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.