Russell Brand on Revolution

[ViolentPanda]

This might be the view of some here but it's not mine. I couldn't be more opposed to trotskyism/leninism/vanguardism.

But if Brand's idea of a future society can't be described as anarchism what can it be described as?

As I said above, a form of civic syndicalism at best. Given that his ideas appear to be about accommodating some form of capitalism, he comes across as wanting a less boring Switzerland.

 

[Zabo]

There are lots of purists on here. They can hit you with any theory you want at any time you want. In fact some of them would do well to advise Russell Brand and tell him where he's going right or wrong. That would keep him - and them - quiet for a few years!

I'm personally not bothered about the disparaging side shows including the crap pedalled by the media, bloggers, twitters et al,. I don't give a stuff what the Huff' thinks nor the garbage spewed out by the Fail. They don't matter, they are predictable. Their axe is well worn.

If nothing else, Brand is raising agendas that are getting people to think. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not but to get some if not many youngsters thinking about the corrupt system we have has got to be positive. I'm not bothered about his celebrity status or who he has slept with or any other trivia. What do you want, a Jesus Christ figure with all the answers?

I'm not going to append an 'ism' or 'ist' to Brand - that is just so dated. I'll listen to Brand's arguments without being coloured by whatever celebrity status he has and measure each one on its merit. It's either that or listen to the Party shit pedalled day after day by the usual criminals. You know, the ones who don't lead but wait for the media to tell them what the populace are thinking or getting angry about. Such is their integrity and sincerity. Without exception they are bereft of original ideas.

More power to those who think and dissent from the status quo.

 

[Dogsauce]

I'll listen to Brand's arguments without being coloured by whatever celebrity status he has and measure each one on its merit. It's either that or listen to the Party shit pedalled day after day by the usual criminals.

It really isn't just that.

 

[ddraig]

had this as a reply when i've pointed out the dodgyness of the brand

what should we do with the miscreant ..?? I'm assuming that you know him personally ...to be able to judge him so succinctly.... so some sort of re-education camp... ?? get his attitude into line with yours... ??...or 'not needed'.. ( a bit sinister ?) so what the firing squad... ??

then i tried

Do you think those with dodgy attitudes to women and connections with anti semites are good for 'our side' then? Do you know him personally and fully trust his intentions?

and got!

I don't see any evidence of 'dodgy attitudes' or antisemitism ( unless you mean antizionism ) ...shall we judge him by his associates ...??...no don't know him at all... but I'm a good 'judge' of character... I'd sit down for a beer with the man... and am 99% sur we'd get on and have loads of ideas and aims in common... 'our side' ... are you sure you and me are on the same one..?...;<))

 

[frogwoman]

So brands creepy sexism mean nothing to you then? Good.

 

[Dogsauce]

I think the creepy sexism is some kind of ingrained alpha male bullshit. He seems apologetic about it and says he wants to change, maybe with some sincerity, but it definitely is something he needs to concentrate on a lot more, and maybe atone for a little more too. He doesn't get a free pass on this just for being right about a few other things.

 

[Belushi]

I'm a good 'judge' of character

Sure sign of a dupe

 

[Jean-Luc]

As I said above, a form of civic syndicalism at best. Given that his ideas appear to be about accommodating some form of capitalism, he comes across as wanting a less boring Switzerland.

That should be easy ! But you are wrong. Brand's concept of a post-revolution society is rather more radical than that. This from Chapter 29 of his book:

... the answer to the question 'What would this Revolution look like?' begins to emerge. It is defined and achieved by a sustained, mass-supported attack on the hegemony of corporations and the regulations that allow them to dominate us. It is the radical decentralisation of power, whether private or state. It is the return of power to us the people at the level of the community (....)
Economics is at the heart of our nation-state philosophy. The nation state may have served its purpose and have to be dissolved (...)
State power to dissolve wherever possible to empower autonomous, democratic communities (...)
... the structures that elevate, rarefy or in any way concentrate power have to themselves be eradicated. There is no heroic revolutionary figure in whom we can invest hope, except for ourselves as individuals, together.(...)
Capitalism isn't irreducible and absolute; depletion of earth's resources due to the free market is. Do we ditch capitalism or the planet? We can't have both. Obviously we know capitalism has to go, everyone does, especially the elites that benefit from it most. They know that the majority of people could benefit from radical change and the implementation of the type of systems we have been discussing. This means they do two things.: they disparage our viable alternatives to prevent us pursuing them actively and collectively; and, in the event that their propaganda and distractions don't work, they are prepared for confrontation. They are prepared for activism, protest and moaning. They aren't prepared for Revolution.

