Russell Brand's interview . . . . . I agree with him.
Think what you may of him, I thought he made a lot of sense.
http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-hav ... 1451318185
Printable View
Russell Brand's interview . . . . . I agree with him.
Think what you may of him, I thought he made a lot of sense.
http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-hav ... 1451318185
I've always like Russell Brand I have to admit. Got interviewed by him for Rapture TV years ago in Ibiza and seen him live with his stand up. I like Paxman too, but it's nice when you see him meet his match during an interview. I think a lot of people forget Brand is quite an intelligent man when they are busy judging him for Sachsgate or which celeb he's dating recently.
I read an article he did on Margaret Thatcher when she died, which was absolutely brilliant.
And his "The Sun" stand up is very funny.
And yes, he does make a lot of sense in that interview, especially in his reasoning as to not voting.
Was it as good as Hunter S Thompson's obituary of Richard Nixon?
Now that I've read it, good, but not with the same familiarity due to the fact Brand was so young during her tenure.
More left-wing, class warfare, pseudo-intellectual, prattle.
Great way to market yourself to your low-intelligence audience.
Paxman was right Russell Brand is “very trivial man”
That's about the stupidest thing you can do in a democracy. Don't vote and then stand back and piss and moan about what politicians do. You want change then go out and support someone who thinks more or less as you do and then vote for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parabolica
People who don't vote have lost any right to complain about anything. IMO of course.
As they say, regardless of who you vote for the government always gets in. I don't follow politics and usually ask my father his opinion when general elections come around. He is very anti socialist that is all I know. They all lie to get in and do their best to tax the hell out of us so I think Brands message about not voting carries a lot of weight. At least to me and many of my generation. We don't have a great deal of choice in the UK. You either vote for an Eton boy with absolutely no connection to the working class whatsoever, or a socialist intent on saying the right things for the workers, but taxing us all to high heaven.
You don't have to have a degree in politics or even vote to have an opinion on it. We are all free to have opinions after all. There's no tax on it yet.
It's sad to think that in the past and in some parts of the world people were prepared to go to prison and even to die to try to obtain the right to vote - and we who have that right dismiss it.
Its sad for them especially if they live in a society of massive restrictions. Unfortunately politics has never really appealed to me and growing up it was just something my parents discussed and argued about. If something affects me I take notice but I'm pretty ignorant to most of it and admit that freely. There is no right or wrong really, and it is something I wish I knew more about. I always laugh when I state an opinion and someone labels me as a left wing person or whatever and if they realised the truth about my knowledge, they'd realise I have virtually no political agenda whatsoever! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
While I obviously wouldn't criticise someone simply for being left-wing, I fear you are right. 'Pseudo-intellectual' just about sums it up (though this is better than anti-intellectualism, a stance you have often embodied). If he didn't use words like 'paradigm' and 'lachrymose' an awful lot of people who've been lauding Brand for his performance (which is absolutely what it was) wouldn't have given it a second look.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
As for his call for a revolution, I've rarely heard anything more stupid. The democratic system may have its faults but it at least offers certain safeguards, something Brand, in his vague, ill-thought-out calls for change, seems to forget. He made some quite good points about reasons for lack of political participation, but they are obscured by the manner in which he made them. There are many problems with our political class and the system as a whole, but they will not be addressed via the undemocratic imposition of Russell Brand's notion of utopia. His not voting, incidentally, I see as the least of the problems with his remarks. I at present have no intention to vote at the next general election because I no longer have a party to vote for, although I have always exercised my right in the past. It doesn't disqualify one from holding opinions and expressing them. The problem with never voting yet calling for political change, as does Brand, is that it suggests him not to believe in democracy.
Finally, anthonyvop, you are quite right to use the term 'market yourself'. This is exactly what he was doing. He has a new stand-up tour starting and I doubt whether the interview would have taken place otherwise.
Starter; I agree that voting is indeed a privilege - but if the options are not worth voting for then why vote? That is what I understood and agreed with from this interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I thought that was pretty hard listening.
They can always cast an empty voting ballot.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
I do think more political parties can get more people voting.
We have eight(ish) main parties in Finlad that cover a wider range than only two or three can focus on. Winning party gets to have a prime minister and ask other parties into their goverment.
