I’m not alone in ignoring all that toss (Victoria Beckham buys new bag) you see on the BT site before opening my e-mails, but this is just brilliant. Apparently Prospect Magazine – who they ? – have listed this cretin as the 4th most important thinker in the world. I’m sorry, but I’m finding it very hard to stop laughing hysterically as I type this. But what caught my eye is Atul Gawande being placed at no 10, he should be mortally offended being in the same list as Brand. Being Mortal (one of my books of 2014) vs my booky wook. Unbelievable, bit like shooting fish in a barrel but just had to get this off my chest. Done.
Russell Brand named one of world’s most important thinkers
That is hysterical.
What next?
Lemmy as one of the world’s best-dressed men?
Lemmy gets my vote:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sDVrB4SoMQE/U2eTRwfABOI/AAAAAAAADyg/Sd-qJD6VCVQ/s1600/Rox+2.png
If the aim of the article was to get people talking about Prospect Magazine, it’s succeeded. There’s probably no more to it than that.
I await the flames , but…
Brand doesn’t have a cogent political philosophy; he’s incoherent at times, and writes badly. But he’s important.
Not the ‘best’ thinker, but he is important, whether we like it or not. (I don’t particularly.) What he says gets attention, starts debate, and has lead to some practical political action at a grassroots level (some of which he’s piggy-backed on, admittedly, but that’s irrelevant for this argument.)
Thus ends my pedantry for the day. 😀
(Does Prospect outline its criteria for ‘important’? I’m being lazy, will have a look in a mo.)
(Agree with you on the brilliance of Atul Gawande, though.)
“Prospect is a monthly British general interest magazine, specialising in politics, economics and current affairs. Topics include British, European, and US politics, social issues, art, literature, cinema, science, the media, history, philosophy, and psychology.” From Wiki. Personally I agree with Prospect. Admittedly he is not always cogent, but having watched Lab and Con bickering on Newsnight last night anything has to be better. Maybe judge him on Revolution (2014) rather than Booky Wook (2007) – people tend to give opinions based on Mail headlines rather than actually listening to what he has to say. People change.
I don’t disagree with you; I think he is ‘important’, however one defines that- I just don’t agree with some of his ideas. But that’s not to say he isn’t important; at minimum, he’s actually a good kind-of jumping-off point for getting people to assess/reassess their own ideas, even if you end up disagreeing with him.
So in that sense also, he’s important.
You’re dead right. Brand is important, as is Farage. There are a lot of angry voters out there, who feel that there’s a lot that’s badly wrong, and who feel they have no say and influence on things.
Farage is at one end of the Incohererent Howl of Voter Rage spectrum, and Brand at the other. I think what scares a lot of politicians from the major parties is that they know Brand’s ‘thoughts’ chime with a lot of people. For all he’s a silly boy, he makes many very valid points.
Brand is no longer important. His encouragement of non-voting was obviously pretty useful for David Cameron, however now that he has the SNP and Alex Salmond stalwart efforts to wind up English voters, Brand is surplus to requirements. Yesterday’s useful idiot is just today’s plain old idiot.
Just spent 5 mins. trying to thrash out in my head what ‘important’ means in this context. Or might mean. 😀
For me, “important” in this context means “having influence” which is something that Brand definitely has. Agree or disagree with him, but he has a heck of a lot more ordinary people listening than just about any other thinker or philosopher I can bring to mind.
I’m trying not to confuse his importance with his occasionally terrible statements.
God’s teeth. He was briefly important re highlighting the stagnation of modern UK politics, but his call to note vote was ridiculous, and his blathering on about the poor old jihadis was worthy of an right on adolescent sixth former. He’s teetering on the idiot side of genuine intelligence.
“He’s teetering on the idiot side of genuine intelligence.”
Yes – sums him up perfectly, the good as well as the bad. Overall, I think he’s a good thing, but…
‘not vote’. I wish we could edit typos in posts.
Right, the poll was based on votes on their website, Facebook and Twitter. Make of that what you will.
Was it choosing from a list provided by the magazine, or an open question where people could put forward their own suggestions?
Open question, as far as I can make out. So it will reflect their readership; and their reasoning behind their choices we can’t know. (Or their understanding of ‘important’) . 😀 😀
I’m not sure the ability to reach a wide audience makes you an important thinker. If it is then Lady Gaga and One Direction are amongst the most important thinkers on the planet.
