Russell Brand on Revolution

[brogdale]

Hmm...

Martin – I’ve yet to discover his surname – is a hard-Left anarchist from the old white working class who hates Britain’s liberal media.

Damian Thompson is an associate editor of The Spectator

Work hard at their trade, don't they?

 

[seventh bullet]

Let's laugh at the chav and his quaint views.

 

[butchersapron]

He hates you catholic child stranglers as well btw damian

 

[krtek a houby]

What upsets me, somewhat, is here is someone with realtive clout and a visible profile to millions... and yet, he draws so much ire from people who (more or less) want serious change to our lives; just like him.

The establishment will be delighted because they know he will ultimately be shot down by those who he wants to change the status quo with.

 

[butchersapron]

What upsets me, somewhat, is here is someone with realtive clout and a visible profile to millions... and yet, he draws so much ire from people who (more or less) want serious change to our lives; just like him.

The establishment will be delighted because they know he will ultimately be shot down by those who he wants to change the status quo with.

This upsets? Upsets you so you had to come on here to attack unnamed demons. Who - of the anti-brandists- here do you charge with having power? Who has power here?

 

[DotCommunist]

i'm sad that we live in an age where we can use the words pick up technique and sexual assault to mean the same thing.

it appears the charmer has been refused entry to the country today.

 

[el-ahrairah]

it appears the charmer has been refused entry to the country today.

perhaps the system isn't broken, after all.

 

[Obnoxiousness]

I was gonna buy Revolution on Kindle, but from what I've listened to on YouTube the style of writing wanders a bit into strangeness. So I'm thinking it will go the way of The Da Vinci Code or Fifty Shades Of Grey.... multiple copies available from all good charity shops.

 

[rekil]

Are you or have you ever been that guy on a demo?

 

[Diana9]

In terms of getting the revolution going, yes. I think Britain needs an actual person (or group of people) to get it properly started too. People by themselves have done so little - I am probably saying it badly, but the public did not get out on the streets protesting against the bankers who fucked up the world economy - nobody went to jail - and people did not storm parliament and overthrow the government - that is the level of revolution that needs to happen.

as an aside, the music scene has also been absent - there should have been a musical revolution documenting what was happening - there wasnt. Why dont people feel inspired anymore??? They are certainly angry - the whole thing is exacerbating. Are people (and when i say 'people' i mean the general public- you me, and average working people of society, paying tax and getting the tube to work every day) just lazy?

I know i havent articulated myself very well here - but i am honestly wondering about this....if anyone has any thoughts, i'd like to hear it...

Actually, I don't think that's what he's talking about, he's not setting himself as a leader, and he doesn't advocate that there be one. Those days are over. My understanding is that he's saying people should become more engaged in their local communities. They should organize themselves. He successfully supported the tenants who fought against eviction in an east London community, he's encouraging people to stand with Wallmart workers for a pay raise, etc. He is inspiring people to think of ways they can become involved. He has explained over and over again that he's not saying "don't ever vote," just "don't vote" for people who don't represent you."

As to your question, "are people just lazy?" I think Russell Brand sees that people feel paralyzed. Partly because they've been indoctrinated to believe "resistance is futile." He's trying to change people's thinking, to make people realize how much power they really have to change things, if only they ACT.

 

[Diana9]

A good discussion to watch:

 

[Cheesypoof]

Actually, I don't think that's what he's talking about, he's not setting himself as a leader, and he doesn't advocate that there be one.

I was offering my own opinion in the post you quoted and i do think the public needs to be 'led' by revolutionary persons (not Brand), as the public is lazy and almost apathetic. They would rather do the protesting online (where it makes no real difference) than get out and do it on the streets. I've been saying on here for years, that Britain needs a revolution and although not the man to lead it, Russell Brand has some good ideas about it

Those days are over. My understanding is that he's saying people should become more engaged in their local communities. They should organize themselves. He successfully supported the tenants who fought against eviction in an east London community, he's encouraging people to stand with Wallmart workers for a pay raise, etc. He is inspiring people to think of ways they can become involved. He has explained over and over again that he's not saying "don't ever vote," just "don't vote" for people who don't represent you."

