a greater good in acts of charity. As long as you feel good about it.
cherylwens 2 years ago
If that's the notion of self interest that you're employing, then sure, I agree. I think it also goes by the term 'tautological egoism' or something.
Although there were experiments recently that supposedly showed that as long as an empathatic link is establish, humans can be motivated to help others in need entirely independently of their own altruistic pleasure/pain at helping/not helping. It's still really self interest though, since the desire to help is of your own mind.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
What's wrong with survival of the fittest?
cherylwens 2 years ago
Because it is no longer Darwinism. Now, it is about technology, and who can shoot first, or who has more support, is not Darwinism. So "Survival of the Fittest" is no longer relavent, it is now Social Darwinism, which was, by the way, a nazi ideal.
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
By the way, if the idea of muslims living as free and equal citizens in Britain offends you so much, why not just retreat into fanasy? You could, say, imagine yourself stabbing muslim girl for daring to not be born into the same faith and race as you. Or what about slowly torturing an old muslim grandad to death? After all, they're not part of your culturally defined group so it's not like they are human, right?
It's your kind of attitude which keeps backward countries from progressing.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
You obviously don't have a clue. British crime statistics are far lower than those of more intolerant countries which persecute minorities. There is no anti-white discrimination enshrined in law whatsoever. You're just making shit up to justify your irrational hatred of different people.
Sorry, but for all your wishes the British people are simply too civilised to accept the BNP and Nazi state you pine for. We'll continue to be culturally diverse thanks - it's what brought us so much success.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
So, does Hitler's point sound familiar? Sound awefully similar to yours, which is all non whites(note how all whites are good, everyone else evil) are criminals, taking up OUR space, and making our culture impure.
One last thing, OBJECTIVE and ANALYTICAL??? Your whole spiel is basically, all blacks evil, all whites pure in mind and culture. GET RID OF EVIL BLACKS. Analytical?. You can't even be stuffed finding out what percentage of whites and whites are criminal, "ALL NON WHITES ARE CRIMS!!!!"
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
Part two of the response to your polemic diatribe. Genocide: "Is the Murder of a whole community or race." There is no murder, absolutely none. Interbreeding is not murder. And also, WHITE is not a race. Neither is black. Included in the "white" race: Slavs, Caucasian, Germans, Scandinavians, Greeks, etc. You don't seem to realise that.
So you're not a racist? Would you agree Hitler was a (self proclaimed) racist?Okay, these people are spoiling our culture, taking up space and killing people
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
Oh dear, serbfree, what delusion are you living in? May I mention right now, that I do not call a person a single word before I look it up. A Racist is one who is racist, and racism is the exclusion, ridiculing, etc. of one because of or based on their race. (I looked that up in the dictionary).
And a moron is one with an IQ of between 35 to 50(yes, I looked that up too).
YOU ARE BEING RACIST!
Stop fooling yourself. There is no genocide. Interbreeding is not KILLING a race.
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
Ethnic cleansing and genocide eh? That sounds serious. Would you please provide more details of white British people being killed by the government for reasons of ethnic purity? Oh wait, you equate 'not killing muslims' with 'killing whites'.
I for one wish all BNP supporters would fuck off and form their own country, then the rest of us with half a brain could sit back and laugh as the population of incredibly stupid, cowardly and insecure little men failed to achieve a single notable thing.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
I mean, imagine if the BNP achieved their dream and all got to live in an all-white Nazi utopia. Without an out group to persecute, they'd lose their only real purpose in life. Most likely they'd have to find some other irrelevant difference to make a big deal about other than race, like hair colour, and descend into a war of blondes versus brunettes. Without tolerance, a country cannot succeed. That's why Britain has done so well for itself - tolerance is the most British of values.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Welcome to the N.W.O
goodvibes03 2 years ago
The Pirate Party! The world's first international political party.
LudicrousTachyon 2 years ago
Yeah, I'm sure that's just around the corner. We don't round up and torture muslims to death for daring to not be christian, and therefore we are submitting to their cultural values, right?