It goes roughly like this: (last result /in goverment G or in opposition O )
- Capitalist (20.38 / G)
- Center Lefties (19.10 / G)
- Racists (19.05 / O)
- Farmers (15.76 / O)
- Left wingers (8.13 / G)
- Tree huggers (7.25 / G)
- Jesus people (4.03 / G)
- Swedes (4.28 / G)
He seemed to have made up his mind never to vote, which is rather different from sometimes not voting. Then he says that he wants, in effect, to impose some indeterminate form of new system. As I wrote above, it strikes me that he objects to democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Casting a write in ballot for Mickey Mouse or some such sends a much stronger message than not voting at all. It shows you are paying attention. Not voting tells people that you really don't care who runs things or how they run them.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Why waste time voting for Mickey Mouse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
A low voting turnout will show that people don't buy the available choices.
Of course more has to be done to make a difference and to not appear indifferent.
More candidates with an awareness that the system is not working have to make themselves available but with the 2 party system here in the USA and the tea partiers creating havoc and making a mockery of the USA in the eyes of the world is again a sign that the system is messed up. Let those members of the legislative and the executive branches ware their suits like the racers do in NASCAR, That way we could see their "sponsors" and know who really is in charge of our government. It's pathetic really.
Now here's a thought;Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
In Britain a 'spoilt' ballot paper counts as a vote. A candidate loses his deposit if he doesn't get a minimum percentage of the vote (I think it's 5%). So if nearly everybody went along and 'spoilt' their papers all the candidates, including whoever got elected, would lose their deposits for not having attracted enough votes. I expect it's a similar situation in other countries.
As someone who finds themselves without a party to vote for — I abhor the recent actions of the one I used to support, and will not vote for either of the other two main parties on matters of general of specific principle — I object to the idea that I should seek to make some silly statement. In any case, you can't cast 'write-in ballots' in the UK, which is, after all, the country under discussion here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Unlikely ever to happen, not least because of the fact that an awful lot of people who do vote are less informed than plenty of those who make a choice not to. I place myself currently in the latter group. Electing not to vote is not necessarily a sign of disengagement in the democratic process. I would class myself as a damn sight more engaged than is someone who always votes for one party no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
In any case, stunts of the type you outline are not going to do any good. One of the major problems relates to the type of people who tend to be selected as candidates by the major parties these days.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing.
- Sir Humphrey, Yes Minister.
Starter's comments here are bang on the mark. You don't effect change by simply standing on the outside, you effect change by jumping right to the centre and changing things. Not voting is tacit agreement with the way things are.
This is the reason why Occupy was always doomed to fail. Not once did I ever hear anyone at all suggest putting people into either the Congress, State Houses or Town Halls; for that reason it deserved to fail.
Placing people into parliaments was the reason why the trade unions in Britain and Australia eventually won things like minimum wages and conditions like holiday pay. By placing people into parliaments and winning government.
It's also the same reason why Congress 113 and 112 have been so incredibly stupid, pathetic and weak. If people really didn't want to see the complete and utter clustercuss* that took place last month, then why did they continue to vote for the two machines which are proven not to work?
I agree with Mr Brand that there needs to be a Revolution but by the same token, the only way that that happens in a democracy is via the word democracy - that is dêmos "People" and kratos "Power".
Power to the people, by the people and for the people is not won by by not voting, it's by voting for something different.
In the 2013 Federal Election in Australia, I had nine candidates in my electorate. Thanks to the Alternative Vote (which is a far
better method than first past the post), I put the Labor Party 8 and the Liberal Party 9.
My vote was counted; sure it didn't amount to much but it was counted... and if enough people vote for change, it will happen.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJP31ZiUgeM
Paxman there really is just an annoying little twat, being narrow minded, being a hypocrite, and offering absolutely no solution to anything. I'm not likely to agree with a lot of Brand's left wing views, but he does something very important that very few have the courage to do: stand up for democracy and defend it. I think with the work he does, he's near-genius status and his heart is definitely in the right place.
Paxman is just there to scrutinise and question a stance like he does in every interview. He's very good at what he does and its usually refreshing to see people squirm under questioning. Brand holds himself very well though I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
It is not the job of the interviewer to offer any solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
No he doesn't. He has never voted and, instead of encouraging people to vote, believes in the imposition — without, it would seem, recourse to the ballot box — of some form of unspecified alternative system. How is this 'standing up for democracy and defending it'? He shows no signs of even believing in democracy as we understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
I don't agree at all — not about the specific example of Occupy, but the general point. Not all change is effected by MPs. And, as I said, I resent the notion that I am somehow disengaged because I currently choose not to vote on points of principle. I think this makes me a hell of a lot more engaged than, say, someone who always votes Labour or Tory without a moment's thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
So the Great Russell Brand is calling for a Socialist revolution.
