Most of you have probably seen this making the rounds along with the rather sensationalist description as him having "started a revolution", so I thought I'd get a discussion started here.
My thoughts are first that the last supposed "revolution" (namely the occupy movement, which Brand mentions in the interview) petered out after achieving precisely nothing, aside from Brand's valid point that putting the 1% and 99% into popular parlance does at least draw attention to income disparity.
Second, I have a great degree of skepticism how Brand's new world order would actually work. Profit is bad? Massive corporate taxes? Some measure of redistribution of wealth I can maybe get behind, but haven't we seen that the profit motive is what makes humans do anything at all? If we remove the profit motive don't we need coercion to make people do anything?
For example, if there's no incentive (of profit) to produce food, industrial agriculture will grind to halt. How are we going to feed the world's people? Out of the kindness of our hearts? How are we going to heat our homes? Any political revolution that doesn't address the fact that 7 billion people need their basic needs met (and I realize that a good portion of those people's needs are not being met at present) is a non-starter for people like me. It's going to make things a hell of a lot worse before they get better.
But I'd like to hear from people who want to start throwing bricks into factories, since I'm pretty jaded and cynical about people in general.
I echo REDVAN...Russell Brand is an idiot who hasnt got a clue what he is talking about. Unfortunately because he is part of Hollywood he will get a bunch of followers.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
Well considering he has a net worth of over $15 million bucks, how about him first.
Its great to talk about massive corporate taxes and massive wealth distribution.
But it should start with the individual, and unfunny comedians should go first. So Russell, if you want to start, you could redistribute a cool mil to me.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Hey, despite his looks, he managed to snag Katy Perry, if only for a brief time...
True and was smart enough to convince her that they didn't need a prenup so he cleaned up nicely in that divorce as well.
He was also awesome enough to divorce her via text message.
His message is the typical Hollywood celebrity message. A lot of boiler plate stuff that they read about on the internet without a understanding of how things work. Its equivalent to the Tim Robbins speech in team america world cop.
Tim Robbins: Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I watched this last night and he just comes off as a rambling idiot to be quite honest.
I can get behind higher taxation for the ultra rich, but at the end of the day, rather than trying to bring the 1% down, why not strive to become part of the 1%?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
Second, I have a great degree of skepticism how Brand's new world order would actually work. Profit is bad? Massive corporate taxes? Some measure of redistribution of wealth I can maybe get behind, but haven't we seen that the profit motive is what makes humans do anything at all? If we remove the profit motive don't we need coercion to make people do anything?
Profit isn't the incentive of labour for the vast majority of people. For most people, the incentive of labour is simply living. For most people, profit is something unattainable and even a foreign concept. Typically, nobody profits unless someone else is receiveing a (labour : reward) deficit somewhere. Since about the 1500s, the West has been able to isolate these deficits to 3rd world countries, but that is changing. The global village is making it a lot tougher to control these things.
Quote:
For example, if there's no incentive (of profit) to produce food, industrial agriculture will grind to halt. How are we going to feed the world's people? Out of the kindness of our hearts? How are we going to heat our homes? Any political revolution that doesn't address the fact that 7 billion people need their basic needs met (and I realize that a good portion of those people's needs are not being met at present) is a non-starter for people like me. It's going to make things a hell of a lot worse before they get better.
We DON'T feed the world's people... there are people starving all over the world. The fact industry in the West in profit driven is a big reason why it's like that. We produce enough food for the world, but there is no profit in the distribution because the people who need it can't pay for it.. Logisitcally, we could do it and no one over here world starve to death trying. It might turn a few billionaires into millionaires at the worst.
There are wars and turmoil in many regions because the necessities of life (and a big part of the reason is because we support regimes that keep them that way so they can make our cheap crap and our tycoons can make a profit).
And I totally admit that I am part of the problem. I live a western lifestyle that takes advantage of these things, but at least I can admit that I don't care about the world's people either (and neither do most people whether they admit it or not).
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-25-2013 at 11:20 AM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The idea that we as westerners are the bad guys is ludicrious. Because no one outside of the western world takes advantage of others, right? Im not saying we cant make an effort but to think your going to fix the problem is quite naive. There has never ever been an example of a wide spread movement that has successfully implemented a system where there wasnt some group within that has taken advantage of the system. The idea that human nature is some how going to change is flat out dumb and a waste of time.
So far the system we have has been the most successful in driving innovation, improving quality of life and mortality across the board (albeit, unevenly). Every other concept of social structure has failed miserably or led to stagnant human development.
But hey, we could just go back to trading cottage skills. I mean dying when you were in your 40s wasn't that big of a deal right?
So far the system we have has been the most successful in driving innovation, improving quality of life and mortality across the board (albeit, unevenly). Every other concept of social structure has failed miserably or led to stagnant human development.
That's prbably true. And 200 years ago, the systems we used were more successful than than the ones 200 years before.
There is always resistance to change though, and it almost always means some of the poeple at the top get toppled.
I for one, much prefer living in a democracy and not an absolute monarchy despite the fact that many of the people resistant to change at the time also argued that it was better than the feudal system that existed before it.
Hopefully in 200 years we'll be able to improve on the ones we use now and people will be able to say that while 20th/21st century profit driven capitalism was the best up until that point, that they much prefer whatver system is evolved to replace it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Hopefully in 200 years we'll be able to improve on the ones we use now and people will be able to say that while 20th/21st century profit driven capitalism was the best up until that point, that they much prefer whatver system is evolved to replace it.
There very well could be. But like every other system, I guarantee that there will be some group rising above the rest and people crying its not fair.
Its funny cause everyone I have seen share this video on fb happens to be somebody I consider completely clueless on how the world works. They think profit is evil. But they love their medicine, their technology, their indoor plumbing... ugh I hate people like that. They are the absolute worst. Sociologists.
Too bad there aren't any possible middle grounds between ultra-libertarian unregulated capitalism and Soviet-style command economy communism.
There are still ultra rich people in socialist countries. The difference in wealth disparity from western capitalism and Scandinavian socialism (which I like) is still only a handful of percentage points...
Too bad there aren't any possible middle grounds between ultra-libertarian unregulated capitalism and Soviet-style command economy communism.
Governments have enough competence problems in terms of running an economy, the last thing we would want is any part of the government running the day to day operations.
Crown corporations have never really shown themselves to be well run and actually become a drain on government revenues.
Well considering he has a net worth of over $15 million bucks, how about him first.
Its great to talk about massive corporate taxes and massive wealth distribution.
But it should start with the individual, and unfunny comedians should go first. So Russell, if you want to start, you could redistribute a cool mil to me.
Brand was pretty funny in Get Him to the Greek, but celebrities, in general, should not be providing any kind of political advice.
As you say, Brand is extremely rich and has more than enough money to live several lives. I'm sure he will continue to charge huge fees for appearances and other roles. I'm sure he will continue to keep most of that money for himself.
Speaking of rich (or not so rich celebrities), was looking at "celebritynetworth.com", and it's pretty amazing how many celebrities have squandered ridicuous amounts of money and are totally broke.
Russell Brand's "revolution"
