Russell Brand rages at Rupert Murdoch and The Sun

[Saint-Armstrong]

Russell Brand, in the Guardian, has written this piece about The Sun and Rupert Murdoch: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/29/russell-brand-rages-sun-rupert-murdoch?CMP=twt_gu

 

Enjoyed that read, often do enjoy reading his views.

[trousers]

[aintforever]

Brand speaks alot of sense as usual.

[bridge too far]

Whether you agree with his views or not, you have to admire his eloquence I think

[farawaysaint]

Whether you agree with his views or not, you have to admire his eloquence I think

 

Bugger that, the Sun is a rag, but Brand is an arrogant, hypocritical nonce. I was inundated with requests to view his fabulous interview and the "amazing" points he made, I watched it and was left feeling that he was a farcical idiot. He preaches a holier than thou anti corporate viewpoint substantiated by absolutely nothing. Yes, let's tear down a corrupt society, all not vote and just do whatever the hell we each want I'm sure that'll make everything better.

[bridge too far]

Bugger that, the Sun is a rag, but Brand is an arrogant, hypocritical nonce. I was inundated with requests to view his fabulous interview and the "amazing" points he made, I watched it and was left feeling that he was a farcical idiot. He preaches a holier than thou anti corporate viewpoint substantiated by absolutely nothing. Yes, let's tear down a corrupt society, all not vote and just do whatever the hell we each want I'm sure that'll make everything better.

 

But he's still very eloquent. As I said - whether you love him or hate him I wish I had such a command of the English language.

[Rasiak-9-]

Bugger that, the Sun is a rag, but Brand is an arrogant, hypocritical nonce. I was inundated with requests to view his fabulous interview and the "amazing" points he made, I watched it and was left feeling that he was a farcical idiot. He preaches a holier than thou anti corporate viewpoint substantiated by absolutely nothing. Yes, let's tear down a corrupt society, all not vote and just do whatever the hell we each want I'm sure that'll make everything better.

 

It really mystified me how Brand could be taken seriously, especially as he seems to honestly think that his ideas haven't been thought of by anyone before, and haven't been critiqued and discussed by people infinitely more intelligent than he is, backed up with numbers, facts, economics and serious political theory.

[Rasiak-9-]

Socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond the 'public ownership of the means of production', what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics and political science - no, it relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the subjective idea of what is 'fair' rather than what works.

 

...and, whenever it is pinned down and shown NOT to work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.

[TopGun]

No time for Brand or Murdoch!

[View From The Top]

Socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond the 'public ownership of the means of production', what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics and political science - no, it relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the subjective idea of what is 'fair' rather than what works.

 

...and, whenever it is pinned down and shown NOT to work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.

 

Utterly drivel.

[badgerx16]

Socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. ....

 

Hope this helps...

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism

[JackFrost]

Socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond the 'public ownership of the means of production', what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics and political science - no, it relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the subjective idea of what is 'fair' rather than what works.

 

...and, whenever it is pinned down and shown NOT to work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.

 

I's say that's more a very accurate summary of the current Labour Party

[saintbletch]

Socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond the 'public ownership of the means of production', what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics and political science - no, it relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the subjective idea of what is 'fair' rather than what works.

 

...and, whenever it is pinned down and shown NOT to work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.

 

Nicely written!

 

But, and here's the odd thing, I'm guessing that you formed the first paragraph thinking it in some way pejorative.

 

I've read it a few times now and can't help thinking that you've failed to quite hit the insult. Words that appear invective to those on the right hit their targets on the left as no more than moist kisses.

 

Also I like the idea that what is "fair" is subjective, but what "works" seems to be somehow empirical.

 

Works from whose perspective Rasiak-9- ?

 

I once heard Socialism defined as "Compassion" and that's not a bad place to start.

[Rasiak-9-]

Hope this helps...

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism

 

This is a perfect example of exactly what I've said; a generic, wishy-washy definition that doesn't actually mean anything. Mises and Bastiat and in later times, Friedman, Rothbard and Sowell have all examined the various possible meanings of "public ownership of the means of production" and deconstructed precisely why none of them are remotely feasible and indeed how and why that very phrase relies purely on an appeal to emotion and subjectivity .

 

Nevertheless, it is quite telling that rather than a counter-point clarifying the definition of socialism, I get two sarcastic and sulky posts telling me that I don't understand what socialism is, which is what I accused socialism of being guilty of in the first place!

