You don't know who Russell Brand is? Movies, TV, standup comedian, and now an editor... he's also the voice of the mad scientist in Despicable Me. He's what you might call a polymath or at least a renaissance man.
He had a show on MTV a while back... not long after his standup career took off, but it was pretty horrible. Typical MTV stupid-funny stuff that was usually just stupid. He has made news more recently for being more outspoken and political. He's a really smart guy and puts the news-for-entertainment people to shame... see if I can find that other video...
My $0.02: Instead of the glaring problems with Brand's comments, I will focus on the one area of agreement I have with him. I agree with his assertion that there is no true alternative to the political party system we have.
The agreement ends there however. He believes that in a revolution to create a new egalitarian socialist society that would betas improvement. The mechanisms necessary to create such a system would concentrate power in a central system leading to the same oppressive governance the world has seen many times over. Due to human nature, it will be abused and cause massive tyranny and or death. No, the true alternative choice is one that values both individual liberty and individual responsibility with equal importance. It removes authority from a central state and increases authority on a local level. A system decentralized enough to avoid the financial corruption of both industry and labor. This unfortunately, is not a political option in our two party system. A great deal of Brand's statements are purely idealistic and show an lack of understanding of the darker side of human nature and motivation.
As the Brits would say, What a git. +1 to you Chet_Manly. The world may be full of problems, but all of Russel's prescriptions would simply make it worse.
I think what most of the commentors are missing here is that he's not advocating ANY particular system of government over another. He's saying that there are certain ideals we should strive for, (socialism with an "s", not an "S") and the darker side of humanity is the reason the current system doesn't work. Our leaders, in this democratic republic, are corrupt and have contempt for their responsibilities, care nothing for the needs of their constituents, and only serve themselves. If the leaders in a democracy were to be more compassionate and sympathetic as well as more responsible to their constituents, democracy would work just fine from Brand's perspective. The same goes for any other form of govt.; as long as the leaders are compassionate and responsible, the people of that society would surely benefit. He even mentions that when we vote, we simply switch one corrupt jerk for another.
Yes, his statements, and I'm sure his philosophies, are idealistic. But so were those of the Founding Fathers. Their time and society were simply different, so their ideals manifested in a different manner because of it. If you survived in the 1700s, you did so because of your independence and reliance upon yourself and your skills. Today, everyone depends far too much on technology and "retail" services in order to survive. The conversation is going to be very different for an idealist in modern society than what it was 200-odd years ago.
We could go back and forth for hours, I am sure, but I'll try to keep it brief. I agree with the comment of apathy, it comes from a largely bureaucratic government lacking in direct voter influence. I also agree that the influence of those who have a great deal of money from any side, causes the government to prey on the middle class as they are doing now. The solution Brandt called for was an egalitarian socialist society which is quite specific. It would only be a reworking of the current system to ensure equality of outcomes for all which would lead to an extreme deincentivization of the investor and worker alike. It will not work. I was merely pointing out that he was only calling for a change in the current system, and not a true alternative option. We agree on the problems, perhaps we don't see eye to eye on the solution, but I am sure that should the weight of resolving the worlds problems fall upon our shoulders, we would manage fine.
Our founding fathers were idealistic but they were very well grounded and schooled in governing systems and the principles upon which they built our country are as relevant today as ever. Our political system has corrupted and tried to change them, but they will always be relevant in any society. For example: Individual liberty and responsibility go hand in hand, and politics are best kept local, where the individual can have the most influence over the decisions affecting their lives as possible.
I do not believe I missed his point. I do believe I see the flaws inherent in his ideals and argument. Good evening sir, enjoy your weekend.
These people completely ignore basic human nature, which you pointed out in different words earlier. It's all a theoretical, academic exercise to them. Remember that Communism 0.55 (Pre-alpha) was compiled in a library in London and somehow thought to be the Gold Master release version. This is just another plan laid out by people who seem to lack any life experience; or they took their narrow life experience and managed to find the least competent solution.
Pin it! 
14 comments
Login to comment →
High_Binder 10 years, 5 months ago
Who the fuck is this guy and why should I give a shit about him?
Reply
jgreene777 10 years, 5 months ago
You don't know who Russell Brand is? Movies, TV, standup comedian, and now an editor... he's also the voice of the mad scientist in Despicable Me. He's what you might call a polymath or at least a renaissance man.
Reply
High_Binder 10 years, 5 months ago
We obviously have different tastes in what we watch. I've seen his face a few times and figured he was just some whiny Brit singer.
