Is It Worth Voting? / Russell Brand on Revolution

Firstly I'd like to say stick with me for a bit here, it may seem like I'm droning for a bit, but it gets to a reasonable discussion point in the end and I have attempted to incorporate a worldwide argument despite Brand's focus on the UK's political system. But if you'd like to skip the whole Brand part feel free to simply comment on whether you like your current electoral system and whether you feel it is worth voting within it.

Last month Russell Brand was given the chance to guest edit a popular political magazine in the UK known as New Statesman, his piece was eventually on the topic of revolution against the current political class. Preceding his guest editorial in the magazine, Brand was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight which is a British program focusing on current affairs, this interview was soon viewed by millions of people and has been the main focus of the current focus on Brand's political views. He also wrote a column in The Guardian following this.

The comedian would soon reveal his views in this interview declaring that he did not vote in UK elections and that current political system needed changing claiming a system 'shouldn't destroy the planet, shouldn't create economic disparity' and that it ignored people in favour of legislating for large corporations.


Anyway, basically such a public figure speaking out against present democratic systems has unsurprisingly received a lot of coverage. Perhaps to many of you some parts of Brand's argument will be irrelevant as they specifically regard the United Kingdom's electoral system, but it is similarly applicable to other western countries. For example, Brand argued the only difference from election to election was a little hop from right to left (ideologically) which is potentially the same in political systems around the world. It is also worth noting that despite the seeming disapproval of Paxman during the interview, he later admitted to agreeing with Brand and that he had not voted in the last election despite being a regular political commentator.

1. Is Russell Brand a forward looking political theorist or a dreamer? Perhaps even simply a celebrity promoting himself with unconventional views?
2. How much do you agree with Brand's views on the current state of politics? Are his views applicable to your own country's system?
3. Within your own country do you believe it is worth voting in elections?
4. Is it possible to significantly change political systems from within?
5. Do political parties really represent the people?

It's really pointless to vote, in my honest opinion. Political parties (at least in the U.S.) represent a false illusion designed to make you believe that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners; they own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they've long since paid for the senate and the house, including the mayors, governors, and they have the judges in their back pockets.

I'm talking about the big businessman who are really in charge. We have no freedom of choice, sorry!

Is Russell Brand a forward looking political theorist or a dreamer? Perhaps even simply a celebrity promoting himself with unconventional views?

He is a comedian who has recently fallen out of the spotlight. I believe this is probably the main reason for wanting to do the article and interview.

How much do you agree with Brand's views on the current state of politics? Are his views applicable to your own country's system?

He has some points correct, that sometimes legislation for companies and businesses seems prioritised over public issues and laws.

Within your own country do you believe it is worth voting in elections?

Yes, entirely. The problem is people who don't vote who could be voting for the correct party. I support the Green Party - anyone from the UK knows they are still unsuccessful, but slowly gaining momentum and seats. I really hope that some non-voters will realise they can make a difference and support a smaller party they believe in.

Is it possible to significantly change political systems from within?

I'm really not sure.

Do political parties really represent the people?

No, but should they? Politians need to support the people, but also the economy (and the environment) of their country. There are a lot of factors that might go in to winning an election - a lot of the time, the reason someone thinks the 'wrong person won' is because they have slightly different values and see their problem as the most important.

It is true that in many ways most major political parties have the same attitude toward money and business and don't have as strong a regard for the effect all that money has on regular people like us, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to say "they're all the same" and that it doesn't matter if you vote.

There are differences. I can't speak with any authority outside of the US, but here we have two parties and there are some major differences between them (gay rights, women's rights, voting rights, environmental issues, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK has a multi-party system so you don't even have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" like we do in the US. If enough people support candidates and parties who are different enough (like Green parties and so on) then you presumably could have a much better representation in government than you do. All you would need is enough people to vote.

I really don't like the "it doesn't matter" attitude. I think it makes the problem worse because it turns people off of voting and getting involved and breeds resentment for a system that could work if enough people cared.

One vote doesn't matter, but it's beside the point. If everybody mattered then nobody would matter because everybody matters. When you vote you necessarily become a number, but that's the point, because it's numbers (the majority) that decide who comes into power, not individuals per se. It's not so much about me, more so about we.

I'm happy to see some responses already, I figured due to the size of my opening post it might lose the attention of some people, but this is good. :)

Anyway, I'll give my own opinions. I'll spoiler them as it got fairly long.



Also just as a reply to your comment Scarf, it is a multi-party system in some ways, but ultimately the only powerful parties are Conservatives or Labour (with Liberal Democrats currently holding some minor power temporarily). I definitely appreciate the point though, there is more choice here.

Every nation is made up of 3 factors.

Political - this is the standard by which national affairs are handled and where the basic outline for the nation is designed.

Economic - this part handles distribution of money, worth of various entities and designs, and the success of certain people compared to others.

Social - this is the cultural aspect. How the people act, what they believe, their sense of ethics, aesthetics, advancement, etc - all exist within this system.

The majority of nations in the world today are politically Democratic (Representative), economically Capitalist, and socially Survival of the Fittest. They operate under the idea of Greed - the more you have, the better you are and the more you're worth. This is due to Capitalism having major influence over the political and social systems, causing Representatives to act based on Greed and having normal people fight one another in order to get by.

In order to fix, let's say...the U.S., it needs to be politically E-Democratic, then socially Paleoliberalist, and finally economically Anarcho-capitalist. These 3 would have to work all at once to actually fix things, and it would only be seen as a first step - though perhaps not an end goal, as things MIGHT need to change again later on.

I desire a politically Monarchic, economically Communist as a basis and Capitalist as a bonus, and socially Anarchic society - not for the U.S., per se, but as my own ideal society. As long as the monarch's actions do not go against the free will of the people and is seperate from economic measures, they SHOULD be able to handle all affairs of state properly and instantaneously. No one will have to worry about survival - as the Communist measures will generate a standard which allows everyone to focus only on prosperity. And while they don't have to do anything to get money, many professions that receive money can hold Fortune to a higher regard. It allows for competitive spirit without any real repercussions. As an Anarchic society, each and every person rules themselves and to their own accord, thus allowing an egalitarian society where the actions of one can aid the many and, because free will cannot be attacked - as that's the only real crime, the actions of one generally won't ever hurt the many.


---


As for the questions above:

I desire revolution, whether peaceful or bloody. Voting makes no sense when you don't want to vote for any of the choices forced upon you. Parties do not represent people, though politicians do represent parties. I agree with Brand completely. Yes, it CAN be changed from within - easily and successfully, if you follow the model I gave for the U.S. above.

Nuke said:

Also just as a reply to your comment Scarf, it is a multi-party system in some ways, but ultimately the only powerful parties are Conservatives or Labour (with Liberal Democrats currently holding some minor power temporarily). I definitely appreciate the point though, there is more choice here.

Click to expand...

I guess this is a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side" because it still seems like 3rd parties have a chance at being a part of government where you are whereas where I am it would take a minor miracle to get a third party to have a significant voice in government.

Point taken though, as both of us are living far below what would be ideal for us. I'm just lucky I live in a part of my country where my views are usually in the majority.

Hm interesting, I never saw Russell Brand as a politician. Very cool. I'm assuming he's from England or somewhere around there. I know that British elections are different than America's (where I'm from). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the people vote for representatives who then the representatives vote for the members of Parliament and the Prime Minister? Am I right? I may not be, I vaguely remember talking about it with my AP US teacher last year. I honestly thought that the GB's election system was more stable than ours. Anyway to the topic at hand, Brand's stand sounds similar to many of the youth's today. Many believe that the government isn't doing enough, and believes that the government is seeking utopian purposes to a degree.


I think that brand is a dreamer. I don't think that the government will change for a long time. I don't think he's much of a politician though. I think he's just a comedian trying to seek attention tbh. I don't agree with his views. I think that the government is to involved, Obamacare is being enforced too harshly in America I believe. I think that the government is enforced so much in countries around the world that countries have become somewhat socialist. Even in North America. I don't think that the views are unconventional, many people have proposed these idea before. I believe that it is worth voting.

I believe that people should be informed about politics, and we should vote for our leaders. Only if we do not agree with them should we not vote. If no one voted then there would be anarchy. I don't believe that is the answer. It is possible to significantly change systems. Russia did it with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. America helped change China's system. Eventually, Cuba's political system will probably change. I believe that it is possible, but not probable. Lastly, I believe that parties represent the people. The people of their party tend to vote them into office in America. I don't believe that people should vote solely based on parties where most people do.

Bruce Banner said:

I believe that the people vote for representatives who then the representatives vote for the members of Parliament and the Prime Minister?

Click to expand...

No, people elect the Members of Parliament directly (which are the same as your Representatives), and the leader of the party holding the majority (or leading the largest side of a coalition) is chosen as Prime Minister. It's technically two elections in one, as you are electing the PM along with the Parliament, to prevent him from having to wrestle with Congress every second to get anything passed at all.

---------------------

I'm a fervent supporter of the power of voting, mostly because, as it's been said, democracy is the worst system of governance except for every other one ever created. Basically, when someone tells me that they don't vote because it's the same guys getting elected over and over, I ask them "So why don't you vote for someone else?". In Spain, we have a proportional system, so parties with even 4% of the vote can get 5 seats in Parliament. If you don't vote, really, you are supporting the two main parties as nobody else will even get a chance to oppose them.

And the problem with revolutions is that you are changing the political landscape without necessarily changing the electorate. You need to educate the voters, not just change the system and expect that the people who voted conservative are now going to join your revolutionary party instead of just going back to what they were used to voting. Not to mention that a large amount of people may legitimately not like some things in your revolution- and the point of democracy is giving them the chance to undo the things they don't like.

In the last election, my Senate ballot was: a Social-democrat, a Communist, a Green. I've been to several protests in the last years, I was there in Sol during the Indignados movement in 2011 (check wikipedia), but I really don't follow people who want the political system to just come out with their hands up. It's not going to happen unless you go violent, because the traditional leaders have millions of people supporting them. Pressuring the politicians into making "your" desired revolutionary constitution is not democracy unless people voluntarily elect them knowing what they are going to do. Otherwise, the people who dislike the outcome will be the ones protesting, and trying to boycott the system- and we'll end up stuck in an useless loop.

And again, people need to be educated and taken out of the "Okay, I suck, but if you don't vote for me, THEY will win and do bad things" mentality. You can punish both parties at once. In the US, there are primaries- you can greatly affect who'll be on the ballot. Bernie Sanders is a Senator, you know.

But let's remember that elected officials have the legitimacy and the power. Not voting will not change anything- they can have some less legitimacy if turnout is small but that won't give any legitimacy to anybody else, so that won't help anything- if any, it will damage democracy and make dictatorial solutions more likely.

I think it's worth pointing out that in America, for instance, a 50-60% voter turnout among people old enough to vote is normal in Presidental elections and it's about 10% lower in off-year elections. You could say then that about half the population votes and half doesn't vote. Not voting doesn't seem to have more power though since the political system keeps going.

Personally, I think celebrities should not be involved in politics, since their chances of becoming controversial increases. The Dixie Chicks got a lot of flak for criticising the US President (Bush does have big problems, but still...), and Kanye West became a joke for sticking his nose into politics too. Johnny Rotten is hated for his comments on the British government (especially the Queen, but also other things). Rosie O'Donnell is one of the most hated celebrities in the world due to her outspoken political opinions. And back in the day Jane Fonda's involvement in politics made her very controversial.

Russell Brand is already kind of a joke, so I think he should keep his ****ing mouth shut and stay out of politics. I think he is just doing this to boost his own fame - he does not feel passionate about it.

When people start considering celebrities as being politically relevant, that's when you know that political education isn't doing much.

I have mixed feelings about this, at least as far as the US of A goes (I can't speak for anywhere else). In a sense, it isn't worth it because of the way our system is set up. Basically, you're given a choice between a handful of people who were chosen for you. You get the illusion that you have a choice, but can it really be said that you have a choice, when the set of choices you have is chosen for you? For example, if you're a Republican, you've got these party officials called delegates (who aren't representatives or anything, just "celebrities" like past presidents and philanthropists) who choose who the Republican nominee will be. Same thing for the Democrats and every other party.

I liken this to something I used to do when I babysat my nephews. Whenever they had to eat their vegetables, they would throw a fit. To stop this from happening, I would give them a choice between, say, carrots, sting beans, or mashed potatoes. This way they feel them like they have a choice over what they eat for dinner so they don't complain, but ultimately I'm still making them eat vegetables. That's essentially how our election system works. the choice of how the country is going to be run is basically already made for us.

But in another sense, it is worth it if there's someone who you really feel passionate about, and you really feel like this person should be in charge. In that case, I think you should vote. Or at least, if you don't, you shouldn't complain about the guy who did win. Because it's better to be able to say "I spoke up, but the people who disagree spoke louder" than to have to say "I didn't speak up at all".

If you're going to frame the American political system as a lack of choice, then that really begs the question, who would you choose - or perhaps seeing that it is perceived that you cannot, what would you do instead? People can say that they're not satisfied with the current set up but there comes a time when you have to ask "how realistic are you?" Often it's easier for people to say how they're unsatisfied instead of how they could be satisfied, and most people don't bother to find a middle ground between what they want and the political order that exists. I think making that effort to compromise between reality and ideals - or understand and elaborate upon the gap between reality and ideals - is a marker of whether somebody is politically mature - in that they're informed, interested, and involved. Otherwise they just parrot what everybody else is saying, which is my perception of Russel Brand.

BlahISuck said:

People can say that they're not satisfied with the current set up but there comes a time when you have to ask "how realistic are you?" Often it's easier for people to say how they're unsatisfied instead of how they could be satisfied, and most people don't bother to find a middle ground between what they want and the political order that exists.

Click to expand...

