I think Brand was answering his questions perfectly fine so again I'm going to have to disagree. When Paxman asked for ideas Russell gave him some. When he asked him why we should take him seriously because he doesn't vote he explained how he advocates a passive system of non participation in a broken system. What on earth has somebody voting got to do with taking them seriously when it comes to discussing politics? I can see to a Joe Soap how it would seem counter intuitive and a hypocrisy but really that's just abject bullshit when confronted with the logical inference that the individual is not going to win picking between the apple and the orange when they do not like either.

What will happen in the revolution and what do we need to do to bring it about? It could be a quiet revolution. It's an extreme term and conjures images of red stars, your favorite Che mug and abtruse, clumsy quotation of The Matrix movies.

Brand has already hypothesized on the current and coming generations non participation in the current system. This, coupled with increased resistance and non compliance with levies considered unfair, would bring about a hopefully peaceful but nontheless disenfranchised populace who would become agitated into a state of continual respondent backlash which would gradually - with the help of people with the stature of Brand and the open platform of a wonder like the internet contributing to altering the general zeitgeist - push the powers that be out. The more important part of course is getting a system ready to replace it with. See post #1. It's obviously a natural inclination to be dubious about out ability to pull it off but sure what is the harm in trying.

Lets all be Jesus Christs of the impending world to come.

It's the only thing I'm in any way half decent at apart from procrastinating and singing Radiohead songs pissed.

Why is the onus on those of us who paid more attention to self education in our youth to tone our diction down you dull bastard.

Tune your mind up. I'm not getting a downgrade.

Whatever you're just using a thesaurus, noone speaks like that and no one needs to speak like that

My guess is he's read 'The New Few' and it made him think.

I can't see anyone using that complex language in this thread, if you can't understand them then maybe you are the one who could benefit from google

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language

Political non-participation doesn't achieve anything other than the ability to fester in knowing just how terrible this broken system is for another term, though. The logic that "you've never voted so you've signed away your right to have a say" is annoying, but it's still true. If you didn't vote, you let the country get into this mess by doing nothing. First past the post is a deeply flawed system but it's not going to get any better by doing nothing about it.

Firstly, the country needs a proportional representation system. We'd get more coalition governments but at least people would feel more inclined to vote, knowing that their votes actually count for something rather than being wasted. If you really want to vote for the Greens but you feel there's no point in doing so because they don't stand a chance - they'll never stand a chance. Voter participation in the UK is shockingly low. The Tories want to keep it that way, it's the only way they'll manage to hold on to power, if everyone feels too apathetic to get down to a polling station and vote. That's why Paxman was bringing it up so much - who is Russell Brand to criticise the system if he's never engaged with it? Not because Russell Brand is a comedian, not because Russell Brand is an actor, but because Russell Brand is a British citizen who has never voted for any government and really just wants to see it all collapse to make way for something new, without ever actually specifying what that something new should be.

Communism has never worked because the figurehead of any communist state thus far has been too greedy to relinquish their grip on leadership. What's that old adage about democracy being a terrible system but it's better than all the rest? We get what we vote for, and many people don't vote at all; so when they complain about the government they have, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who do vote, those of us who tried to vote for what we wanted.

The government supports big businesses because big businesses support the country's interests. How does he propose to break that cycle without plunging the country into some kind of Great Depression? I don't know, there are so many tangents you could go off into when discussing political overhaul, I don't want to open any cans of worms, but I basically just think that he said a whole lot of nothing and people are heaping praise onto him because he's a celebrity who's taken an interest in politics and has an unusual way of speaking. That's a good thing, generally, that people are pleased that a celebrity is interested in politics, but he needs to be better at expressing himself more concisely.

(Which, if you couldn't already tell, isn't a skill I have :laugh:)

Not saying it's everyday spoken language, but don't think it's that out of place for written language - which has always been more elaborate - in a serious debate thread. Like I wouldn't talk in the same way that I write an essay, but that doesn't mean I'm just poring over a thesaurus

And if you did watch the video in the OP then Brand uses more complex language than anything in this thread

oh salman finds intelligent conversation difficult, this is news to me

What words in that post do you not get? Out of all of Stu's posts in here I'd have said that was the easiest to understand :suspect:

seriously? like I'm not dumb or anything but it's annoying having to read through all of that
Perhaps choosing to study English Language & Linguistics next year isn't such a good idea

I'm being serious LOL there's no words in that particular post that are difficult, surely you know what discourse is, you've done Sociology? :suspect:

Omg of course I know what discourse is, although discourse is not something they teach in sociology lmao

It's the second half of the sentence I don't get :shrug:

I would say this thread is going off topic but this is exactly how Russell Brand speaks to it's sort of relevant :laugh:

Right I'm confused I can see what sociology has to do with the thread, but not semantics.

Maybe not to you but I take a daily interest in bettering my knowledge of the world. And though it sounds it I don't consider that to be some mad ass ego trip either. I think it's a free right that should be available and encouraged to everyone. When my kids are born once they've learned how to walk and talk I'm sending their asses to the library and surrounding them with books like my parents done for me. Beyond their love, their food and their shelter it's the greatest thing they've ever done for me and I am indebted to them for it.

Language is something to be proud of and something that should continue to be cultivated. It's not enough to understand the words on the type of television that you watch. The idea that I must be using a thesaurus because you of all people cannot understand me is hysterical.

I hope this was all easy enough to understand. You could always return to a favored pop thread to communicate in moving pictures like a child with an etch-a-sketch, my blood.

I sense the can of worms, brother. I'm wary of discussing specific things at length too because it could go on and on and I respect the view that you're obviously not going to change for my white ass.

With regard to non participation it's an odd one because in a sense the only thing I can do is do the impossible and actually speak for Brand himself. He seems to view the entire system presently as corrupt. We can play the blame game with voters and non voters alike earning the nation a succession of bad governments but at present he views all the mainstream voting options in their entirety to be unsuitable for the type of world he wishes for and seems to think that non compliance on a mass scale is the favored way to shift the prevailing paradigm - obviously combined with having, importantly, a replacement system ready to go. It's an interesting theory.

In regards to communism Brand's admittedly vague description of a 'socialist egalitarian' state may not correspond greatly to some of the whims of it but it's odd that you mention the C word because I recall a previous Brand rant where he described communism as a system like a computer, and it's not the computers fault that some people abused it to do things like go and have a wank. Or something like that.

I don't think one needs to bankrupt the economy and encourage a depression just to remove some of the more nefarious elements of political bias towards big corporations. Refusing to bail out bigwigs who have already had a chance and refusing to sanction some of the big corp practices that seek to abuse workforces and natural resources isn't going to cripple the economy. This isn't as idealistic as some "kill all business and let's go back to nature" type ideal. It's just a matter of being kinder to one another and balancing the wealth more. Helping those who need it more than those who really don't. Now that is horrifically vague, I know. But at the end of the day I think Brand put his views across just fine. It was a ten minute newsnight interview and I found him concise and engaging. Maybe if he were to base an entire show around his revolution we could gain a better picture.

Also I'm a paddy and I can say that my knowledge of your political system is limited to Have I Got News For You, the odd TiBB news thread and morning mong outs set to the tune of Sky News. If we're going to get into specifics about British politics I'm going to go running like a little bitch.

Communism just popped into my head because he mentions that the world at large is a corrupt place and the slate needs to be wiped clean, essentially, which is what communism hinges on; the need for revolutions around the world to occur in order to establish a blank slate. In reality this never happened, because the figureheads for such movements needed to be selfless leaders who would step aside once certain goals had been achieved; and because one of those goals was getting all countries around the world to turn to communism, it could never happen anyway. Russell Brand wants the same thing to happen, the world to start anew, so I suppose that's why I brought communism into it.

I think it would be interesting to watch Russell Brand speak about his views in great depth, I think it would be deeply insightful and I think it would put a relatable face onto many of the issues that people in the UK feel but don't express publicly en masse. It's impossible to co-ordinate the entire country because there are huge conflicts of interest. I think I'll back out of this thread before I start writing essays about what could and should be done to make the country better :laugh:

All you have to know about for the current party in power the venture capitalist is king.
And as we hurtle towards oligarchy private industry is preferable, not alongside... but instead of public.

What we're hurtling towards is, in my opinion, something much more terrifying than an oligarchy. It's more like a disembodied plutocracy in which "the individual" is a meaningless term. What I mean by that is, there will be no individual, thinking people at the top of the oncoming plutocracy. It will be a plutocracy of corporate entities which are becoming so massive that they are starting to operate independently of individual rational thought. Different limbs of the same multinationals operate without there being any one individual fully aware of what the entity as a whole "is" or "does". These powerful entities will end up in control of all of our lives without anyone in control, even within the corporations themselves. They are Legion. A hive mind of millions of employees being loosely given direction by market forces and economic tides, again, controlled by no one, and technically completely imaginary.

I like Russell Brand but I wish he'd have just been honest here. He can see how things should be, how things always should have been, but aren't. The reason he can't come up with an actual coherent "plan" or even an idea of how to achieve this ideal is because there isn't one. We're a hundred years too late.

The world is an overpopulated sh*tstorm of economic chaos; it's a train crash in slow motion. All we can really do is sit back and watch, hope that life remains passable throughout our lives and those of our immediate offspring, and muse idly over how it COULD have been so much better, but now, can't. I reckon Brand knows this. Would have made for depressing telly, though.

He believes in Christianity, he believes in its principles , morals and he also believes in God. Im not claiming him for anyone, this is what he believes.
His philosophy is along these lines though he doesn't directly bring Christ into it. Clearly Christ is one of his main inspirations. Its good to have a strong and good set of morals and they apply it to modern every day situations and social problems, as brand is doing.

He also brings his own inimitable take on todays political wranglings. and rightly highlights again and again the absurd immoral status quo of the entire world economy....where the 99.9% are enslaved still by the 0.1%

Its good to keep underlining this point, because in the past that 0.1% have always survived and thrived by dividing and conquering the rest of the 99.9%
we the people must unite behind one voice that firstly says its unacceptable. then join forces with the millions of a similar mind and work together to change society

this can be through marches, campaigns, blogging, tweeting, changing thoughts and perceptions, outing the phenomenal corporate corruption and the political corruption that enables this to happen. exposing and pressurising these corporate puppets in parliament to quit or get voted out

we need to fight to re-nationalise the energy (gas water electricity) this is done by fighting the argument and when we win that argument then we will see politicians thrown out sooner.

take a look at Michael moore, take a look at john pilger, Galloway, tony benn, barack Obama....these people have changed the western world.
make your voice heard

if he wrote a manifesto he would be mocked and ridiculued and hung out to dry

Obviously it is easier to stand outside politics and talk.
But if it is informed intelligent cutting edge based opinion, it is relevant
I agree at this moment he cant be taken particularly seriously as its mostly theory. But if millions listen to his words, that alone can enter the british consciousness. itll be fascinating to see if he gets more serious and active

I watched a programme about Japan, they seemingly have a plutocrasy.... They feel part of the organization or sector they work within. We don't have that mindset any longer 'there is no such thing as society' remember?
Even though democracy is deeply entrenched in our culture it would take a something pretty massive to change that..... In fact I feel it would have to be enforced, with the tories cosying up to China that's not so crazy to imagine suddenly.
There is a way to beat the system by not using the services provided by these giants?
That would be thinking with our heads and our feet.

FoxNewsHD Red Eye adult comedy show
is debating the Paxman - Brand interview
They say Brands net worth is $15million.

Red Eye
UK 8AM online only (via directv.to)

USA 3AM

Utter Bliss Stu

But I didn't say I think he should have had a manifesto. Just some ideas beyond stating "the system is broken and needs fixing" - many people agree with him, but he shouldn't be applauded for stating the obvious in my opinion. If he'd gone into that interview and said "the first step is..." then that would have sufficed. Just some evidence that he knows what he's talking about, politically, rather than using archaic language to essentially state that the country, and world at large, needs an overhaul.