Russell Brand has interview with Jemery Paxman, gets people excited at the prospect of 'Revolution' - Polidicks

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk[/media] [quote]The revolution itself may not be televised, but on last night's edition of the BBC's Newsnight, viewers may have witnessed the start of one. Actor-slash-comedian-slash-Messiah Russell Brand, in his capacity as guest editor of the New Statesman's just-published revolution-themed issue, was invited to explain to Jeremy Paxman why anyone should listen to a man who has never voted in his life.[/quote] [B]Source: [url]http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185[/url][/B] AFAIK Revolution is a terrible idea. No revolution in the history of mankind has ever gone down as un-bloodied as people are fantasizing this one would - with the breakdown of law & order/ society you'd see thousands of these very 'revolutionaries' raped and murdered in the ensuing power struggle, and with no police force to do anything about it, it'd just be complete and utter chaos. Force the Tesco management out against the wall and see how long your average citizen can get by when the delivery of frozen burgers and bread never arrives the next morning. And that's what you get when you centralize the food supplies. Honestly... People just get this idea of 'pop revolution' in their minds after watching V for Vendetta and think 'wow yeah that sounds cool, fuck rich corporations', but then when shit really hits the fan, what actually happens is you've unleash the most bloodthirsty and power hungry upon everyone else, with no opposing force willing or able to do anything about it, and many just end up getting caught in the crossfire.

I doubt he means a literal revolution, just getting to the point where everyone is sick of what's occurring and forcing people/politicians to make drastic changes.

Everyone wants a revolution, just nobody wants to fight one.

He says the end result which he wants but he offers no example or solution to get there. Unfortunately this is the way of the world, its impossible to make it fair for everybody, you don't have happiness if you never experience sadness. Life is unfair but if you work hard then you will get somewhere, you get back what you put into it and people may disagree but look at every great entrepreneur out there, they didn't work a day and live rich, they worked tirelessly for years (and still do) to achieve what they have done.

considering the last british revolution to succeed ended up with christmas getting banned, i think i'll pass on any more of them

I doubt he's talking about a real "viv la revolution", 18th century style revolution, more like a large change in government.

Yeah you have to hear what he said a little closer if you think that he wants a bloody revolution, what he wants is a political revolution that serves the needs of the people and the earth. Though he really does not have the capacity to do so he would like to be a catalyst of sorts so that people really believe that there are others that can make a difference and not just some other lying scumbag politician getting in. What I heard kinda resonates with me, maybe the founding fathers of the U.S. did not mean literally that the blood of tyrannical government to nourish the tree of the new government and the people, but rather that it was to be a figurative and at last resort literal.

[QUOTE=alexfrance;42636886]He says the end result which he wants but he offers no example or solution to get there. Unfortunately this is the way of the world, its impossible to make it fair for everybody, you don't have happiness if you never experience sadness. Life is unfair but if you work hard then you will get somewhere, you get back what you put into it and people may disagree but look at every great entrepreneur out there, they didn't work a day and live rich, they worked tirelessly for years (and still do) to achieve what they have done.[/QUOTE] Very young and nieve outlook, optimistic atleast. I applaud hope but not blind optimism. I know it's a bit much of me using a serialized story as an example of our western society/system but I think It helps me make my point about what's "fair". [I]BREAKING BAD[/I], do you think it's fair that a 50 year old High Chemistry Teacher, which should be regarded as a noble profession considering it is the education of our future generations, yet paid and treated in the same regard as janitorial work. Cannot afford health care and when life deals him an unfortunate set of circumstances such as cancer, a special needs child, an unplanned child on the way and no health care with little money to pay for his cancer treatment and he's expected to roll over and die leaving his family to fend for themselves with nothing. Desperate measures lead to him becoming a drug dealer, a drug dealer to a huge kingpin which inadvertently and advertently results in the deaths of many people. Imagine if we had a society that didn't have greedy fucks at the top hogging it all, that everyone was looked after, health care is a good start. In the story of Breaking Bad, I believe "the machine" western society/democracy is the real culprit and catalyst of what becomes of that Chemistry Teacher. If only there was health care... [B]If you spread fertliser (money) evenly, things grow. If you hoard it all, you get a stinky pile of shit.[/B] That is Western Society. If someone dare says, "go spend a day in an arab nation" fuck off. Things are not perfect but we can make them better, and this bullshit we call democracy is so far from perfect.

