Make your mind up will you Russ. Can't help but think that since the green party says practically the same things he does, only with a manifesto with ideas in it, he should promote them and at least have something good come from this little wave he's going through.
Russell Brand - Moving Right
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
It absolutely does, yes. You flip the revolutionary coin and you take your chances, America or the USSR, France or Nazi Germany, whatever it might be. In politics no answer is right, but though I'm not a Brand-ite, I am fairly convinced that a system wherein almost all voters feel disconnected and un/under represented needs a serious shake up. Note - not necessarily a revolution, but I think at the very least a change in the whipping system and electoral system.
France or Nazi Germany has no right answer though.
Yes, 100% - thats why I used those exact words.
Yep, there's the point.... once Russell moves on to his next project lets see how many of the people watching his videos have been awoken,,,, I'll be expecting throngs of political and social messages on social media for the foreseeable future, or they'll get bored.
Well, one is certainly viewed more historically favorably than the other, at least give me that
Because it implies he wasn't accounting for the fact that Marx's ideas were 'good'. His point was you need profile to get noticed, which true if you're Karl Marx or someone far less talented. Trying to suggest he's somehow missed the fact that Marx was more skilled than Brand is a pointless attack on someone you don't want to address the point.
You think that everyone has forgotten about the Israel/Palestine conflict or the situation in Ukraine? Public consciousness isn't a measure of awareness, it's a measure of arousal. Just because someone isn't shouting anymore doesn't mean they've stopped caring or opposing something.
Again, another 'snide' remark just to hide behind a lack of substance. His "simplistic" videos are a portal for people to discover more detailed and important views. That many people access the "easy" and "simple" videos isn't some damning indictment of society, it's a critical part of the spread of information and exists in every field.
I'd hope this was a consequence of learning a bit more about it, and the general osmosis of being more involved, but it's worrying that he denied he'd said it. Far preferable for him to have come out and gone "I was hasty, and listening to other opinions, I've changed my mind"...Blind denial is very much the kind of politiking he's against. And yeah, I can't see what he could possilby object to in The Greens. Seems like he thinks it's too much of a climb down from his initial bombast.
I'm not sure to be honest, personally I'm not interested if he votes or not (not a dig, but I don't know much about it). You're right though that he did cause a stir by saying he wasn't going to vote, and I guess if you're taking it upon yourself to educate or inform people about politics/social injustice/'the truth' with I believe genuine intentions not to make it all about yourself - a famous celebrity, then telling everyone how you are going to vote (or not vote in this case) is quite a counter productive move as that creates a pretence that you in fact are making it all about you rather than the issues because you believe you can influence people just by telling them what you are going to do rather than letting people independently choose for themselves after seeing and judging your own 'unbiased' take on the world that you presented to them.
That said, I believe he was just naive and got carried away, I also think most people are quite forgiving of that and take the issues as seriously as they would otherwise. I said there could be a handful, but I was being generous, I actually quite doubt that anyone will choose not to vote because Russell Brand said so. What he is doing is bringing people who are largely disengaged to the political process into the picture, and not just your easily converted numskulls, you know yourself it's very easy and common for ordinary people to become disengaged these days because the world of politics is dominated by a bunch of Eton wankers, it all comes down to opinion but I believe a lot of non-idiotic? people will be positively influenced by Russell Brand to re-engage into politics and that is a good thing overall.
Eh, I do think Russell Brand's particular flavor of revolution will likely sputter out - we probably need another 30-50 years to stew before anything actually happens, but at the very least he is actually attempting to bring the issue of voter disenchantment with the political system to light, and that's admirable. It certainly shouldn't be put down by those who are at once disenchanted and complicit in the changeless continuation of a byzantine system they despise - which is quite a few of his critics.
Really, is voting for the Greens, or the Lib Dems, or Lab/Cons actually going to create meaningful social change? No. it isn't. The Greens and the Lib Dems will never get in to proper power for a ton of structural and current reasons, and Lab/Con won't change a system that massively benefits them. Neither of them will propose radical change because they both benefit from a never-ending race to the centre.