It's a shame so many people are so cowardly when it comes to cultural change that they actually contemplate these extreme, non-sensical nightmares of a muslim state arising if we don't treat 'the other' as second class citizens.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
@serbfree Hey you do realise you are being a racist? There's no sort of, you are being an exact example of a racist. Now that that's out of the way.
You do realise that not 100% of crime is asian? Let's just say, for argument's sake, 60% of crime is by "Asians", that means that there is a lot of non-Asian crime. This is what you racists always do, you generalise: Since the "majority" of crime is by Asians(it isn't, by the way), all Asian are evil, and all whites(even if criminal) are crimeless
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
Taken to task by Daniel Hannan? The guy who is widely regarded as a traitor in Britain because he unfairly attacked the NHS and only wants those born rich to have access to healthcare?
Thankfully there's nothing British about the BNP - their authoritarian and intolerant values are distinctly un-British. They're a joke - Britain didn't achieve what it did with their attitude. Sorry mate, if you wanna live in a country that does support your backward desires how about moving to Saudi Arabia?
John1Rawls 2 years ago
he just wants to put his dick in africa so he can have all there natural reasouces.
joely1987c 2 years ago 3
Wow, what a talk! I am sure the fellows at TED were thrilled to hear this one. I wonder if TED would have entertained the same talk from someone else...
2323jimmy23 2 years ago
@reveal1967 Presumably you're against American hegemony then?
brett18uk 2 years ago
I subsribe to Plato. Using his famous allegory of prisoners in a cave, he describes that it is better to be the poorest man in the universe and yet have gained knowledge, than to go back the enlightened way of life.
Truth is subjective.
Knowledge is objective.
OverHedge99 2 years ago
come to a town hall in the U.S. and talk your crap Brown and see what happens
linkin622 2 years ago
@linkin622 All the crazed neo-cons would just get their guns out and start mouthing off as they stuffed their faces with burgers. So thanks, but I think he'll politely decline your request, we don't need that crap in the United Kingdom thanks.
brett18uk 2 years ago
oh thats right i heard that ya'll turned in your guns....so you cant give anyone any crap......governments should fear the people keep your eye on the U.S. come2010 lots of our "leaders" are gonna get , how do you unarmed sheep say it ? oh right SACKED
linkin622 2 years ago
Yep, we gave up our guns. We forced the government to ban them. We were fed up of children being slaughtered in schools. What awful people we must be.
brett18uk 2 years ago 2
Oh thats cool did all your criminals turn them in too ? No ? Good luck with that then....future victim
linkin622 2 years ago
Our criminals never had them in the first place. We have very, very minor gun crime in the UK. Mostly it's knives, which have far less potential for the kind of mass murders you get in the US.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
mostly its knives ? dude think about what your saying...does it really matter to a victim of a violent crime whether he got stabbed to death or shot to death...my point is he should be free to decide if he wants to be able to defend himself and his family or depend on someone else..like me to shoot his attacker
linkin622 2 years ago
No.... Some of them did.... But you know what did reduce after the banning of bearing firearms, massacres like Virginia Tech.
Do you have any idea how many people are killed when some "psycho" decides to go into a restaurant, or a school, or even the streets, and decides to kill people? Here they report on only the major ones..... many a year. That is what the government tries to reduce. Deaths as a result of firearms reduced drastically, and when they do, it was unavoidable, even with a gun.
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
Let me rephrase that. After the banning of carrying firearms, deaths as a result of them dropped drastically, and often when people were killed by them, it was unavoidable, like for example while they were sleeping. It was extremely effective in reducing deaths as a result of crime overall.
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
So what you're saying, is you need to bear arms, to protect yourself from people who..... bear arms?
ciliaspippi 2 years ago
YES arms of any kind guns ,knives ,clubs etc. etc. ....what do you have ...a phone ?
linkin622 2 years ago
We are not preaching to you. Keep your disgusting guns if you want, along with your blow up dolls of George Bush who devastated the planet. We don't want a gun culture thanks. It's our prerogative, just as it's your prerogative to maintain a gun culture that ends in the slaughter of thousands of people each year. That's your choice. We've made ours and we are quite happy with the decision we've made thanks, as are the parents of those children slaughtered by guns in our country priot to the ban.