I agree - am reading his book at the moment and he is very much for communities organising themselves (and has never nominated himself on any kind of pedestal as leader - neither have i). On the voting thing - I understand what he means, like 'only vote for an entity that actually represents you, or not at all' - i find that philosophy too idealistic - i think vote for whats closest to your beliefs and to deter right wing conservatives/ Tories getting power

As to your question, "are people just lazy?" I think Russell Brand sees that people feel paralyzed. Partly because they've been indoctrinated to believe "resistance is futile." He's trying to change people's thinking, to make people realize how much power they really have to change things, if only they ACT.

True, and he is right.

 

[treelover]

Actually, I don't think that's what he's talking about, he's not setting himself as a leader, and he doesn't advocate that there be one. Those days are over. My understanding is that he's saying people should become more engaged in their local communities. They should organize themselves. He successfully supported the tenants who fought against eviction in an east London community, he's encouraging people to stand with Wallmart workers for a pay raise, etc. He is inspiring people to think of ways they can become involved. He has explained over and over again that he's not saying "don't ever vote," just "don't vote" for people who don't represent you."

As to your question, "are people just lazy?" I think Russell Brand sees that people feel paralyzed. Partly because they've been indoctrinated to believe "resistance is futile." He's trying to change people's thinking, to make people realize how much power they really have to change things, if only they ACT.

Butchers said in reply to my query 'if any of the 'radical chic' lot in the 60/70's showed the same level of commitment Brand seems to be showing?', he said there were many, but whom?, apart from the Redgraves, be good to list a few.

Btw, I get the impression he is off to Ireland soon to support the water charges protests.

welcome to P/P Diana9

 

[Diana9]

I was offering my own opinion in the post you quoted and i do think the public needs to be 'led' by revolutionary persons (not Brand), as the public is lazy and almost apathetic. They would rather do the protesting online (where it makes no real difference) than get out and do it on the streets. I've been saying on here for years, that Britain needs a revolution and although not the man to lead it, Russell Brand has some good ideas about it



I agree - am reading his book at the moment and he is very much for communities organising themselves (and has never nominated himself on any kind of pedestal as leader - neither have i). On the voting thing - I understand what he means, like 'only vote for an entity that actually represents you, or not at all' - i find that philosophy too idealistic - i think vote for whats closest to your beliefs and to deter right wing conservatives/ Tories getting power



True, and he is right.

I agree about not voting at all. Here in California we have ballot measures that can have a real impact on people's lives, and a massive turnout to keep the right wing conservatives out of power would have been good, but alas, the opposite happened, mostly the Republican extremists showed up at the polls. At the same time, I agree with Brand that the two-party system we have in the States generally does not represent us. So I think he's right that the bottom-up, grassroots, approach makes more sense than just blindly voting out of a sense of civic duty, even when we've seen time and again that nothing really changes.

 

[Diana9]

Butchers said in reply to my query 'if any of the 'radical chic' lot in the 60/70's showed the same level of commitment Brand seems to be showing?', he said there were many, but whom?, apart from the Redgraves, be good to list a few.

Btw, I get the impression he is off to Ireland soon to support the water charges protests.

welcome to P/P Diana9

Well, there was John Lennon.

Thanks for the welcome

 

[free spirit]

So I think he's right that the bottom-up, grassroots, approach makes more sense than just blindly voting out of a sense of civic duty, even when we've seen time and again that nothing really changes.

no, he's wrong because you can actually do both at the same time.

 

[Diana9]

no, he's wrong because you can actually do both at the same time.

One can do both, IF one can find people who will actually represent the interests of the people. Unfortunately, the choice we're given is to vote for "the lesser evil." Russel Brand is trying to awaken people to the idea that that just isn't good enough, because we're still left with an "evil" system that serves an elite minority, and the rest of us be damned.

 

[free spirit]

One can do both, IF one can find people who will actually represent the interests of the people. By the looks of things elected officials are generally not doing that.

even in the absence of that you can vote for the least worst option while also campaigning for something better.

 

[killer b]

that worked out great for you last time you tried it eh?

 

[free spirit]

that worked out great for you last time you tried it eh?

did whatever you did work out any better?

 

[Diana9]

even in the absence of that you can vote for the least worst option while also campaigning for something better.

See my post above, I edited it to add that voting for "the lesser evil" is part of the problem. All it does is hold us in check.

 

[killer b]

did whatever you did work out any better?

For me? Yeah, of course.

Just saying, you've already tried this voting for (hell, even campaigning for) the 'least worst option' in the very recent past, and look where it got you. That you can still bang that same drum 5 years later is... odd.

 

[free spirit]

For me? Yeah, of course.

Just saying, you've already tried this voting for (hell, even campaigning for) the 'least worst option' in the very recent past, and look where it got you. That you can still bang that same drum 5 years later is... odd.

vs not voting?

sorry, I fail to see how me not voting would have led to a different / better result.

or how encouraging a lot of young left wing types not to vote can possibly do anything other than aid the other side who continue to vote.

Obviously I didn't end up with what I'd hoped might be the 'least bad' end result that I could have a minor level of influence over, but how exactly would it help the situation if all the more left wing lib dem voters from last time simply didn't vote at all next time? Or extend it further, if all the left wing voters entirely didn't vote, how would that improve the situation? Maybe we could all share the moral high ground, must be nice up there.

 

[killer b]

Maybe they could spend their political energies somewhere more worthwhile? All I know is, the 'least worst option' (well, your least worse option) has - in the very recent past - been demonstrated to be horseshit. Voting lib dem last time proved to be worse than doing nothing. You should have stayed in bed.

 

[Diana9]

vs not voting?

sorry, I fail to see how me not voting would have led to a different / better result.

or how encouraging a lot of young left wing types not to vote can possibly do anything other than aid the other side who continue to vote.

Obviously I didn't end up with what I'd hoped might be the 'least bad' end result that I could have a minor level of influence over, but how exactly would it help the situation if all the more left wing lib dem voters from last time simply didn't vote at all next time? Or extend it further, if all the left wing voters entirely didn't vote, how would that improve the situation? Maybe we could all share the moral high ground, must be nice up there.

One thing that can happen is you give "the bad guys" enough rope to hang themselves with, so that everybody can see how really bad they are. Another thing that can happen is people, once coming to the realization that their vote is pointless, they'll become more self-reliant, more engaged in their community. As long as we passively accept the "lesser evil" scheme (and compliantly support it with our vote, expecting nothing better for ourselves), nothing will change.

We can look back at history and learn a few lessons.

A decade before the American Rebellion became a Revolution (i.e., a "War of Independence") in 1776, the colonists came up with a brilliant strategy: the boycott. They boycotted all British goods. This brought the colonists together in solidarity. It worked then, a similar strategy can work again against the corporate powers.

 

[free spirit]

Maybe they could spend their political energies somewhere more worthwhile? All I know is, the 'least worst option' (well, your least worse option) has - in the very recent past - been demonstrated to be horseshit.

has it?

do you think the lib dems were the party I considered to be the 'least worst option' on that poll?

 

[DotCommunist]

Well, there was John Lennon.

Thanks for the welcome

lets all just have a massive lie in and claim not getting out of bed as a political act.

 

[free spirit]

One thing that can happen is you give "the bad guys" enough rope to hang themselves with, so that everybody can see how really bad they are.

no, they hang us, or if not us then those less able to stand up for themselves than us.

And what do you expect would happen once everybody else sees how bad they are? Would they also stop voting? I'm sure that'd really show them.

 

[Diana9]

no, they hang us, or if not us then those less able to stand up for themselves than us.

That's why we who are able have to stand with those who are less able. That's what Brand is doing.

And what do you expect would happen once everybody else sees how bad they are? Would they also stop voting? I'm sure that'd really show them.

No, I would expect individuals to arise from the community who have proven their commitment to serve the people, to run for office.

 

[Diana9]

no, they hang us

Sounds like you've bought into their "be afraid" meme. Fear is what makes people passive, and that's just how the powers-that-be want us.

Courage is a revolutionary act in itself.

A good place to start pushing back is -- don't be afraid.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself" - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Anyway, it doesn't have to be that dramatic. One thing everybody can do without fearing retribution is -- stop buying stuff you don't need and become more discriminating about who you do buy from. Buy local, support your small business owners. Vote with your money.