Nah its a means of guilt avoidance for people who are privileged but never really worked for it. A way for rich people to revolt against the establishment without really revolting.
Fair enough.
I can definitely relate to this, I work with what I can only describe as one of the biggest cnuts I've met in all my life - this time last year he was going into angry tirades about how all immigrants and people on benefits are lazy etc etc, then a few weeks ago he comes in saying how Russell Brand is the best thing since sliced bread - from one extreme to the other because he cannot think for himself. Everything is cheapened once 'bandwagoners' get on board but at least in this case the bandwagon is for quite a pleasant outlook on life, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if more people thought like Russell Brand even if they don't really think about why they're doing it!
Seems a lot like you're suggesting people who benefit from a bad system shouldn't be allowed to criticise it. Which is bollocks.
People don't feel guilty for what they think.
Disagree, the majority of people who like him agreed him to begin this. He's been saying things like this for years.
But so what? Would you rather these people just be cnuts instead? I'm not massively up on the history of the term, but I personally see it more vaguely as "anyone with socialist principles whose lifestyle is comfortable enough to not be affected by the injustices they criticise"...Which could easily apply to loads of people. I agree with Brand on the housing crisis for example, but I also own a flat. Is it better that I disagree with him? To avoid meaningless rebellion?
Presuming you're talking about Brand? Ignoring that I completely disagree with his voting agenda anyway, any kind of soapboxing is easy. "Putting the world to rights in the pub" is easy. Much easier than opening it up to National scrutiny in fact. But what's even easier is derisorily dismissing things based on who said them, and then doing feck all about it.
Thats exactly what I'm talking about. The reason he's so popular is that he's giving people ammunition to moan. When he gets bored and moves on to whatever he does next so will all the politcally and socially conscious fans watching his videos and everything will carry one as before.
That's just such an awful argument. Bringing attention to an injustice doesn't instantly become unworthwhile the second that public arousal diminishes. All these "sheep" who have suddenly stopped shouting about Ukraine, Palestine etc. haven't suddenly stopped caring or forgot about what's happening. That information is still there and even if it wasn't that doesn't mean the people who made the attempt in the first place deserve criticism.
Which is why he'd be a terrible MP. But thankfully he's not trying to be (well, yet). He's best used on the outside shouting in, and hoping that a few of the less barmy things get traction.
But in lieu of anyone else bringing them such wide attention, that's not a bad thing in an age where the even dumber views of the right wing are gaining considerable support.
I honestly couldn't give a shit. If siding with the common man helps someone look themselves in the mirror (or sell books) it makes no odds to me.
And maybe, possibly, because they came up with actual innovative revolutionary ideas...? I'll ignore the fact that we're actually comparing Russell Brand with Karl Marx.
"... I agree with most of what he says." snide and undermining
Maybe your missing the point of I'm not explaining mysefl but I haven't dismissed anything he's said.
Yeah, I've not put my point across correctly, thats not what I mean, what I mean is that suddenly everyone thinks what he's saying is out of this world, it's not, most of it is pure common sense, that if people were more invested in social activism that just looking for something cool to post on their FB or twitter or whatever, wouldn't need spoonfed to them by a celebrity.
)To be fair he is the first person to say he doesn't have any ideas, and it's not really his place to. When you consider the things he points out the most are social injustices and corporate greed, these are things that can be tackled without new ideas, just more people engaging themselves into politics/an ideology. He's raising much awareness with his profile, ideals and articulation which can only accelerate the process IMO.
The problem is though, if you're the type to have your social consciousness awoken by a stand up comic on youtube, the odds of it having a marked or lasting impact on your opinions or position is pretty slim I'd imagine.
I agree. But if nothing else will, it's a start.
Also, I haven't given a definition of Champagne Socialism - I just said they'll be the second group I go after once the revolution begins (mainly to get a rise out of you
I'm always good for it.And yet he doesn't vote? Doesn't that totally undermine any positives?
