Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand on Revolution

Didn't Tom Paine coin the phrase "My Country is the World". Of course that was at the time that the rising bourgeoisie was still revolutionary and thought in terms of changing the world.
 
Jean-Luc said:
Didn't Tom Paine coin the phrase "My Country is the World". Of course that was at the time that the rising bourgeoisie was still revolutionary and thought in terms of changing the world.
Click to expand...
with every post your vacuity becomes more apparent. the bourgeoisie succeeded in changing the world. what have you done lately?
 
chilango said:
I thought the SPGB had an entrance exam to precisely avoid this kinda situation?
Click to expand...
They do and here's the answer:
The American War of Independence was a straight fight by the colonial capitalists to win independence from British imperial power. The colonial capitalists orchestrated protests against taxes (Boston Tea Party), to using republican support for the French Revolution as a spur to get frontiersmen to fight the invading British army. Eventually the supply lines of the British broke down and the cost of shipping men and supplies across the Atlantic became so great that Britain sued for peace.
Click to expand...
 
The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.

In the prelude to 1776, more and more Africans were joining the British military, and anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain. And in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were chasing Europeans to the mainland. Unlike their counterparts in London, the European colonists overwhelmingly associated enslaved Africans with subversion and hostility to the status quo. For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war.

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.
 
Watching C4 News' short review of the year montage reminded me of this little interaction.

 
ViolentPanda said:
"Working class" doesn't mean "working for a living", it's about distance from ownership of the means of production. Paine's father was a skilled artisan with his own business who could afford his son to be educated at a good school. Paine was middle-class.



He was fired, and then re-hired after petitioning his employers. He almost ended up in debtors prison because he had several thousand copies of a pamphlet printed, and then couldn't sell them, not because his life was riven with financial ineptitude.



He finished his education at Thetford Grammar school, which wasn't a "Quaker school", it was a local public school in the proper sense of the word. The maximum leaving age from most schools (except a handful of schools such as Eton and Harrow that fed pupils to universities) was 14 for all. It didn't shift to 15 until the late 19th century, to 16 in the mid-20th century, and 18 in the first decade of the 21st century.




"Common Sense" was the result of re-editing a fair amount of prose he'd already written prior to sailing to America. One of his British contemporaries, William Cobbett, remarked on "Common Sense" containing material that had been previously published. Cobbett wasn't pro-revolution himself, but he did read fairly widely to keep himself informed.




In folklore this happened, in reality we know that a bunch of "Church and King" militants (the political descendants of the same idiots who razed Joseph Priestley's house and laboratory to the ground) were set on him. They weren't a "mob", they were paid provocateurs, just as they were in the succeeding decades whenever ideas about democracy came up.



Talk about you having such a shallow knowledge of what you're discoursing on that you're making yourself look foolish!
A few points:
France's monarchy was absolutist (simplistically defined: power over life and death, political power confined to a small monarchic and aristocratic clique, a very harsh tax regime).
The United Kingdom's monarchy was and is constitutional (simplistically defined: no tax-raising powers, no powers over Parliament, little power that could be exerted over the legal process, except the power that any member of an elite network, King or President, has)
Loyalty to the monarch is loyalty to an office of the "head of state", not to a person or a form of governance that anyway doesn't exist.
Paine's writings were "enthusiastically embraced" by a significant minority of people across the class spectrum in the UK. "Samizdat" versions of his writings circulated for decades before they were officially published here post-"Great Reform" and the partial dismantling of the legal processes that allowed anything vaguely politically-questionable to be classed as "sedition".



Paine elucidated some very sound reasons for revolution against the monarchy, and some processes to start the ball rolling. Brand has elucidated some reasons for social revolution against capitalism, but has elucidated very little in the way of process. I'd prefer that he did elucidate processes. It's not enough to just vaguely point in a direction and say "oh, that was good, lets do something like that, but with no violence, mmkay?".
Click to expand...

You've made some good points. While it's true Paine didn't go to a Quaker school, the values his father's Quakerism imbued in him had a primary influence on his thinking and writing. He dropped out of school at the age of 13 to work for his father. Thus, the point I was making still stands -- his formal education was minimal. He didn't go to university, and was basically self-taught, like most artisans of the period. This also influenced his style of writing. One of the most radical things he did was change the political language of the elite, to make ideas accessible to even the illiterate.

I'm not going to go over every point, because I see this is just a contest, and I'm not going waste my time nit picking every little detail.

So I'll only respond to a few points in closing:

"Common Sense" was the result of re-editing a fair amount of prose he'd already written prior to sailing to America. One of his British contemporaries, William Cobbett, remarked on "Common Sense" containing material that had been previously published. Cobbett wasn't pro-revolution himself, but he did read fairly widely to keep himself informed.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you site Cobbett as your source. Cobbett never knew Paine and wouldn't have had any knowledge about when Paine actually began to write "Common Sense." He's also not reliable because he was one of Paine's arch critics (following Chalmers), who after having a change of heart famously dug up Paine's bones to bring them back to England for a proper burial.