Ok, maybe he hasn't thought through all the implications of what he's advocating but the "radical change" he envisages is a lot more than a "less boring Switzerland".

You can't have it both ways. Either he's advocating the same sort of change as you and his unsavoury past antics are discrediting that or he is only advocating some reform to the structures of capitalism and the state; in which case that's what his past would be discrediting.

 

[Buckaroo]

You can't have it both ways. Either he's advocating the same sort of change as you and his unsavoury past antics are discrediting that or he is only advocating some reform to the structures of capitalism and the state; in which case that's what his past would be discrediting.

Bollocks.

 

[J Ed]

It's bizarre that the SPGB think Brand can do no wrong but yet they can't stop slagging off Podemos. Weirdos

 

[Aduk]

I expected more of a verbal punch up on Question Time so was a bit disappointed with the result. I thought the panel, despite the supposed heavy weights, wasn't up to much.

Who else in the UK could have been on instead of Brand to counter the right wingers on the show?

The blue haired woman who heckled made me angry when she interrupted an audience member in mid question by screaming "racist", trying to impose censorship on a question as if she had the right to do so. What's more typical is she didn't even listen to the context of the question before she knee jerked. She obviously equates ukip with the bnp which is a mistake as ukip's support is coming from a wide section of society who aren't all racists but who perceive mass immigration as something that has brought too much change too fast. The figures given on the show were a rise in population of 8 million in the last 25 years. It's probably more as millions of brits have moved abroad.

I thought it was the best Question Time for a while for entertainment but it didn't get us very far. Two panellists with totally different views contributed to an incredibly polarised debate. It was nice to hear some common sense and balance from Camilla Cavendish.

The blue haired woman was a disgrace tbh. She had no respect for the views of others who DO have legitimate concerns about immigration. It's people like her who play into UKIP's hands and give the left its 'loony' tag.

I agree with you that UKIP are nothing like BNP. I hear it all the time from people. The HUGE difference is that UKIP's policies aren't based on a hatred towards one particular race and nor do Nigel Farage and his party advocate putting a stop to all immigration. You also don't hear him denying the holocaust. It's ludicrous to compare them if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm no fan of UKIP, but they're a symptom of a disillusioned public fed up with the political elite and their feeling that the main two parties are doing nothing about immigration or our relationship with the EU. It's up to the main parties to try and vacate that vacuum which UKIP have made their own.

 

[Buckaroo]

I thought it was the best Question Time for a while for entertainment but it didn't get us very far. Two panellists with totally different views contributed to an incredibly polarised debate. It was nice to hear some common sense and balance from Camilla Cavendish.

The blue haired woman was a disgrace tbh. She had no respect for the views of others who DO have legitimate concerns about immigration. It's people like her who play into UKIP's hands and give the left its 'loony' tag.

I agree with you that UKIP are nothing like BNP. I hear it all the time from people. The HUGE difference is that UKIP's policies aren't based on a hatred towards one particular race and nor do Nigel Farage and his party advocate putting a stop to all immigration. You also don't hear him denying the holocaust. It's ludicrous to compare them if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm no fan of UKIP, but they're a symptom of a disillusioned public fed up with the political elite and their feeling that the main two parties are doing nothing about immigration or our relationship with the EU. It's up to the main parties to try and vacate that vacuum which UKIP have made their own.

Bollocks.

 

[butchersapron]

It's bizarre that the SPGB think Brand can do no wrong but yet they can't stop slagging off Podemos. Weirdos

Same as when they were sniffing around the zeitgeist clowns. Because they have no idea of what popular culture is.

 

[J Ed]

Bollocks.

Which bit is bollocks? Do you think that the womann shouting racist at UKIP supporters/Farage is an effective method of counteracting UKIP's influence?

 

[Aduk]

Bollocks.

Explain?

 

[elbows]

That should be easy ! But you are wrong. Brand's concept of a post-revolution society is rather more radical than that. This from Chapter 29 of his book:

Is there much in there about how the destruction of capitalism comes about? Because just going by the bits you quoted, there is a bit of a leap. He starts off with stuff about destroying corporations and regulations, which is potentially a wet dream for little capitalists and libertarians if it's not done in concert with a lot of other things. Obviously by later going on about free market vs planet, and communities, the libertarian erection would quickly go limp when exposed to his words. But even so it is hard for me to judge from the bits you posted as to whether he has considered what other forces need to be dealt with during a period where new ways can be built in the face of the collapse or destruction of old structures and concentrations of power.

 

[J Ed]

The real problem with left-wing politics is that we don't have enough people with subcultural hairstyles shouting 'racist' at people. We need increasing numbers of these people to reach a critical mass and then UKIP will be destroyed

 

[Jean-Luc]

But even so it is hard for me to judge from the bits you posted as to whether he has considered what other forces need to be dealt with during a period where new ways can be built in the face of the collapse or destruction of old structures and concentrations of power.

Probably best to read the book yourself (but be warned there's lots about him and himself). As far as I can see, he sees capitalism and the state being ended by a non-violent mass movement taking direct, extra-parliamentary action but I agree with you. I don't think he has thought through all the implications and problems of how to get from here to there. But here's one more passage from the book for you to make a judgement:

The Revolution that most decent folk are into, including George Orwell, who join in with it and Noam Chomsky, is the Spanish Revolution of 1936. In this recent uprising there is much that will be of use to us, and although it eventually ended up being crushed by the fascists, let's optimistically assume that there is no modern-day equivalent of the Nazis who lent Franco's triumphant army military hardware that ensured his victory. (...)
Orwell saw this brief period in Spanish history as a potential template for an alternative future. Ordinary workers took over their businesses and factories, and ran them democratically. Naturally, they were brutally massacred by a multitude of enemies - the fascists, communists and liberal democracies all coiled about them in a terrified asphyxiating clench. (...)
A lot of other political struggles and social uprisings labelled 'revolutions' are in my mind unworthy of the term, in that they were simply a hegemonic exchange. Whether it's the Russian Revolution, which led to Stalinism, or the American Revolution that led to corporate oligarchy. The Revolution we advocate ought to have two irrefutable components: 1) non-violence, and 2) the radical improvement of the quality of life for ordinary people.

Make what you will of this but is certainly not a "less boring Switzerland".

Despite J Ed says, I don't think that Brand can do no wrong. After all I'm not an anarchist nor an anarcho-syndicalist (actually opinion on him in the SPGB is as divided as here). It's rather that there are people here who think he can do no right and are playing the man not the ball.

 

[Anudder Oik]

Bollocks.

?

 

[Pickman's model]

?

 

[Pickman's model]

The real problem with left-wing politics is that we don't have enough people with subcultural hairstyles shouting 'racist' at people. We need increasing numbers of these people to reach a critical mass and then UKIP will be destroyed

i'm not sure you've grasped that the relationship between haircut and political views doesn't exist

 

[J Ed]

oic

 

[rekil]

i'm not sure you've grasped that the relationship between haircut and political views doesn't exist

Not true.

Laurie Penny on hair: Why patriarchy fears the scissors - for women, short hair is a political statement

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

i'm not sure you've grasped that the relationship between haircut and political views doesn't exist

 

[Pickman's model]

Not true.

Laurie Penny on hair: Why patriarchy fears the scissors - for women, short hair is a political statement

i am surprised by your reliance on penny dreadful, building a house on sand there. is short hair subcultural?

 

[Jean-Luc]

Because they have no idea of what popular culture is.

What is it?

 

[elbows]

Probably best to read the book yourself (but be warned there's lots about him and himself). As far as I can see, he sees capitalism and the state being ended by a non-violent mass movement taking direct, extra-parliamentary action but I agree with you. I don't think he has thought through all the implications and problems of how to get from here to there. But here's one more passage from the book for you to make a judgement:

Thanks for the additional quotes. I suspect he hasn't read Pacifism and the War by Orwell, a piece that is certainly nowhere near beyond criticism itself and is written for a very specific context, but should probably be pondered on by those who imagine that the path of non-violent resistance is an easy one to pave and illuminate. The relationship of violence to self-defence was certainly on display in different ways during various arab spring uprisings. Yes the requirement for certain forms of necessary violence/defensive action can be glossed over if a revolutionary event of sufficient width and depth is anticipated, but even with safety in numbers, a broad cross-section of society involved, and unavoidable momentum towards change at hand, violent power plays should still be expected and guarded against.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Worry that the media can and will tar all revolutionary politics with the same brush as Brand's, yes.

Yep:

OK It's the Daily Star but this is precisely why he's harmful I think. He's far too easy a target.

 

[FNG]

makes some good points, and i prefer his analysis to the tubthumping of Desmonds jingoistic cheering on of every dronestrike and military reprisal.

but why's he doing that Lady Di thing of half covering his hair?

Edit removed some stuff about imran khan not pertinent to issue

 

[DotCommunist]

channel 4 will have him do the alternate christmas speech. You know the one they stick on instead of the parasites rant. bet you a fiver