Politics Russel Brand on Newsnight.

[Gumbo]

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2013-10-24/russell-brand-lets-rip-on-jeremy-paxman/

This is how I imagine the conversation would go if Scouse and I were ever locked in a room together.

 

[rynnor]

Wonderfull - I agree with him tbh but I think it still has to get a lot worse before things will really change - another term for the Conservatives might do it though - it all becomes so clearly about serving a tiny percentage of the population when they get in that it must hasten change.

 

[Billargh]

You're giving Scouse far too much credit

 

[Gumbo]

It was more the way Brand said "Down with this broken system!!" but then could offer no kind of alternative suggestion whatsoever, just like our own Scouse.

 

[DaGaffer]

Wonderfull - I agree with him tbh but I think it still has to get a lot worse before things will really change - another term for the Conservatives might do it though - it all becomes so clearly about serving a tiny percentage of the population when they get in that it must hasten change.

The problem with the ideas of revolution he's espousing is that capitalism is a bit like the internet, it can route itself around countries that don't play ball with the system easily, and then you end up living in Cuba. Unless revolutionary movements took place globally and at the same time, they won't survive.

 

[Nate]

Russell Brand for El Presidente!

 

[Olgaline]

Do you really have to have an alternative solution, to recognize that the one in place is flawed and or disfunctional??

This argument has always boggled me.
Ps. Haven't read the link

 

[Scouse]

It was more the way Brand said "Down with this broken system!!" but then could offer no kind of alternative suggestion whatsoever, just like our own Scouse.

I liked his answer to that accusation. It's the same as mine, that I've stated, repeatedly.

There are better qualified people with genuine alternatives - people who've worked their whole lives in tandem with others - because a system of government is too complicated to be the work of one man.

When you ask a single person - either Russel Brand or me - to come up with a whole alternative form of government on our own - or find our opinions "invalid" in your eyes you're not actually asking a question. You're simply being a fearful cunt. You know what it would take, intellectually and organisationally to come up with a new form of government. You know that saying to some one "provide an alternative - or fuck off" is not a genuine offer of intellectual discourse - it's simply saying "shut up - I'm too scared to engage with this idea and I want you to go away and stop hurting my fragile little mind".

Brand was bob-on in that interview. Can't think of a thing that I disagreed with.

 

[Gumbo]

Yes, but you can't even point me at a single source of ideas from the 'better qualified people with genuine alternatives" I've never asked you to come up with it on your own, any more than I believe Russell Brand could, but I'm genuinely interested in the alternatives that you do agree with.

How can one be expected to engage with an idea when one doesn't have any idea what the idea is in the first place?

 

[Scouse]

Yes, but you can't even point me at a single source of ideas

I don't feel that that's my job to do that. In fact I avoid doing just that.

People who are interested in genuine change will seek alternatives out themselves. Only when you put the work in yourself do you gain any sort of genuine insight, it can't be handed on a plate to someone.

If people are apathetic about finding their own alternatives then, if Brand's revolution did occur, it would be doomed to fail as the baying masses would be vulnerable to the same sort of shysterism that they fall for every day. Only if they educate themselves can it have a slim chance.

 

[fettoken]

It was more the way Brand said "Down with this broken system!!" but then could offer no kind of alternative suggestion whatsoever, just like our own Scouse.

Well. Rather no one benefit from a system than a few.

 

[Hawkwind]

He makes a lot sense, just hands off my tax haven accounts!

 

[rynnor]

How can one be expected to engage with an idea when one doesn't have any idea what the idea is in the first place?

I don't think it works like this - Revolutions are all made against something not for anything specific. One is emotional the other intellectual and revolutions are emotional change.

In practical terms you have to tear down the existing institutions before you can clearly discuss the alternatives.

 

[Gwadien]

'Emotional porn' made it for me.

Too true.

 

[Scouse]

I don't disagree with rynnor's point there. You rage against something, whilst holding on to ideals.

It's not to say there can't be any planning towards, however. There are many groups that are doing just that. However, the current system won't let them have the air they need to breathe because it isn't interested in a better world for all.

The "few" - who don't need to conspire together (no conspiracy needed) but who work in tandem towards a common goal (more wealth and power) in "enlightened self-interest" - take steps to cut the heads off any popular movements that threaten their hegemony.

The problem with the ideas of revolution he's espousing is that capitalism is a bit like the internet, it can route itself around countries that don't play ball with the system easily, and then you end up living in Cuba

You're right Gaff. Cuba would do just fine if it was allowed trading partners - but the US has put paid to 99% of their trading partners through it's disgraceful sequence of embargoes, whilst simultaneously making sure that US citizens can't take the short flight to Cuba to experience life there first-hand - which would be an eye-opener for them, and not in the way they'd imagine.