And finally, it is to Brand's credit that he doesn't offer specifics for a revolution as Paine did. The situation is different and in many ways more complex. For one, the colonists already had a sense of their own independence from Great Britain, they already had a basis for democratic actions, they had local assemblies, they already knew how to organized massive boycotts, and most important of all, through these early efforts they had already formed communities of trust between the 13 colonies. Brand has pointed out that community is what is lacking today, and that without it we can't be effective against the mega-corporate structures. Each community has different needs and problems -- some have rent hikes, others have water hikes, etc., and each community has to decide how best to tackle these problems. New Era is one example he's highlighted. He's showing that there are models other communities can emulate. I think that's a smart approach for him to take and an effective use of his celebrity.

And with that, I'm done.
 
Last edited:
butchersapron said:
The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.

In the prelude to 1776, more and more Africans were joining the British military, and anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain. And in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were chasing Europeans to the mainland. Unlike their counterparts in London, the European colonists overwhelmingly associated enslaved Africans with subversion and hostility to the status quo. For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war.

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.
Click to expand...

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others
Click to expand...

Utter bullshit revisionism.

Which Founding fathers? There were many, divided by North and South. Most of the Founders were not slave owners, and indeed many were anti-slavery. Some had formed abolition societies, before, during and after the Revolution. Most of the northern colonies had abolished slavery, beginning in 1770. Compromises with slave owning states were made at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1788 when South Carolina and Georgia threatened to seceded from the fledgling Union if the Northern delegates to the Convention insisted on abolishing the slave trade. Thus the Founders essentially kicked the can down the road, and left it to the next generation to fight it out. I personally can't forgive them for that, and neither can African Americans. They should have called the the Carolina's bluff, because as Dickinson and Gouverner Morris knew then, it was a bluff, if for no other reason than secession would left the Southern states vulnerable to being invaded by Britain or Spain from Florida. Nor can I forgive them for kicking Paine to the curb after the Revolution was successful so that they could profit from it. Plus, Hamilton and the Federalist/monarchist/elitists can go to hell for setting up the banking system on the British model, leaving us with the problems of the 1% we face to this day.

And lest anyone forgets, it was Queen Elizabeth I that started the (horrific) slave trade and brought slavery to the colonies, an inheritance that has caused our people, white and black, centuries of suffering.

Thanks for all you've done for us Great Britain!
 
Last edited:
So Native Americans and Black slaves = utter bullshit revisionism? That is not pathetic. Its funny cos you won't aknowledege there have been WC communities to this day with more advanced sensibilities than your efforts.
 
I get a feeling that Russell Brand is not to be trusted.
Dunno if this feeling is correct.
I think he is a red herring for truthers, but he may actually be getting paid by big business beast
 
I read the book, entertaining in places, needed editing in places but it clearly got edited according to those that read the first edition.

It started of as a love story but that went wrong early on, even if it hadn't his muse was not exactly eloquent; stumbling over her script as she stood trembling under Nelson; she was booed off and had to be consoled by Assange and others i saw it all and it was pathetic, all about her.

You get a sense of that in the reading, it's a bit of a jumble; all over the place. Towards the end is a glowing tribute to Goldsmith which i found which i was sickened by and then a brief mention of his former lover.

It's an entertaining read for the mass market, i bought it for my sister as a Christmas present and she is a disaffected Tory living in Essex and commuting to the heart of the financial district every fucking day.

Brand is on his own journey, i think he is genuine. A long way behind me and many others on this Board with regards to the political but i like the idea, and it was difficult for me as an atheist, of combing revolution with the spiritual.

I have always believed a revolution starts from your own being, how you observe the world around you. Politics has to be about who you are and your connections, how you interact with your community; if i'm wrong then it's just a strategic game for assets.

The book had no new political ideas, plenty of personal bullshit, this is a man on a journey that wants books read for him; the basic ideas explained to him in sound bites. That's how it read politically, spiritually i put up with it and may have learnt something about common unity, community but the whole twelve step thing that pulsed through the book pissed me off.

I've not read the thread (109 pages) but i have read the book and i was disappointed with it on many levels. My sister is loving it, maybe that's the value in it.
 
Diana9 said:
Utter bullshit revisionism.

Which Founding fathers? There were many, divided by North and South. Most of the Founders were not slave owners, and indeed many were anti-slavery. Some had formed abolition societies, before, during and after the Revolution. Most of the northern colonies had abolished slavery, beginning in 1770. Compromises with slave owning states were made at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1788 when South Carolina and Georgia threatened to seceded from the fledgling Union if the Northern delegates to the Convention insisted on abolishing the slave trade. Thus the Founders essentially kicked the can down the road, and left it to the next generation to fight it out. I personally can't forgive them for that, and neither can African Americans. They should have called the the Carolina's bluff, because as Dickinson and Gouverner Morris knew then, it was a bluff, if for no other reason than secession would left the Southern states vulnerable to being invaded by Britain or Spain from Florida. Nor can I forgive them for kicking Paine to the curb after the Revolution was successful so that they could profit from it. Plus, Hamilton and the Federalist/monarchist/elitists can go to hell for setting up the banking system on the British model, leaving us with the problems of the 1% we face to this day.