Personally, I think that this poll says more about Prospect than anything else.
Who were numbers 1-3?
Nigel Farage, me, Richard Madely.
You’ve dropped a place then, gangle.
What’s Farage’s position on U2?
Like all free marketeers Farage would not be for anything pro bono.
Farage always preferred After The Fire.
Ok, had a Google and the top three are face-palmingly predictable:
1. Thomas Piketty
2. Yanis Varoufakis
3. Naomi Klein
Yes, I think we’re getting into the realms of defining ‘important thinker’. 😀
Picketty 1, Naiomi Klein somewhere near the top, Amartya Sen I think. Sorry on phone, top of my head so apols for mistakes and typos.
And Jurgen Habermas at 8! Blimey, not dead!
I like Russell Brand. In my opinion, his book is only derailed by protracted musings about spiritual worlds unknown – an obsession shared by many but, shallow as I must be, these things tend to pass me by.
The powerful bits are where he articulates the rank unfairness of current economic and political systems and makes the point (frequently) that we allow this to happen. It happens because we don’t know or understand what’s going on, particularly when it comes to the economy. Worse, we get to the point where we accept unfairness as normal – and to question it and agitate for change is “naive”.
His opinion that voting Tory, Labour or Liberal makes absolutely no difference is hardly ground-breaking. You will hear this opinion all day, every day, everywhere you go. By saying this, and getting people talking about alternatives, he’s *really* stirred something up – and that’s interesting.
Yes, he’s a thinker. For the first time in years there is someone prepared to articulate and then do things. His energy is admirable – he backs himself to be able to stand up for himself and seems happy to talk to anyone.
Apparently the voting was restricted to a short list of 50 names provided by Prospect.
And the inclusion of Brand is explained on the basis that he’s contributed to “conversation and ideas” this year, if that’s any indication of what constitutes an important thinker.
I agree with you Black C. There is so little opinion in the mainstream which is not in line with accepted wisdom that whenever someone comes along and thinks outside the box, as you say, they are accused of being ‘naive’. And so peer pressure is exerted on us to conform by those who call such people ‘cretins’ and we feel crushed for giving our point of view, and next time we just feel we have to go along with the crowd. Any wonder why nothing changes? Education today seems increasingly to be about learning to conform and not about thinking for yourself. Prospect appears to champion the latter, which I think is a very good thing.
An interesting discussion, and I feel I should address you Jayhawk and Black C. I am not applying any peer pressure by calling him a cretin. It was, maybe, an intemperate phrase to describe my views of him, as a thinker, writer and personality. I don’t deny him his platform, and I use similar terms to describe my disenchantment with the current political class. However we are ill served by giving credence to personalities as credible alternatives without picking them and their views apart. We do this to politicians and therefore alternatives should be subject to the same. My impression of Russell Brand is that he thinks he should be above this and is very adept at using his charisma (in the same way as politicians) to avoid any closer scrutiny of his views. He largely deals in second-hand pat phrases, and for the record, I did read parts of Revolution. I couldn’t offer you a detailed critique because I gave up. He is welcome to his views but he has got away with it, and if he wants his views to be taken seriously, then he should stop trading on his celebrity. The impression I got from Revolution is that it’s all about him and we have been there before with people who think they can change the world. The UK for all its faults is a ‘mature democracy’ which is currently ill-served, but that doesn’t mean we throw our hands up in the air and listen to the first populist who comes along. The people in place are to blame but ill-thought revolutionary speak is not the answer. Don’t ask me what is though.
Thanks DL. Some of what you say is in tune with the Revolution book in that he doesn’t have instant answers either. While this is a weakness – it is honest, which is a change from political leaders who act as if they are the only ones who can guide the country and must show 100% unimpeachable confidence at all times. He isn’t answerable to a terrifying chief whip and doesn’t need to impress corporate lobbyists funding his party. An interesting point he makes is that in the US, the party that raises the most money always wins. Always.
I am conservative by nature (small c) and do not grab at the latest David Spart du jour. I was last truly inspired by Neil Kinnock and many very principled and wonderful politicians. They aren’t there now. They aren’t there.
I think if you watch the Trews regularly for a while you might get a wider sense of what he is saying. He doesn’t seem to want to follow the usual path into the political system because he doesn’t think it works as it is. I have to agree. Absolutely we should analyse what he is saying, but he is not alone. Surely we can make room for this sort of stuff and not simply dismiss it? It’s a shame that the media, particularly the Mail and similar, make everything so black and white and leave no room for nuance. I saw a quote recently, something along the lines of the roots of fascism being in ideas which leave no room for nuance.
Can anyone briefly outline a few of Russell Brand’s important original thoughts?
I’d assume an important thinker would have some.
What an outrageous idea! A thinker should have thoughts.
A natty hair style and a celebrity girlfriend are more than adequate qualifications in my book.
I’m being slightly provocative now and not entirely serious, but most important thinkers are not really original. For example, Marx drew on the ideas of others, as did most of people we think of as ‘original’.
Most synthesise and extend the ideas of others, don’t they?
‘Originality’ isn’t the only dimension of ‘important’. But it could be one of them. Maybe. 😀
There’s standing on the shoulders of giants, and then there’s being Oasis.
The former takes existing thought and uses it to reach the next level via some degree of invention, the latter simply rehashes old tunes in a more palatable fashion for a broader audience.
Original thought doesn’t require a total absence of influence, and while “important” doesn’t require “originality”, it’s hard to see how someone can be an “important thinker” without making some sort of original contribution of their own.
On a semi-related note, I was once thrown out of an undergrad English class for admitting I hadn’t read the book being discussed and when challenged by the tutor that I was essentially learning off the hard work of others, replying “isn’t that what education is”. God, I was a horrible little smart-arse.
I was tempted to throw in that ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ quote but then Oasis came to mind and it put me right off. 🙂
“God, I was a horrible little smart-arse.”
But you’ve *changed*, old chap, and that’s the important thing.
Would that it were true.
Has he grown bigger do you mean?
I remain, as always, Little.
That’s what I think is remarkable. He isn’t saying anything particularly new or controversial. I have certainly been in the camp that says if you don’t vote – you have no right to moan. But when voter turnout is so consistently low and so many people feel that voting makes no difference…we can’t perpetually pretend that the problem is a large bunch of thickos that don’t care.
To the extent he has merit (and I don’t personally think he does, but each to their own) it seems to me that it’s as a megaphone for existing ideas, using his celebrity to highlight already identified issues in need of resolution.
That, to me, isn’t being an “important thinker”. It’s being an influential person. Immanuel Kant is an important thinker, Jeremy Clarkson is an influential person.
He is a polemicist rather than a “thinker”, which is in any case a self-evidently pointless description. I think. My Jack Russells think. Russell Brand thinks. What he does extra is to yell about stuff and lots of people hear things to consider that they might otherwise ignore had the message come from more conventional sources. More power to his lungs, says I. The sleepwalking has to end soon or we are all toast. Anything, literally anything, that makes people think about how we manage this little planet is surely a “good thing”?
I think by and large he’s a bit of a div – and largely unfunny but, for better or worse, my kids think he’s ace. For me, anyone who’s saying anything beyond, or critical of, the neo-liberal hegemony (now there’s a word I haven’t used for a while…not even sure it’s right) deserves applause even if it doesn’t stand up to too much scrutiny. There’s precious few people saying “anything” these days about the state of the world – particularly in “pop” culture – the more the merrier I say.
“…he articulates the rank unfairness of current economic and political systems and makes the point (frequently) that we allow this to happen.”
Our own FauxGeordie does this all the time – should someone let Prospect know?
In other news, Alvin Toffler is named ‘Funniest F**ker Alive’ at the NME Awards.
“Noam was robbed” claims Kasabian’s Serge Pizzorno.
He also questions the paradigm that covers current political debate in the mainstream media. Maybe he does it badly/clumsily at times – and yes, he does sound like someone in a student debating society – but the very fact that he even asks those questions is a small plus in my book(y-wook).
Plus, he has really, really cool hair. Beat *that*, Cameron!
Now THAT’S funny.
One of his Trews clips is how politicians talk and how distant it is from the way everyone else communicates. I used to watch Geoffrey Howe – fascinated at how well he could talk – and at such length – without saying anything at all. Ronan Keating could have sung that song for him. And he was an “excellent” politician for that very reason. This is why his resignation speech was shocking because in amongst the blether somewhere was the killer blow to Thatcher.
One thing political leaders have to show is cast-iron decisiveness and certainty on everything – because that’s what strong leadership is. Words like commitment, passion and loyalty get used only because those are words that apparently go down well.
As you get older you realise that everyone is making it up as they go along. A bit of humility wouldn’t go amiss.