 

I'm afraid that if either of you want to be taken seriously in terms of politics and economics, you might want to extend your reading beyond that of the Guardian and an encyclopedia definition

[warsash saint]

Really can't believe people still buy The Sun

[badgerx16]

This is a perfect example of exactly what I've said; a generic, wishy-washy definition that doesn't actually mean anything. Mises and Bastiat and in later times, Friedman, Rothbard and Sowell have all examined the various possible meanings of "public ownership of the means of production" and deconstructed precisely why none of them are remotely feasible and indeed how and why that very phrase relies purely on an appeal to emotion and subjectivity .

 

Nevertheless, it is quite telling that rather than a counter-point clarifying the definition of socialism, I get two sarcastic and sulky posts telling me that I don't understand what socialism is, which is what I accused socialism of being guilty of in the first place!

 

I'm afraid that if either of you want to be taken seriously in terms of politics and economics, you might want to extend your reading beyond that of the Guardian and an encyclopedia definition

 

I replied, tongue in cheek, with a 'definition' - something you claimed was lacking.

 

However, for what it's worth, here's my definition of 'capitalism' - the creed of avarice and "I'm alright Jack".

Edited 30 November, 2013 by badgerx16

[Smirking_Saint]

But he's still very eloquent. As I said - whether you love him or hate him I wish I had such a command of the English language.

 

He is eloquent yes but to me it seems he uses it in an attempt to sway the layman to his views as if you understand and follow his arguements from start to finish you soon realise he has no real valid points.

[Patrick Bateman]

Whether you agree with his views or not, you have to admire his eloquence I think

 

Give over. The man is an absolute cretin and about as erudite as a fat slug that's had a kilo of salt poured on it. Utter (as the Sun unfortunately pointed out, hypocritical) moron

[farawaysaint]

I replied, tongue in cheek, with a 'definition' - something you claimed was lacking.

 

However, for what it's worth, here's my definition of 'capitalism' - the creed of avarice and "I'm alright Jack".

 

If someone comes up with an original and brilliant idea don't they deserve to be rewarded? If you study for 10 years to obtain a qualification shouldn't you be entitled to some form of compensation?

 

What is the incentive for innovation if no competition exists? The "free rider" problem of economic game theory is the downfall of any socialist experiment as it appears to be impossible to motivate everybody by sheer altruism.

 

Capitalism is one of the few ways mankind has found to ensure an efficient (but far from perfect) allocation of resources, avarice as you term it is one of the few efficient ways to motivate people.

[bridge too far]

Give over. The man is an absolute cretin and about as erudite as a fat slug that's had a kilo of salt poured on it. Utter (as the Sun unfortunately pointed out, hypocritical) moron

 

Crikey - no-one bothers to read any more, do they. Twice I've said that I admire his eloquence. That has nothing to do with his morals or any hypocrisy. But he certainly isn't a cretin.

 

Many moons ago I admired Enoch Powell's eloquence. But I didn't ever agree with his views although he too wasn't a cretin.

 

It is possible to detach one from the other, I think

[badgerx16]

If someone comes up with an original and brilliant idea don't they deserve to be rewarded? If you study for 10 years to obtain a qualification shouldn't you be entitled to some form of compensation?

 

What is the incentive for innovation if no competition exists? The "free rider" problem of economic game theory is the downfall of any socialist experiment as it appears to be impossible to motivate everybody by sheer altruism.

 

Capitalism is one of the few ways mankind has found to ensure an efficient (but far from perfect) allocation of resources, avarice as you term it is one of the few efficient ways to motivate people.

 

And it's baser side is what caused the worldwide financial meltdown. If people are motivated solely by acquisition of wealth and materiel they risk losing their humanity. By all means reward innovation and creativity, but why should somebody be paid huge amounts of money for gambling with other people's livelihoods ?

Edited 30 November, 2013 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

If someone comes up with an original and brilliant idea don't they deserve to be rewarded? If you study for 10 years to obtain a qualification shouldn't you be entitled to some form of compensation?

 

Of course they do, but that concept is far removed from today's form of capitalism. I think that is partly Brand's point.

 

People with brilliant ideas or highly qualified professionals add value to society so deserve their rewards. A banker who gambles other people's money to make himself and his company rich adds no value to society.

[Batman]

Seems brand is in bed with the sun as much as anyone can be

seems odd to bite the hand that feeds you

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm sick of people like brand , coogan and grant lecturing the country on what they should and should not read. They are perfectly willing to take Murdoch's shilling to further their careers , whilst moralising to the rest of us. I just wish they'd **** off .

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I once heard Socialism defined as "Compassion" and that's not a bad place to start.