No my annoyance is mainly with the people who like to get involved in these causes wholeheartedidly, til the next one comes along.
It's not much of a good thing either. He's a massive tool whose views on things are not particularly insightful and he has no credentials or education on the subject. It's demagoguery that we excuse because he happens to lean toward the left at the moment. At the minimum he should do some reading on the subjects he talks about. Maybe take some courses. Better yet, promote actual experts on this stuff. I'm not comfortable supporting the idea that a demographic group getting their opinions from a comedian is a good thing, even if I agree with said opinions.
That's his business, I don't doubt there could be a handful of people who follow him on that, but then I really think that the majority of people who subscribe to his views would either vote or not to begin with and not change that because of what he does - it's not so much about him - it's about the issues he puts the spotlight onto.
My point put more eloquently... by Eboue... of shit, thats no doubt the first sign of dementia or something.
To be semi-fair, "actual experts" have done shit all to capture the imagination of the public. Musings on left wing policy from no-name academics or fringe politicos are about as useful as a marzipan dildo in creating social change.
No, it isn't his business. When he chooses to enter the political sphere, something that is inherently political as voting is not his business anymore.
It's actually not. It actually is about him, there are millions of videos on youtube with better, more reasoned, more well rounded arguments and about a tenth of the views. Why? - no celeb fronting them.
Not really. Not every political change is (or even should be) driven by voting. Whether we're anywhere near the revolutionary, un-democratic tipping point is debatable, but revolutions are valid and necessary.
Sounds a bit hyperbolic. If Gay rights in Russia had never been brought up by anyone at all they'd be better off?
Where as Russell Brand can mobilse the forces?
This is ridiculous. There are obviously thousands of competent and revolutionary ideologists who were ignored at the time (and many who are inevitably still being ignored) because they were less affluent. He wasn't comparing Brand to Marx on the strength of his ideology and it's completely disingenuous to attempt to spin it that way because you can't counter the logic of his point.
Of course it is. He, like anyone in the UK, has the right not to vote. It's nobody's business but his own - he has his reasons, whether you or I agree with them or not. It doesn't detract from anything as he's not exactly trying to be the next Prime Minister, he's merely using his status as a tool to put the spotlight onto certain issues that are largely ignored, mostly affecting the poorest people of the country.
Well, that is the perspective you've honed in on. Peoples' infatuations with 'celebrities' is another topic entirely - why or how they come across the content is irrelevant, or who is bringing it to attention - the point is it is being brought into focus, and contrary to yourself, I believe that more people are paying attention to it than just some 'Facebook activists' type people that you mention.
No you're right, it's not blanket, but I do think its a trend with these online fads.
You think every revolutionary leader was a qualified person, with a degree in politics, an internship at their local IWW branch, and the backing of academics?
And so because he isn't the best in his field he shouldn't offer an opinion? Do you think it's more or less likely that these "hidden gems" are going to be found if Russell Brand wasn't raising awareness of the issue in general?
Did anyone steal records to find out if he voted? (I don't know, genuinely) From my quick googling, he used his status as a public figure to say that he doesn't vote. He made it everyone's business. He made it part of the platform he is promoting. So since both sides have conceded that the people are influenced by him aren't top notch critical thinkers, it stands to reason that even if they are converted from right wing cluelessness to left wing cluelessness, it isn't going to do much good because a good chunk of them aren't even going to bother to vote.
He said a large part of the reason Marx theories were welcomed was because he was from an affluent background. I added that having decent ideas probably helped too. I'm not sure how that is disingenuous.
What good is finding something you're going to throw away?
Not to go all godwin, in fact let's call it Sinclair Lewis, but this same phenomena springs far right groups to power as well. That's why the ideas and credentials behind the leader matter so much. And yes, think tanks and policy wonks can be boring at times but I'm not willing to cede democracy to competing celebrities taking into a camera from their couch.