brett18uk 2 years ago
disgusting guns ? if a golf club was used as murder weapon are golf clubs then disgusting ? or is the person who uses it for that purpose ? a gun is a tool and nothing more and just like any other tool it can be misused.........blow up doll ? really ? grow up .....devastated the planet ? i think not , keep the drama to a minimum plz
linkin622 2 years ago
If Gordon Brown was a real humanitarian he would go jump off a bridge.
chaseef 2 years ago
haha I completely disagree with the point your making, but it was well made and made me chuckle :)
brett18uk 2 years ago
So, Gordon Brown spends 17 minutes and 57 seconds to tell us that there needs to be international cooperation. Where did the English get this guy?
addicted2rpg 2 years ago
@addicted2rpg I think you mean BRITISH, bearing in mind he is the BRITISH Prime Minister and is infact a Scot, not English.
brett18uk 2 years ago
Civil rights in the US was a fleeting moment. The Gordon Brown's of the world have been stealing these rights piece by piece for decades - Might makes right "bullyism".
jebmurphy 2 years ago
It's great to see a national leader on TedTalks.
ErichoTTA 2 years ago
What he means is one world control, nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.
People like Brown are trying to engineer a global communist state with everything they disagree with sanctioned.
They work with large globalist multinationalists to remove freedom, buy up government & enforce conformity to their twisted view.
The world is huge, there should be seperation, should be people living in forests or mud huts. there should be freedom to live how you want, but these control freaks dont want that.
Rundogz 2 years ago
Please.. look up what "communism" means, read up on history, stop quoting FOX News and use you brain.
dominice112 2 years ago 3
So if you believe in the ultimate value of freedom, I assume you want people to be born into a situation where they are most free to pursue their own path in life.
So I assume you wouldn't want people being born into a situation of poverty where they couldn't possibly have any freedom to choose anything other than survive.
So I assume you support a global system of redistribution, given that the very richest gain less freedom from their excess resources than the poorest would if they had it.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Someone born in a mud hut in Namibia isn't poor, they only become poor when cretins in the 'developed' world force their monetery system and values on them. Ultimately people like Brown meddling in Africa only helps to create poverty.
People in the monetery world are not free, they are chained by money, freedom is only for the elite like Brown, whose earnings allow some choice.
Globalisation will only ever create mass poverty & relative slavery for the many.
Rundogz 2 years ago 3
Heh, you sound like the French anthropologist who claimed that the idea that smallpox is a bad thing is a western notion, and so it was culturally insensitive of Britain to distribute vaccines in India.
I'm sorry but material deprivation isn't a pleasant thing no matter what country you're born in. Sure, relative deprivation is also a bad thing, but this isn't something the west has forced on anyone - there's always been inequality in all socities.
Primitivism is so outmoded.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
So the alternative is you drag/force people from the bush to have them die in abject poverty.
Without birth control there never will be material comfort, only an ever increasing mass of deprived. Redistribution of wealth /globalisation at the current birth rate only ensures that those in the 'material' world will become poor whilst a few in the poor world will get a few more possessions.
And all the while those at the top like Brown & the few who fund him will become vastly richer.
Rundogz 2 years ago
Uh...where'd you get the idea that material aid would be forced on people, or that it couldn't possibly be coupled with birth control?
I don't understand your argument - material resources aren't good for people, and yet redistribution is bad because it would make those who are currently rich poor? Sounds to me you just want the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor and are justifying it by claiming that the poor really like the position they are in.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Globalisation means that the poor in western countries are having their jobs redistributed to the 3rd world simply because we have no trade protection & the people there have to work for next to nothing. Obviously this is yet to destroy the more well off & those with featherbed government paid jobs, but it will.
Brown & co are not redistributing wealth, they are creating slaves. Int. socialism/globalisation is not about wealth for the many, it is poverty for the many & wealth for the few.
Rundogz 2 years ago
He's not talking about economic globalisation; he's talking on global cooperation on international issues such as climate change. It's strange you equate global economic liberalisation with socialism - surely economic freedom is something conservatives/libertarians strive for? International socialism is more about instituting global equality and the protection of human rights. If anything it stands against economic globalisation if it would increase inequality.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
But he is an internationalist socialist & he sees nothing wrong with redistributing jobs from the west to the third world.
