Champagne Socialism

Scroll to see replies

No exact amount, but Brand wouldn't be so big without corporations backing him. In fact he's scapegoating an institution to avoid taking responsibility for his own part in promoting wealth inequality

Remember Brand was banned from British TV for a while with Jonathan Ross, got back in the USA then came back 'a new man', this is probably an attempt to 'rebrand' his image geddit

I don't remember him being 'banned', i just recall him going to America to work in movies. As for this being a 'rebranding' excercise lol this is probably the worst way to reinvent yourself, PR wise. If he still only cynically cared about money and fame he'd have stayed in the US and continued to milk the cow.

I do think he's probably somewhere on the road to recovery from the alcoholism, drugs and that though

Well he's been clean for 11 years.

Thing is you're missing the point by turning the argument against what he's doing into something personal. If you think that Westbrook Partners should go ahead with the buy out and destroy a community of working class people, then say so and give reasons for why he shouldn't join the resident's protest. I'd only accept the charge of hypocrisy if he was say, on the board of Westbrook, or personally gained from companies doing this sort of thing. It's elementary to dismiss what he's done here simply because he is a millionaire.

Reply 41

scrotgrot

Even champagne socialists must work within a capitalist system. It's like saying pro-Western agitators in Soviet Russia should have given up their job at the factory and not joined the queue for bread.

At least champagne socialists preach the right message rather than licking the boots of capitalism just because they happen to have worked out how to make a few bob out of it.

Reply 42

Smash Bandicoot

Original post by tomclarky

Yes he has become hugely successful and famous and made loads of money from corporations etc etc but the point remains, what can he now do until you personally won't ignore his views because of his supposed hypocrisy? He's already stated he's done with Hollywood and will invest his future earnings from his book and such into community projects. You're dismissing him for life based on his career without giving any critique of what he's actually saying on this matter.

I don't remember him being 'banned', i just recall him going to America to work in movies. As for this being a 'rebranding' excercise lol this is probably the worst way to reinvent yourself, PR wise. If he still only cynically cared about money and fame he'd have stayed in the US and continued to milk the cow.

Well he's been clean for 11 years.

Thing is you're missing the point by turning the argument against what he's doing into something personal. If you think that Westbrook Partners should go ahead with the buy out and destroy a community of working class people, then say so and give reasons for why he shouldn't join the resident's protest. I'd only accept the charge of hypocrisy if he was say, on the board of Westbrook, or personally gained from companies doing this sort of thing. It's elementary to dismiss what he's done here simply because he is a millionaire.

why do you feel so strongly about this? He's a controversial character, he likes being where the drama is. His intentions are noble for sure, but I find he's a rather ironic character to do so, and he's making out he's some massive professor on the subject now when it is like the equivalent of me reading Das Kapital and pretending to know how to overthrow the capitalist state.

'Hypocrite' is a strong word come to think of it, still I don't feel he's being 100% honest and there's a bit of PR going on too. :/

Reply 43

tomclarky

Original post by Smash Bandicoot

Really? He's openly admitted multiple times that he isn't an expert on conventional polictics and economics. He says his intention is to try to amplify the voices of ordianary people fighting for a good cause and to give more of a voice to the people that are the professors of the big global issues who have radical, alternative ideas of how we can run things.

Reply 44

Smash Bandicoot

Original post by tomclarky

Fair enough, well he should go to a uni and pull out a professor to talk with him :smile:

Reply 45

The Socktor

Original post by william walker

I hate the government because it made me disabled.

How? Are you old enough to have been conscripted or something?

Reply 46

william walker

Original post by The Socktor

How? Are you old enough to have been conscripted or something?

I was neglected by the NHS when I was born and forcing to go to school when I was getting bullied. So that is how the government made me disabled.

Reply 47

mstone12

so basically people think we cant trust labour we cant trust the tories we ant trust ukip we cant trust the greens we cant trust the lib dems so we cant trust any of them?

Reply 48

Quady

Original post by william walker

I was neglected by the NHS when I was born and forcing to go to school when I was getting bullied. So that is how the government made me disabled.

I heard about that legislation, I was shocked that it was passed...

Reply 49

william walker

Original post by Quady

I heard about that legislation, I was shocked that it was passed...

I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Reply 50

Quady

Original post by william walker

I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The Acts of Parliament the Government passed to give you disabilities.

I hope its repelled one day.

Good luck.

Reply 51

Ruitker

Original post by Reluire

Uhh how can that be true when UKIP is one of the most right wing parties in the UK?

The political lean of a party is irrelevant, there is nothing to say a right-wing party cannot represent the majority. There is a common misconception the working class all want socialism or all want greater equality through utilitarianism. As we saw with Thatcher large parts of the working class voted for Thatcherism; they actually liked her policies. Left and right wing politics does not link in with social class. There are trends between certain policies but the trends are not broad enough to allow grouping of one half of the political spectrum and a class. Left and right wing in themselves don't make complete sense. The terms originated during the French Revolution but have reached a point where they are now meaningless. The polling reveals the working classes are turning to UKIP and their policies.

Reply 52

tomclarky

For fairness, here's Russell's reply.

[video="youtube;HMjBqrWQ_5g"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjBqrWQ_5g[/video]

Reply 53

Quady

Original post by Ruitker

The polling reveals the working classes are turning to UKIP and their policies.

Have their policies been announced yet?

I know the flat tax has gone and the personal allowance/higher rate threshold proposals but is their a Further/Higher Eduation policy yet?

Reply 54

Chlorophile

This is a classic, ridiculous argument that the right wing absolutely loves. Living a comfortable life and accepting that there are serious social problems in the world that have to be solved are not mutually exclusive. In Russell Brand's case, he earns a massive amount of money. I don't know how much of it he gives to good causes but regardless, that doesn't mean that he can't keep some for himself. It's like having a go at Bill Gates for owning an expensive property despite the fact that he gives away billions.

Another similar argument that people use against environmentalists is "You complain so much about the world's oil addictions, yet you still use cars". Same argument, just as stupid. If you live in a society addicted to oil, it is literally impossible to go about your work without using it. It doesn't mean they're hypocritical, it's a simple fact that because nobody is seriously interested in transferring to renewables, going totally oil-free is impossible. You can still campaign to introduce more sustainable forms of energy.

Reply 55

n00

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

I really wish Russell Brand would drop it; he doesn't have a clue.

Do you feel the same about TSR users whose opinions you don't like? :eek:

Reply 56

BobbieShamrock

Original post by william walker

Capitalism is a Marxist word, stop using capitalism. Start using free trade.

Pft free trade makes it sound better than it is. Allow free trade and you end up with a country ruled by big corporations.

Reply 57

Puddles the Monkey

Original post by n00

Do you feel the same about TSR users whose opinions you don't like? :eek:

No, not at all. And, most TSR users aren't on national TV encouraging young people not to vote :frown:

Although you're right, I probably should have put more thought into that post.

Reply 58

william walker

Original post by BobbieShamrock

Pft free trade makes it sound better than it is. Allow free trade and you end up with a country ruled by big corporations.

As opposed to the country being ruled by one government.

Reply 59

BobbieShamrock

Original post by william walker

As opposed to the country being ruled by one government.

Obviously an unbiased government is better than one that's been bribed and coerced into allowing god knows what by the likes of Nestle and Monsanto.

Not that a totally unbiased government is ever going to be possible, but the less biased the better and 'free trade' (ie capitalism) won't get anywhere near it.