I believe I've already said it, maybe not on this thread, but in a globalized nation, Representative Democracy does not work. Even if your representative does literally everything you want TO THE DOT, there'll be too many issues for them to handle. They won't be fast enough and, as shown in the case of Lyndon Johnson, the stress would most likely kill them. You need a faster form of government in which an all-informed (internet freedom) public is able to vote instantaneously on every subject.

The best case for this is E-Democracy. It's already been shown to work and, as a form of Direct Democracy, it cuts out the middle man - having the government exist only to follow the orders of the public.


I'm an Anarchist. But even as an Anarchist, I know that the world isn't yet ready for Anarchy - close, but not quite there yet. The mid-point between Anarchy and Rep Democracy is Direct Democracy - and we ARE ready for that.

I don't know if I want the government to exist only to follow the orders of the public. Call me conservative, but I don't think everybody is equally worthy in terms of political decision-making. Besides regular day people like you or me are unreliable. What happens when not enough people bother to vote on a specific issue? Then the decisions won't be made by the public, but whoever has the best campaign. Your ability to campaign doesn't correlate with your ability to govern.

I agree 100% with what Brand has said in that interview. I also think anyone who rejects his political views based on his career choice need to seriously reevaluate their own cultural importance.
By rejecting Brands arguments in this way you are essentially agreeing with him with his views on how Government and therefore all of humanity should respond to the wealthy.
That being said I want to point out that my political bias is not skewed by how much I like a person or their work for that matter.

Brand has some solid arguments which Paxman simply sidesteps by asking more from him. You can see in the interview that the "politically educated" like to sidestep arguments and generally avoid on-topic counter arguments by stretching out the opposition until they fail. No plan is going to be 100% efficient, and will not come without some form of consequence obviously. The way politicians interact with each other is enough for me to automatically distrust each and everyone of them.
How they are constantly in this power struggle of calculated wit between each other tells me exactly how they will act around the general population and therefore tells me exactly what they think of us, and how they plan to tackle the problems surrounding us. In case you were wondering how, I'll tell you, they will sidestep the problem and make up an excuse to try and argue the problem into remission.
I'm sorry but why are politicians always more interested in getting their hands dirty with things they're not being paid to solve, and why do they continue to be paid for not solving them?

Team Brand for Revolutionary Leader!

BlahISuck said:

If you're going to frame the American political system as a lack of choice, then that really begs the question, who would you choose - or perhaps seeing that it is perceived that you cannot, what would you do instead? People can say that they're not satisfied with the current set up but there comes a time when you have to ask "how realistic are you?" Often it's easier for people to say how they're unsatisfied instead of how they could be satisfied, and most people don't bother to find a middle ground between what they want and the political order that exists. I think making that effort to compromise between reality and ideals - or understand and elaborate upon the gap between reality and ideals - is a marker of whether somebody is politically mature - in that they're informed, interested, and involved. Otherwise they just parrot what everybody else is saying, which is my perception of Russel Brand.

Click to expand...

BiS, I think compromise is for politicking, but voting is the place for ideals. Voting is where you say "I want this." It's the starting point from which you begin to compromise. If we vote for someone who is already a compromise then we're going to end up with a compromise or a compromise. I know there is a downside where you get people elected who won't compromise, but I think if you can't feel like you're voting for what matters to you then you'll turn away from the system and give up on feeling like change is possible and I don't think that's good for a healthy democracy.

I think Brand is brilliant. The man is wonderfully articulate, a quick and critical thinker, and is willing to put down the very system that facilitates his wealth and social status -- something a selfish person wouldn't have any reason to do.

Anyone saying he's doing it for attention is silly. Paxman is known for his hard-hitting and relentless questions which catches many of his guests off-guard, but if you've watched the interview above (there's an older one too which is equally good), Brand doesn't miss a beat. In fact, Paxman seems to change tack quite frequently just to test him but Brand proves his case solid -- to the point where he doesn't really have any questions left and in the end simply asks, "Do you see any hope?"

I've yet to see any of Brand's detractors actually justify their criticisms; the man obviously has well thought-out arguments and is quite passionate about it. He has risen in this system and sees its corruption and problems, and is using his station as a means of calling attention to it. His solution is also not apathy, it is to shun a broken mechanism that benefits few and lets down many. He's calling for change, and true change is not patchwork, but rather a new blueprint for society altogether.

I think the political system is trash. I have never voted and I never will, not because I don't care, but because I don't believe in perpetuating a broken system. Democracy is stupid because people are stupid and don't know what they want. I don't believe electing people to decide on our behalf solves this because they're just people too (and usually crooked and greedy to boot).

Our "representatives" have their own understandings of what society wants/needs and in the overly complicated mess we call "political parties" neither gets addressed except for those who have a loud enough voice, and nowadays, money = volume.