Comedian Calls For Socialism, And He’s Not Joking
“The plans may differ, the planners are all alike.” -Frederic Bastiat
Famed comedian Russell Brand has taken a step into the political sphere and become an editor at The New Statesman magazine. His new political agenda he says is a “socialist egalitarian system” involving a “massive redistribution of wealth”, “heavy taxation of corporations”, and adds that we must address the problem of “profits”. Brand believes that governments need massive centralization, while simultaneously calling for a revolution.
WATCH: Anarchism, Socialism, & Libertarianism Summit – Alternatives For Peace
Of course socialism is not revolutionary. Advocating for social safety nets and redistribution of wealth is more about risk aversion. True revolutionaries are risk-takers, and are people who are willing to take risks and accept hardships. Not so with socialism, which creates a nanny state to make decisions for the people. Socialism is central planning. It means central control of your life.
WATCH: Marxism Vs. Libertarianism Debate (VIDEO)
Brand will likely crush the hopes of many libertarians who see this video and have enjoyed some of his previous TV appearances talking politics. Many people were stirred by Brand’s unwillingness to bend to the narrow political spectrum that the main stream media projects. That’s refreshing no matter what your politics. But his calls for socialism and for taxation show he is clearly not a revolutionary, nor a particularly original thinker. After all, we’ve had despotism for centuries.
READ: Was the 20th century the bloodiest? Yes! Thanks to communism!
The only truly radical philosophy today is the one that dares to claim that individuals own their own bodies and the fruits of their labors. It is the philosophy centered on economic freedom and personal liberty. It is the philosophy of natural rights and free markets. It is classical liberalism, the true laissez-faire. THAT is revolutionary, my dear friend. Socialism would be a step back.
Brand is advocating for nothing more than legal plunder. French philosopher Frederic Bastiat once wrote on the topic: “Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.”
READ: Democrats should move to North Korea! It’s a socialist paradise!
Despite Brand’s refreshing candor and undeniable charm, his misunderstanding of the true nature of centralization of government power is unforgivable. It’s intellectually lazy and in truth, dangerous.
Communism and socialism have been responsible for the death of possibly hundreds of millions of people in eastern Europe and Asia in the last century. The butchery of despotic socialist dictators such as Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevera, Fidel Castro and Pol-Pot are historic testimonies as to the eventual endgame of the centralization of government power.
Central planning is the “The Road to Serfdom,” which means that when the government has planned everything for you for your life and you are no longer useful to the state, they will offer you their final plan.
Your execution.
56 comments
No one’s stopping him from redistributing his own wealth, then. Go on, Russell. Be the change you wish to see in the world.
But… but… it’d be so much easier just to beat you over the head and take yours Abby!
So how much of his money does HE give away?
Great question!
My guess is less than Joe Biden Austin!
He made a vow in 2009 to give away his fortune to the homeless including all future paychecks.
Did he do it or is it more lib platitudes?
Politics and comedy…….the new VP.
Russell Brand’s net worth is $15M, placing him solidly in the top few percent. His hypocrisy, though stunning, is not surprising. Side with the proletariat, show them you care, and they will rush to buy your CDs, DVDs, etc. There is really nothing new here, is there?
Totally. Nothing new. Communist and Socialist Parties are always the “Worker’s Party”… It always sounds so noble.
What he does not realize is that those movements use artists to get people to support their systems and then quickly dispose of them afterward when they start screaming about how the new rules of order shall apply to them.
Let’s just have some perspective on this new adventure of his – he is a comedian.
Vapor as product. Where’s the value you think you give for vapor Mr.Brand(name,R)?
Hey Brand, any time you want to redistribute some of your wealth to pay off my house, I’ll be right here waiting.
Marxist
I’ll assume you are referring to Brand.
Sorry misread your comment and thought you actually thought that’s what he should do. I didn’t realise you were being so masterfully ironic
Well, I would tell him, if he is so keen on the redistribution of wealth, he should start with his own. However, I was entirely sarcastic with my comment.
I guess so yeah. I never met him or even his accountant, but wouldn’t it be horrible if we were here judging him and he gave tens of thousands away to good causes every year….?
He could give millions to charity every year. That would be wonderful, and more power to him for it, but charity should be voluntary not mandatory or forced by the government.
if he were arguing that individuals should give more, all the while giving huge amounts of his own income to charity and not a “socialist egalitarian system based off the massive redistribution of wealth and heavy taxation of corporations”, not many here would be judging him nor would we have much reason to.