[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;42637412]Imagine if we had a society that didn't have greedy fucks at the top hogging it all, that everyone was looked after, health care is a good start. In the story of Breaking Bad, I believe "the machine" western society/democracy is the real culprit and catalyst of what becomes of that Chemistry Teacher. If only there was health care...[/QUOTE] And you assume that anyone who isn't a 'greedy fuck at the top' isn't greedy at all right? The majority of people who complain about distribution of wealth - if suddenly given abundant wealth, would instantly blow most of it on houses, cars, long holidays and all the superficial things they think will make their 'lives better' or make them and their friends 'happy' because that's what people do. That's the expectation that most people hold. Rich people aren't the only ones who are greedy, people in general are greedy. Adopt something different (like non-capitalism) and you'll find people eventually wanting more and more anyway, to make their 'lives better', because that's what people do - and eventually the good intentions that underlie causes get twisted out of shape when someone who's good at talking/persuading/fighting comes along. The expectation I speak of is the driving force of capitalism itself. The expectation that money (success) = happiness, and that money/success lets you buy all the things that 'make your life better' and 'make you happy'. Happiness, like success (the driving forces of bothering to do anything), can only exist when there is a contrast to draw to them. Thus, duality comes about. (With the system of currency, the success is required to get the reward [regulated] and that forms the drive to continue succeeding/working). This isn't even an issue of society, this is simply what people do. When you get what you want, it lasts about a week, and then you want something else. When you get everything you ever wanted all at once, it lasts a few weeks and then you start questioning the point of it all. [QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;42637412][B]If you spread fertliser (money) evenly, things grow. If you hoard it all, you get a stinky pile of shit.[/B] That is Western Society. [/QUOTE] All in all, it's really an issue of the human drive to amass 'things', and beyond that, at it's core, lies the issue of duality. Amassing things doesn't solve problems. In fact it could be argued that amassing things can only ever cause problems. Learn to live with nothing, then if you get something, don't become dependant on, nor attached to it, and you will not suffer losing it. That is traditional eastern philosophy.

I kind of agree with what he's saying, but good luck getting the british people to do anything, we're just going to be stuck in a two party system for the rest of eternity I think

It must be nice being a comedian. You can say whatever you want, but if you ever get called out you can just fall back on "i'm just doing it for a laugh"

A revolution of mind sheds no blood.

This is dumb. He said two things: "The environment is being destroyed" and "An underclass is being created." These are both policy problems. They have nothing to do with the political system (although I can't vouch as much for Britain as I don't know much about the government there, those problems don't have anything to do with a democratic system of government in general). A bunch of nonsense statements and repetition, with a healthy bit of populism mixed in to win the audience. Also he said "wake up."

[QUOTE=Explosions;42638080]This is dumb. He said two things: "The environment is being destroyed" and "An underclass is being created." These are both policy problems. They have nothing to do with the political system (although I can't vouch as much for Britain as I don't know much about the government there, those problems don't have anything to do with a democratic system of government in general). A bunch of nonsense statements and repetition, with a healthy bit of populism mixed in to win the audience. Also he said "wake up."[/QUOTE] ...but he's saying that these kinds of policy problems aren't being addressed because the people that are supported by the political system don't care. He's saying it's the result of a broken political system that privileges an elite class and leaves everyone else in the dust.