Despite all that shit, children in Cuba are more likely to make it to 5 years old than in the US, they're more literate than us and they're better dancers

But the in-build avoidance of revolution is one of the reasons I think one-world-government can't come soon enough. It gives a single point of protest for a revolution.

I may be horribly mistaken tho, as by the time we get there I'm pretty sure we'll be 1984'd up the kazoo, dissidents will be rounded up as "extremists" (probably before they reach their teens) and the population will be well-and-truly "divided and conquered".

If you want evidence for that last statement you only have to look at these very forums. Every time a section of people go on strike in an attempt to better their working conditions or pay you get people on here spitting on them. Solidarity has become a bad word - which goes hand-in-hand with communism, rather than hand-in-hand with helping the unfortunate or downtrodden. Unions are looked upon with scorn - not that I'm defending some of their deplorable actions, there's a lot of shit they do wrong - but they're the only game in town when it comes to standing up against the hegemony in our interests - and we should stand behind them because of that.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't think it works like this - Revolutions are all made against something not for anything specific. One is emotional the other intellectual and revolutions are emotional change.

In practical terms you have to tear down the existing institutions before you can clearly discuss the alternatives.

Except, we've had two hundred and fifty years worth of examples of political revolutions, and what do we end up with at the end of all of them? Back where we started, with some on top and the rest below, often with several decades worth of human misery in the middle. And unfortunately, so long as the concept of economic scarcity exists (and its not going away while we're still on this planet), then societies will always default back to the have's and have nots. "Tearing down the system" without knowing what's going to happen on the other side is the biggest problem any "revolution" would face.

In an idealised world I don't disagree with much of what Brand says, except that "a revolution is coming", because frankly things are going to have to get a LOT worse, everywhere, for that to be true.

 

[Scouse]

I don't disagree with much of what Brand says, except that "a revolution is coming", because frankly things are going to have to get a LOT worse, everywhere, for that to be true.

I don't think that, if he wants revolution to occur, he can say anything else. Even if he doesn't believe it.

The alternative would be to take away a message of hope - to make the very people he's trying to talk to feel powerless, rather than powerful. #

Defeatist talk is the end of the argument. It stops anything meaningful from starting. I take your points, Gaff, but I disagree with them. Meaningful revolution can happen - even in the absence of a single point of attack. Momentum can build. People can take notice. We've got examples happening in the world right now - and the western hegemony is doing its level best to make sure the cards fall in its favour.

Yep, they're all, technically, failed revolutions. It doesn't mean there cannot be success.

 

[rynnor]

Except, we've had two hundred and fifty years worth of examples of political revolutions, and what do we end up with at the end of all of them? Back where we started, with some on top and the rest below, often with several decades worth of human misery in the middle. And unfortunately, so long as the concept of economic scarcity exists (and its not going away while we're still on this planet), then societies will always default back to the have's and have nots. "Tearing down the system" without knowing what's going to happen on the other side is the biggest problem any "revolution" would face.

I disagree - the French Revolution dramatically redistributed the wealth of that nation and it never went back. It was built on ideals and was an inspiration for the birth of the USA.

I agree that many revolutions have not brought useful social change but then a lot of them have been little more than military coups.

 

[DaGaffer]

You're right Gaff. Cuba would do just fine if it was allowed trading partners - but the US has put paid to 99% of their trading partners through it's disgraceful sequence of embargoes, whilst simultaneously making sure that US citizens can't take the short flight to Cuba to experience life there first-hand - which would be an eye-opener for them, and not in the way they'd imagine.

Despite all that shit, children in Cuba are more likely to make it to 5 years old than in the US, they're more literate than us and they're better dancers

The embargo makes it worse, but if the embargo ended tomorrow and Cuba didn't "liberalise" its tax and employment laws (e.g. bend over and take it in the arse from the corporations) they wouldn't get inward investment. Its a devil's bargain, because despite Cuba's amazing ability to make do and mend, and yes their schoolkids get an education and yes the infant mortality stat is great (although let's be honest, no one in their right mind can use America as an example of good medical practice in anything - most of the EU does better than Cuba), but the country is falling apart and the people don't actually want to be dirt poor. I asked them.

Cuba would go down the road of Vietnam and China and everyone would embrace "free enterprise" (they never call it capitalism) because they would have better lives. For a while. The problem is what happens when the growth stops, which is why Marx expected the revolution to start in Germany and the UK and even the US, because they would reach end-stage capitalism first. Unfortunately for Marx, he didn't predict the way capitalism has effectively learned to feed off itself through the banking system whilst simultaneously giving the people just enough bread and circuses (or Weatherspoons £1 a pint and X-Factor) to keep them from getting uppity.