And lest anyone forgets, it was Queen Elizabeth I that started the (horrific) slave trade and brought slavery to the colonies, an inheritance that has caused our people, white and black, centuries of suffering.

Thanks for all you've done for us Great Britain!
Click to expand...
You've not read the book, nor will you. If you had, or even read the reviews, you would not have dismissed the argument as classical revisionism, thus allowing you to trot out the standard shop worn response that you did. And if you had read it, or the reviews even, you'd know that the standard and now shop worn responders you chose to post doesn't actually deal with any of the issues raised in Horne's ground breaking book.


Apologies for bursting that nationalist bubble you're riding around on.
 
That book butchers posted proves that the UK is better than the US and our glorious slave liberating monarchy is better than their slavery loving republic.

Why do US trendies and followers of political fads always go all weird and nationalist when people don't swallow their crap without question? I remember Malcolm 'paedo' Harris doing pretty much the same.

(In all seriousness, that book looks really interesting - cheers for posting butchers)
 
butchersapron said:
The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.

In the prelude to 1776, more and more Africans were joining the British military, and anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain. And in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were chasing Europeans to the mainland. Unlike their counterparts in London, the European colonists overwhelmingly associated enslaved Africans with subversion and hostility to the status quo. For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war.

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.
Click to expand...

Excellent book. I sent a copy of that and a copy of "White Cargo" to a mate who was doing a bit of head-scratching about the class and race issues leading up to the revolution.
 
Diana9 said:
And lest anyone forgets, it was Queen Elizabeth I that started the (horrific) slave trade and brought slavery to the colonies, an inheritance that has caused our people, white and black, centuries of suffering.
Click to expand...

What was that you were saying about "utter bullshit revisionism"? Slaves being sold in the colonies (by Portuguese, Spanish, British, French and Italian privateers) was already happening before Elizabeth I was crowned. What Elizabeth did (in, IIRC, the 1580s) was to grant the equivalent of trade licences to British companies that became the foundation of the triangular trade.
Blame Elizabeth, by all means, but don't forget the part the other "Old World" empires played.
 
butchersapron said:
The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.

In the prelude to 1776, more and more Africans were joining the British military, and anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain. And in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were chasing Europeans to the mainland. Unlike their counterparts in London, the European colonists overwhelmingly associated enslaved Africans with subversion and hostility to the status quo. For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war.

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for this, proving to be a compelling read.
 
butchersapron said:
You've not read the book, nor will you. If you had, or even read the reviews, you would not have dismissed the argument as classical revisionism, thus allowing you to trot out the standard shop worn response that you did. And if you had read it, or the reviews even, you'd know that the standard and now shop worn responders you chose to post doesn't actually deal with any of the issues raised in Horne's ground breaking book.


Apologies for bursting that nationalist bubble you're riding around on.
Click to expand...

Have you yourself read this "ground breaking" book? If the review you posted is the premise of the book, i.e., "that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others'" then it is flat out wrong, as the facts I've already posted show. Can you refute those facts?

Instead you spout empty, condescending rhetoric:

To wit:

"the standard and now shop worn responders you chose to post doesn't actually deal with any of the issues raised in Horne's ground breaking book."

I've pointed out the very opposite. The shop worn American mythology is all about "The Founders," the great, important men we are taught to revere, centered mainly around two of the founders, Washington and Jefferson, both slave-owners, overlooking the majority of the other Founders who were not slave-owners (or who freed their slaves), and the vast majority of the Patriots who actually fought and died in a revolution inspired by Thomas Paine, whose vision of liberty, equality, and democracy was aborted by monarchists like Hamilton, Adams, et al, and who thus imposed a system built on the British model that still rules over the western world today.

"Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain." (Joel Barlow, American diplomat and poet).

"A free America without Thomas Paine is unthinkable." - Marquis de Lafayette

Those words still hold true today. There would not have been a revolution without Paine (it certainly wasn't to preserve slavery), and there is no free America today without the democracy Paine envisioned. There is no freedom in the British Common Wealth, nor in the U.S, nor in Hong Kong, or anywhere else in the world. We are all oppressed by the same system. If you would stop wasting your time in idle gossip about celebrity, you might begin to understand that the revolution Paine wrote about is the same as Brand talks about and perhaps then you'd be able to use this powerful technology for a greater purpose.

The revolution as Paine saw it and as Brand sees it is democracy -- government of, by, and for the people. That means people must be awakened to the possibilities for change and become radically engaged.



"We have the power to make the world over again" - Thomas Paine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
7K
A380
A380
A380
For those who believe in revolution by force, a question?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
6K
8ball
8ball
N
Jo Brand's "throw acid not milk" at politicians joke
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
231
Views
11K
hash tag
hash tag
editor
Iceland supermarkets to ban palm oil in own-brand products
Replies
20
Views
1K
friedaweed
friedaweed
editor
Lillian Bilocca and the "headscarf revolutionaries" from Hull [BBC documentary]
Replies
11
Views
895
dessiato
dessiato
Back
Top Bottom