He made a vow in 2009 to give away his fortune including future paychecks.
yea a rich druggy crackhead
I thought you had to be funny to be a comedian.
I agree with the article completely except for the part where tariffs are listed as a tool of legal plunder, which it is not. Do you think the founders would enshrine in the constitution the power of the federal government to levy tariffs as a tool of plunder? It was a way to generate revenue before America had an income tax. If anything is an unconstitutional tool of plunder, it is the income tax.There was free trade among the states, but the federal government could still regulate international trade. It is a misconception I find that most modern libertarians have that tariffs are bad and that international free trade is a policy we should pursue. Not only has international free trade worked for America in a negative sense, destroying American manufacturing, shipping jobs overseas, relinquishing national sovereignty to extra-national trade bodies, it also was never a position that was a part of classical liberalism.
This is what happens when people do not read history, let alone learn from it. Redistribution of wealth will destroy the middle class, drive out those who would make money and create jobs, and leave everyone dirty poor. Those who think that redistribution of wealth is great will be at the mercy of a ruthless government and class of one percent who own all the wealth, and control everything about you because they can. For they will own, control, and distribute everything-including the food you need. Want to eat? Make sure to never utter an opinion in such a system, and learn how to be a serf the way the Russians did back in Stalin’s time.
Right now I’m looking around my community seeing how the austere, socially and economically conservative coalition government of Britain is eliminating the Middle Class AND the Working Class, and basically creating one massive underclass, and wondering exactly what in the world you are talking about? Serfs also existed under feudal kings and queens, you know? Abd why not take a look at countries like Indonesia or Bangladesh and see how global capitalism is helping the people there???
That basically sounds exactly like what’s going on here in the US.
“Those who think that redistribution of wealth is great will be at the mercy of a ruthless government and class of one percent who own all the wealth, and control everything about you because they can.”
Finally, someone sees clearly. But you said, “they will own”. No, they will not own anything, that´s the deceptively sophisticated thing about their politics.
What do we call this system? It starts with an F and ends with -ism. It´s that other formula of socialism that just want to control everything (instead of owning it, like the socialists want) and it is that political system that started out with Mussolini and that other guy in germany, whose name we dont dare to mention.
Free markets and Capitalism is a much better distributor of wealth and prosperity than any selfrighteous or well meaning socialistic cronie capitalistic politician who only see to his and his ilks best interests and wellbeing of their power status.
At the very least Russell realizes there is a problem, is pissed off about it, and is willing to speak out about it, a lot like us regular schmucks. I don’t agree with his solutions but I applaud him for speaking out against the system. We are all a little misguided but if we don’t talk about it we will never come together and come up with better solutions. I think this will wake people up to the fact that, “Houston, we have a problem”. Most of the problems in America can simply be fixed by following the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The banks are causing all these problems then through control of the governments are making the people foot their bill. Why are we giving them “bailout” money. That’s not free market. That’s economic rape of the American people and every single other country under banker dictatorship. What do you think is going to happen when greedy bankers have 99.9% of the worlds wealth? Um.. I’m going to guess, nothing good for us.
I can’t blame him for that. People make light of this, but most comedians have had some type of trauma or something that make them into the comics they became. Whatever had him disillusioned about things started years ago. He has a right to be pissed off. I agree with your assessment on how America can be fixed, as well.
Leaving RB and his political leanings aside, and what I think he doesn´t understand or have failed to understand, I agree with you but I just want to clarify to paint an even clearer picture. Another word for the current system under which the whole western world is suffering is also called Fascism, Corporatism, Functional Socialism. That is the system when the Central Gov CONTROLS everything (and taxes everything) instead of owning it like the socialists want. Objectively, a much smarter and economically more effective concept than the socialist recipe.
E. C. Riegel have said a lot about this in his book, The New Approach To Freedom:
“There are three classes of socialists: the left-wing, or Marxist, group, who believe that the government should own and control everything; the middle-of-the-road socialists, who believe the government should own and operate public utilities; and the right-wing socialists, who believe that the government should control only the monetary system. The right-wing socialists are by far the most dangerous, because they are not known as socialists and call themselves capitalists, individualists, private enterprisers, etc. They even believe themselves to be anti-socialist and profess full faith in private enterprise. They are not only numerically the largest group of socialists but are also individually the most influential. Among them are the leading industrialists and mercantilists and bankers and statesmen.”
That is also how Cronie Capitalism develops in a Country or in a rigged system or controlled market (fake capitalism), also called a Nation. Every entity, from citizens to corporations, have their first focus on what the government has to say about things before they start to think for real, at all, and finally that kind of behavioural thinking soon starts regarding all aspects of their daily lives.
Can’t agree with the guy on every single issue.
I don’t agree with wealth distribution, but it does show that he is none the less aware of the actual and realistic distribution of wealth, which even I as a capitalist think it is definitely one sided and legislatively favored.
This article does not at all mean that Russel is a “socialist” and feel that the person who wrote this has been stalking Russel until they found something wrong and doing what they can to discredit him.
I didn’t side on Ron Paul on every last issue, but it didn’t change my perception on the fact on how awake and aware he was to the actual problem. The same goes for Russel. Point this out as a problem, and someone like me can easily counter this with ten points that shows Russel in a better light.
I think the fact that he’s ticked off because there is a problem speaks volumes for him actually. I think he’s honestly trying to find a better way but isn’t quite sure which way to go with it yet. People need to lighten up on that guy for now. He needs to find his own way.
Exactly. He’s anti establishment, and he’s enthusiastic. The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Russell is a good guy and funny, charismatic, smart. Probably has the quickest wit in the business. However, I completely disagree with him here. He is a bit ignorant and as others have stated, it is so hypocritical that it is funny. Evolution, not revolution. first step is eliminating state control that violates people’s rights. Second is eliminating the thieves of society, ie, the bankers. Well, it doesn’t really matter the order.
Mate, that would be a revolution. I think you, me and Russell would all applaud that idea.
But I don’t get down with more centralized power and “massive wealth distribution”, except perhaps from bankers into the publics hands. And perhaps stipends of govt money returned to the people from unconstitutional programs and departments. I don’t like big corporations either but they cannot sustain their monopolies without government help. Many regulations, penalties, and taxes are gambits supported by companies like Walmart to stifle competition. just by ending the drug war and by allowing more free trade and with real money minus the FED the economy would be booming. I just don’t think it is necessary to resort to socialism in order to help the impoverished. I think we can do it by cutting corruption, thievery, and systemic oppression. Get rid of the scumbags of society gaming the system and you will see real growth.
I totally agree with you on that one.
We’ll all have fun getting rid of them, yes. STILL a revolution though 🙂
So what the hell is your problem with the article? Please elaborate.
I can’t fault him too much though. Right now he knows there is a problem but he really doesn’t know of a solution and I think it’s frustrating for him. I agree with you, but I do feel a bit of pity for the guy. One can tell by his expressions and such that he’s had a rough go of it.
He sounds ridiculous when he talks, stiff upper lip english and all that.
Brand’s words are being totally twisted in this article and the sheep act along according to it! Communism and Socialism are ideas that were perverted, much like our idea of Democracy is being perverted as well and at the present time! many people living in the 1st world are beginning to have the same problems that most people living in the 3rd world face for decades. We still feel superior or better than these people!! Since the pawns of the game are being chosen behind the scenes by someone else but the people, we think we’re making a difference playing “putting a silly coupon in a slot” so now we can comment on the political circus the mass media shows us everyday?
Of course i concur with wealth distribution! Too little have too much at the expense of exploitation of poor people and to the expense of our quality of life! Something needs to change or we won’t last much more than a few hundreds of years!
The historically greatest wealth distribution system is Capitalism and free trade. More Bad Socialism is not the solution to why a self-righteous elite have hijacked the concepts of Free Trade, economic competition and Capitalism for their own benefits. The system we have now is already socialism. It´s that kind of socialism called Fascism or corporatism or functional socialism. The key word for right-wing socialists is control instead of ownership which is the key word for left-wing socialists.
If you disagree with the fundamental reality that we require egalitarianism to ever advance as a people, you really aren’t libertarians; you’re cynical capitalists, content with the status quo because you’ve been dealt a much better hand than the majority of people on earth and can therefore continue to exploit the wealth disparity to further enhance your cozy little lives, because you’re the most important people on earth, and individualism is everything, hurrah. Admit it, you just want to further the exploitation by lowering your own personal taxes, while claiming that doing so somehow makes you libertarian. Disgusting. I mean this entire article is hilariously misguided (seriously, you are actually trying to say that improving society will ultimately lead to mass execution?), but the comments are also just so equally absurd…
“So how much of his money does HE give away?” Probably a hell of a lot more than you, but also, what the fuck does that have to do with anything, you silly troll? Stay on topic.
“No one’s stopping him from redistributing his own wealth, then. Go on, Russell. Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Yes, because we’re all that fucking naive, little girl. Try to join the rest of us in reality for a moment.
“Hey Brand, any time you want to redistribute some of your wealth to pay off my house, I’ll be right here waiting.” How hilariously selfish. You can’t seriously be comparing wide-scale economic egalitarianism with your own personal finances, can you? Pathetic. Do you just not understand the scale at hand? Or are you actually that self-absorbed?
“This is what happens when people do not read history, let alone learn
from it. Redistribution of wealth will destroy the middle class, drive
out those who would make money and create jobs, and leave everyone dirty
poor.” Maybe you should consider brushing up on your history; prior to redistribution, we were fucking monkeys, so I think it’s quite an
improvement. The ability to recognize that we are indeed individuals,
but that the community as a whole benefits from pooled resources and
labour, is literally what fucking created human society, and has allowed
us to make such absurd scientific leaps and bounds, instead of
constantly re-inventing the wheel. Redistribution of wealth actually created the modern middle class, I don’t see how you can seriously argue that it would destroy it. Was your post meant to be a joke?
The only hang-ups humanity has ever had, have been when a relative few self-centered people have managed to corrupt societal advancement in favour of personal wealth. Here’s a hint, you people are agreeing with said selfish fools who’ve been holding us back for centuries, so yeah, you’re part of the problem. You apes are just too hung up on the self to ever evolve into modern humans, demanding to have complete individual autonomy while still insisting that the vast majority of the world continue to cater to you specifically, as if that’s somehow logical or sustainable. The hypocrisy from you is absurd. Once your illusion of security comes crashing down, once you’re no longer able to safely and profitably exploit the environment and your fellow man, once it is actually your bottom line that is affected, you’ll be first in line demanding someone to bail you out and prop you up. That is literally modern-day capitalism in a nutshell.
Seriously, you people are so fucking thick-headed, no wonder everyone hates you. lol. I love how you somehow think socialism is the same as fascism, and that anyone who suggests we improve the world instead of greedily raping it is in fact just a lazy “socialist” slob waiting for a handout. I mean, you do know there’s such a thing as libertarian socialism, right? And also that, despite this one comedian’s on-the-spot response, an economically egalitarian society can actually exist in a decentralized form? And, in fact, a true egalitarian society would be quite decentralized specifically to prevent the ability for politicians to be bought and paid for mouth pieces for corporations, such as what we’re seeing in the “Free World”, aka the farcical corpocracy that is the United States of America?
“Me-me-me-me-me!” That isn’t the socialists crying, sorry guys, that one is all you. Just reading these fucking comments, it’s disgustingly hilarious how disturbingly self-centered you people are. Wake up. You people are actually gross. No wonder the planet is fucked.
I like you, let’s be friends 🙂
You are truly a juvenile mind. Read my recent comments (I´m getting tired schooling fools like you, over and over again) so you dont have to embarrass yourself in the future like you just have done.
The Troll Republic would perhaps be a good re-branding for you to consider.
A few things first and foremost – Britain’s key experiment with social democracy 1945-1979 brought the nation the following things (and more): free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare, comprehensive education, social mobility and meritocracy, racial equality, gender equality, disability rights, environmental legislation.
Since 1979, we have seen a move away from that approach toward one of ruthless global capitalism, as pressured upon the world by organisations such as the IMF and World Bank in particular.
Now while your point regarding the potential pitfalls of centralised planning makes some sense, I think you are at the same time unwittingly (or cynically, perhaps) associating “socialism” as a way of thinking with “marxism” or “communism”. The idea of forming a cooperative system of living whether the needs of all are safeguarded DOES NOT inherently violate the right of the individual to live his own life. But you can ask
So Brand has a $2 million dollar mansion? What are you saying then, that this is immoral? If so, you sound like a Marxist. Being of a socialist bent doesn’t necessarily mean you want everyone to live in concrete tower blocks, wear grey overalls and read Pravda. It just means that one naturally feels that excess at one extreme of society should be curtailed to avoid suffering at the other, for all wealth is relative and indivisible from its effect (poverty).
Clearly a localised anarcho-syndicalist system would be the most effective and safest from potential abuse by tyrants. But of course this would still involve the sharing and allocation of resources for best effect. So exactly what is it in this equation you fear so much? Is it “centralised power”… or is it the idea of equality?