It will all end, but unfortunately its probably going to resource wars rather than revolution that finally ends capitalism.

 

[Aoami]

I am in the process of writing him a letter. I agree with everything he says but he comes across as an idiot on a rant. He has 7.1million followers on twitter, i assume many of whom are young people. He is someone who I believe has the right ideas and is in an excellent position to spread those ideas, but in that interview it's like he's playing a character of himself. He uses pointless big words to make himself seem intelligent when he doesn't need to and it makes it look like he is trying to hard. He has a great platform and needs to use it correctly.

I couldn't watch the whole interview because he was winding me up so much with his mannerisms etc.

 

[DaGaffer]

I disagree - the French Revolution dramatically redistributed the wealth of that nation and it never went back. It was built on ideals and was an inspiration for the birth of the USA.

I agree that many revolutions have not brought useful social change but then a lot of them have been little more than military coups.

Except it did go back, several times, and you got The Terror and Napoleon for your troubles. And today France is less equitable than UK (by Gini coefficient) despite the fact that the UK didn't have a revolution (well, not that revolution anyway).

The inspiration for the birth of the USA was a bunch of rich men who didn't want to pay the lowest taxes in the Empire, or pay towards wars fought on their behalf. Don't believe the hype.

 

[rynnor]

The inspiration for the birth of the USA was a bunch of rich men who didn't want to pay the lowest taxes in the Empire, or pay towards wars fought on their behalf. Don't believe the hype.

Bit of both - you dont end up with the bill of rights or the constitution if it was just a bunch of self interested rich men at the helm - thats why we have neither over here.

 

[Job]

Paxman is just a tit on a stick..he should be doing the agony aunt in the Sun

 

[Scouse]

It will all end, but unfortunately its probably going to resource wars rather than revolution that finally ends capitalism.

Actually, I think that we're going to end up in a marxist system - we can clearly see the shoots of it now. The difference being that there'll be a wealthy ruling elite and an at-level rest of the populace.

"Freedom" is not on the agenda, unfortunately.

 

[Bodhi]

Actually, I think that we're going to end up in a marxist system - we can clearly see the shoots of it now. The difference being that there'll be a wealthy ruling elite and an at-level rest of the populace.

"Freedom" is not on the agenda, unfortunately.

Thing is comrade, if this comes about do you really think you'll still be able to enjoy the fruits of capitalism you currently do, like your previous proud proclamations of commuting halfway round the country in a Civic Type R, or that bed you've been going on about before? As I think not. You'll get a standard issue peace bicycle and the same bed as everyone else.

Sadly Brands ideas have been tried before in a small place called the USSR, and it didn't go very well. As it is he is just coming across as a massive hypocrite, with his 10m fortune, nice cars and being a Hollywood star, a shining beacon of the very institution he is ranting against.

Typical champagne socialist, do as I say not as I do.

 

[Raven]

Actually, I think that we're going to end up in a marxist system - we can clearly see the shoots of it now. The difference being that there'll be a wealthy ruling elite and an at-level rest of the populace.

"Freedom" is not on the agenda, unfortunately.

So, pretty much the same as any form of socialism, communism or marxism then? A few rich people then a fuckton of people serving them.

 

[Raven]

He says he doesn't vote. so err, yeah.

If he isn't happy with the system he should vote that way by spoiling his ballot, a start at least.

Edit, not that much of what he says is untrue.

 

[Lamp]

Just watched the interview
He's passionate and eloquent but he doesn't motivate or convince
It sounded like more bluff than substance
Half a stand up comedy routine, half generic soundbites
If he starts a new political party and becomes an MP, he'd have significantly more credibility
Nice to see Paxman lost for suitable come-backs for a change

 

[Scouse]

Nice to see Paxman lost for suitable come-backs for a change

Actually, I think it's more that Paxman agrees with the vast majority of what he's saying.

 

[ileks]

I am in the process of writing him a letter. I agree with everything he says but he comes across as an idiot on a rant. He has 7.1million followers on twitter, i assume many of whom are young people. He is someone who I believe has the right ideas and is in an excellent position to spread those ideas, but in that interview it's like he's playing a character of himself. He uses pointless big words to make himself seem intelligent when he doesn't need to and it makes it look like he is trying to hard. He has a great platform and needs to use it correctly.

I couldn't watch the whole interview because he was winding me up so much with his mannerisms etc.

Yeah I agree. I got the impression he was actually really nervous in that interview and that's how he deals with it.