Russell Brand is sort of good-looking but not, a range of emotions constantly flickering over his face, which at times can look twisted. Brand admits he’s twisted. It’s hard to imagine there can be anything more to his sex life than he’s already told us, and in detail. The matter of his former heroin addiction is also out there. He’s a hard man to discredit because so much that’s discreditable about him is already a matter of public record. Brand is entertaining and daring and possibly also serious. This week he called for a revolution. ( TT here ; Direct link to interview, YouTube here
Brand doesn’t vote and has urged others not to do so. Appearing on the BBC program Newsnight, Brand was challenged by host Jeremy Paxman – you want a revolution to overthrow elected governments, but what sort of government would you replace it with? ”I don’t know,” replied Brand, grinning like a wildcat. ”But I’ll tell you what it shouldn’t do. It shouldn’t destroy the planet, it shouldn’t create massive political disparity, it shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people.”
The burden of proof is not with him, he argued. It is with those with power.
In The Guardian, Nick Cohen pointed out that Brand’s claim that politicians were liars who were betraying the interests of ordinary people was the same claim employed with startling effect by Adolf Hitler during his rise to power in the 1930s. I thought that was pretty much the end of the argument until I read the comments at the bottom of Cohen’s column. Many readers – possibly a majority – sided with Brand.
I read two outstanding articles on the matter. The first was on Channel 4’s website by its culture and digital editor, Paul Mason. He wrote of Brand: ”Though he looks like a survivor from Altamont, his audience do not: they are young, professional people; nurses, bank clerks, call-centre operatives. And what Russell has picked up is that they hate, if not the concept of capitalism, then what it’s doing to them. They hate the corruption manifest in politics and the media; the rampant criminality of a global elite whose wealth nestles beyond taxation and accountability; the gross and growing inequality; and what it’s doing to their own lives.”
Paul Mason looks to be about my age. He concluded: ”While on my timeline everybody over 40 is saying, effectively, ‘Tee-hee, isn’t Brand outrageous?’, a lot of people in their 20s are saying simply: ‘Russell is right, bring it on’.” It’s an interesting exercise – ask around.
Christopher Purcell
November 3, 2013 at 09:55
We need to have a new ‘separation of powers’. We need to separate the business world from politics. We need to sever the direct links between big business & the government.
James Williamson
November 3, 2013 at 09:56
I agree with Brand and I am 62 and a baby boomer the same as you Martin. For all our revolutionary zeal from our twenties, the disparity between rich and and poor has widened enormously over our life time. The ownership of the means of production and the distribution of information i.e. the media has narrowed not widened over the course of our lives. We as a generation (the baby boomers) that was so full of idealism, have been an abject failure when it comes to any realisation of those aspirations. He is simply pointing this out, and maybe thats why we have rejected his calls.
Karl Stevens
November 3, 2013 at 10:42
Nothing unusual here, just chaos theory in action.
John Wade
November 3, 2013 at 10:50
“In The Guardian, Nick Cohen pointed out that Brand’s claim that politicians were liars who were betraying the interests of ordinary people was the same claim employed with startling effect by Adolf Hitler during his rise to power in the 1930s.”
Yeah, here we go, shoot the messenger, ignore the message.
The issue of the world today is corruption, by those who see themselves as more important than the others that they have pledged to govern for.
Capitalism is eroding, being eroded by greed. The syndrome that they who own the gold make the rules is wafer thin.
The doctrines of the world are evolving and yet we are governed by old hats.
Elizabeth Perey
November 3, 2013 at 11:15
Russell Brand is not just funny; he is wise.
Isla MacGregor
November 3, 2013 at 11:58
Some good backfire on capitalism’s demonisation of anarchism.
Simon Warriner
November 3, 2013 at 12:57
Lots of talk that borders on whinging, but not one proposition that will actually address the root causes of the problem. Why is that?
The problem with revolutions is that they typically end with the leadership changing but the control remaining with the funders of the revolting party, who were, as often as not, also funding the deposed.
The democratic system has potential that has not been properly explored.As Churchill stated, it is not perfect, but it is better that any of the alternatives
How would it work if, instead of the representative cohort pushing their favourite agendas, they actually put forward the range of views of their electorate, and then debated, properly, where and/or how the common good was best served in response to those concerns? Such representatives would, by definition, be independent, and that is the heart of the concept that is INDIPOL.
Some will of course harp on about “stable majority government”. The only retort to that sort of imbecilic argument is that that bullshit is exactly what got us to this point in the first place. It is stable majority governments that have allowed the golbalisation of capital, and in doing so delivered lowest common denominator wages and working conditions as an inevitability. Doubt me? Have a look at the change in income distribution curves for First World nations.
It is stable majority governements that have studiously avoided population debates and the discussion for the inevitable need to limit humanity for the good of everything that lives on the planet.