 

[saintbletch]

 

Even compassion should be 'mean' tested KelvinsRightGlove.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Even compassion should be 'mean' tested KelvinsRightGlove.

 

Compassion, unless you disagree with us.

 

Then you are scum.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Exactly krg, just look at Barry Sanchez for example.

[saintbletch]

Compassion, unless you disagree with us.

 

Then you are scum.

 

Apologies if my flippancy caused offence. I was striving for humour because I didn't think you were being serious. It seems you were, so I guess there a few things that I should make clear.

 

I'm not a political scientist and can't succinctly define Socialism; it seems to be a more personal thing to me.

 

I'm not a socialist - although I do agree with many of the principles.

 

I don't speak for socialists; I'm not an elected mouthpiece.

 

I see a difference between social compassion and emotional compassion.

 

For many, Margaret Thatcher's death was greeted with celebration. They claimed personal delight that she had stopped ****ing and ****ting herself and had finally left the metaphorical number 10 to spend more time with her family in the sky, but, and whilst I'm not speaking for them, the same people would likely extend the social safety net of the welfare state to any of Margaret Thatcher's dependants - should they genuinely fall on hard times and need the helping hand of the state.

 

That for me is the difference between personal enmity and social fellowship.

 

By the way, were you calling me scum in your comment above?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Apologies if my flippancy caused offence. I was striving for humour because I didn't think you were being serious. It seems you were, so I guess there a few things that I should make clear.

 

I'm not a political scientist and can't succinctly define Socialism; it seems to be a more personal thing to me.

 

I'm not a socialist - although I do agree with many of the principles.

 

I don't speak for socialists; I'm not an elected mouthpiece.

 

I see a difference between social compassion and emotional compassion.

 

For many, Margaret Thatcher's death was greeted with celebration. They claimed personal delight that she had stopped ****ing and ****ting herself and had finally left the metaphorical number 10 to spend more time with her family in the sky, but, and whilst I'm not speaking for them, the same people would likely extend the social safety net of the welfare state to any of Margaret Thatcher's dependants - should they genuinely fall on hard times and need the helping hand of the state.

 

That for me is the difference between personal enmity and social fellowship.

 

By the way, were you calling me scum in your comment above?

 

No apologies neccessary Bletch - I too was being flippant.

 

 

And no, you are not scum.

[bridge too far]

Although it seems that Mrs Thatcher managed to avoid Inheritance Tax on her London mansion so I imagine it's unlikely her dependents would need support from the welfare stste

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-tax-shock-12m-2866929

[saintbletch]

No apologies neccessary Bletch - I too was being flippant.

 

 

And no, you are not scum.

 

As it happens, I am scum.

 

Just a lucky guess, I guess!

[Tokyo-Saint]

Oh yes you are!

[eurosaint]

Although it seems that Mrs Thatcher managed to avoid Inheritance Tax on her London mansion so I imagine it's unlikely her dependents would need support from the welfare stste

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-tax-shock-12m-2866929

 

'Seems' is the key word here !

Even the Mirror's traditional vitriol against Lady T has had to be tempered by the fact that they don't actually know if this happened !

Maybe they should check out the financial arrangements of Blair, Mandelson etc.. The guys they supported for so long !

[Mikey88]

And it's baser side is what caused the worldwide financial meltdown. If people are motivated solely by acquisition of wealth and materiel they risk losing their humanity. By all means reward innovation and creativity, but why should somebody be paid huge amounts of money for gambling with other people's livelihoods ?

 

Ah yes, because humanity is often preserved in the Socialist hotbeds around the world isn't it?

[Jonnyboy]

Socialism thrives by avoiding any real definition. Beyond the 'public ownership of the means of production', what definition does socialism have? It avoids putting down roots. It does not strike an economic cord of numbers, mathematics and political science - no, it relies on rhetoric, the inspiring principles of social and economic justice, on the subjective idea of what is 'fair' rather than what works.

 

...and, whenever it is pinned down and shown NOT to work, the advocates of socialism return to their shallow banner-phrases, their propaganda, and haughtily declare that their detractors have failed to even grasp the idea at the outset, dismissing it altogether.

 

Like it or not. The NHS "works."

[Hockey_saint]

See, I think the left (and I'd call myself more a middle-of-the-road left winger) need a "Harold MacMillan" Winds of change type speech to explain to a lot of them the situation that we find ourselves in today (for example Europe); I mean a lot can bury their heads in the sand in an idealised world of mutual harmony and getting along but the honest truth is that things are getting out of hand, social cohesion is breaking down and people just are not as happy with the european status quo.

