Is It Worth Voting? / Russell Brand on Revolution

@007

You seem to be assuming many things.

First, you assume that Representatives actually know what they're doing and that they're smarter than the propaganda spread by mainstream media. They're not. Most politicians learn theory - but never practice. They think what they are doing is best and make bets which affect the citizens under them, just waiting to see what the outcome will be. When they find out that their own stupidity and, thus, their very horribly made bets caused great pain and anguish, they then start pointing fingers at one another rather than trying to fix their own mistakes. Politicians aren't competent. Never forget Hanlon's Razor.

Second, you assume that mainstream media and a free internet both generate the same propaganda and ignorance. This isn't the case. Now that more and more people are noticing the inaccuracy of the mainstream media, they are starting to rely on an unregulated internet - which, itself, holds unlimited volumes of knowledge and wisdom. E-Democracy relies on the internet exclusively. An E-Democratic society, as long as its internet is unregulated, won't give in to propaganda like you seem to think it will.

Lastly, you assume that Anarchy is fully destructive and chaotic - always leading to revolution. No. The following should serve as an example of a proper Anarchic society rather than the IDEA of that society you've been led to believe by...oh, what? Propaganda >.> (pot calling the kettle black)

Esper said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't mean compromise between different perspectives in the voting/decision-making process, I mean a compromise between ideals and reality within one's own worldview. We can take an issue which is very ideal, let's say renewable energy. You can say "I want renewable energy". But how do we achieve it? It's not like you press a button that converts all our fossil fuel plants to wind turbines or solar cells. Russell Brand wants an alternative form of government. "What do you mean?" "Well, I've got a lot on me plate..." He goes into the most detail when he proposes a more centralized government where more wealth is redistributed, taxes are raised, and stronger environmental regulations are enforced. How do we get there? A revolution - that's as far as his roadmap goes. Hence I don't see him as much of a role model concerning politics, he's not any wiser or more knowledgeable than average joes like us.

LoudSilence said:

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?"

Click to expand...

I don't think it's out of selflessness that he's saying what he did - it's very popular to talk like him nowadays. His case is solid, but it's nary a case. Thank you for telling us that the political system isn't working. Thank you for telling us that we should aim for the opposite direction of the status quo. No, we haven't heard that at all over the past five years, no decade, no two decades. He's not saying anything new, it's just that people tend to listen when their own economic condition is poor. If and when America gets back to 4% economic growth and under 5% unemployment, nobody's going to care about this anymore to the degree that we do now.

LoudSilence said:

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.

Click to expand...

My criticism: he's all talk, no substance. He's calling for change, but haven't we all? What's his blueprint? At the most detailed, he proposes less disparity between rich and poor, stronger environmental protection, and higher taxes on corporations. You can say that. I can say that. Any of us can say that. I wouldn't consider his arguments to be well thought out when his insights (if I may give them the privilege to be referred to as such) aren't very groundbreaking.

LoudSilence said:

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).

Click to expand...

I think that is an excellent point. If we have a revolution that ends up as another democracy, we'll deal with the same stupid people. If we have a revolution that uproots democracy, well, are any of us willing or able to consider that? Somewhere down the line we have to realize that the world is what we have. Not a hypothetical world, a very real world where our ideals will be tested to the extreme.

LoudSilence said:

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.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that these representatives are elected by you and I. Don't think it's easy being a political representative. I'm sure any of us can run, after all nobody's stopping us. Say we get elected, and we're newbie MP's, fresh with our ideas and ready to serve our constituency. It won't be long before we're hardened by the game. You'll have to juggle a lot of balls, what your constituency wants, your personal vision, what your party wants (if you choose to be affiliated), as well as what's politically feasible. Trust me when I say that nobody created the political game. I think it's just a natural consequence of human beings being human beings. Many of our problems weren't created with intent behind it (after all, who wants to create problems?) so I think it's intuitive that it's so hard for any one actor to even suggest, let alone enact, solutions. I'm sure our representatives have the same understanding of society as we do - we're all people after all - except they have to play the game and we don't. And part of the game is us vilifying them for trying to do what they can. I believe that most representatives believe that they go into office with the best of intentions. This ties back into my first paragraph in response to Scarf - political maturity is about understanding a compromise between ideals and reality. Even with all our dissatisfaction towards them, our political representatives are among the few of us who actually get to try out that compromise between ideals and reality in practice.

On the question of voting: if you want to make a change in politics you can do it within the system or outside of the system. If you're not voting, I'm hoping you're doing your bit outside of the system. However, I would hardly characterize not voting as making change. I see "not wanting to perpetuate the current system" as a weak excuse to not be politically involved.

BlahISuck said:

I don't mean compromise between different perspectives in the voting/decision-making process, I mean a compromise between ideals and reality within one's own worldview. We can take an issue which is very ideal, let's say renewable energy. You can say "I want renewable energy". But how do we achieve it? It's not like you press a button that converts all our fossil fuel plants to wind turbines or solar cells. Russell Brand wants an alternative form of government. "What do you mean?" "Well, I've got a lot on me plate..." He goes into the most detail when he proposes a more centralized government where more wealth is redistributed, taxes are raised, and stronger environmental regulations are enforced. How do we get there? A revolution - that's as far as his roadmap goes. Hence I don't see him as much of a role model concerning politics, he's not any wiser or more knowledgeable than average joes like us.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find there are a lot of people who already have a sort of compromise mindset when they vote for things. "I want renewable energy" is a starting point, but when you actually have propositions to vote on they're for things like voting to approve or not approve and new coal powered power plant in your county. Saying that you're for environmental protection or more regulation in the economy is a starting point and might be all you're able to say before your 10 seconds to speak your views is up or you get interrupted.

BlahISuck said:

I don't think it's out of selflessness that he's saying what he did - it's very popular to talk like him nowadays. His case is solid, but it's nary a case. Thank you for telling us that the political system isn't working. Thank you for telling us that we should aim for the opposite direction of the status quo. No, we haven't heard that at all over the past five years, no decade, no two decades. He's not saying anything new, it's just that people tend to listen when their own economic condition is poor. If and when America gets back to 4% economic growth and under 5% unemployment, nobody's going to care about this anymore to the degree that we do now.


My criticism: he's all talk, no substance. He's calling for change, but haven't we all? What's his blueprint? At the most detailed, he proposes less disparity between rich and poor, stronger environmental protection, and higher taxes on corporations. You can say that. I can say that. Any of us can say that. I wouldn't consider his arguments to be well thought out when his insights (if I may give them the privilege to be referred to as such) aren't very groundbreaking.

Click to expand...

I guess none of us can speak for his true motivations, but I don't think he's just a bandwagoner -- he seems too sharp and too eloquent to be a superficial "slacktivist". The fact of the matter is that the problems he outlines are not really that well understood, so elucidation is necessary and he did a good enough deal of it (at least for a limited platform like an interview).

Should he go more in-depth? If he likes. I don't really think anyone is obliged to offer a solution just because they recognise and outline a problem. You can call it a wake-up call of sorts, which I do believe we need.

I think that is an excellent point. If we have a revolution that ends up as another democracy, we'll deal with the same stupid people. If we have a revolution that uproots democracy, well, are any of us willing or able to consider that? Somewhere down the line we have to realize that the world is what we have. Not a hypothetical world, a very real world where our ideals will be tested to the extreme.

Click to expand...

Oh snap, making this real!

In general, I think any system that offers "power to the people" is, though appealing, ultimately going to fail. It sounds nice and we like to think that everyone has equal say, but realistically there is no way that could ever work. Some people are going to have more power, and that means that the rest of us are subject to the direction they choose to take us (based on their own limited/biased understanding as human beings).

Keep in mind that these representatives are elected by you and I. Don't think it's easy being a political representative. I'm sure any of us can run, after all nobody's stopping us. Say we get elected, and we're newbie MP's, fresh with our ideas and ready to serve our constituency. It won't be long before we're hardened by the game. You'll have to juggle a lot of balls, what your constituency wants, your personal vision, what your party wants (if you choose to be affiliated), as well as what's politically feasible. Trust me when I say that nobody created the political game. I think it's just a natural consequence of human beings being human beings. Many of our problems weren't created with intent behind it (after all, who wants to create problems?) so I think it's intuitive that it's so hard for any one actor to even suggest, let alone enact, solutions. I'm sure our representatives have the same understanding of society as we do - we're all people after all - except they have to play the game and we don't. And part of the game is us vilifying them for trying to do what they can. I believe that most representatives believe that they go into office with the best of intentions. This ties back into my first paragraph in response to Scarf - political maturity is about understanding a compromise between ideals and reality. Even with all our dissatisfaction towards them, our political representatives are among the few of us who actually get to try out that compromise between ideals and reality in practice.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to belittle being a representative, and maybe they all do have pure intentions going in. However, if we're going to admit that the game is crooked and they can't play without becoming crooked themselves, we shouldn't absolve them of that blame. Don't play the game. Fight for a change from outside (it certainly won't happen from within).

I'm with you that it's just a consequence of human nature, but we should instead work towards a new system that doesn't depend so readily on the flaws of our nature.

On the question of voting: if you want to make a change in politics you can do it within the system or outside of the system. If you're not voting, I'm hoping you're doing your bit outside of the system. However, I would hardly characterize not voting as making change. I see "not wanting to perpetuate the current system" as a weak excuse to not be politically involved.

Click to expand...

100% agreed. Can't speak for Brand, but I can at least say for myself that not voting is not where my "activism" stops :)

As for working within or outside of a system, question to consider...would you rather piece together a shattered mirror or make a new one?

I think discussion really shows that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Given all that's been said, I don't know if we can actually stomach another alternative. It might be better for politicians to "play the game" instead of another alternative :O Am I actually praising democracy? I love this issue/question, for it's so open.

I've played around 8 hours of Democracy 3 over the course of last night and today.



I think this experience taught me several things. First of all, a good politician is pragmatic, and shouldn't be afraid to flip flop if it serves his purposes. What I'm doing to the economy and society right now amounts to social engineering, forging the country in my vision - against the wishes of the electorate - in order to make it politically sustainable. I've cut access to abortions to the best compromise between liberals and conservatives. I cannot remember how many times I've abolished and reinstated wiretapping to deal with security issues that threatened economic growth. There were times when I threw social welfare policies at the socialists and the poor with my left hand while I open up Canada as a tax haven for the rich with my right.

I've also completely trampled on the interest of certain groups to forward my political vision - the religious and motorists. Religious people were getting in the way of my tech and education spending, and motorists were getting in the way of creating a green environment with their stupid polluting cars. To this day these two groups have been marginalized and oppressed. On the other hand, my government is sustained by a coalition of conservatives and liberals, capitalists and socialists. There are always losers in politics, but when the losers don't matter anymore, it doesn't look like there are losers. While democracy is about bridging the diversity in society, it works a hell of a lot easier when people are more similar.

Also, I played a democracy but ruled like a dictator. By creating huge electoral mandates and pandering to my base I ended up eliminating political opposition which then gave me a free hand to do whatever I liked. I think the freedom for a government to do what it wishes is very important for good governance. In the United States the lack of it's called congressional gridlock.

I don't think we should be afraid of social engineering (when it's in the right hands). Eliminating pollution wouldn't have been possible without massive subsidies into renewable energy and public transportation, eliminating obesity wouldn't have been possible without subsidizing school meals and healthy foods.

One thing I am unreservedly proud of though is cutting income taxes from 41% to 36% while maintaining the same big surpluses before and after. I'll be looking into increasing workers' wages next so I can justify cutting taxes even further.

Of course, this is all a video game. And a video game is all about the player. A political system, on the other hand, is full of many actors, and very few (or none!) may care about the big picture.

BlahISuck said:

I think discussion really shows that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Given all that's been said, I don't know if we can actually stomach another alternative. It might be better for politicians to "play the game" instead of another alternative :O Am I actually praising democracy? I love this issue/question, for it's so open.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that democracy is now largely associated with righteousness and modernity and civilisation, whereas all alternatives are strongly demonised and made to seem backwards/barbaric. Ask any layman in the West and they will almost angrily spit upon communism/socialism/sharia etc. like they're dirty words, but I doubt most of them could even tell you what those systems consist of and how they function.

We'd never be able to stomach something new because we're taught that all new things are bad for us, or have failed in the past due to irreparable fundamental flaws and thus can never be attempted again. I think the blinders need to be taken off: let people make informed decisions instead of feeding us what's "right".

It's like we live in some mild version of 1984.

I've played around 8 hours of Democracy 3 over the course of last night and today.

Spoiler:

Canada is now a socialist paradise, where only 10% of the population drive cars, where a $700 billion debt has been completely replaced with over $2 of foreign exchange reserves, the earnings of the poor has grown 37% (admittedly middle class earnings fell 4% and equality fell by 42%) - hmm not so much of a socialist paradise it seems. There are vibrant private schools, pensions, and health care systems in place. Why?

As Prime Minster/master of the country, I've taken it into my own hands to create a sustainable political system. Before this point, Canada was actually completely socialist with no private schools, healthcare, or pensions. Only 6% of the population believed in capitalist ideology. However, everybody that benefited from my regime, socialists, the poor, liberals all became increasingly complacent as all they did was gain. So I took it unto myself to enact unpopular reforms, pushing for the increased role of the private sector, taking away freedoms and increasing government surveillance, promoting market values until 30% of the population were capitalist. I did this at the expense of the middle class and their earnings, and I slashed government spending until I was posting $14 billion surpluses every quarter.

The people who had benefited from my regime had grown increasingly complacent and only complained. By undermining the support they had, I served to make them more politically responsive. While they are unhappy, they are now sure to respond the next time I slash healthcare vouchers and boost public healthcare spending. Otherwise, they would have continued to be complacent, to demand more and more even though the system already served them.

My government was sustainable for about thirty years, but as the costs of the welfare system increased, I realized it could not be sustained forever. Now after my market-oriented reforms, Canada makes fiscal and political sense - not only is the welfare state now affordable for the long term, but I can always bring it back to appease the very people who brought me into power.

I think this experience taught me several things. First of all, a good politician is pragmatic, and shouldn't be afraid to flip flop if it serves his purposes. What I'm doing to the economy and society right now amounts to social engineering, forging the country in my vision - against the wishes of the electorate - in order to make it politically sustainable. I've cut access to abortions to the best compromise between liberals and conservatives. I cannot remember how many times I've abolished and reinstated wiretapping to deal with security issues that threatened economic growth. There were times when I threw social welfare policies at the socialists and the poor with my left hand while I open up Canada as a tax haven for the rich with my right.

I've also completely trampled on the interest of certain groups to forward my political vision - the religious and motorists. Religious people were getting in the way of my tech and education spending, and motorists were getting in the way of creating a green environment with their stupid polluting cars. To this day these two groups have been marginalized and oppressed. On the other hand, my government is sustained by a coalition of conservatives and liberals, capitalists and socialists. There are always losers in politics, but when the losers don't matter anymore, it doesn't look like there are losers. While democracy is about bridging the diversity in society, it works a hell of a lot easier when people are more similar.

Also, I played a democracy but ruled like a dictator. By creating huge electoral mandates and pandering to my base I ended up eliminating political opposition which then gave me a free hand to do whatever I liked. I think the freedom for a government to do what it wishes is very important for good governance. In the United States the lack of it's called congressional gridlock.

I don't think we should be afraid of social engineering (when it's in the right hands). Eliminating pollution wouldn't have been possible without massive subsidies into renewable energy and public transportation, eliminating obesity wouldn't have been possible without subsidizing school meals and healthy foods.

One thing I am unreservedly proud of though is cutting income taxes from 41% to 36% while maintaining the same big surpluses before and after. I'll be looking into increasing workers' wages next so I can justify cutting taxes even further.

Of course, this is all a video game. And a video game is all about the player. A political system, on the other hand, is full of many actors, and very few (or none!) may care about the big picture.

Click to expand...

The real world sucks enough, why would you want to simulate it? Hahaha.

It's sad though because something with such gravity as a political system needs to have the bigger picture considered. Everyone is afflicted with tunnel vision and that is why every new representative is just another failure.

It's nice to see how this discussion evolved.

Plumpyfoof said:

Brand has some solid arguments which Paxman simply sidesteps by asking more from him.

Click to expand...

Just as a note, I think Paxman does that purely due to being the interviewer. It's his job to get more out of him. Paxman later admitted he agrees with Brand and spoiled his ballot at the last general election.

@BlahISuck, I didn't even realise that much reform was possible on Democracy. Everytime I've played it I just reduce the budget deficit whilst also attempting to pander to what the voters want. Typical idea of a politician's mindset I guess. :P

Also in terms of giving pure direct democracy, I think some of the negatives of that have been well displayed through the USA's proposition system. I seem to remember reading about citizens of California reducing some form of tax as obviously they stood to benefit from being taxed less only to find their public services were being underfunded and they voted to revert it within a year or so.

Nuke said:

@BlahISuck, I didn't even realise that much reform was possible on Democracy. Everytime I've played it I just reduce the budget deficit whilst also attempting to pander to what the voters want. Typical idea of a politician's mindset I guess. :P

Click to expand...

I played Democracy 3, maybe there's more options in the sequel? I only pandered to the voters as much as I needed to - either to stop them from rioting or to butter them up before I do something really unpopular (like raise taxes hehe). Hey liberals, remember abortions? Time to slap some limitations on access - I need more support from conservatives.

Nuke said:

Also in terms of giving pure direct democracy, I think some of the negatives of that have been well displayed through the USA's proposition system. I seem to remember reading about citizens of California reducing some form of tax as obviously they stood to benefit from being taxed less only to find their public services were being underfunded and they voted to revert it within a year or so.

Click to expand...

If things keep on going like this, democracy could become outdated. It should serve to limit the excesses of power, but I doubt democracy can be used to govern in a positive sense - it can stop bad things from happening, but it doesn't really make good things happen.

What Brand is saying is certainly true of the US as well........we are given the illusion of having a choice. However, no matter which party the elected officials are from, the same things will happen. There was war under Bush I, there was war under Clinton, Bush II and Obama (whom we are supposed to believe is 'liberal'). There is never any real modernization of health care, the big financial institutions continue predatory tactics, money laundering for drug lords, etc........ When someone really different was nominated for president (Al Gore) look what happened.......pregnant chad, hanging chad, etc....Florida's voting wasn't any less technological in 2000 than in previous years, yet that was the first time such a fiasco had arisen. Then the Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush..........

Now we will get to choose between Hilary Clinton and Chris Christie. Guess what? Other than on non-issues like abortion, gay marriage, and so forth, the same things will happen.....the country will still have an exorbitant military budget, the top .1% will continue to loot the rest of the country, people will still spend $550 a month on health insurance if they can afford it at all......


The democrats and republicans are both funded in large part by big business.....and they've arranged the electoral process so that no one else can even run. The political spectrum is artificially manipulated to make it appear as though those with ideas that aren't amenable to big business are total wackheads. The problem in this country, whether democrats or republicans are in charge, is that private business is way too powerful.