Getting past his terrible writing structure and bad jokes, Russell Brand certainly has valid criticisms about the current political system. Most interesting, I think, is his stance on voting. Especially when Jeremy Paxman seems stuck predominantly on the fact that Brand does not vote, has never voted, and claims he will never vote. I love when Paxman asks Brand: ” Why don’t you try changing it by voting?” because it ironically illuminates Brand’s position almost entirely. Voting in a democracy is presented as the ultimate act of political participation that gives citizens the power and choice in their government and political system. However, both Brand and David Graeber argue that the current political system does not present significantly radical or legitimate alternatives.

Where Brand condemns the creation of huge economic disparity by repeatedly mentioning the “exploited, underserved, underclass” it is best understood as Graeber puts it: the last 30 years of politics have mainly been in the pursuit of propagating neoliberalism. He argues, more cohesively, that politics primarily became a matter of creating the conditions for growing economic productivity thus predominately serving corporations rather than citizens and the planet we all share. I believe that Graeber’s  most enlightening statement is that neoliberal politics have campaigned against human imagination to squash ideas of any alternative future by convincing the word that capitalism is the only viable economic system. Thus, it makes sense that Brand preaches the lack of viable alternatives when it comes to voting;  there is no sense of significant structural alternatives to the current political and economic system but simply minor alternatives within the predominant neoliberal system ultimately creating as false sense of democracy.

Graeber pinpoints the global debt crisis and the ecological crisis as the two major issues to be addressed in politics at present. He interestingly suggest debt cancellation as the perfect revolutionary demand as well as a massive reduction in productivity/working hours to relief the ecological crisis and take bigger steps towards sustainability. For Brand, revolution means establishing a social egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, the heavy taxation of corporations, and massive action against companies exploiting the environment. In sum, it is clear that in their opinions of the necessity for a revolution, both authors are trying to change the collective imagination of what is politically possible because what they both suggest as solutions (and in my opinion revolutionary ideas) are not represented in our current political system. They admit that is it difficult and basically impossible to provide a blueprint of how these solutions would be implemented at present but it does not discredit their ideas. Graeber suggests that revolutions as we have come to define them historically are no longer possible. Rather, similar to what Brand said in his interview, that a revolution is already taking place: a revolution of consciousness (uses Occupy movements as example) while capitalism is already crumbling.

I agree with Russell Brand that our society needs to change. I feel that everyone knows this inside them. We walk down any street downtown and see people who have been excluded by society and have no way out. How is this a just society? Where some people starve and bust their labor just to earn a few cents to survive, while others order caviar on a private jet from Japan and drink it with champagne all in the name of profit. That is not a just society.

Just like the 1% movement, the value of Brand relies in the fact that he is exposing the flaws of our current political system. Politicians and elites are part of a structure that forcefully pushes us to comply and believe that there is nothing we can do to change it for the better. Our troubles seem so grand and abstract that we can’t imagine another alternative. It’s difficult to even wrap your head around everything that’s going wrong. Where do we even begin? What would a revolution look like? Even more difficult, perhaps, is who decides what happens after the revolution? And what are the critical political issues that we as human beings will decide as our main priorities?

Ultimately, Brand is a “gadfly” and we need more like him. We need more people exposing the system for the exploitative machine that it really is, and we need to make the people sitting on top of their stacks of money to tremble at the thought of radical change. Brand is a start in this regard and I hope more people follow suit and come out with their own radical ideas, to create a public sphere of debate that knows our current situation is only serving those on the top of the hierarchy. Before we get to the logistics of a revolution, I believe that the first change that needs to happen is from within. Change needs to happen first individually to blossom collectively. Before we consider another alternative we need to change our way of thinking. Instead of thinking of change as impossible we need to think it’s possible.

So, there is quite a sum to be considered after watching Jeremy Paxman interview Russell Brand and reading Brand’s article on revolution. Clearly Russell Brand is very articulate and filled with great passion, a passion for change. Brand claims to be absolutely against the current state and framework of politics and the Western model of living. He calls for a “[t]otal revolution of consciousness and our entire social, political and economic system.” He writes and speaks like a walking thesaurus, which while impressive and specific, is something that distances himself from many people that he might be trying to reach. Indeed it makes for a lovely story, and may even inspire a few to have the desire to take action, ultimately it is ineffective at doing more. He gives a broad sense that he wants us to take care of the planet and then humanity, but gives no concrete solutions or steps to make the change happen. The only piece of action I really absorb from his rhetoric is to refuse to vote in any elections. Though I fail to see how that will do any good. Brand states that most young people, and people in general do not care about politics. Yet this year, we have seen an increase in voter turnout in the Canadian election, most notably an increase in youth voters. Agreeably, there are several areas of government and the political, and social/economical systems that need to be changed or eliminated in order to close the gap between the rich and the poor, but Brand offers no viable methods to achieve such goals.

Turning my attention to now include Graeber’s article, there are a few ideas introduced here that could take an immense amount of thinking. One idea Graeber mentions allows for re-interpreting “failed” revolutions and showing their effects. For example, he notes that while the anti-war protests did not speed up the U.S. leaving Indochina. However, he shows that because of these protests, “U.S. forces weren’t committed to any major conflict for almost 30 years.” So while the initial actions of those who want a change to happen are seen as failures, it is possible that the effects appear later on. Although, it also created negatives, such as having “the war planners made an almost obsessive effort to ensure the wars were effectively protest-proof.” In essence, the focus of war planners shifted from  winning the war to avoiding opposition and movements for change at home.

I agree with Graeber’s thoughts that if we were to change the way society functions currently, an alternative blueprint with detailed plans are only good to show that change is possible, but can not just be implemented due to the innumerable amount of unforeseen problems that could arise. It is clear that we to change our course and perceptions if we are to save the planet and ultimately the human race from inevitable disaster, though it is no simple task and is constantly fought against.

I am hoping that in class tomorrow the only thing I am supposed to have gleaned from Russell Brand’s piece on the syllabus is what not to say and how not to act.

I was sick of this article by the time I finished the very first sentence, which reads: “when I was asked to edit an issue of The New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me.” He repeats this again in the interview we were asked to watch, implying that the only way he can be motivated to be politically engaged is with the promise of sex. If you are reading this you may be thinking: well that isn’t exactly fair, we all do weird and elaborate things for sex sometimes. You’re right, and if this were the only place in which his misogyny appeared, I may have let it slide. (Just kidding.)

Brand predicts that we may accuse him of being slightly hypocritical when he writes, “I should qualify my right to even pontificate on such a topic […] How dare I, from my velvet chaise lounge, in my Hollywood home like Kubla Khan, drag my limbs from my harem to moan about the system?” This is a question I asked myself as well. Brand goes on to describe how exactly he benefits from the current capitalist climate when he writes that it is a system that has “posited me on a lilo (British word meaning: A type of inflatable mattress which is used as a bed or for floating on water, according to Google) made of thighs in an ocean filled with honey and foie gras’d my Essex arse with undue praise and money.” He is a hypocrite, but he wants us to know that he’s aware of that fact. Capitalism has given him so much. He has wealth, he has women, he has good food and he has a shinning reputation. For all his “activism,” and his talk of the dangers of capitalism, which according to him is, “convenient for the tiny, greedy, myopic sliver of the population that those outmoded ideas serve,” he has, in one sentence, equated women with wealth and goods. In Brand’s revolutionary vision there is no more class disparity but women are still a commodity.

Without a hint of irony, with a confessional but unapologetic tone Brand writes, “Like most of the superficially decent things I do in life, my motivation was to impress women more than to aid the suffering.” (Shortly after he refers to his “inner womaniser”) Here he is obviously trying to illustrate his transition from childish and selfish to Altruistic and Thoughtful by showing us how he Used to Be, before he learned of the severity of poverty. This occurs in the following paragraphs when he visits Africa and must refer to it as Armageddon. (Failing, of course, to acknowledge the obviously colonialist implications of the trip itself and the rhetoric he employs when writing about it.) Brand likely included that passage to demonstrate to his reader that he is introspective, malleable, capable of change and most of all, relatable. That may be true but there is nothing I can feel upon reading this apart from revolted.

To be clear, there are many things he says that I agree with. No large shift will occur if we rely on our current system. Up until this past October I had also never voted for similar reasons. I voted last year due to what I considered to be very special circumstances (read: Stephen Harper.) I don’t think that the government, or corporations want to support or even accommodate low-income peoples and families and this is a problem as equally pressing as sexism and misogyny. Yes, we have a responsibility to our planet which we are completely neglecting. That said, I have no desire to listen to or be in dialogue with Russell Brand. It seems to me that living in his particular vision would mean that there would be equal distribution of wealth and that each would have according to his need, but my need to be seen as more than the way I am presenting and to be treated as more than simply an object would remain unmet.

No thank you.

When I thought of a definition for revolution the first response that came to my mind was it was a political shift, often involving some sort of popular uprising. This is the same sort of way Russell Brand views a revolution. However, after today’s first class I came to realize that it is difficult to pinpoint a clear definition of a revolution. And I think this same problem is common throughout time, space and people.  However, after reading Russell Brand’s essay one of the things that struck me the most was his disinterest and at the same time negative stance towards politics and politicians alike. He views them as self-interested, often elitist, as well as corrupt, deceitful, hypocrites, and apathetic. Although these assumptions may be true, I think it is also amateur talk as it only discredits politics and fails to appreciate what it can actually do for society. We may like or not like a particular politician, a party, a government, or an ideology, but we should at least, at some level, feel compelled as politics is everywhere and directly/indirectly impacts us. However, what I do agree with him is on how politics does not reach out to people, or better yet, that people cannot seem to associate, identify, or connect themselves with politics. This shows that one of politics’ problems is its exclusive and privileged nature. Politics should and must be about the people. Interestingly enough, Russell’s criticisms towards politics play a basis in the makeup of a revolution, that is, there is usually some sort of distrust and fault in the political system that creates a spark. He also mentioned how disruptions, or challenges, are sometimes a good thing. They can serve as a “wake up call”, as indicators of where we are at, how we are doing, and what we can do. Despite his seemingly critical stance on certain issues, I appreciate how he ended on a more positive note. He mentioned that “we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology”, and that change can only come from within. Actually, I think it would be better to think of it as change starting from within, but then materializing from the outside. I also liked how he said that “to genuinely make a difference we must first become different”. Having differences is both beneficial and productive. If we all thought the same way we would not advance that much. But being different also calls for courage. Lastly, going back to some more definitions of a revolution, two important ones are that they are “a movement for the people by the people”, and that it is “a revolution of consciousness”.