Therefore the impetus for change has to come from elsewhere. The grass roots, the TU's, whatever. 'Elsewhere' almost certainly isn't Russell Brand, but he's better than nothing, for the moment.
Last edited:
His point was that Brand shoudn't be shot down for being a chamagne socialist - marx was from an affluent background.
Marx also had good, innovative ideas.
If you have good innovative ideas who cares what your background is?
I think the people who knew about the conflict before it became a FB fad probably still care, a few of them have probably gotten tired of it because of over exposure and I'd say a few new people now give a shit. Overall impact? Pretty much zero.
And tell me, someone caring about something or opposing it and doing feck all about it - is that close to a marzipan dildo in terms of usefulness?
Again I never said it was. But I don't see Russell Brands videos as in any way critical to the spread of information, or the promotion of debate or discussion to be honest.
I think they, like most of the other campaigns of a similar nature, will be mainly consumable, forgotten and thrown away once something else comes along.
He did. The whole point of his books is that he's not providing his own solutions, so much as providing a forum for people better educated than him to inform the reader about topics he find important. They're all in there, from Thomas Piketty to George Orwell.
Just as a caveat, I haven't read the book. It could be shite. It's well intentioned, though and I would say it's a good thing if it gets people reading and thinking about well informed opinions on big issues that society is facing. All the more so if those people wouldn't have gone near any of this without such a charismatic and media savvy frontman to draw them in. Basically people like that bloke @Vidic_In_Moscow mentioned.
Thats probably why I said "....I admire him using his status to promote his arguments."
I was under the impression that they wont get into power because people wont vote for them. Russell Brand telling people not to vote certainly wont change that.
People won't vote for them due to 100 years of Labour/Tory history(well, ish), a FPTP political system, those parties having far larger grass roots and campaigning abilities, and frankly, governing capacity. A few snazzy policies that 15% of the more educated, left leaning people agree with won't change that.
Another point I'd make about the house hypocrisy (and champagne socialism) is that the vast majority of the left aren't pushing for Communism, or forcible wealth distribution. If they are then yes, any well off advocate should be giving their money away as often as possible. The usual goal however is to level the playing field of opportunity. To make sure everyone has a fair (or fairer) crack at gaining the wealth, or status, or whatever they need to feel comfortable and secure. It's not about making sure everyone lives in a shit house out of solidarity. It's about admitting that there's an inequality, and working towards the goal of giving everyone the same (or at the very least a better) chance of getting that nice house.
Russell Brand earned his nice house. There's nothing hypocritical about living in it and still wanting a better deal for those without the opportunities he had.
Russell Brand earned his nice house. There's nothing hypocritical about living in it and still wanting a better deal for those without the opportunities he had.
Last edited:
If only they had a charismatic, vocal, media savvy front person eh.
Hah, I almost added an addendum that : UNLESS, they had a once-in-a-generation political leader fronting them. But Russell Brand isn't him(or her) so there's no point even going there.
I'll admit to not knowing what he actually does for the issue, because I hate the sight of him and hearing his voice, and generally him as a whole and so don't listen, but what does he actually do for the issue other than go on TV and act like he's one of us, before going back to his lavish lifestyle? If he actually does a lot for the issues he talks about then fair enough. I'm legitimately unaware on that. From the little I've seen he literally goes onto TV, talks a lot of ideological shit using completely unnecessary words before basking in his own self glory like 'look how clever I am'. I watched one segment where he derailed everything that someone tried to say, before going off in separate tangents about things that weren't even being discussed, talking over everyone trying to make out that something that wasn't even happening, was happening and then acting offended by it.
Does he actually do anything? Fair enough if so. I know you'll say he raises awareness etc but actions speak louder than words. Maybe he does actions as well and I've got the completely wrong view of him. I'll admit that the fact that simply looking at him pisses me off will most likely cloud my view to that side of him.
Anyone that discounts his ideas on the basis that he has a few quid is an idiot Mockney, there will always be idiots unfortunately.
... or a communist of course.
Society is a system. Any system is like a wheel, where imbalance exists it will not function properly. The longer the imbalance continues the greater it gets. The greater it gets the more likely a complete breakdown becomes.