Today for instance 1700 UK steel workers sacked because people like Brown have helped to redistribute their jobs & that's just today.
He talks about the west giving money to help poorer countries deal with global warming when the fastest growing polluters are 3rd world countries because globalists like him are engineering the shift of jobs to lower paid 3rd world 'slaves'.
Rundogz 2 years ago
Gordon Brown is hardly a socialist. He's barely left of centre. This support of global free market economics you attribute to him would be a captialist aspect of his politics.
The argument for subsidising the 3rd world is so that they can develop their economies in a way which isn't polluting, which is more expensive. If left to their own, they could rightly claim that every developed country has polluted, so why not them? They're going to develop themselves either way, it's human nature.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Given that ever country that has applied far left politics has failed & given that even communist China has embraced capitalism then deciding how far left Brown is can only be judged by what he does.
Signing the UK into a totalitarian EU state without a vote. Leaving thousands to freeze to death in the UK this winter while spending 10 billion on foreign 'aid'. Preciding over the worst invasion of privacy & human rights in UK history.
Like all leftists he feathers his own nest at our expense.
Rundogz 2 years ago
You really don't understand a thing about politics whatsoever, or you'd know how contradictory you're being. Refusing to give aid to freezing people is a right wing policy - it reflects the attitude that those who can't afford to heat their homes deserve their fate and should suffer for it. The same attitude which causes them to oppose the social safety net and institutions like the NHS which help the 'filthy plebs' at the expense of those with more money than sense.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Given that much of Nazi Germanys political ideology was actually socialist then to pin the term right or left as to whether a pensioner freezes to death is a joke. But then the left likes to pretend that all 'nice' policies are theirs & the nasty people are everyone who doesn't act like them.
The truth is that socialism has a history of brutality, murder & failure.
Is Brown helping the 'plebs' by destroying their jobs, is Brown helping the 'plebs' by deliberately destroying their security?
Rundogz 2 years ago
No - because Brown isn't a socialist, the point i've been making all along. If he was, his first priority would be the welfare of the people - not maximising the wealth of those already born wealthy, which is characteristic of right wing politics.
Nazi Germany called themselves 'national socialists' in order to appease the communists. If you knew anything about their policies, you'd understand they had a completely different model for both the economy and society.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Actually the Nazi method of appeasing communists was with a club or a bullet but that's another story.
So what measure is there of what a 'socialist 'is. Is it industrial based socialism as was followed to destruction in Russia. Is it Maoist socialism eating itself up in a paranoid drive to create a universal peasentry. Or is it socialism Blair/Brown style, where they drip feed communism while working hand in glove with multinationals, removing freedom/identity, creating universal subjugation
Rundogz 2 years ago
By the way, psychological evidence suggests that those with right wing views tend to be more selfish, more willing to cheat others and less easily motivated to help people. Which isn't really surprising, since right wing philosophy is generally based on the idea that humans are universally as selfish, greedy and morally bankrupt as themselves.
How does that figure into your view that left wingers only wish to feather their own nests?
John1Rawls 2 years ago
'psychological evidence suggests' that's a subjective observation not a fact.
But if we take facts as a basis from which to draw political conclusions than we could note that:
China under communism has seen the murder of approx 100 to 120 million for not being left wing enough.
Cambodia 1.2 to 3 million murdered for not being good communist stock.
Stalinist Russia, at least 20 million murdered for not being suitably socialist.
So for the leftists like Brown, the facts speak for themselves.
Rundogz 2 years ago
No, not subjective observation - empirical fact. Read Batson's study.
So, presumably because of Pinochet's actions in Chile, capitalism is all about rounding up one's political opponents and torturing them slowly to death?
And if a guy bombs an orphanage and says it was done in the name of capitalism, it thereby proves that capitalism is evil, right?
Socialism is a political ideology. It places the values of equality, social justice and community spirit over economic freedom. Nothing more.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Socialism was effectively born in the Terror of revolutionary France with the 50k murdered for not being revolutionary enough, and you might quote Pinochet but he's a bit player compared to genocide & mass murder of socialist despots.