Briefly discussing David Graeber’s essay I noticed how it was more concrete than theoretical or conceptual as Russell Brand made it. In particular, David Graeber looked at revolution through a contemporary lense; such as neoliberalism, globalization, consumerism, environment, poverty, all of which make a perfect revolutionary demand. His conception of revolution is based more on these forces that cause inequalities, rather than mainly attacking the political system. He sees that nowadays there are more protests and demonstrations. Therefore, can these demonstrations lead to or be considered as revolutions? I liked how he left us with a question on what a revolution might actually look like, and I think that that has a lot to do with understanding what a revolution is and what its causes are. I also liked how he mentioned that “revolutions transform basic assumptions about what politics is ultimately about”. Going back to Russell’s essay where he talks about the relationship between revolutions and politics. On a final note however, I would like to address what Russell and David both said about demonstrations, and how fundamentally they have a lot to do with revolutions. They both said that being part of a demonstration, you actually feel connected, and that the people surrounding you are there for the same reason you are. There is this common identity and struggle. And I think this is another way we can look revolutions. Ultimately, what both these essays have done is look at, and try to understand revolutions through different perspectives at least I think so.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Russel Brand is no doubt an interesting character that has emerged on the political scene in recent years. To be honest I don’t know much about his politics beyond watching a few brief interviews of him talking with various news reporters and if I recall correctly, hearing about him running for mayor. I knew that his politics lay to the left and after reading his text “We no longer have the luxury of tradition” I was suprised at how progressive a mainstream actor and comedian could be. While I do think there are issues with some of his philosophies and political stances I absolutely agree with his stances on voting. Brand proclaims that he doesn’t vote because “to me it seems like a tacit act of compliance”. To be frank, he hits the nail on the head. People seem to have a notion that we can create change by voting. However, the structure of a bourgeoisie democracy is one where the ruling elite are guaranteed to remain in power. The nonviolent notion of change within a system is impossible, because the entrenched intrests of capital will never openly submit to defeat. It is to say that capitalism will never willingly allow socialism to take route through parlimentary democracy because doing so would cause a complete collapse of capitalism!

There are some points in the essay that do arouse some confusion out of me, notably Brand’s talk of socialism and its lack of a response towards right-wing political parties such as the UKIP or the EDL. I don’t understand how Brand can make the distinction that voting in bourgeoisie democracy is useless and even say that “politicians [are] frauds and liars” then turn around and question the lack of parlimentary response by the left. True socialists and anarchists do not bother with creating a parlimentary response to the right-wing parties. I firmly believe socialists should instead attempt to employ Mao’s tactic of Mass Line. Mass Line in short (and im probably butchering this definition), is essentially understanding the issues and problems that the proletariat class face, then integrating these issues into a movement that aims to directly tackle them. But this can only be done effectively in one way, the violent overthrow of the capitalist class. Brand seems to not understand that the left is trying to undermine the right, not by combating with useless politcal parties, but rather with actual revolutionary activity such as riots, protests etc.

As I continued reading Brand’s essay I found it diffiult at points with how he writes. I seemed to get lost in his endless aliterations and quirky comments. Perhaps Brand is right and us socialists are “too serious” but in all honestly I find his writing style difficult and annoying. His continuous theological talk is also difficult to read and understand at momements and some of his points are quite overly simplistic. Brand at one point says “If like the Celtic people we revered the rivers we would prioritise this sacred knowledge and curtail the attempts of any that sought to pollute the rivers”. To this I am a little baffled, is his arguement that because rivers had spiritual importance to the Celtic people, THIS should be the basis for environmental protection? Now of course I believe we must devote much more time and resources to protecting our natural world, but this desire to protect should come from scientific understanding and not spiritual beliefs in my opinion. It is these spiritual and religious beliefs that gave rise to the idea that homosexuality is a sin. I guess in short I just feel that our moral basis should come moreso from logic and reason as oppossed to faith and spirituality (not to say these things are inherently bad however).

We also were tasked with reading David Graeber’s “A Practical Utopian’s Guide to the Coming Collapse” which I found an interesting, but somewhat dense read.