Russell Brand's alternative politics

[Bonzo77 13]

 

its a bit rich for Brand to carp on about wealth when he enjoys its fruits. 15 million last count :suspect:However, I think an argument against Brand's position should be as follows:

 

Conditional redistribution is a bit limp intellectually. If greater equality is good in and of itself and Brand is committed to that principle then he should be redistributing from himself to poorer people - surely doing so if and only if even richer people do it as well (especially if compelled to do so) rather undermines the moral rectitude of his position?

 

He is doing.

 

By doing so himself he strengthens his argument, he doesn't leave himself open to charges of champagne socialism. He also avoids the "Guardian trap" of claiming that inequality is wrong, but obviously excluding his own considerable wealth or arbitrarily setting the bar at a level that is just above what one deems enough to be a comfortable life.

 

As I said above, he is giving his wealth away. But I think you're missing the point. Brand pays his taxes, he doesn't exploit any loopholes. There will always be rich and poor people. He's not saying otherwise.

 

Its always suspicious when someone takes a moral position that doesn't require any personal compromises.

 

Again, he has made compromises, he's virtually a full time activist at the moment and dedicates his time and money to helping people.

 

Why do you think it's suspicious when someone like Brand does this, yet you're happy to listen to someone who's gone to public school and knows nothing about what it's like to be a poor person?

which is a good thing I suppose so long as it gets you off your playstation and youtube, but you have to bear in mind that he omits the difficult bits that elected politicians cannot avoid. Brand can avoid policy prescriptions because, like many celebrities who espouse political views, he can get away with uttering witty banalities that avoid detail. In this respect he is part of a disturbing phenomenon, the worship of unaccountable comedians who are not especially funny and who are limited in their perceptions. There was a time when audiences would turn up to hear political orators. Now they pay homage to the celebrities as they express their disdain for politicians.

 

Don't patronise me, I don't even won a sodding playstation! I spend my time being productive.

 

Why have people stopped listening to politicians is what you should be asking, not why do people listen to Russell Brand. Celebrities have always had a dig at politicians, it's nothing new. Brand isn't doing g it to try and be funny either.

[Waldo 96]

Had to laugh at The Sun 'newspaper' taking him on. Are the editor mentally dim or something, are they trying to give him additional exposure and make themselves look stupid in to the bargain?

 

They best thing (from their POV) they could do would be ignore him.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

Had to laugh at The Sun 'newspaper' taking him on. Are the editor mentally dim or something, are they trying to give him additional exposure and make themselves look stupid in to the bargain?

 

They best thing (from their POV) they could do would be ignore him.

 

He's ruffling feathers, they can't understand why somebody who's in the black is being cynical.

[Waldo 96]

He's ruffling feathers, they can't understand why somebody who's in the black is being cynical.

 

I'm no fan of RB either (though I dislike him a lot less than I do The Sun). But yeah, he's clearly playing them, and it's working a treat!

[Stan Tamudo 10]

I'm no fan of RB either (though I dislike him a lot less than I do The Sun). But yeah, he's clearly playing them, and it's working a treat!

 

I've had my doubts but he's very passionate. He's had his problems like most of us but he seems less self obsessed these days. I enjoy watching and listening to him, he's beat his demons and I find him a decent and caring human being. I can't understand why anyone hates him?

[Waldo 96]

I can't understand why anyone hates him?

 

I find him to be sensationalist, thoughtless and a bit reckless with other people's feelings. What he did with Andrew Sachs told me everything I'll ever want to know about his character (also, I dislike Jonathan Ross).

[Stan Tamudo 10]

I find him to be sensationalist, thoughtless and a bit reckless with other people's feelings. What he did with Andrew Sachs told me everything I'll ever want to know about his character (also, I dislike Jonathan Ross).

 

That was bloody awful, but he's moved on and maybe that was the catalyst for him becoming a more thoughtful human being.

[Waldo 96]

That was bloody awful, but he's moved on and maybe that was the catalyst for him becoming a more thoughtful human being.

 

Time will tell.

 

I still think he's too flashy, all about 'appearance' (playing the media game and cultivating his own 'brand') and not so much about 'substance'.

 

That just seems to be the way things are. Style over substance everytime. It's just the way our culture is. I think it's crap.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

Time will tell.

 

I still think he's too flashy, all about 'appearance' (playing the media game and cultivating his own 'brand') and not so much about 'substance'.

 

That just seems to be the way things are. Style over substance everytime. It's just the way our culture is. I think it's crap.

 

That's fine, it's bloody fantastic that someone who is so critical and cynical is being heard though. He's giving a lot of folk an insight into how the system works.

[Waldo 96]

He's giving a lot of folk an insight into how the system works.

 

How does the system work?

 

To me, it's basically that people who are clever, in positions of power and influence, naturally want to maintain their positions. They can afford to employ lots of other clever people in order to help them achieve their aims.

 

At the end of the day; we're all just biological creatures trying to get the best for ourselves; the most resources, power, influence etc. Anything above that is just an abstraction (for example, the royal family, it's a fiction, an abstraction; they're just biological beings like everyone else, with the same agenda as everyone else).

 

If you kick one lot out of power (who are abusing the system for their own interest) you will just replace them with another lot of self-serving greedy ****s. Well, it's not so much that you replace them, as the new lot engineer themselves in to positions of power. Power is never given, it is always taken. History has time and time again showed that. It's just the nature of human beings.

 

I don't see Russell Brand doing anything other than trying to grow the cult of Russell Brand. Having a large following, a lot of people who listen to you, follow you on twitter; is in this day and age, a very real form of power and influence.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

http://www.london24.com/news/the_13_best_tony_benn_quotes_1_3433690

[Waldo 96]

I am quite frankly dumbfounded that anyone would regard his activities as suspect.

 

I'm not. He may sincerely believe he is acting selflessly; however, it's very easy to fool yourself. People are very complex creatures. It's a *very* rare and special thing for a person to be selfless; monks can take decades of hard dedicated practice to cultivate such qualities. How much cultivating has Russell Brand done?

 

Anyhow, I hope you're right; it would be a good thing to have more decent people in the world; you'll have to forgive me my cynicism though; I think I may have seen too much of people.