Russell Brand on Paxman

donaghs

Wouldn't bother posting this here except for all the people online, on TV and in person who I've heard praising him, and seem to think Russell Brand had something profound to say, or some sort of solution to the problems of the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

There's a discussion on After Hours too, but maybe not the best place for a more insightful debate!

He's basically listing all the things he dislikes about modern politics, which many (most?) people would agree with. But there's nothing new here. And I think if you are going to advocate people don't vote, you need to provide some serious alternative.

This appears to be as close as he comes to providing some "alternative structure": "a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibilities for energy companies exploiting the environment".

In short, I agree that democracy as it exists often seems pointless, and there are huge problems like environmental pollution that are not being addressed properly by people in power. But simply pointing this out isn't really radical or worthy of a high profile TV interview?

johnnyskeleton

Yup.

Probably best not to bring any further attention to it.

Fukuoka Eagle

Russell Brand and how Newsnight's become the Guardian's TV lapdog Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2475991/ROSS-CLARK-Russell-Brand-Newsnights-Guardians-TV-lapdog.html#ixzz2kXeo7qxf

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No no no, the socialist egalitarian idea is to distribute other people's wealth. Russell Brand has done his homework.

Toby Take a Bow

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But that is what he is arguing. Redistributing his wealth, within a system that he finds profoundly flawed, would be pointless, and tokenistic (and, therefore, the opposite of 'genuine').

goose2005

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

But that is what he is arguing. Redistributing his wealth, within a system that he finds profoundly flawed, would be pointless, and tokenistic (and, therefore, the opposite of 'genuine').

But by that logic, adding his voice to a debate involving millions of voices would also be pointless and tokenistic.

tdv123

goose2005 wrote: »

But by that logic, adding his voice to a debate involving millions of voices would also be pointless and tokenistic.

People probably said the same thing about Lenin when he was doing interviews on the Terry Wogan show.

Toby Take a Bow

goose2005 wrote: »

But by that logic, adding his voice to a debate involving millions of voices would also be pointless and tokenistic.

Not necessarily, as it would depend on what the two actions achieved (or attempted to achieve). Regardless, he is arguing for a redistribution of wealth (on general terms) not for individuals to redistribute their own wealth (which would be simply encouraging philanthropy). By discussing his views on tv, you could argue that he is attempting to set the debate rolling. What I actually think he was doing was desperately attempt to justify himself as editor of a politics magazine, but that's besides the point.

touts

The ironic thing about holding the revolution Brand wants is he would be one of the first up against the wall.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Toby Take a Bow

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Regardless, he is arguing for a redistribution of wealth (on general terms) not for individuals to redistribute their own wealth.

A polite term for taking other people's money without consent, then

Toby Take a Bow

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If hyperbole is your thing, then, sure, yeah.

bluewolf wrote: »

A polite term for taking other people's money without consent, then

Another polite term would be tax. Maybe not all that polite a term, actually. The 'without consent' would be subjective and would require a deep understanding of the wants and desires of a group of people.

Iwasfrozen

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Another polite term would be tax. Maybe not all that polite a term, actually. The 'without consent' would be subjective and would require a deep understanding of the wants and desires of a group of people.

Why does it mater unless you can find some way to dodge the tax consent is irrelevant.