We ignore the democratic process at our peril … People died for the right to choose their government, because otherwise power is wielded by the rich and strong for the benefit of the rich and strong. Whether you bother to vote or not, someone is going to sit on those benches and tell you what to do.
Paxman is right to call for engagement rather than revolution. Look what relatively few, retarded right-wingers in the US have accomplished with the tea-party movement (in terms of gaining influence, that is). Imagine a left wing version with the same level of organisation and enthusiasm – that would be the way forward, imo.
In many ways I agree with Brand’s statement that the revolution needs to be spiritual. I don’t take “spiritual” to mean some airy fairy “let’s all love each other” concept, it requires us all to take a long hard look at how we live our lives in this consumerist society, how we all benefit from exploitation of workers in 3rd world countries. It requires us to look at how we treat the environment and how we consume energy, how we care for our elderly and educate our kids, how we produce our food and treat the sick. The west has clearly lost it’s way when it comes to certain moral issues that are not the concern of those pursuing profit for profit’s sake. We need a revolution of consciousness so that people will no longer accept being a part of this system of corruption and greed. We need people to accept that we are part of the problem. This could be a consumerist revolution if people realised the power they had to boycott and switch to ethical companies and support those corporations doing good rather than those working purely for their shareholders. I’m not against voting and I think people should vote if they feel strongly about a party’s policies but I don’t think we’ll ever see real change until there is some kind of mass movement with a moral message. We live in a global capitalist society, governments do not wield power, the banks and corporations do. We will never see change until people realise that democracy is an illusion and that the real power lies with the 0.1%.
People have legitimately differing views on how they want things to be run and politics is how we arbitrate between these competiting views. Those who favour a revolution want their views to over-ride those of others and they want a revolution because they know people won’t vote for it. It is the politics of a 12-year old.
It’s almost as if the establishment want some famous person to be identified with talk of revolution and rebellion, to the extent that any time one talks about such things, it can easily be dismissed as “Oh, you’ve been listening to too much Russell Brand again, haven’t you?”…If we were to take the Russian Revolution as a precedent, RB seems to combine the libido and mysticism of Rasputin with the flowery language and egotism of Trotsky. It didn’t end too well for either of them though.
In trying to create a true democracy, and a fairer society we face genuinely complex and difficult problems. To which no easy answer is apparent. And which ‘revolution’ would not solve. ‘Revolutions’ tend to devour those who instigate them, and after all the clamour and violence has subsided, a new oligarchy then takes control.
Now that complacent Westerners have swallowed the bitter pilled administered for ages by the international institutions to the Third and Second World, we finally hear talks of possible revolutions.
Russell Brand, a British comedian and television presenter, is one of the most agreeable aspiring revolutionaries of our times.
He appears to be a well-intentioned, articulate, soulful guy railing against injustice and apathy. What’s not to like about him?
However, I can only agree with Jeremy Paxman, who seems to share Brand’s concerns, and yet remains far more interested in the practicalities of achieving the goal of a honest, decent and humane change, a change we deserve.
Revolution is what the PTB expect from us, and it is what they want, as their intention – after the requisite damage control – is to dismantle the rule of law and introduce a post-democratic order. They (the psycho-shepherds / bad cops) will select the nth political Messiah (“good” cop) to fix the world for us, because we are like children and therefore we need parents (they know full well that we have a deep seated desire for an authority).
The fact is, all previous revolutions failed: they destroyed existing institutions and replaced them with psychopathic terror.
They failed for us, not for them.
They want a controlled revolution, one that will reveal the identity of all those human beings with a genuine potential for a radical transformation of our civilization. They will be “removed” overnight, before they become so widely known and respected to deserve the status of martyrs, in order to destroy the threat of a future, alternative leadership, that cannot be bought off.
They need to deceive ordinary human beings with propaganda and terror because, this time, they are not absolutely confident that the revolution can be entirely controlled. The end result depends on our discernment and skills.
Past revolutions failed because overthrowing the system is not enough: they changed the shape (shell, institutions), without changing the content (human consciousness/attitudes). There can be no solution if the mindset is left unchanged and the problem of psychopathy is not finally confronted.
Brand got it right: “consciousness itself must change”.
Desirable transformations require that we – unlike the Jacobins, for instance – make a conscious and responsible effort to respect the social contract that binds our lives together (e.g. our constitution, or common law) and refrain from lapsing into historical fatalism, cynicism and the violence provoked by “revolutionary” agents provocateurs and false flag governments (just doing as they are told by a corporatocracy which is synonymous with fascism).
Here is where I part way with Brand – as he proves that he is, trickster-like, both part of the problem and part of the solution (hopefully a catalyser for socratically examined changes and lives) –, when he says: “Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster. We should include everyone, judging no one, without harming anyone”.
This is not the meaning I attach to the immortal words of Lincoln: “with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right”.
The war against secessionism was fought with no spontaneity, fanaticism or trickster mischief.
Most people rely on mainstream media to form their opinions, media that have become exceedingly skilful in focusing the attention of the public opinion on what can do more harm than good to the cause of human liberation (e.g. Russell Brand?). We cannot be too careful.
Those skulls: subliminal death wishes?
In sum, the arising human spirit needs no anarchic revolution, but a planetary mass movement guided by pragmatic idealism.
We also need to recognize the principle of human dignity as the foundation of all our transformative efforts.
Otherwise the “cure” may indeed be worse than the disease: psychopathy wins, the human spirit loses.