Russell Brand on Revolution

[Jean-Luc]

i popped into sainsbury's earlier and saw they stocked this peculiar book. i looked in vain for any marx or brinton tho.

Is that a good or a bad thing? Ironically, the book does contain views similar to those of Brinton.

Here's an advert for the book seen at a tube station in outer London (Northwood in fact) and presumably elsewhere:

All this publicity for the word "revolution" must have some effect, musn't it? Eg allowing those of us who've been using the word a chance to get in on the debate.

Reading this thread, though, it doesn't seem possible to separate the message from the messenger in this case but you'd have thought it ought to be.

 

[chilango]

That's terrible.

"The people who think the system works, work for the system"

What elitist, divisive, posturing bullshit.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah how dare people point out any of this. How divisive.

Jimmy Savile gave money to charity you know.

 

[J Ed]

Where have we seen revolution written like that before?

Oh.

 

[frogwoman]

And a few of people on the left thought Ron Paul was great because he wants to legalise drugs.

 

[Jean-Luc]

That's terrible.

"The people who think the system works, work for the system"

What elitist, divisive, posturing bullshit.

How exactly, and independently of who it's associated with, is this statement (1) elitist, (2) divisive and (3) bullshit?

 

[frogwoman]

Is that a good or a bad thing? Ironically, the book does contain views similar to those of Brinton.

Here's an advert for the book seen at a tube station in outer London (Northwood in fact) and presumably elsewhere:

All this publicity for the word "revolution" must have some effect, musn't it? Eg allowing those of us who've been using the word a chance to get in on the debate.

Reading this thread, though, it doesn't seem possible to separate the message from the messenger in this case but you'd have thought it ought to be.

That's the stupidest thing I have read in some time. You want people to ignore all the issues raised because he's given the word revolution some publicity?

 

[frogwoman]

You fucking deserve to lose.

 

[J Ed]

How exactly, and independently of who it's associated with, is this statement (1) elitist, (2) divisive and (3) bullshit?

To me it's patronising more than it is 1, 2 and 3 - the book is being presented as a guide to waking up the sleeping sheeple or something. Well frankly I think most people are 'awake' already to the failures of 'the system'. and you can see that in open hostility to politicians, foreign wars, the decline in voting, the decline in political party membership, the rise of UKIP and that's just a start.

The 'sheeple' don't need some celebrity to 'wake them up' and tell them to meditate a revolution into being

 

[J Ed]

That's the stupidest thing I have read in some time. You want people to ignore all the issues raised because he's given the word revolution some publicity?

Might as well vote UKIP cos Farage calls his party a 'People's Army' - the bloke is obviously a sincere Maoist.

 

[chilango]

How exactly, and independently of who it's associated with, is this statement (1) elitist, (2) divisive and (3) bullshit?

Many people think "the system works". This slogan dismisses them. All of us "work for the system" (hey, that's capitalism for ya!) this slogan dismisses us too.

 

[frogwoman]

It's not surprising this wake up the sheeple shit is espoused by a former pickup artist. It's the same mentality.

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh yeah, Russell brand's past use and endorsement of pua shit, some of the worst misogyny that exists on this planet, not a primary source, not at all relevant to a political discussion.

PUA shit, active stuff, has he really and explicitly denounced it, has he learnt that it these views are unacceptable to air in public, or that they are unacceptable, and how do we tell the difference from the outside?

I never want to place myself politically next to someone who views women in the way pua wankers do.

Ask him if he's denounced it. It should be a precondition for his involvement in anything that he denounces this shit.

 

[Jean-Luc]

You want people to ignore all the issues raised because he's given the word revolution some publicity?

No.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Since posting on this thread I've started getting David Icke recommendations from Google. Says it all really.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't want to have anything to do with movement that idolises someone that has form for that level of misogyny and claims that he 'didnt know' just like he 'didnt know' about that bloke being a nazi and he 'didnt know' about icke. Why do you think that there are so few, relatively speaking, women active in leftist politics? Why do you think people end up going for stuff like intersectionalist views and identity politics let alone the utter failure of the left to do anything on the lines of creating a revolution, fuck even Farage is doing a better job of purging the sexists and racists from the ranks of ukip rather than claiming that they are giving the word revolution some much needed publiciry. It makes me sick

 

[frogwoman]

Im serious, every time someone in ukip says something racist farage has got rid of them, or seemed to, whereas wtf are we doing? Oh he gives the word revolution some publicity. That's all right then.

 

[DownwardDog]

Many people think "the system works". This slogan dismisses them. All of us "work for the system" (hey, that's capitalism for ya!) this slogan dismisses us too.