The level of vitriol you and other publications are directing at Russel Brand is quite sinister and betrays some level of fear you have about him and those like him. Exactly what do you expect from this individual. He needn’t say anything at all and simply count his millions of dollars, but obviously cares. No, he doesn’t have any real answers to the problem – he isn’t an economist, or sociologist, or environmental scientist. I fathomed from watching the interview with Paxman that he proposes that such people be given the task of devising better systems, not he.
You claim hate the “NWO” (read: Old World Order, rich families, kings and queens….) but are acting like a pure gatekeeper for them in matters such as this. It makes one wonder whether for all your talk you actually care at all about seeing the world’s problems addressed. Or have you simply too much invested in the oppositional dynamic arising from wealth disparity? Perhaps you don’t want to lose your “role” in the world as an angry outsider against the system?
Now stop trolling the internet. And it’s a bad mark against Red Ice Creations that they’re jumping on this bandwagon. Where are the counter-arguments on their news feed. CONFIRMATION BIAS, my friends. Welcome to the Plantation indeed. Yes, I’ve been listening guys.
Maybe you have to listen in some more and stop whining about ruthless global Capitalism, before you educate your self about the meaning of the concept of CAPITALISM. If you dont have a viable solution to a problem you shoud shut up. It is specially annoying to have to listen to these Hollywood hypocrites howling for more central gov Fascism and more handouts. How about creating more jobs in small enterprises to increase taxes? Do you and RB know the solution to that? Suggesting egalitarian socialism in days like these? Cheezus!! RB.s solution is, if nothing, feebleminded. Idiocy must be must be humbled in its infancy, thats why so many are getting upset by listening to these economically wellnourished Statist tools and fools. Do you know where the money comes from?
All this said and asked from one troll to another.
As disillusioned a young man that he is, I can certainly understand why he feels that the old systems are repeating themselves, but socialism is not the answer and being impoverished and disadvantaged did not lead him or anyone else to drug use. That is a matter of making a personal decision to self medicate.
HAHA! This is priceless, the delusional calling out Brand as disillusioned. 🙂 Thank you for the laugh!!
You know I really like you Austin Peterson I’ve been following you for quite some time. I’ve watched all your debates On RT against Hartman and others, when you and Judge Napolitano were at Fox you were the only people that I really payed any attention to except for maybe Mike Huckabee ( but that’s A different story) No one on MSM right or left will touch on the type of things that you have. However I feel that to often you are on the side of the establishment ,, placating a the demise of a minimum wage and such. You claim you built your way up from nothing Worked at Walmart fast food worked hard through College ect.. But I get the distinct feeling that you have never experienced true poverty. From some one who once lived in the woods “while attending College” I’ve experienced the lowest of the lows.. I personally don’t feel that benevolent corpocracy can exist, meaning that there are no Francisco d’Anconia’s in the real world.. geese I’m writing to much .. sorry My point being that through my struggles developing my political ideologies I have defined my self as a Libertarian/socialist .. My question to you as one of the leading Libertarian voices of our nation do you believe that these two ideologies can actually co-exist ?
Communism tried it and it failed utterly. There is nowhere on earth which has a system of socialism – not even China any more which remains Communist. It failed because it cannot work.
More to the point, Brand never explains just how he is going to redistribute this wealth. It would be hard enough in the rest of the developed world but in the US where people are armed to the teeth it would be civil war.
China does in fact still have socialism going on exactly like all the western fascist nations (they obviously doesn´t call themselves Fascists anymore. Now they are named social democrats or something equally relevant). Fascism works much better and is more economically effective than pure socialism, pure socialism involves so much responsibilities and other unpleasant expertise demanding stuff. So the state doesn´t own anything, instead it just controls everything. And if anything goes wrong with capitalism, corporations (the faked and rigged capitalistic system, that is), you can always use Corporations (Banks) and the fake verison of Capitalism as a scapegoat in social democratic political thetorics. Sophisticated, isn´t it?
You could say that their version of democracy affects the people, it doesn´t emanate from the people.
Capitalism is perpetual revolution, You need SOCIALISM to keep the establishment in place. Now, Go figure!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuCmPZeh0do
Listen up, all you misguided (wellmeaning) eglitarians. Time to get schooled again: This is from an article called, Libertarianism, popular enough to be hijacked? http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/libertarianism-popular-enough-to-be-hijacked/