It is stable majority governments that are instituting spying regimes that make the Stasi look like novices.
It is stable majority ggvernments that have stood by while the media, a critical pillar in any free society, has become a polarised cartel, owned by big money, and serving only its interests.
Under the INDIPOL concept the ownership of the representative goes back to the electorate they serve, and the control wielded by big money through the party system is diminished to the point of irrelevance.
The tricky part is that, for it to happen, the population needs to wake the hell up.
That was another aspect to the Indipol concept, an organisation that did not field candidates, but promoted the need for a particular type of candidate and educated candidates, and the public, about their role under the Indipol concept.
The concept is sitting there, awaiting people who understand its potential to drive positive change to get motivated and bring it to being . I would be pushing it far more, but I have another, immediate, and far more personal mission to pursue, one that will serve the public good by improving the governance of an essential service.
When that is progressed to the point of the retribution being in the hands of the professionals I will return my attention to this matter.
Elizabeth Perey
November 3, 2013 at 14:56
Jeremy Paxman – you want a revolution to overthrow elected governments, but what sort of government would you replace it with? ‘‘I don’t know,’’ replied Brand, grinning like a wildcat. ‘‘But I’ll tell you what it shouldn’t do. It shouldn’t destroy the planet, it shouldn’t create massive political disparity, it shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people.’
I completely agree with Brand about what we don’t want, and have, but prefer reform rather than revolution to fix it. I am 73.
Duncan Grant
November 4, 2013 at 11:41
The art critic, anarchist and philosopher, Sir Herbert Read had the following to say about democracy: “Democracy, just as a political concept, is meaningless for any society larger than a small city or rural commune. Our so called democracies in the Western world are oligarchies subject more or less to periodical revision (which never changes the oligarchic structure), and in this they do not differ essentially from the oligarchies that rule the communist world. The people, in any human corporate sense, do not determine any policies outside their own backyards. The world is governed by the representatives of industry, finance, technology, and by bureaucracies in the paid service of these groups – governed, not in the interests of the people as a whole, not even of all the people in any one country, and not even nowadays for personal profit, but primarily for the self-satisfying exercise of power”.
This was written by Read in the 1950’s. Nothing has changed since. Brand is right, participation gives oxygen to the illusion of democracy. The corporatisation of democracy has been a cancer on society but excising it through revolution may only lead to reinvented oligarchies. Sadly, I see no solution.
Philip Lowe
November 4, 2013 at 23:06
Russel Brand will be a lot more interesting when he is 69.That’s when his long black curly hair will have thinned and become grey and his tight waist will have loosened a little or even a lot.
And the most important thing to him will be retaining the dosh he is making now.Then he will be worth listening to.His opinions on the self destruct button will be really interesting,that is assuming that he lives that long.The best feeling in the world as you get older is to feel well.
A.K.
November 7, 2013 at 11:56
Russel brand hits the nail on the head and there is only one form of government which can possibly work in an informed knowledgeable world, an online referendum style government controlled directly by the people. Nothing else has worked, other than for the ideological elites. To get rid of their destructive influence and control, you have to change the entire system.
Start with referendum style policy voting, then change all laws and legislation into plain Tasmanian English and put the justice system in the control of the people via online local courts. This would save us hundreds of millions and take the control of our society out of the hands of the legal profession and put it where it belongs, in the hands of an informed people.
Isla MacGregor
November 7, 2013 at 13:18
#11. [i][b]Demarchy[/b][/i] would be a less corruptible system of participatory democracy
A.K.
November 8, 2013 at 11:08
#12, Isla, Demarchy, just as susceptible to corruption as is any current form of government or ideology. In the end it takes decision making out of the hands of the people and puts it into the hands of ideological elites.
It is one thing to have randomly elected people for juries, singular decision making and implementation, but not state or local policy. The incumbents would find ways to manipulate the system as they do currently, so nothing would be gained and lots lost.
Why is everyone so desperate to cling to the failed past and continue to give academics power, when they have clearly demonstrated by the state of our societies, they have no idea about anything of worth for our future, but their simple elitist egocentric programming.
The future requires a new, different and people empowering direction, not more of the same failed blind stupidity we are currently encumbered with.
James Williamson
November 8, 2013 at 22:24
I am sorry AK , but even an old Anarchist like myself. I have come to the conclusion that the British legal system of precedents in law, can overwhelm the tyranny and megalomania of politicians and some foolhardy legislation, or the kind of populism that is also being suggested. It probably is the one aspect of my cultural inheritance that we have got from the British that has helped provide a stability that other countries admire. civil disobedience under precedent, if it can prove that the felony was conducted for political purposes is no crime. So lets not look for a world where everyone agrees with each other, just a more organised disobedience. If you can come up with a system built on mutual self interest and aspiration, and that is what got everyone from the Brand interview.