So I don’t know
much about Russell Brand. I mean I know he was married once, had a substance
problem, and is on cable a lot, but I don’t know what he does for a living.
Honestly, I’m not to invested in finding out. I also know he’s pretty
progressive. I do know that opting out of the current political process and into the revolution isn't easy, and it is much more complex than how Brand presents it.
However, Brand was
interviewed about his part writing for a political magazine, New Statesman. The interview was
conducted by BBC’s Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman. Paxman was a jerk. He
was combative the whole time and opposed to anything Brand says.
Let’s go over the
good, and there is quite a bit. Brand states he is calling for a socialist egalitarian revolution that is based on the
redistribution of wealth, which includes immediately addressing the
economic inequity and turns the word profit into a dirty word. Brand is direct
in saying the current system of Democracy
doesn’t work. It works to keep some
of the same people in power and leave others according to Brand
specifically the poor due to it being a hierarchical system. Brand says those involved
in the current system aren’t trying to address any of the current problems of
inequity, environmental issues, etc. instead they focus on placating the
people.
Some of the other highlights?
Brand discusses his substance abuse issues as they relate to the context of
poverty. He says social conditions that promote corporations at the expense of
the poor and ignores the underserved, which can result in substance abuse and a
lot of other problems. Paxman couldn’t follow this thought at all. He immediately
started accusing Brand of blaming his substance abuse on other people including
the state, which isn’t what Brand was doing. Brand was acknowledging things don’t
exist in a vacuum. Brand also states he has every intention of calling out the elites, which is kind
of bad ass. He also spoke a little to
his background in poverty, which contributes to his anger and passion on this
issue. Brand also says that the change enabled in the current system isn’t
dramatic enough because it isn’t genuine change. He promotes genuine
alternatives.
Paxman does this
interesting thing where he demands Brand explain his ideal world order, which
of course Brand can’t do. Brand mentions that he can’t simply construct a
utopia, but a little latter Paxman defends those who currently are in power as
maybe being too overwhelmed by the current problems of the world to do anything
about it. I think this speaks to the issue. The media rushes to defend the
politicians from the very question they demand dissenters answer.
So the bad. Brand doesn’t vote. Those of you who
read this blog, you know my feelings about people who don’t vote. They may very
well have some good points, but often they
are completely unable to recognize how privilege comes into this discussion.
Brand doesn’t vote because he’s at the point of exhaustion from dealing with
the political class, which led to the development of an underclass. He refuses
to participate in a broken system, where voting has been proven ineffective. He
says voting makes no difference. I’ll be very brief. I argue voting makes hella
difference when you have limited rights and those with power are targeting you.
Brand’s argument comes from a place of safety and privilege, and unfortunately,
we all can’t share that position in society, which leaves some of us at the
mercy of the current political system. . So let me apply a few lens to this: sexual
orientation, race, gender, and class
Just to begin this
is obviously an international discussion. LGTBQ people have limited rights, and
I’m not just talking about marriage. Personally, I think the right to marry
coalition of the LGBTQ community high jacked the movement in hopes of
generating support for the movement while not being threatening to the hetro
community. They are being killed in Russia. They are being forced to serve
prison sentences in prison with an assigned gender (correlating to sex at
birth) instead of gender identity. They are being fired from and denied jobs
and education. Just saying. Can these individuals opt out of a broken system?
Sure, but I’m pretty sure things will get a lot worse for the LGBTQ community.
I think people of
color may have some questions about opting out of voting after all several
states are trying to prevent them from voting already. Guess, when people in
power make that decision for you it is even better? A good rule of thumb is when the people with the power want to prevent
you from doing something, it might be worth doing. That said, forget
voting, sure it is waste by Brand’s (and many others) logic. However, we have
some other issues: “stand your ground,” “stop and frisk,” mass imprisonment of
black men, and “the school to prison pipeline.” That is just for Black people,
think for a minute about Native Americans and rape for example. I think you
have to engage in the system to stop these things. Racism is institutionalized, and thus you have to take on the
institutions. Again, if people of color opt out, things will probably get
worse for them. After all representatives are admitting to trying to keep
people of color out of the political process, so I’m not sure we should make it
easier for them.
And on to the
women. Always the women. 300 anti-choice laws passed in the US in the last
year. Blaming sexual assault survivors and actual attempts to overturn Title
IX, Title fucking IX. Come at me bro. Women using stand your ground to defend
themselves from violent partners are serving time for it. Obviously, some of
these issues are going to overlap with previously mentioned issues. We are
seeing an abundance of legislation that is targeting women. Opting out isn’t going to protect us from
zealots. We have to participate, we have to choose the lesser of the evils
because if we don’t we’ll have more women serving prison sentences for trying
to commit suicide, which happened to kill a fetus at the same time or for
refusing some medical treatment in her first/second trimester because THINK OF
THE FETUS. Pretty sure, if women opt out it will just get worse, no I’m sure. Representatives
actively talk about women’s place, and how to prevent women from having control
over their medical decisions. This is a thing that is happening, and it is the
intention, including the intention behind trying to push back the birth control
mandate in Obamacare.
Now, onto class.
Brand spoke to class a bit, and he makes good point. However, I’m not sure
people who are destitute and completely dependent on the welfare system can
afford to opt out with conservative attempts to destroy already gutted
programs. And so on and so on.
What this really
comes down to, is privilege. Brand has privilege, so he can afford to be
idealistic and throw off the oppressive chains of the current political systems
because he isn’t the kind of person they are targeting. Everyone else, we can’t
afford to. I’m going to vote in the next presidential election, and I’m
probably going to vote Dem (H-Rod or Biden), and I know I will vote Dem if I’m
back living in Ohio. In Maryland, I might be able to get away with voting third
party. These are the hands we’re dealt.
It sucks, but it is a discussion about survival not what is right, and maybe
that is wrong, but I’m more concerned about making sure my friends’ daughters
won’t be blamed for sexual assault and will have access to birth control and
comprehensive reproductive choice. That
their sons won’t be shot for wearing a hoodie.
Also, all this
brings me to an interesting place if men like Brand, (white men who have sex
with women and who possess affluence/influence, from the media or education)
are the one’s calling for the revolution and a utopia. If the privileged are the ones who have the opportunity to participate;
will the revolution result in anything different from what we already have?
Don’t get me wrong, I think we should take to the streets, but I think we
should continue participating in the political process while we’re at it. Fight
on all fronts. But I’m concerned if the leaders look like the leaders we’ve
always had maybe the revolution isn’t a revolution simply a changing of the
guard. I’m shutting it down here, though I could write and write on the topic.
Maybe I will, maybe this weekend I’ll write something on the theory behind
successful revolutions.
Below is the clip
of Brand and Paxman.