 

I believe that nobody is 100% left or 100% right and it's that mixture that need to be catered for. I mean for example you can be very pro-NHS but very anti mass immigration. Things just are not as clear cut anymore and people like Brand and indeed Johnson need to understand this.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Like it or not. The NHS "works."

 

define "works".

[buctootim]

define "works".

You get better health outcomes than the US system for half the cost

[Lord Duckhunter]

You get better health outcomes than the US system for half the cost

 

So you define "works" as a comparison with the USA? Rather a strange definition, but one used by lefties every single time the NHS is discussed. Its as if they believe that there is only 2 choices, the american model (which for 40ish% of the population delivers fantastic care) or the NHS. Accepting the premise that nobody wants an american system of healthcare, redefine "works"

[Ludwig]

So you define "works" as a comparison with the USA? Rather a strange definition, but one used by lefties every single time the NHS is discussed. Its as if they believe that there is only 2 choices, the american model (which for 40ish% of the population delivers fantastic care) or the NHS. Accepting the premise that nobody wants an american system of healthcare, redefine "works"

 

define "being a bit of a bellend"

[buctootim]

So you define "works" as a comparison with the USA? Rather a strange definition, but one used by lefties every single time the NHS is discussed. Its as if they believe that there is only 2 choices, the american model (which for 40ish% of the population delivers fantastic care) or the NHS. Accepting the premise that nobody wants an american system of healthcare, redefine "works"

 

Have you not realised that using the supposedly dismissive lefty tag in place of a reasoned response makes you look a bit vacuous? you clearly aren't, so why do it?

 

People frequently cite the US case because that is the best example of a developed economy with a largely private healthcare system - ie the alternative system. Nearly all other developed countries have a predominantly 'socialised' system. The NHS is far from perfect but it does a good job given the amount of money we put into it. If you look at the graphic below its no surprise to find that the healthcare systems which generally have the best reputations - Switzerland, France and Germany cost more, anywhere between 25% and 50% more. Guess what, put 50% more into the NHS and, all other things being equal, the service will be better. Comparing performance between systems is tricky, there are so many factors to take into account - but life expectancy is a big one. Generally people in the UK, especially in England, live longer than the OECD average despite spending only marginally more on healthcare.

 

 

Edited 2 December, 2013 by buctootim

[saintbletch]

define "works".

 

It routinely saves and improves people's lives without first checking their ability to afford the cost of the treatment?

[Mikey88]

Why has this turned into a debate about whether or not the NHS works or not. You can have a strong welfare state and still have a predominantly capitalist economic policy. It doesn't have have to be a toss up between the two.

[buctootim]

You can have a strong welfare state and still have a predominantly capitalist economic policy. It doesn't have have to be a toss up between the two.

 

Of course, and few people disagree. The debate is usually about the degree of regulation of the market - eg are 4000%APR loans to the unemployed a reasonable business practice?; should there be a minimum wage and a what level?; should multinationals be stopped from off-shoring profits and repatriating 'losses'? Consumer protection and a degree of social justice isn't socialism or communism by the back door.

[Mikey88]

I think most people widely agree that there needs to be a clamp down on pay day loan companies and i think were beginning to see small steps towards that with advertising bans and so on. In terms of wider regulation in general, Scandinavia is often held up as the shinning example of good economic practice, although they have stuttered recently, and they have generally low levels of regulation.

 

Yes tax havens are a huge problem but how do you stop it? Personally, I would cut corporate tax, make it more appealing to pay tax here. It makes up a relatively low % of GDP anyway and a lower tax rate might well encourage them to pay tax here instead of abroad as I don't think they really want the bad press they gain from the constant stories about their off shore accounts.

[Barry Sanchez]

'Seems' is the key word here !

Even the Mirror's traditional vitriol against Lady T has had to be tempered by the fact that they don't actually know if this happened !

Maybe they should check out the financial arrangements of Blair, Mandelson etc.. The guys they supported for so long !

 

If you think the Mirror is a socialist paper I suggest you are wrong.

[Barry Sanchez]

I will add social responsibilty and a conscience of your fellow human being does not mean you are a red in the bed or crying limp wristed liberal, many good people are not affiliated to a party simply because they dislike them.

[solentstars]

Why has this turned into a debate about whether or not the NHS works or not. You can have a strong welfare state and still have a predominantly capitalist economic policy. It doesn't have have to be a toss up between the two.

good post and common sense .

[pap]

Russell Brand tweets Torrent links of his own DVD

 

http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/russell-brand-directs-fans-to-the-pirate-bay-to-download-new-dvd/056910

 

He's walking the walk, gotta give him that.