Reply
jgreene777 10 years, 5 months ago
He had a show on MTV a while back... not long after his standup career took off, but it was pretty horrible. Typical MTV stupid-funny stuff that was usually just stupid. He has made news more recently for being more outspoken and political. He's a really smart guy and puts the news-for-entertainment people to shame... see if I can find that other video...
Reply
jgreene777 10 years, 5 months ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJhErmJuoQ
Reply
High_Binder 10 years, 5 months ago
Thanks!
Reply
sam_acw 10 years, 5 months ago
About as talented as a lump of concrete. He comes across as some sort of ignorant first year student.
Reply
JakeLonergan 10 years, 5 months ago
I don't even have to watch the clip to know THAT (letting him on TV) was a horrifying mistake.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 5 months ago
My $0.02: Instead of the glaring problems with Brand's comments, I will focus on the one area of agreement I have with him. I agree with his assertion that there is no true alternative to the political party system we have.
The agreement ends there however. He believes that in a revolution to create a new egalitarian socialist society that would betas improvement. The mechanisms necessary to create such a system would concentrate power in a central system leading to the same oppressive governance the world has seen many times over. Due to human nature, it will be abused and cause massive tyranny and or death.
No, the true alternative choice is one that values both individual liberty and individual responsibility with equal importance. It removes authority from a central state and increases authority on a local level. A system decentralized enough to avoid the financial corruption of both industry and labor. This unfortunately, is not a political option in our two party system.
A great deal of Brand's statements are purely idealistic and show an lack of understanding of the darker side of human nature and motivation.
Reply
kilroy182 10 years, 5 months ago
As the Brits would say, What a git. +1 to you Chet_Manly. The world may be full of problems, but all of Russel's prescriptions would simply make it worse.
Reply
kilroy182 10 years, 5 months ago
that was supposed to say plus 1.
Reply
jgreene777 10 years, 5 months ago
I think what most of the commentors are missing here is that he's not advocating ANY particular system of government over another. He's saying that there are certain ideals we should strive for, (socialism with an "s", not an "S") and the darker side of humanity is the reason the current system doesn't work. Our leaders, in this democratic republic, are corrupt and have contempt for their responsibilities, care nothing for the needs of their constituents, and only serve themselves. If the leaders in a democracy were to be more compassionate and sympathetic as well as more responsible to their constituents, democracy would work just fine from Brand's perspective. The same goes for any other form of govt.; as long as the leaders are compassionate and responsible, the people of that society would surely benefit. He even mentions that when we vote, we simply switch one corrupt jerk for another.
Yes, his statements, and I'm sure his philosophies, are idealistic. But so were those of the Founding Fathers. Their time and society were simply different, so their ideals manifested in a different manner because of it. If you survived in the 1700s, you did so because of your independence and reliance upon yourself and your skills. Today, everyone depends far too much on technology and "retail" services in order to survive. The conversation is going to be very different for an idealist in modern society than what it was 200-odd years ago.
Reply
Chet_Manly 10 years, 5 months ago
We could go back and forth for hours, I am sure, but I'll try to keep it brief.
I agree with the comment of apathy, it comes from a largely bureaucratic government lacking in direct voter influence. I also agree that the influence of those who have a great deal of money from any side, causes the government to prey on the middle class as they are doing now.
The solution Brandt called for was an egalitarian socialist society which is quite specific. It would only be a reworking of the current system to ensure equality of outcomes for all which would lead to an extreme deincentivization of the investor and worker alike. It will not work.
I was merely pointing out that he was only calling for a change in the current system, and not a true alternative option.
We agree on the problems, perhaps we don't see eye to eye on the solution, but I am sure that should the weight of resolving the worlds problems fall upon our shoulders, we would manage fine.
Our founding fathers were idealistic but they were very well grounded and schooled in governing systems and the principles upon which they built our country are as relevant today as ever. Our political system has corrupted and tried to change them, but they will always be relevant in any society.
For example:
Individual liberty and responsibility go hand in hand, and politics are best kept local, where the individual can have the most influence over the decisions affecting their lives as possible.
I do not believe I missed his point. I do believe I see the flaws inherent in his ideals and argument. Good evening sir, enjoy your weekend.
Reply
JakeLonergan 10 years, 5 months ago
These people completely ignore basic human nature, which you pointed out in different words earlier. It's all a theoretical, academic exercise to them. Remember that Communism 0.55 (Pre-alpha) was compiled in a library in London and somehow thought to be the Gold Master release version. This is just another plan laid out by people who seem to lack any life experience; or they took their narrow life experience and managed to find the least competent solution.
Reply