He's probably thinking of something along the lines of the Kitchenware Revolution.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42638080]This is dumb. He said two things: "The environment is being destroyed" and "An underclass is being created." These are both policy problems. They have nothing to do with the political system[/QUOTE] yeh policy that has existed unchanged for like 1000 years. that's an issue

If a revolution happens my plan is one of the following: 1: Flee the country 2: Kill myself This applies in pretty much any country. [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;42639384]yeh policy that has existed unchanged for like 1000 years. that's an issue[/QUOTE] What's remained unchanged for a thousand years? Honestly tell me, I can't think of anything minus geological things.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42639400]What's remained unchanged for a thousand years? Honestly tell me, I can't think of anything minus geological things.[/QUOTE] a system of wealth distribution but yes if we're being more specific you're right it has changed. it's gotten a lot worse

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;42639437]a system of wealth distribution but yes if we're being more specific you're right it has changed. it's gotten a lot worse[/QUOTE] So you're telling me that the rich own all of the land in the country, and that every week we have to spend 3 days working on the local lords land, and every once in a while we all have to be conscripted to fight a foreign army using weapons and armour we buy or make ourselves? Also we live in houses made from logs and straw, eat bread with grit in it, give a tenth of our earnings to the church, 12 year olds can marry, and we are ruled by Norwegians? [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] Like it or not, today we are richer and freer than Medieval peasants.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42639503]So you're telling me that the rich own all of the land in the country, and that every week we have to spend 3 days working on the local lords land, and every once in a while we all have to be conscripted to fight a foreign army using weapons and armour we buy or make ourselves? Also we live in houses made from logs and straw, eat bread with grit in it, give a tenth of our earnings to the church, 12 year olds can marry, and we are ruled by Norwegians? [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] Like it or not, today we are richer and freer than Medieval peasants.[/QUOTE] lol wow what a terrible reply. do you know what wealth distribution is? yes we are better off and freer than medieval peasants because industrialisation and communication technology forced those things - some freedom simply couldn't [I]not[/I] happen. we are freer and better off to the degree that is necessary for power to be maintained. that's pretty decent i guess but wealth distribution has gotten worse. the gap between the richest and the poorest is the worst in the history of the planet. 1000 years ago you may have had mass slave labour and a huge majority with nothing, but the rich were, relatively speaking, barely any better off. today you have people just as destitute as we were 1000 years ago, but on top of that you also have a handful of americans owning basically the entirety of the planet's wealth. that's not right

If its gonna be anything like Les Mis then I can't wait for the revolution. Nothing says change like bursting out into song half way through a battle.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;42639664]lol wow what a terrible reply. do you know what wealth distribution is? yes we are better off and freer than medieval peasants because industrialisation and communication technology forced those things - some freedom simply couldn't [I]not[/I] happen. we are freer and better off to the degree that is necessary for power to be maintained. that's pretty decent i guess but wealth distribution has gotten worse. the gap between the richest and the poorest is the worst in the history of the planet. 1000 years ago you may have had mass slave labour and a huge majority with nothing, but the rich were, relatively speaking, barely any better off. today you have people just as destitute as we were 1000 years ago, but on top of that you also have a handful of americans owning basically the entirety of the planet's wealth. that's not right[/QUOTE] In the Roman Empire, the Gini Coefficient was 75% of the maximum possible. As an example of wealthy individuals, the richest man in Rome, Crassus had 200 million sestertii. The average monthly wage was about 30 sestertii. The USA in 2000 had a Gini Coefficient of 41%, Sweden has a coefficient of 28%. This is still mostly irrelevant as there was not a great deal to 'have' back then compared to today. Money didn't really serve much purpose other than a base commodity to enable you to trade whatever you provided more easily, and then employ the services of others more easily. These days, it's not about that at all.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;42639664]lol wow what a terrible reply. do you know what wealth distribution is? yes we are better off and freer than medieval peasants because industrialisation and communication technology forced those things - some freedom simply couldn't [I]not[/I] happen. we are freer and better off to the degree that is necessary for power to be maintained. that's pretty decent i guess but wealth distribution has gotten worse. the gap between the richest and the poorest is the worst in the history of the planet. 1000 years ago you may have had mass slave labour and a huge majority with nothing, but the rich were, relatively speaking, barely any better off. today you have people just as destitute as we were 1000 years ago, but on top of that you also have a handful of americans owning basically the entirety of the planet's wealth. that's not right[/QUOTE] No this isn't true. Wealth distribution in the Middle Ages was worse than it is today. To give the most obvious example, about 80%-90% of the population owned no land, whilst the remaining number owned pretty much all of the land. Guess how social status, power, and wealth was distributed. To those that owned land. No sorry, Medieval peasants objectively had it worse in just about every way. Medieval peasants very often were in a state of feudal bondage as well, which is little better than slavery. [quote]he rich were, relatively speaking, barely any better off[/quote] This is literally wrong in every single way. [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SCopE5000;42639753]This is still mostly irrelevant as there was not a great deal to 'have' back then compared to today.[/QUOTE] There always is stuff to have wherever and whenever you are. In the case of the Romans, it's land. And lots of it. Plus big villas, triumphal arches, bathhouses, aqueducts, slaves, your own gladiator arenas, fancy dinner parties, government positions, chariots, etc.