Thing is I dont actually support an ism, but you do, the ism that has a history of mass murder.
Nice values you quote there, like the big round eyes of the big bad wolf, but the reality of socialism is very different, it's no different to Fascism.
Rundogz 2 years ago
I'm not even a socialist. I just think it's pretty weak to attack anyone who believes in certain ideals just because some people happen to have used those ideals as a way of gaining and abusing power in the past.
Even Marx said at the end of his life "All I know is that I am no Marxist.", and that was before his ideas were abused to the extent they were by the USSR and China.
Do you honestly believe that there's some hidden agenda of socialism itself to bring suffering to the world?
John1Rawls 2 years ago
By the way, the French revolution was more liberal than socialist. Moreover it's generally accepted by the French that the revolution was worth it - innocent people died but then far more were dying at the hands of the idle nobility. Arguably it didn't fundamentally change much, but you can hardly make a convincing case that things were a lot better under absolutism. Unless you judge a society by how it treats those born richest.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
I didn't say that revolutionary France was socialist, only that it was effectively born there. The notion that there is a collective form of government which justifies mass murder in its defence & impletation.
The fact that the Terror killed thousands of the poor & revolutionaries as well as nobility has no doubt escaped you.
Socialism is a them and us mindset, like Aryan & Jew Fascism. It is a hate fueled philosophy, the idea isn't abused when it leads to murder, murder is its pure expression.
Rundogz 2 years ago
I really do suggest you go read The Communist Manifesto if you want to understand the theory of socialism, as distinct from its historical manifestations. You sound to have just lapped up all this anti-socialist propaganda - you don't really know what it is all about, you just associate it with all that governments have ever done wrong.
Socialism might talk a lot about class divisions, but it ultimately strives to demolish them for the good of all, not just the workers.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
Yes, but you forget about human nature, & socialism is a blueprint which sounds 'nice' but actually leads to the destruction of human rights and murder.
I have actually read the communist party manifesto, I have actually pretended to be one to understand the mindset & I found no difference between it and the worst expression of Fascism.
Fascism ultimately is just as good on paper, but in reality human nature changes it.
Socialism says it cares, but actually socialists only care about the ism.
Rundogz 2 years ago
What about human nature? Socialism has it's own theory of human nature - that it is determined by social relations, and thus if you build a socialist society human nature will improve to meet its needs. I don't agree with that but it's no worse than the capitalist 'everyone is greedy and selfish' bollocks, which empirical psychology refutes.
As I say, I'm no socialist, but if you just portray it as just pure evil like you're doing you undermine the valid points which can be made against it.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
So you want to sideline the violent history of socialism so that we can focus on say its effect on freedom or scientific advancement, which is a bit like ignoring the fact that snake has a deadly bite, focusing instead on the fact that it has a slippery skin.
Most UK political socialists for instance show a publicly acceptable version of their personal views, the left knows that the public will not accept their totalitarian system overnight, they are instead inching us into the socialist abyss
Rundogz 2 years ago
You're confusing the theory and practice once more. Hiding behind an ethically-attractive theory is the best way of covering the backs of those who want to gain power. Think of socialism like christianity - the fact of the crusades doesn't mean Jesus propagated violent conquest.
Yeah, sure, every British socialist really wants a totalitarian state. Just like every right winger wants to abolish the NHS, state education and police and enslave all those born poor under wealthy buisness owners...
John1Rawls 2 years ago
But the reason we end up with the poor living as bonded slaves is because capitalism has that dark element lurking at its core. Just as socialism has murderous oppression & the destruction of human freedom lurking at its core.
Socialism like Christianity, well yes. Both have sought to enforce their particular view of the world through eradication of the opposition and violence. Both consider their doctrine to be the only acceptable way. Both lead to totalitarian control & stagnation.
Rundogz 2 years ago
I don't think a tenet of capitalism is the ideal of inequality and lack of social justice , nor is authoritarianism a value of socialism. They might be an inevitable outcome of the ideologies when they're put into practice, but you can't claim they're 'at the core' of the ideologies. They're unintended side effects.
Again, i'm talking about the theories themselves, not the way they've been implemented historically. I agree christianity has brought suffering - doesn't mean it's evil itself
John1Rawls 2 years ago
But if some gentle nursery rhyme appeared innocent & yet was so worded to push some deep psychological button so that the child would grow up into a psychopath, then would that make the rhyme evil, or merely an incidental cause of evil.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter where the blame lies, all that matters is the consequences.
Socialism is such a rhyme, seemingly virtuous, but its application leads to evils. That's why there are so many examples of socialist mass murder.
Rundogz 2 years ago
The point is that all ideologies that have been implemented have been associated with human suffering. Russia was just as bad under the Tsar's as it was under communism and it's little better under capitalism - the extent of the suffering is dictated by the national culture, which promotes totalitarianism in all its forms. I think the message is that all human political theories have tragic consequences. That's why any extreme generally ends in tears - capitalism, conservatism or socialism.
John1Rawls 2 years ago
@John1Rawls Has anyone tried "Ubermensch" yet? Maybe the ills of society have to do with culture instead of governance? China's thriving under socialism, aren't they? But I've to agree with you. Extremism usually produces negative results for its proponents often lack the flexibility for varying problems. But let's give extreme ubermensch a chance, yeah?
cherylwens 2 years ago
@Rundogz So what do you propose we do for the poor? Enslave the rich? Capitalism simply makes poverty more salient because they have no safety nets to hide behind. The poor are not poor because some rich man rob them of their lands and graze their fields. They are poor because they fail to satisfy the needs of the market.They've only themselves to blame although I'm not exactly sure why poverty is necessarily an evil. We do live in an anti-intellectual society that values money over intelligence
cherylwens 2 years ago
I think the poor are poor because most often they are born or are forced into a situation where they have no options. Other people 'own' 'the land, other people have taken their birthright by fair means or foul.
I wouldn't enslave the rich, but I do think that society fails to give people opportunity & birthright. Large companies destroy freedom and individual wealth. People should be given the means to have something to offer. Be it land & crops, a trade or skill, rather than being slaves.
Rundogz 2 years ago
International corporate interests do amazing things in advancing technology and perhaps present the opportunity to right some of the world's wrongs, but they shouldn't force the necessity of a global government to protect their interests, much less the increase of taxes and prices in an extended financial crisis.
33115566 2 years ago
Lets not for get that the unelected "Prime Minister" Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for nearly 10 years prior to no being elected PM.
It was Brown's "I've abolished boom and bust" arrogance that lead the "UK" into recession. The man is responsible for failing to see the dangers and to take action to protect us.
The man is worse than useless.
Wyrdtimes 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I was excited when Gordon Brown promised to make Africa and poverty a top priority during a speech made to the Labour party a couple of years ago. Happy to see that he is still talking about tackling these issues. Well done!
calumlittle 2 years ago
Stop killing Afghanis and producing weapons, and then tell us about ethics.
gadzometer 2 years ago 7
@gadzometer!!
Great comment , Your 12 words of logic, obliterated his 17 minutes of rhetoric.
themindminder 2 years ago
Seeing a politician in TED = bad.
Hearing a politician in TED talk about global responsibility = much worse.
sudiin 2 years ago 10
Understand this man is talking about taking the productive jobs out of industrialized countries and moving them to 3rd world nations where slave...i mean cheap labor is found. Thus breaking down industrialized economies(as it is happening now) only to have the process repeated in 100 years. "Global citizens" ..more like global slaves. What a joke.
hearingjuan 2 years ago 5
it all sounds good when the people at TED are talking about globalism. if the kind of people who are at TED would make good global leaders but they arnt the kind of people who obtain political power. only sociopaths are capable of achieving political office. globalism will simply put even more power in the hands of even fewer people.
borderlinebuddhist 2 years ago
Police State Britain - which we all detest - is no doubt the price that has to be paid for 'global citizenship'. Let's all look forward to the Global Police State which is coming.
SilvaSkaduwee 2 years ago 3
@fingleweed
Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd was also caught on video picking earwax out of his ear and eating it. lol
(do a youtube search for Kevin Rudd Ear wax)
themindminder 2 years ago
Post politicians on TED? Ok.
Current politicians on TED? Bad idea. TED is a platform for franknes (in my opinion) and you can just feel the squirming and evading politician speak from Gordon. What say you?
Zoiros85 2 years ago 4
A Summary of the Communist Manifesto:
Abolition of private property, heavy progressive income tax, abolition of all right of inheritance, central bank, government control of communications, transportation, factories, labor, farms, regional planning, and control of education.
winslowwind 2 years ago 2
There is so much wrong, with so many points that he makes, that It is not hard to understand why with 'leaders' like him, that there is so many wars and so much poverty and suffering in the world.
themindminder 2 years ago
Fatass dummy with huge head.
strandwolf 2 years ago
What he needs is a slow painful death!
Truthtolder 2 years ago
This is a man not speaking his own words. None of it was from within, I found this very unconvincing. There are uncontrollable homelessness issues within the UK. Why not focus on your own problems, which is why you get paid. To believe this crusade into deprived countries out of compassion to help others is just pushing it too far. Somebody smells the bucks and wants to jump in!
2323jimmy23 2 years ago
Can't beleive the comments.
What a bunch of whiners. Personally, I think Brown was genuine and his point was way ahead of his time.
Those of you who are from Britain don't appriciate what you have in your country. Your politicians, despite all the cock-ups like expense scandal and illegal wars, are still the best in the world.
payman4392 2 years ago
Having lots of different individual countries is great.
You know, anything can happen and tyranny can come back anywhere.
Imagine if a one world government became totalitarian. If the USSR was the only government on earth would it's citizens have ever known freedom?
Epic878787 2 years ago 2
New World Order is bad. Global citizenship will eliminate the USA!
We are free because of our Constitution and our God Given Rights and no one gives us our Freedom!
winslowwind 2 years ago
we give ourselves freedom of participation as a mutual pact. A new world government, even if it eliminated countries like the USA, isn't a bad thing necessarily. You don't know what sort of changes would occur if such a situation were to happen.
also, just a pure logical thing; if no one gives us our freedom, then how can we have freedom?
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
big brotherism, pure propaganda. this man needs to be shot in the head!
b068755c 2 years ago
This Man is just a small part of a very big EVIL Agenda!!
lacey5842 2 years ago
What did this guy say that warrants punching him in the face?? Protect genocide victims? Encourage ethics and politics to operate with the whole world in mind, not just self-interest or creeds? Having a single dominating world government would be dangerous, but he's just pointing out the need for people to pull their heads out of their asses and realize our actions have an impact on others--which means both that some unsustainable practices must stop, but also humanitarian things must be done
theseanze 2 years ago
There is no one world. Its only one government. No free trade, only one system controlling all trade.
Almost 1million people were killed in UN's trade sanctions on Iraq in the 90's. Gaza has become the world's biggest prison and Iran can't do any trade with most countries in the world only because they have decided to go against the interests of Israel and USA.
This is the one world. Where every muslim needs to think twice before entering USA incase he's taken in as a suspected terrorist!
afthefragile 2 years ago 3
Brown doing what they do best. Fooling the masses!
marcusjansen239369 2 years ago 3
Gordon Brown, please visit Canada so I can personally punch you in the face. You are scum.
That is all.
Unkn0wnGuy 2 years ago 5
Brown is too vague and only asserts Western Imperialism on the EAST.
MajNorberg 2 years ago
Why can't this dipshit just leave the world alone and let them live the way they want to?!
Why do these guys have to go around imposing their ideals of life and society over other countries and societies?
This is colonialism all over again. Just in a much more subtle and less brutal way. Though none the less imposing your ideals on other nations and controlling them through IMF, World Bank, foreign restrictions, wars and food shortages.
afthefragile 2 years ago 3
if that's the case, why have any nationalized government at all? why have a state or regional government? why local government? why not just anarchy?
government isn't just a fairly decent thing, it's a necessary thing. and as times change it's pertinent to change policies. Arguably the people making those decisions are doing it poorly, but change needs to happen if peoples opinions change. Otherwise our social species will fail.
Zetimenvec 2 years ago