Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand on Revolution

That giff is so out of context!!!! Hes angry at the media from detracting from a fantastic cause but the giff makes him look like a violent madman. Trying to take down Brand in this manner wont work on Brandites, we seek the truth, we dont base our opinions on misleading snippets!
Click to expand...

from the Indy comments, seems like there may now be 'Brandites', not a good development as I am sure Russell will agree.
 
I just got told off on twitter for criticising him and suggested I ask them if they think he hijacked the campaign

Does anyone know what the new era campaign think?
 
D'wards said:
This thread demonstrates why the far left will never achieve a sodding thing
splitter1.jpg
Click to expand...

Your post certainly demonstrates your inability to differentiate between splitting a la The Judean Peoples' Front or the SWP, and people questioning Russell Brand's motivation and/or the effect he has on general politics.
 
treelover said:
He is obviously touching some nerves, and for that , its good.
Click to expand...

But he isn't.
He hasn't said anything much more contentious than "the system is shit" - as if most people weren't actually aware of that oh-so-obvious fact!
Yes, Mr. Brand may move a few apolitical people to think about politics, and he may (for his own benefit as well as theirs) publicise some causes, but what is he achieving, politically? He talks about how revolution is necessary, but he doesn't even try to enunciate any mechanisms through which people can bring about revolutionary change. He's insulated from the causes he supports, and from the people who are the beneficiaries of those causes. Getting photographed with your arm around a protester doesn't make you less insulated.
 
you get the impression some cartoon voice for workers, social, political rights. For real things- is indulged as an easy narrative but with easily dismissable ignorance and the problems with his integrity.

I'd be a right fucking liability to any left ish spokesmans role. It takes two wrong questions to get me ranting about salt mines and I certainly don't really mean that but i know how i can be goaded so would not get near a mike.

I've time for brands 'I'm learning'*. I know that one does wear thin when someone keeps fucking up but he's not ancient and he's not from a perspective where he has had to think on these things in depth
*We all are, but don't act like he's re invented communism ffs.
 
ViolentPanda said:
But he isn't.
He hasn't said anything much more contentious than "the system is shit" - as if most people weren't actually aware of that oh-so-obvious fact!
Yes, Mr. Brand may move a few apolitical people to think about politics, and he may (for his own benefit as well as theirs) publicise some causes, but what is he achieving, politically? He talks about how revolution is necessary, but he doesn't even try to enunciate any mechanisms through which people can bring about revolutionary change. He's insulated from the causes he supports, and from the people who are the beneficiaries of those causes. Getting photographed with your arm around a protester doesn't make you less insulated.
Click to expand...

to be fair vp, russell brand has said numerous times that he doesn't have the answers, he doesn't claim any of the things he says or does are his original ideas. what he does say is take direct action work together as communities peacefully within the system to achieve the common goals. even that is hardly original, but he is the first person i have seen in many years to say these things, things that are right, things that resonate with me and my values and to have media attention to do it.

i'm not as politically astute as many of the posters here so i kind of feel what am i missing that seems so painfully obvious to some on here, rb to me, seems genuine and sometimes talks a lot of sense. regarding rb's personality, i know a few recovering addicts and he really does remind me of some of the energetic driven addicts i know with lots of clean time.
 
I don't agree with RB all the time, but he's clearly getting up a lot of noses, which is no bad thing.

Some leftists complaint about him strike me as weird. He's managed to get a lot of folk, not normally that interested in politics, thinking about about fairly left wing stuff, far more than so many others ever managed to via festishised rhetoric, shouty slogans and dull meetings.

It's like "how dare he talk about E15 mums or Occupy on Newsnight. how dare he do a daily show ripping the piss out of reactionaries. He's not as perfect as ME It should be ME doing that. I am the MOST LEFTYIST OF THEM ALL."

And obviously, no one with any money should be left wing. Like engles, kropotkin, Benn etc. The rich are politically obliged to be right wing, and we have right wing media to back us up on that.

You know who's not a hypocrite, doesn't blur any anti establishment message or run any risk of mishandling a campaign like New Era? Katie Hopkins. Lets have more people like her. Fan fucking tastic. If we can't have impure people arguing a case like ours, lets just have the opposite case put the whole time.

It's as if some people would rather he was just a vapid celeb, giving interviews to OK about what clothes he likes or his love life,while the real political analysis is left to the grown ups who have strangely achieved next to no traction over the last couple of generations.

Yes, alot of what he says is obvious to many of us, rather empty in some ways and ego fuelled, but he's sincere enough and would admit all the above. A lot of the critique seems rather churlish.
 
Last edited:
Is he not just doing it because he loves to be seen, to be fashionable, to be feted? Why does he live in luxury when he can quite easily give all his absurd wealth to good causes?

It seems like bollocks.

The system which gives everything to the few and nothing to the majority is the enemy of equality and of what is in the interests of the majority and fairness. All Brand has shown is that he has a big mouth, he hasn't sacrificed ANYTHING AT ALL.

In fact I think he is probably crackers. And he is not exactly a good example to the young. BTW I don't mean his drug problem but the whole Sachsgate shit.

Socialism is or should be very simple. Shelter the vulnerable and those in danger. Protect those who would be exploited by the extortioner. Support a politics which establishes principles of truth, good judgement and always persistent and hasty for justice.

I don't want to go on too much but while I am here: we are run by a bunch of ridiculous inadequates in suits who LIE to us.
 
look at it like this, if he gave all his wealth away, and i don't imagine he is that wealthy that he could feed, clothe and house all the poor, homeless and all the others that have fallen through the net. if he gave away all his wealth, a few thousand people would be safe for a few months (making these figures up, cos i have no idea how much money he has or how much it would take), then we'd all be back to square one and russell brand would be with us in the poverty. how would that make things better?

throwing money at the problem won't work in the long term. redistributing the money of one rich man, in this case russell brand, almost certainly wouldn't make any noticeable difference.
 
Diana9 said:
When I see the common man try to take down someone who speaks on behalf of the common man, all I can think is that centuries of indoctrination by the ruling elite still holds people mentally enslaved in the 21st century.

Mind boggling.

"But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think." - Russell Brand, "We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition," The New Statesman
Click to expand...

Not sure if I'm this common man you speak of, I'm no celeb though, so I guess so.

I don't want or need someone to speak on behalf of me.

I never asked brand to speak on behalf of me.

Afaik brand doesn't say he speaks on my behalf but he must understand how the media works and whatever he says about not being leader/spokesperson that is how he'll be presented.

His voice - to some extent - takes away from my voice.

I want my voice to be heard, I want it to be my voice, and if practicality dictates I be represented, I want a direct part in choosing who represents me.

Does that help you understand?
 
BigTom said:
Not sure if I'm this common man you speak of, I'm no celeb though, so I guess so.

I don't want or need someone to speak on behalf of me.

I never asked brand to speak on behalf of me.

Afaik brand doesn't say he speaks on my behalf but he must understand how the media works and whatever he says about not being leader/spokesperson that is how he'll be presented.

His voice - to some extent - takes away from my voice.

I want my voice to be heard, I want it to be my voice, and if practicality dictates I be represented, I want a direct part in choosing who represents me.

Does that help you understand?
Click to expand...

So you want your voice to be heard. How do you propose going about it? I hate to shatter your illusions, but the common man doesn't have a voice, unless he can organize people en mass, and even then, millions of people marched to protest the Iraq war, nobody listened. The reality is, the Sun speaks for you, the Daily Mail speaks for you. They do the bidding of the power elite to distract people with nonsense, like how much Russell Brand pays to rent his apartment. They're just trying to stir up envy, and some people unfortunately fall for it because they don't even know themselves enough to know they are envious of celebrities and wealth. "Yeah, who does Russell Brand think he is to speak for me! I can bloody well speak for myself!" And bam, they've got you just where they want you: effectively silenced. Basically it comes down to a hatchet job against anyone who deigns to speak for the public good and people need to learn to see through that and not be duped into working against each other.

If you don't need Russell Brand to speak for you, fine, but why begrudge him for lending his celebrity to the people of East London who need his voice to amplify their own? Would anyone hear their plight if it wasn't for him? Hardly.

Let's not be naive and face reality. Having a celebrity who does have a voice as an ally can help give the concerns of common people a larger hearing in the world. Unless you just don't care about their concerns. In that case, you really don't have anything to say, do you.
 
Last edited:
Lol. I'm going to respond to your post's content but I find it laughable that you are telling me to shut up, terrible sectarianism, be quiet little man the celeb is speaking yeah?

My voice gets heard fine in the projects and activities I'm involved in in my local community, along with the other people who are involved.

You can try to play their game if you want, I think their game is rigged and I'm going to play a different one.

Where have I begruged him getting involved? Here's a clue, I haven't, but here's some questions for you to think about why I have concerns about his involvement.

Why aren't their voices heard on their own? Could it be because of a celeb media led culture? How did this culture come to exist? How does it reproduce itself? Does brand's involvement on these campaigns as a self appointed celeb spokesperson help reproduce the celeb culture that means someone like brand is required? If you want to have out voices heard, shouldn't we lose the things that reproduce the culture that stop our voices being heard?
 
Actually you can fuck right off with your last two lines, as if being critical of a tactic is indicative of not caring about someone else's concerns and you are on here banging on about how we musn't attack brand cos he's on our side then come out with that kind of stupid personal attack, take a look at yourself, I'm out of this conversation.
 
BigTom said:
Lol. I'm going to respond to your post's content but I find it laughable that you are telling me to shut up, terrible sectarianism, be quiet little man the celeb is speaking yeah?

My voice gets heard fine in the projects and activities I'm involved in in my local community, along with the other people who are involved.

You can try to play their game if you want, I think their game is rigged and I'm going to play a different one.

Where have I begruged him getting involved? Here's a clue, I haven't, but here's some questions for you to think about why I have concerns about his involvement.

Why aren't their voices heard on their own? Could it be because of a celeb media led culture? How did this culture come to exist? How does it reproduce itself? Does brand's involvement on these campaigns as a self appointed celeb spokesperson help reproduce the celeb culture that means someone like brand is required? If you want to have out voices heard, shouldn't we lose the things that reproduce the culture that stop our voices being heard?
Click to expand...

You're distorting what I said. I didn't say "quiet little man," to you, I said that the powers-that-be won't let you be heard. You can talk but you can't be heard. That's their silencing scheme.

Celebrities aren't supposed to be heard either. They're telling RB "quiet little man." Go back to shooting heroin and screwing women. So for the "common man" to jump on their bandwagon and tell RB to shut up, "Shut UP Russell Brand, you don't speak for me!" is self-defeating, and that's exactly what they want.
 
BigTom said:
Actually you can fuck right off with your last two lines, as if being critical of a tactic is indicative of not caring about someone else's concerns and you are on here banging on about how we musn't attack brand cos he's on our side then come out with that kind of stupid personal attack, take a look at yourself, I'm out of this conversation.
Click to expand...

Bye.
 
Diana9 said:
You're distorting what I said. I didn't say "quiet little man," to you, I said that the powers-that-be won't let you be heard. You can talk but you can't be heard. That's their silencing scheme.

Celebrities aren't supposed to be heard either. They're telling RB "quiet little man." Go back to shooting heroin and screwing women. So for the "common man" to jump on their bandwagon and tell RB to shut up, "Shut UP Russell Brand, you don't speak for me!" is self-defeating, and that's exactly what they want.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
Diana9 said:
When I see the common man try to take down someone who speaks on behalf of the common man, all I can think is that centuries of indoctrination by the ruling elite still holds people mentally enslaved in the 21st century.

Mind boggling.

"But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think." - Russell Brand, "We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition," The New Statesman
Click to expand...

What's your opinion of the protocols of the elders of zion?
 
ViolentPanda said:
Your post certainly demonstrates your inability to differentiate between splitting a la The Judean Peoples' Front or the SWP, and people questioning Russell Brand's motivation and/or the effect he has on general politics.
Click to expand...
Not sure the SWP is a good example here, especially considering what their recent split was over.
 
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
890
dessiato
dessiato
Back
Top Bottom