The funny thing is, the people who want change want a difference from the norm that is enforced upon us, and supposedly they are under the burden of proof, and not those who have failed to provide. It's like pronouncing there is a god and expecting Atheists to prove there is no god, and until then it should be the "default position" of opinion. Not all of us can explain the change that is required because we are not educated in that way.

[QUOTE=whatthe;42639913]The funny thing is, the people who want change want a difference from the norm that is enforced upon us, and supposedly they are under the burden of proof, and not those who have failed to provide. It's like pronouncing there is a god and expecting Atheists to prove there is no god, and until then it should be the "default position" of opinion. Not all of us can explain the change that is required because we are not educated in that way.[/QUOTE] There's also the possibility we live within the least worst system.

[QUOTE=Hellduck;42636892]considering the last british revolution to succeed ended up with christmas getting banned, i think i'll pass on any more of them[/QUOTE] Actually, the last revolution in Britain was in 1688, where King James II was overthrown by William of Orange, backed by Parliament, and was basically the end of the absolute monarchy, and the rise of Parliament's power. Never seems to get taught much in schools though.

If a revolution happened here, I'd pick a side and fight. More than likely I would side with the emergency services and help with triage.

Another Reform Bill of 1832, keep them plebs from rioting, through them a bone. v:v:v

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42636819] AFAIK Revolution is a terrible idea.[B] No revolution in the history of mankind has ever gone down as un-bloodied as people are fantasizing this one would[/B] - with the breakdown of law & order/ society you'd see thousands of these very 'revolutionaries' raped and murdered in the ensuing power struggle, and with no police force to do anything about it, it'd just be complete and utter chaos.[/QUOTE] [B]You are plain and simply [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution"]wrong.[/URL][/B] Czechoslovakia got rid communist rule practically without any violence worth talking about. Complete change of the governing force, democratization. It was similar in many countries of the eastern block after fall of iron curtain. And I am pretty sure there was countless more, which went quite peacefully. Two years later, we had a completely planned and mutually coordinated separation of Czechoslovakia into two separate countries, again, absolutely without violence and bigger commotion, while being a quite massive change for both nations.

[QUOTE=alexfrance;42636886]He says the end result which he wants but he offers no example or solution to get there. Unfortunately this is the way of the world, its impossible to make it fair for everybody, you don't have happiness if you never experience sadness. Life is unfair but if you work hard then you will get somewhere, you get back what you put into it and people may disagree but look at every great entrepreneur out there, they didn't work a day and live rich, they worked tirelessly for years (and still do) to achieve what they have done.[/QUOTE] are you a speech writer for Cameron or something