I actually don't think we're a million miles away from a complete breakdown if things continue along the same lines. It's naive to think that capitalism is the last great empire the world will see, particularly given the role the US played in its promotion as the silver bullet answer to how society should be structured, and the fact that US influence (and indeed their own empire) is crumbling. Like all those before it the current system will inevitably become corrupt, and imbalanced and eventually a change will come about.
be a better use of his time thoughExactly. If they introduced a mandatory vote-for-policies before you voted as guidance, that would be real change!
His point was shooting anyone down because of their background is ridiculous. He used illustrated this point by showing even out of the ones with good ideas, it's the ones from an affluent background that get noticed. Without "champagne socialists" we'd have no prominent socialists. You should attack Brand for being a bad socialist if you dislike his ideas, not because he's wealthy.
That seems an awful lot like a projection, projection without evidence at that.
And someone whose stance is now caring or opposing is aware of the issue. That awareness means that next time those people are going to be quicker to spot it and more vocal the next time it becomes topical, and the next time after that. That's how gradual and progressive change happens.
And yet for some, it might not be completely thrown away, it might lead to further interest and development of ideas and future contribution. And even for the people who appear to "throw it away", they're now aware of the topic which is still a step in the right direction and makes things easier the next time.
What do you consider "actions"? Karate? Coal mining for the blind? I will say that, yes, because it depends what you mean by "doing anything." If you think lending his support, profile and oritory skills to groups, campaigns and even ideas he feels deserve the exposiure is doing something, most of which requires him to go on TV, or turn up somewhere and talk about it, then yes. If you think it's nothing short of building schools with his bare hands and fighting terrorists, then no, he falls short I'm affraid. Probably because that isn't his skillset.
I agree with all of that. And Brand has none of the answers. To his credit though, he does seem to be scaring those determined to hold onto it, at least a little, tiny bit. So that's a plus.
You don't think that this sort of exposure leads to complacency? I do. I'd say if I posted a video on Facebook now promoting LGBT rights in Russia it would get about 5 views. Same with Brazil.
I read an article recently which suggested that the day of 2 term Presidencies in the US area thing of the past because people don't have the attention span for the same person for 2 terms anymore.
As for projection, well thats not the case, evidence? Well I haven't heard anyone mention social conditions in Brazil in a while have you... must've be sorted.
Not really that far to be honest. I just don't believe that sitting around talking about something fixes it. That's why I asked if he did anything but raise awareness. Is anything changing on the back of him doing that? Is it doing anything? I'm not being sarcastic, I have no idea which is why I'm asking.
That's how politics works, or should work, we talk about something then vote on what to do.
Just had a look at his latest video which highlights that Rupert Murdock is a really rich business man, probably a hypocrite, rich and the Sun is a filthy rag (they called him a hypocrite or something).
Shared on FB a couple of hours ago, its had over 2500 views and 1000 shares.
Thank god we have Russell playing this vital role in sharing of information and bringing stuff to our attention, I would have had no idea otherwise!
Shared on FB a couple of hours ago, its had over 2500 views and 1000 shares.
Thank god we have Russell playing this vital role in sharing of information and bringing stuff to our attention, I would have had no idea otherwise!
His book will be Number 1 for Xmas if thats the sort of thing you mean
That's the bit I'm interested in. When does it stop being talk and start being action.
Well most of the talking he's done recently is for causes. This housing argument came up while he was at Downing Street trying to talk to the goverment about the New Era Estate, which is a housing development originally built for workers, which was been bought out by a US investment firm, making them all homeless. That's a thing, isn't it? It's also talking. Because talking is Russell Brand's skill set.
What do footballers do when they do charity work? What does Ryan Giggs do for Unicef? Does he stay in Sierra Leon for months building wells? No, he just turns up. Sometimes has a kick about, because that's his skill set. That's what he can do. What does Leonardo Di Caprio do for Greenpeace? Does he go out on a dingy and fight Whalers in hand to hand combat? What is action?
Bar forming his own government or chaining himself to the estate in question, I don't see what else you can expect Brand to do but talk the shit out of it and raise awareness.
