Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand on Revolution

Diana9 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally out of order there, don't assume that because posters don't agree with you or Brand and his actions they don't do good stuff, BT doesn't need defending, but he does excellent work
 
krtek a houby said:
This thread really depresses me. I don't see RB as the messiah but I think he's making an effort to highlight problems that are often dismissed or conveniently ignored by the media/politicans alike. He's trying to make a difference & because his profile is larger than any of us here, he's in the spotlight. Why is this a bad thing?
Click to expand...

No-one is saying it's a bad thing per se, they're saying that the way it is currently being represented (by the media, and by the poster Diana9 ) detracts from the cause in favour of concentrating on Russell Brand.
 
krtek a houby said:
There's a ruling elite here on urban, Diana. One that forever snarls, bites and berates any signs of populism on the left, or any dissenting opinion. It maintains the status quo and the pecking order here.
Click to expand...

Conversely, there isn't, and you've created the idea of one in order to excuse your own inability to argue coherently, preferring to dissolve into hissy fits.
 
I'd like to know how close Russell Brand's flat is to the New Era estate.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that I know which building it's in and, if that is the case, that would make him a very near neighbour of the residents.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Isn't it then a case of how things are managed, by campaign and sleb, rather than a sincere sleb just being told "ooooh...we don't want your help ta, because you're famous..."

In relation to E15 he seems, at least to be committed to it longer term because of his connection to the area. He's talked about the bailiffs being at his door as a youngster, which again I believe. Is he the wrong sort of working class? Should he have turned down the Hollywood work? It's hard to know.

I can imagine that it could create awkward, or worse, dynamics in the group, but again it's a question of honesty and management and hopefully lessons could be learned for future instances.

He gave publicity to the firefighters, whose union obviously sustained stuff before, during and after. I can't see how that could be over problematic.

Again, you have to wonder if people would prefer if he did fuck all except be a good little sleb. Perhaps he should be developing an after shave range, so that less people here will sneer at him. He's going on about people self organising and offering himself where people might think he could be useful. From knowledge of what he's done in the past (from "Naziboy to the drug hearings) I basically think he's sincere, and that positive gestures should be taken in a positive spirit.
Click to expand...

It's not about which class Russell Brand resides in. It isn't about his wealth, or his distance from or proximity to a cause. It's about how he, as someone who is a celebrity, will affect any cause(s) he supports - how his presence might undermine an already-coherent narrative, and how his presence, while bringing attention from the media, might bring attention focused primarily on him, and not on the cause(s). This is stuff that a lot of activists do as a matter of course - you cross-check to make sure you're not pissing over someone else's shoulder - but which doesn't appear to have been done by Brand or his "people".
 
ViolentPanda said:
That's pretty much the crux of it. Greebo and I do various local stuff because if we don't, we have no-one to blame but ourselves, and helping our community (either local or on-line) achieves something solid. We don't have the "luxury" of being able to retreat from activism, because everyone is important in a community, and everything we do for each other is important. Having celebrity support would bring transient attention to local causes, but then surely the drop-off of attention post-celebrity is all the steeper? I'm not saying celebs shouldn't become involved, I'm saying they should subordinate their status to the community, not act to speak FOR that community. Butchers made a very good point yesterday when he mentioned that (probably unintentionally) Brand had partially disempowered the women from E15.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a very fair set of points you make.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
"One that forever snarls, bites and berates any signs of populism on the left, or any dissenting opinion."



Wait up..."populism"!?

You don't want people LIKING our ideas do you?
Click to expand...

I think you need to resolve what is meant politically with regard to populism. Generally, in politics, it means "lowest common denominator mass appeal". Now frankly I'm a bit more ambitious for my fellow humans than settling for the lowest common denominator. I think we deserve better than settling for crumbs. Look behind most populist politics and all you see is a mechanism for the powerful to retain power, while blagging part of the electorate that they're going to change shit. It never fucking happens.
A couple of examples of populist policy off the top of my head:
Lib-Dems - "we'll keep higher education cheap/free".
Labour - "we'll repeal the JSA"
Tories - "we'll ring-fence NHS spending".
 
ViolentPanda said:
It's not about which class Russell Brand resides in. It isn't about his wealth, or his distance from or proximity to a cause. It's about how he, as someone who is a celebrity, will affect any cause(s) he supports - how his presence might undermine an already-coherent narrative, and how his presence, while bringing attention from the media, might bring attention focused primarily on him, and not on the cause(s). This is stuff that a lot of activists do as a matter of course - you cross-check to make sure you're not pissing over someone else's shoulder - but which doesn't appear to have been done by Brand or his "people".
Click to expand...


There's a lot of "mights" in there. I agree that the cross checking is a good idea. How do we know it hasn't happened, even if not as best as it might have been? Clearly there could be downsides, but they'd have to be offset against good sides as well.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I think you need to resolve what is meant politically with regard to populism. Generally, in politics, it means "lowest common denominator mass appeal". Now frankly I'm a bit more ambitious for my fellow humans than settling for the lowest common denominator. I think we deserve better than settling for crumbs. Look behind most populist politics and all you see is a mechanism for the powerful to retain power, while blagging part of the electorate that they're going to change shit. It never fucking happens.
A couple of examples of populist policy off the top of my head:
Lib-Dems - "we'll keep higher education cheap/free".
Labour - "we'll repeal the JSA"
Tories - "we'll ring-fence NHS spending".
Click to expand...


Point taken, but your beef seems to be with politicians not being consistent, rather than the populism in the first place.

Often the issues can blur of course, when politicians knowingly promise something they may well struggle to deliver.

But "populism" is not, IMO at least, a bad thing of itself.

There is indeed a lot of "lowest common demoniator" stuff that goes on, but to highlight that can just as easily summon an accusation of "snobbery".
 
ViolentPanda said:
Conversely, there isn't, and you've created the idea of one in order to excuse your own inability to argue coherently, preferring to dissolve into hissy fits.
Click to expand...

I'm offering my opinion on the way dissent or going against the urban grain is dealt with by a select few here. No hissy fits. Brand seems to me to have a broad appeal to those of us who want change but haven't the entire history of political discourse and knowledge stored in our brains.

The thing that I find attractive about his approach is that (I find) he doesn't condescend like a few here.

IMHO.
 
When I was a kid a few weeks ago plenty of 'popular/well known' people spoke about politics/went on demos/did campaigning and it wasn't really that exceptional.
I remember the lead singer of a band around 1981ish saying she supported the Birmingham pub bombings. That shit would get you locked up now. Paul Weller was one, Don Letts.
Don't quite get why Brand is such a big topic one way or the other, but I guess it's because he's mainstream right? And is not very shy at coming forward.
 
krtek a houby said:
I'm offering my opinion on the way dissent or going against the urban grain is dealt with by a select few here. No hissy fits. Brand seems to me to have a broad appeal to those of us who want change but haven't the entire history of political discourse and knowledge stored in our brains.

The thing that I find attractive about his approach is that (I find) he doesn't condescend like a few here.

IMHO.
Click to expand...

It's not about having loads of knowledge stored in your brain.
It's about doing it yourself, and not relying on someone else to lead the way for you (invariably those who want to lead are a bunch of scrotes). We need no G-ds, and we need no masters. Yes, having Brand enunciate what you're thinking feels good, and perhaps furthers "the cause", but we shouldn't be depending on (or even desiring, in my opinion) other people to do that for us, as it takes away our ability to manouvre within that cause.
 
Coolfonz said:
When I was a kid a few weeks ago plenty of 'popular/well known' people spoke about politics/went on demos/did campaigning and it wasn't really that exceptional.
I remember the lead singer of a band around 1981ish saying she supported the Birmingham pub bombings. That shit would get you locked up now. Paul Weller was one, Don Letts.
Don't quite get why Brand is such a big topic one way or the other, but I guess it's because he's mainstream right? And is not very shy at coming forward.
Click to expand...

Look at music and art over the last 30 years. It's incredibly de-politicised in comparison to what it was. Brand is a big topic simply because his stance stands out among the apolitical position so many of his contemporaries choose to take.
 
ViolentPanda said:
It's not about having loads of knowledge stored in your brain.
(invariably those who want to lead are a bunch of scrotes). We need no G-ds, and we need no masters. Yes, having Brand enunciate what you're thinking feels good, and perhaps furthers "the cause", but we shouldn't be depending on (or even desiring, in my opinion) other people to do that for us, as it takes away our ability to manouvre within that cause.
Click to expand...




Has anyone said they depend on Brand or people like him?

If not, why suppose they do?

From what I can gather, Brand would agree with the bits I put in italics (ETA, I'm shit with formatting, but I'm talking about much of the early part of your post after 1st sentence)

I really don't get that, should a famous person help a cause, why they should be seen as any kind of leader by themselves or the group.

Surely, an anarchist perspective would allow us to rise above that kind of thing rather then be perpetually hung up about it.

People offer different stuff to campaigns, the media potential of a sleb is just one of many things contributed by a host of people.

Why are people supposing the worst, imposing their own interpretations and guesses regarding motive to those who think that what Brand is, on balance, pretty good?

He didn't / doesn't lead any Fire Brigade campaigns, the E15 mums, attacks on FOX or anything else I'm aware of.

I don't see him as any kind of leader, that would be daft. Perhaps some do, but many don't. To assume people do is certainly unfair, quite possibly patronising and (ironically) risks imposing a judgement of a hierarchy where there isn't one.
 
Last edited:
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Has anyone said they depend on Brand or people like him?

If not, why suppose they do?

From what I can gather, Brand would agree with the bits I put in italics (ETA, I'm shit with formatting, but I'm talking about much of the early part of your post after 1st sentence)

I really don't get that, should a famous person help a cause, why they should be seen as any kind of leader by themselves or the group.

Surely, an anarchist perspective would allow us to rise above that kind of thing rather then be perpetually hung up about it.

People offer different stuff to campaigns, the media potential of a sleb is just one of many things contributed by a host of people.

Why are people supposing the worst, imposing their own interpretations and guesses regarding motive to those who think that what Brand is, on balance, pretty good?

He didn't / doesn't lead any Fire Brigade campaigns, the E15 mums, attacks on FOX or anything else I'm aware of.

I don't see him as any kind of leader, that would be daft. Perhaps some do, but many don't. To assume people do is certainly unfair, quite possibly patronising and (ironically) risks imposing a judgement of a hierarchy where there isn't one.
Click to expand...

Diana said that without Brand the common people wouldn't have a voice, I read that as her seeing us as being dependent on him for a campaign to be successful.

Someone famous will pretty much automatically be placed in the position of a leader by the press and therefore the perception of people outside the group will be of that person as a leader. A famous person without an ego might forego that press attention in order to just get on with supporting the group, but Brand definitely isn't doing this, and as I said in a previous post I reckon that for anyone to get in the position of being a celeb they must have an ego, and that celebs generally love press attention so they will go for it. Whether they want to be a leader or not, whether they are actually leading a group, is irrelevant, because they will be seen to be a leader having been put in that position by the press.
 
The protest was picking up, clear cut and building momentum. Daft lad and the circus show up and then it's all about him and I know he's saying it's not about him but fuck it, even if it comes good they don't care about losing once here or there. They're laughing. And then it's history. The real problem is we don't have enough celebrities to champion every cause. if only Jordan and Peter Andre hadn't split up.
 
Diana9 said:
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...
Click to expand...

He came from Essex he had a thirst for revolution
He thought that getting on Newsnight to speak to Paxman and plug his book was the solution, that's when he caught everyone's eye.
He told me that he was fucking loaded
I said in that case you probably aren't the best spokesperson for a campaign protesting the increase in rents on New Era housing estate*
He said fine but in thirty seconds time he said, I want to speak for common people
I want to do whatever common people do, I want to speak for common people
I want to speak for common people like you.
Well what else could I do - I said I'll see what I can do.

* this line doesn't really scan or rhyme, I'm afraid - obviously needs a BIG NAME CELEBRITY writer to work on it a bit...

...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...
Click to expand...

The problem is, even if RB has the best of intentions, even if he simply wants to amplify the voices of the people of East London and/or help give the concerns of "common people" a larger hearing in the world, any publicity he gains won't be simple publicity for our concerns or our cause, it will be mediated through the spectrum of celebrity - he will be the story, whether he wants it or not, whether he (or his acolytes such as yourself) realises it or not.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Has anyone said they depend on Brand or people like him?

If not, why suppose they do?
Click to expand...

You miss the point. It's not whether people do depend, it's about coming to depend on them, even a little.

From what I can gather, Brand would agree with the bits I put in italics (ETA, I'm shit with formatting, but I'm talking about much of the early part of your post after 1st sentence)

I really don't get that, should a famous person help a cause, why they should be seen as any kind of leader by themselves or the group.

Surely, an anarchist perspective would allow us to rise above that kind of thing rather then be perpetually hung up about it.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not about them being seen as a leader by themselves or the cause, it's about (as proven by the publicity around Brand) how they're represented as such in the media.

People offer different stuff to campaigns, the media potential of a sleb is just one of many things contributed by a host of people.

Why are people supposing the worst, imposing their own interpretations and guesses regarding motive to those who think that what Brand is, on balance, pretty good?
Click to expand...

It appears that you're not really reading the thread, as most people, even those being negative about Brand's presence and his stance, haven't attributed motives to him beyond "he's trying to do the right thing". The criticism is about how it is done, and the effect that what is done has.

He didn't / doesn't lead any Fire Brigade campaigns, the E15 mums, attacks on FOX or anything else I'm aware of.

I don't see him as any kind of leader, that would be daft. Perhaps some do, but many don't. To assume people do is certainly unfair, quite possibly patronising and (ironically) risks imposing a judgement of a hierarchy where there isn't one.
Click to expand...

As I said, you entirely missed the point. When we hear about, for example, the E15 women, what does the news-viewing public immediately think of? It's not of gallant single mums fighting for their community, it's the (media-elected) figurehead Russell Brand.
 
I heard an extended version of that the other day, live recording. He hits the final extra lyric 'you'll never know how it feels to live your life with no meaning or control'. Ouch.
 
DotCommunist said:
I heard an extended version of that the other day, live recording. He hits the final extra lyric 'you'll never know how it feels to live your life with no meaning or control'. Ouch.
Click to expand...

That line's in the album version isn't it? Continues like this:

"and with nowhere else to go
you are afraid that they exist
and something something
something makes you wonder why (?)

you wanna be like common people..."

I'm going to have to listen to it now :)

edit: it's on my album version anyway, and she's not afraid, she's amazed :D
("that they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why" was the last two lines of the stanza, then into the shop above a flat bit before the you'll never understand version of the common people chorus.)
 
Last edited:
ViolentPanda said:
Look at music and art over the last 30 years. It's incredibly de-politicised in comparison to what it was. Brand is a big topic simply because his stance stands out among the apolitical position so many of his contemporaries choose to take.
Click to expand...
That isn't Brand's fault though - and no you weren't saying that I know.

What about Naismith at Everton? Helping out a few folks here and there. I mean yeah he hasn't funded X Y or Z, he hasn't caused A or B to happen but at least he's having a little shuffle.

I refer to my earlier analogy about Tim Henman. Don't hate the Henman, hate the not-even-Henmans.
 
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