It's working well for RB. He's bought Olivier's old house in Hollywood, has a sitcom in development with Fox and a lavish book deal with Random House who are owned by the notoriously tax efficient Pearson PLC.

Anybody who sees this Revolution stuff as anything other than a money spinning comedy bit is credulous to a medically dangerous level.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Many people think "the system works". This slogan dismisses them. All of us "work for the system" (hey, that's capitalism for ya!) this slogan dismisses us too.

I agree that's a possible interpretation but I don't think it was aimed at people who think that "the (capitalist) system" is the only one possible but at those who defend it as a system that works for most people. In any event it contradicts J Ed's view:

Well frankly I think most people are 'awake' already to the failures of 'the system'

In that case it can't be a criticism of most people.

Isn't a more straightforward interpretation of the slogan ("The people who think the system works work for the system") that those who are putting out propaganda for the system are doing it in the interest of the system?

But would the slogan be criticised if it hadn't been associated with the person we're discussing? There seems to be a lot of throwing out the baby with the bathwater going on here or is it throwing out the bathwater with the baby.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes. That's exactly what this is about.

 

[Pickman's model]

All this publicity for the word "revolution" must have some effect, musn't it? Eg allowing those of us who've been using the word a chance to get in on the debate.

you must have been a great fan of the watney's red barrel campaign of the 1970s then

 

[brogdale]

If

made a "revolutionary".....

Probably the best they could hope for...

 

[Jean-Luc]

you must have been a great fan of the watney's red barrel campaign of the 1970s then

Yes, I remember that. I've still got one of their "red revolution" beer mats in the shape of a grenade. Not my idea of revolution though.

 

[butchersapron]

I agree that's a possible interpretation but I don't think it was aimed at people who think that "the (capitalist) system" is the only one possible but at those who defend it as a system that works for most people. In any event it contradicts J Ed's view:
In that case it can't be a criticism of most people.

Isn't a more straightforward interpretation of the slogan ("The people who think the system works work for the system") that those who are putting out propaganda for the system are doing it in the interest of the system?

But would the slogan be criticised if it hadn't been associated with the person we're discussing? There seems to be a lot of throwing out the baby with the bathwater going on here or is it throwing out the bathwater with the baby.

Don't spgb this thread please.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Don't spgb this thread please.

I'm not. But you just have. Anyway, who started this thread?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not. But you just have. Anyway, who started this thread?

The spgb - and you've clearly engaging in a bit of substitution here with brand sitting in for the SPGB.

Have to say after reading last nights posts the reek of sheridan off him is appalling. Not that i've never mentioned it before mind, but those links...

 

[Wilf]

Ask him if he's denounced it. It should be a precondition for his involvement in anything that he denounces this shit.

My initial instinct is to dismiss him - for his dodgy past and for the sleb focused nature of his 'revealed truth' and all that. The older I get though I do try and develop a bit of generosity of spirit about him trying to live in a different way - and also the idea of it maybe a good thing for him to be getting a generalised anti-capitalist message out (providing that's part of a bigger struggle). Trouble is, as you say, he doesn't seem to have renounced his own exploitative behaviour and, equally importantly, he doesn't seem to be involved in grassroots politics*, day to day hard graft. Without that his 'involvement' remains one of celebrity involvement. Even if he doesn't present himself as a 'leader' in the traditional sense at least, his 'involvement' is utterly different to that of the people affected by capital and austerity.

* q for his defenders (or anyone else!) - is that correct, does he do any day to day 'quiet politics', getting involved when the cameras aren't rolling?

 

[danny la rouge]

Agree with all that Wilf.

I also agree people can change. And someone like Brand changing his misogynist views publicly would be a good thing in itself.

Not exactly holding my breath though.

 

[CNT36]

Seriously?

A rational person considers.....

Enough gossip. Please get back to the real issues.

 

[Pickman's model]

I agree that's a possible interpretation but I don't think it was aimed at people who think that "the (capitalist) system" is the only one possible but at those who defend it as a system that works for most people. In any event it contradicts J Ed's view:
In that case it can't be a criticism of most people.

Isn't a more straightforward interpretation of the slogan ("The people who think the system works work for the system") that those who are putting out propaganda for the system are doing it in the interest of the system?

But would the slogan be criticised if it hadn't been associated with the person we're discussing? There seems to be a lot of throwing out the baby with the bathwater going on here or is it throwing out the bathwater with the baby.

tbh i think you'll find the people who thinks the system works don't work for the system. the people who work for the system rarely think the system works as they see what's going on every day.