And I don't particularly love Brand. I think his opinions on voting are naive and dangerous. I just think he's been getting some really weird and unfair criticisms of late.
Last edited:
Again, you're completely ignoring the value of awareness and acting as if arousal is the only vehicle for change which is incredibly simplistic. No exposure leads to a complete lack of awareness which is far more dangerous than apathy.
I'd say that sounds like a massive pile of shit.
And before the news I didn't know anyone who knew anything about social conditions in Brazil, or indeed Qatar. Because of the fuss kicked up people are now aware of those problems, that might not seem important but it is. To use an (admittedly simplified for ease) example: without the pre-war suffragette movement that raised awareness, society would have been in less of a position to recognise the contribution and necessity of female suffrage and there's the possibility it doesn't happen.
Just because things don't have immediate and visible results doesn't mean they don't make a difference.
Considering the last one term Presidency was 20 years and 3 Presidents ago, and despite a huge Conservative campaign, and widespread disatisfaction Obama won a landslide for his second term just 2 years ago, I'd say that idea's got some backing up to do.
So the worse one were getting these massive bonuses 5-10 years ago in many of the biggest banks in the world? Or wasn't it their fault that they went tits up and helped contribute to a massive financial crisis?
There's bonuses for high paying gigs and then there's bonuses you get after the government has given you lots of money to stay a float because you pretty much are responsible for ruining the bank.
I agree with you on principal but the bonuses that get reported are the obnoxiously high bonuses that he's probably referring too.
------------------------------------
At least he's not just spewing nonsense without offering anything in return. He is offering alternative approaches to a recurrent problem. Whether people disagree or not doesn't really matter. There's a lot of fluff sprinkled in between but no way that's worse than what other people talking about the same subjects are doing. Idealistic, yes. That's usually what you need to be to change things. It often doesn't work but then again you're always going against the grain on these matters. If he changes people's opinion then maybe someone he had an affect on will go on do to something. That's all that matters. His ideas aren't dangerous.
I've not heard a lot of speak against him other than people's personal view on him but that's what you get for being an outspoken person. There will always be a lot of people that dislike you for you, not necessarily for what you're talking about.
I'm quoting this at some point of my life.
It would make a great film.
To be fair, most celebrities actually do a fair bit for the causes they fight for, such as setting up foundations dedicated to actually doing something or bringing about change. Donating amounts of money to these ventures to get them going and what have you. Not just turning up and talking about how everything's a bit messed up or bait news anchors into tangents. We know that already, like Popper mentioned.
To be fair, most celebrities actually do a fair bit for the causes they fight for, such as setting up foundations dedicated to actually doing something or bringing about change. Donating amounts of money to these ventures to get them going and what have you. Not just turning up and talking about how everything's a bit messed up or bait news anchors into tangents. We know that already, like Popper mentioned.
And it'd be good if we could talk about that, because a lot of it's bollocks. But as long as people insist on attacking the man rather than the ball, I'll defend him.
So we should attack the space?
always.I'm with you in doing that. "Unfortunately" for him he's witty and articulate and famous and rich and sleeps with lots of pretty women and that will automatically get hate from a number of people.
You also have to take what people say with a grain of salt. People are able to jabber on as they want on the internet without a filter. When people say that they hate him they probably mean "Oh, it's Russell Brand talking. I think I would rather like to switch the channel than to keep listening". Not really the definition of hate but the word has kind of lost it's meaning along with amazing and other words like it that express an extreme.
I've also seen a lot of people brand him an idiot who I've never heard say anything articulate or insightful about politics ever. And people I know well too, not just online (where everyone does that.) Presumably because it seems like an easy opinion to latch onto without having to consider anything he's saying. If he's going to be accused of attracting a hoard of naive hashtag activists who parrot him to seem clued up (and it's definitely a fair comment) it should be pointed out there's also a sizeable opposition of people who vocally dismiss him for exactly the same reason.
The 'Parklife' thing for example was initially very funny, but quickly descended into an excuse to dismiss anything he's ever said.
Last edited: