This Random Thread

[louise]

What is everyone's views on Russell Brand here? I know its not the person but the message, don't shoot the messenger etc.. but am I the only one who finds his champagne Marxism incredibly tedious? I actually am in full agreement with some of his points (not the not voting thing though) but there just seems to be something so self promoting about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl3s2ZWyiDg

seriously though, i find HIM incredibly tedious. im not taking a former heroin addict's viewpoints on ANYTHING seriously. ever. he wants to reform this and that because hes trying to reform his public image.

i cant stand celebrities that use their celebrity status to get ahead or attempt influence in areas that dont concern them whatsoever. get off your high horse mate.

[fujee]

Louise, that is completely nuts. Are you actually saying people who take drugs, or have taken drugs are deemed of less valuable opinions? That is completely irrelevant here.

I don't mind the fact he's promoting radical left opinions, because currently that disenfranchised political vacuum has been taken up by the mid to far right with worrying efficiency and we need someone to fight back. The left needs a passionate voice, but I am at pains to get behind him. Maybe its got something to do with his Marxist principles, and millions in the bank.. hey ho..

[Negamuse]

His message to people who don't vote (and therefore have no political power) to say "Politics isn't just about the big 3 parties, it's coming together and collectively doing... stuff" is a good one. Might as well help apply pressure here, do good there, help each other out. Like the Big Society, only if that weren't a cynical attempt to cut funding and patch it up with goodwill. We could all do better at that.

Trying to convince people who do vote not to vote is idiotic. It is, as John Lydon says, "demanding to be ignored". Yes, the Westminster system as it is is shitty, but while we have it there's nothing to say you can't do all the other local things and put an X in a box every 4 years to try and make the best of it. And yes, you can never fully abandon the structure, you need big systems like the NHS and all of that.

The guy though... jesus. He absolutely torpedoes his credibilty with the way he talks. Swallowing a thesaurus doesn't make you sound smart it makes you sound like a dick.

[louise]

I wouldnt have a former heroin addict babysitting my children, nursing a sick parent, or acting as my accountant. Why would i welcome their influence on law and politics in the country i live in? Good for him for sorting his life out but that doesnt automatically make him someone whos opinion i value.

when put on the spot he cant really give a good supporting argument for his views can he? If you cant support your own argument properly again why would i take you seriously?

Your question is what do i think of his views? I dont think he is right or wrong, i think hes a tool. His views arent worth my time of day.

I dont agree with extremists because they dont consider anything other than their own voices.

[Mexicola]

His message to people who don't vote (and therefore have no political power) to say "Politics isn't just about the big 3 parties, it's coming together and collectively doing... stuff" is a good one. Might as well help apply pressure here, do good there, help each other out. Like the Big Society, only if that weren't a cynical attempt to cut funding and patch it up with goodwill. We could all do better at that.

Trying to convince people who do vote not to vote is idiotic. It is, as John Lydon says, "demanding to be ignored". Yes, the Westminster system as it is is shitty, but while we have it there's nothing to say you can't do all the other local things and put an X in a box every 4 years to try and make the best of it. And yes, you can never fully abandon the structure, you need big systems like the NHS and all of that.

The guy though... jesus. He absolutely torpedoes his credibilty with the way he talks. Swallowing a thesaurus doesn't make you sound smart it makes you sound like a dick.

Absolutely 100% spot on. Literally nothing else to add to this.

[fujee]

I wouldnt have a former heroin addict babysitting my children, nursing a sick parent, or acting as my accountant. Why would i welcome their influence on law and politics in the country i live in? Good for him for sorting his life out but that doesnt automatically make him someone whos opinion i value.

when put on the spot he cant really give a good supporting argument for his views can he? If you cant support your own argument properly again why would i take you seriously?

Your question is what do i think of his views? I dont think he is right or wrong, i think hes a tool. His views arent worth my time of day.

I dont agree with extremists because they dont consider anything other than their own voices.

That is a personal preference (albeit a really sad and demonising one) and not something which can be necessarily applied in a civic situation, surely of all the people in the world someone with an experience of something such as that would be a valuable asset to a democratic society as opposed to someone preaching from a moral pedestal. I would argue that his opinion is perhaps more valuable than the many currently in Westminster who have absolutely no experience of the reality of Britain. Are you saying because he has been a drug user you can dismiss his political views? If so then you can pretty much write off a vast majority of the British population.

He can't back up his views because what he is preaching is a Utopian social democracy, which would require much more than a snappy anecdote in an interview set up to disparage his agenda (its no secret the BBC/ITV love the establishment)

I think what he is positing is radical, but not ridiculous: a radical shake up of capitalist society, and redistribution of wealth, more democratic government with less vested interest in multinational conglomerates. These are all things which I think are inevitably going to happen to be honest, as the rate of consumption and disparity between classes is so great that something has got to give.

I think he's pretty spot on with his views, but he just goes about it in a really clumsy and irritating way.

[louise]

We had this chat before fudge. Its admirable you want a perfect world but it wont happen.

I believe what i believe and you can go on with your good self.you are so condescending but i still like you.

[fujee]

I wasn't intending to be, the tone might be lost in translation. But fair enough, agree to disagree.

[Mexicola]

Like an old married couple....

[nick47]

Trent reznor (Nine Inch Nails) is a celebrity, former heroin addict, and I would elect him to office, let him babysit my kids, just about anything!

Just because someone did bad things at one time in their life doesnt taint them forever. In fact, I am willing to argue the opposite for SOME people.

Going through such dark times and hardships such as addiction can really turn a person around, if they're strong enough

[louise]

To be honest though, i think drug addiction is glamourised as far as celebrities are concerned.

Now picture your local smackheads. Every town has them. Put one of them in russell brands place for the sake of this discussion. Not so appealing is it?

[Cupz]

heroin is soooooooo 1996!

[fujee]

To be honest though, i think drug addiction is glamourised as far as celebrities are concerned.

Now picture your local smackheads. Every town has them. Put one of them in russell brands place for the sake of this discussion. Not so appealing is it?

But does that make his political voice any less important? Whilst their actions and behavior may be skewed by drug addiction, ultimately their vote is as important as any other member of a democracy.

p.s I still like you too Louise, this is just discourse

[louise]

His vote? You mean the one he doesnt use?

[louise]

His vote? You mean the one he doesnt use?

[jcnporter]

I'm not referring to its use by anyone in particular here, but 'utopian' or 'radical' are words often used to exclude and narrow a discussion down to only the concepts that are considered acceptable to the powers that be.
Capitalism has been superb at this, now only discussions on variations of capitalism are seen as 'realistic'. Even extremely long-established and existing concepts such as land taxes (favoured by both Winston Churchill and Adam Smith) and common ownership, have been successfully saddled with with these labels.
Indeed a functioning economy without slave labour was no doubt once considered 'utopian'.
There is a difference between what is unachievable in the short or medium term with our current two party neoliberalism and what can actually work, those in power would prefer that we conflate the two.
I think even the NHS as a universal, free service will be considered a utopian folly in a generation or so, not because it cannot work as a concept, but because the constant chipping away by individualism and capitalism will make it so.

[Aerial Boundaries]

I'm not referring to its use by anyone in particular here, but 'utopian' or 'radical' are words often used to exclude and narrow a discussion down to only the concepts that are considered acceptable to the powers that be.
Capitalism has been superb at this, now only discussions on variations of capitalism are seen as 'realistic'. Even extremely long-established and existing concepts such as land taxes (favoured by both Winston Churchill and Adam Smith) and common ownership, have been successfully saddled with with these labels.
Indeed a functioning economy without slave labour was no doubt once considered 'utopian'.
There is a difference between what is achievable in the short or medium term with our current two party neoliberalism and what can actually work, those in power would prefer that we conflate the two.
I think even the NHS as a universal, free service will be considered a utopian folly in a generation or so, not because it cannot work as a concept, but because the constant chipping away by individualism and capitalism will make it so.

Thank you.

Also, fuck Brand.

Also, I wouldn't be quick to flat out say that certain groups of people are untrustworthy (and the implication I felt was that they are almost subhuman or at least less valuable), without considering the individual and collective trends which bring them to that point. Saying "he habitually uses drugs" carries the same quality of information as "he habitually masturbates." Neither of them tell you much about the person except that they are human and therefore liable to give in to certain impulses. (not implying that masturbation is unhealthy, it was just a mildly humorous comparison.) Moreover, someone who did so formerly, in the past, may be a very different person now.

[louise]

ahh come on no need to start putting words in peoples mouths. if i wanted to say subhuman, i would say it and not just imply it. i feel comfortable enough on this forum to do that.

i just dont see why someone should be able rise to fame on the back of a drug problem, fully publicize their various addictions, issues, whathaveyou, THEN decide to clean themselves up and then decide that they should be taken seriously. what are his credentials outside of being a celebrity anyway? the guy doesnt even vote so how he can start jumping on various laws is ridiculous to me.

yes im sure people can turn their lives around and good for them, seriously. but if you're given to serious urges of impulse or addiction do you really think you're the best person to be having a say in things like politics?

[Aerial Boundaries]

Ok, it was unfair to say you were implying subhuman. I am sorry for that.

Would it be more correct to say you think their opinions inherently carry less weight, particularly in the political world? In answer to your last question, my honest belief is that everyone has urges which they give into on a daily basis. Granted the effects of those impulses vary, but the principle is the same to me. I would never dream of disregarding someone's view just because they are a former drug abuser, and they have just as much right to express the way they think the world should work as anyone else. My point was that they are not automatically a separate class of people, and they have as much chance of being rational or correct as anyone else.

In terms of the second paragraph, I was not referring to Russel Brand. I agree, I don't think he should be taken seriously. But that is because he is a hypocrite and the points he is making having already been made by countless people in much more persuasive ways.

[fujee]

I'm not referring to its use by anyone in particular here, but 'utopian' or 'radical' are words often used to exclude and narrow a discussion down to only the concepts that are considered acceptable to the powers that be.
Capitalism has been superb at this, now only discussions on variations of capitalism are seen as 'realistic'. Even extremely long-established and existing concepts such as land taxes (favoured by both Winston Churchill and Adam Smith) and common ownership, have been successfully saddled with with these labels.
Indeed a functioning economy without slave labour was no doubt once considered 'utopian'.
There is a difference between what is unachievable in the short or medium term with our current two party neoliberalism and what can actually work, those in power would prefer that we conflate the two.
I think even the NHS as a universal, free service will be considered a utopian folly in a generation or so, not because it cannot work as a concept, but because the constant chipping away by individualism and capitalism will make it so.

I understand that it could be perceived that using a lexicon like Brand could be seen as actually diminishing/alienating the cause that he preaches, narrowing the conversation to something which is seemingly unattainable/ridiculous to the current situation. Though, I reject that the use of such words actually legitimises the neoliberal/capitalist power structures in general.. people seem to forget that the socio-economic system which Marx describes has never actually been realised (any so called Marxist state of the 20th century onwards is a complete misnomer). So in this sense the Marxist principles which Brand attests to are truly radical, in the genuine sense of the word and I don't see their use as disparaging because they hint at the huge shift required to reach for a greater sense of equality.