He did this from his Multi-Million Dollar Mansion but he got the idea during his destination wedding in Northern India while he and Katy Perry rode on their ceremonial Elephants.
I sh*t you not. The man of the people rented Elephants. http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 91,00.html
Wake up people. He only talks like that to get the easily manipulated, jealous masses to watch his movies and TV shows.
You will notice if you read the rest of the thread that not everybody is asleep to the empty, hypocritical nature of his remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I think that there does need to be a socialist revolution but I don't see not voting as the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I for one question the sanity of concentration of power in the hands of business and the current political machines which have thrown their old voting base off the boat.
There's a very strong argument to be made for instance, that increased socialism and programs which helped normal people, led to rising incomes and real increases in GDP throughout the 1950s and 60s and that pulling away from it in the 1980s and 1990s (coupled with an expected period of dissaving from baby boomers) will lead to fallling GDP in real terms. Proper investments in health, education and infrastructure can and did lead to real GDP growth in the past and we're beginning to see the effects of privatisation of those sorts of things now.
I do not believe that voting is a privilege, I do not believe that voting is even a mere right but a civic duty which stems from being a citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
I would also suggest that it would be an excellent idea that all ballot papers should include a "none of the above" option. There should be a way for the electorate to voice civil disgust at the ballot box and be able to force new elections if the quality of the candidacy is not up to scratch.
While we seem to agree on the importance of expressing, through ballots, one's views, I don't think a socialist revolution would be a good thing. Quite the contrary. Though the truth is that a socialist "creep", as opposed to a revolution, has been going on for some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Strong argument? Doubtful, though a case could be made either way if you wanted to take the time.Quote:
There's a very strong argument to be made for instance, that increased socialism and programs which helped normal people, led to rising incomes and real increases in GDP throughout the 1950s and 60s and that pulling away from it in the 1980s and 1990s (coupled with an expected period of dissaving from baby boomers) will lead to fallling GDP in real terms. Proper investments in health, education and infrastructure can and did lead to real GDP growth in the past and we're beginning to see the effects of privatisation of those sorts of things now.
On this we agree completely. Else why live in a democracy?Quote:
I do not believe that voting is a privilege, I do not believe that voting is even a mere right but a civic duty which stems from being a citizen.
An excellent suggestion which I would support.Quote:
I would also suggest that it would be an excellent idea that all ballot papers should include a "none of the above" option. There should be a way for the electorate to voice civil disgust at the ballot box and be able to force new elections if the quality of the candidacy is not up to scratch.
I just don't see the evidence of socialist "creep" either in the UK or Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
In the UK, British Airways, British Petroleum, British Aerospace, British Gas, British Steel, British Rail, the Austin Rover Group, Rolls-Royce, Sealink, the electricity boards, regional water authorities, the Post Office, council houses...
In AUstralia, the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Telstra, CSL, the Federal Airports Corporation, Commonwealth Oil Refineries, the various states electricity and water companies, the Government Insurance Office, all of the state owned banks, all rail freight services in Australia and public transport in Melbourne...
All of this proves otherwise.
Government privatisation and pulling out of the provision of services by definition is the exact opposite of socialist "creep".
The difference is that I'm US based and you can see it for sure here. It's been working since the sixties, with a very slight decline during the Reagan years. Even Bush's administration was more about government power and control than it was about capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
But there they go again, interjecting actual real life examples and expecting people to fall for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Why confuse issues with facts? :crazy:
What is accomplished? Many people want to believe in all sorts of things including all powerful workings of secret cabals "running the world" with machine like efficiency and diabolical power..and it seems that the smaller their own significance is, and the less their world experience and knowledge is, the stronger their beliefs in the secret shadow organisations.
Everybody has a right to their own opinion.
We are all created equal.
Therefore by rigid logic, all opinions are equal... :D
How can you "prove" that all those privarisations aren't just ploys or the wiley Socialists aren't doing that as "agents provocateurs" to bring about the collapse of the Capitalist system from which they will rise up from the ashes and take over? :erm: