Revolution
poptart
Veteran
I have just finished reading Revolution, Russell Brand's latest book. I never thought I'd buy a Russell Brand book but he's been talking a lot of sense lately about our unequal society and what we can do to fix it. He takes an anarchist standpoint, drawing on the ideas of Noam Chomsky and others, and proposes non-violent non-cooperation as a means of change. The book is worth a read, but here is an interview where he discusses his ideas.
As a Buddhist I have a lot of empathy with his opinion, not least because he emphasises the importance of spirituality in any system we live by. He does not propose any particular religion, and draws on teachings from many.
But I wonder whether non-violence is really possible? Can revolution be peaceful or is it bloody by its nature?
Comments
I've not read Brand's book, but if you look to the black civil rights movement in the 1960s, led by Martin Luther King; they brought about change using non-violent resistance (though much violence was vented upon the resistors (both black and white).
Good example, @Tosh. I could only think of Gandhi and Indian independence. Can't think of any non-violent movement that hasn't resulted in some violence along the way.
Gandhi was uniquely successful because the British Empire ended in a rather unique way. It was not overthrown; it became too embarassed to carry on with its colonies and was shamed into granting independence by public opinion. Gandhi would never have been successful had he been protesting the Soviet Union for instance.
To your larger point, and mind you I have not read Brand's book, what does he view as the biggest thing to have a revolution over? Anarchism is the evil twin of totalitarianism. Where anarchism rules the day in the world, there is banditry, endless tribal violence, and terminal devastation. See Somalia. This is after all why humanity began forming governments.
I think you're assessing that incorrectly. I think it was very much like what we see in chemistry. A bottle of phosphorus just sits there as a bottle of phosphorus. Add water and you have an explosion. You're leaving out some very not-so-peaceful major figures -- Malcolm X, H. Rapp Brown, Black Panthers (Huey Newton, Bobby Seale), and more.
In my personal view, it was the explosion of violence in the cities, the burning of Watts and parts of Washington, D.C. and other cities that got the attention, and the fear of White America, who then -- subconsciously looked for a moderate civil rights leader whom they could rally around. And that was (more than any other one man), Martin Luther King. But if the violence had never happened, neither would the broad strides that took place in a fairly short period of time.
That's just my take on it.
Russell Brand is a limelight, attention-seeking hypocrite, and I have no time for him.
And that's me being kind....
I quite agree. Very low class type.
'Class' isn't a word I'd associate with him, admittedly, but I take your point, as you take mine.
He's a boor and a bore.
@federica and @vinlyn
Perhaps it would be better to focus on the message rather than the messenger.
I don't know much about Somalia, but banditry, tribal violence and devastation isn't limited to anarchies.
That message is transmitted by so many respected voices, that I personally don't feel it is necessary for me to hear the message again by an un-respected voice. He's not exactly stating anything original (in fact, I wonder if his writings are really his). If he were saying something new, that might be different, but he's just putting a publicity spin on thoughts that have long been espoused by others. And, having watched a number of interviews of him on this topic, I don't even find him to be a particularly well-spoken advocate of the positions he takes.
The problem is, @poptart, when I have little or no time for the messenger, the sincerity and emphasis of the message is tarnished by the distasteful behaviour of the person delivering it.
The phrase "put your money where your mouth is" springs to mind.
Sorry, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but unfortunately (although I don't claim it to necessarily be the case here) when Russell Brand speaks, he doesn't always do so with authority, and his facts are not always as true as he seems to insist they are.
And @Frozen_Paratrooper, Pol Pot formed his own Government, I might add.
That was an example of extreme violence and terminal devastation, in the Killing Fields, wasn't it....?
@federica EH! You mean that business with Andrew Sachs?
Who do you have in mind, vinlyn? I know Brand draws on other respected voices, and he admits as much. I'd be interested to know who you are referring to.
>
To say that was a 'low point in his career', makes it sound as if the remainder is commendable, but alas, it was simply another example of what a nasty piece of work he is, and to what scurrilous and profane depths he will sink.
He takes an anarchist standpoint
It is interesting how totalitarianism and anarchy both have a way of leaving so many behind ... hungry, unprotected, uncared-for, torn-up ... while the grand philosophy and its philosophers march forward.
Nobody in particular. In fact, that's my point. I've watched several of Brands interviews regarding his book. I saw nothing new. Nothing that hasn't been discussed in countless interviews by MANY aide workers, government leaders, UN spokespeople, etc.
Somalia, banditry, tribal violence, and other such topics weren't discovered by Brand. He's latched onto such topics as a means -- IMHO -- of rebranding himself (no pun intended).
Why do I have to list people whose articles I've read or interviews I've watched over the past 20-some years (using the date of the civil war in Somalia as a point in time). None of the things Brand talks about are secrets. And, as one source pointed out, he expresses himself in a sort of "pre-pubescent" level of knowledge. His ideas about redistributing wealth are nothing new at all, and rather juvenile; he can redistribute his wealth anytime he wants; I don't see him doing it to any significant extent.
He has a right to speak his mind. So does Harry a block up from me. I see no real expertise that should garner some particular attention for either...other than that he can sell books to Brand fans.
@genkaku It's up to the members not the brand. (ducks)
How is that different from the current system?
Quite. This thread isn't about Brand, it's about revolution.
What if the general population doesn't want a revolution? Tough shit?
Jihad, the war on evil, is an interior battle, non violent, bloodless and indeed peaceful in form, nature and goal.
In the Buddhist battle with Ms Cushion nothing much happens, people sit around and their world view radically changes in time for the revolution to come around . . .
and here is the spicey fantasy musical chair . . .
The 1988-1991 Baltic (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) revolutions were non-violent and successful and placed the final nail in the coffin of the USSR. And don't forget the rest of the former East Bloc revolutions....
Brand talks a lot of theory, but not of practical application. Revolution is action, not talk. What action has Brand taken to initiate a revolution?
Kaching.
Well, he wrote a book about it. Have you read it?
Actions speak louder than words.
One hug speaks more volumes than a 2-hour eulogy.
No, and I don't intend to participate in further enriching a man worth $15 million who doesn't believe in capitalism and supposedly believes in the redistribution of wealth, but doesn't practice it.
I'm also not going to read his other very deep books:
"The Pied Piper of Hamelin: Russell Brand's Trickster Tales"
"My Booky Wook: A Memoir of Sex, Drugs, and Stand-Up"
"Booky Wook 2: This Time It's Personal"
I saw several of his interviews promoting the current book and I was not impressed in the least. Why would I then shell out $15 or more to buy a book about the world condition from someone whose personal memoir is about sex and drugs. Furthermore, I don't buy into the concept of "revolution", nor do the majority of Westerners.
If you wanna buy it, do so.
@vinlyn
My reply was addressed to Daiva. You have already made your opinion clear, and frankly you are not contributing anything by derailing the discussion of non-violent revolution to rationalise your hatred of a man you have never even met. Neither do you speak for anyone other than yourself, and certainly not "the majority of Westerners". Such silly claims make you look far more juvenile than the man you are attacking.
The fact that Brand is being so vilified for writing this book, both here and elsewhere, suggests it has far more importance than his critics want to believe. There are clear signs, such as the Occupy movement, that we are living in "interesting times". I had hoped for a considered response to this issue on a Buddhist forum. Oh well.
If he didn't go against capitalism and socialism and instead was seeking a middle way then his selling a book on change would be great in my opinion. Anarchy is just saying to heck with it, let's just disregard the fact that we are all in this thing together.
Maybe I will do a bit more research and see if he's doing any actual good with his money. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.
I won't buy his book though. I will not support the idea because anarchy isn't the answer in my opinion. For anarchy to rule the day the only justice is vigilante justice. That may be fine for those that can protect themselves but not for the meek and disabled. Speaking of the disabled, how would the medical system work?
And non-violent anarchy may be a hopeful ideal for an enlightened society but we simply are not there yet. It would be great if we all followed one version of the Golden Rule or another and had no need for established guidelines of behavior but sadly that just isn't the case right now.
It's almost a logical problem as well... How would anarchy come to order when it's nature is disorderly?
An established system of anarchy is an oxymoron.
Would it be against the law for small groups to come together and establish ethical guidelines by which to co-exist?
And who would decide?
"The meeting of anarchy will now come to disorder"
@poptart If writing a book was the qualification for engaging in a revolution, then there should be quite a few revolutions occurring as many have written similar sentiments as Brand.
The only non-violent revolutionary leader I am aware of who wrote a book to "educate people and inspire" a revolution (meaning before the actual revolution began) was Gandhi, when in 1909 he published Hind Swaraj. He lays out how, essentially, Indians need to reject Western Civilization, and re establish self-rule through passive resistance. However, this was not the beginning of the revolution, as he was already involved with protests against UK rule since 1906, but in South Africa where he worked as a lawyer and Indians were discriminated against. It was in 1906 he developed his ideas of Satyagraha and non-violent protest. The actual beginning (in the form of real action:protests) of the movement in India began in 1914.
The only protest I have heard of Brand attending was the recent Anonymous million man march. Brand was boo'd by attendees because he did not wear a mask - as the principle behind Anonymous is that the movement has no leaders, no public face. Anonymous is a legion not led or represented by a single person.
I think I am qualified to provide my opinion on what defines a "revolutionary" as I worked on the front lines of the Lithuanian revolution. I have been awarded a medal by the Lithuanian president for my efforts during that time.
So when I consider people like Brand who want to "start a revolution," I don't take them so seriously - especially when their agenda is to promote themselves and not take serious action.
Yes, the world needs change and we do need people to lead that change.
I personally have much more respect for people like George Clooney who use their celebrity status to bring the world's attention to the Darfur crisis. He has been arrested during civil-disobedience protests against the Sedanse. He has initiated foundations to monitor the crisis and help the victims of atrocities - which he donates generously to. He has helped initiate US and UN legislation to address the crisis.
There are many others like Clooney, celebrity and regular people who take real action.
What exactly has Brand done?
Apart from celebrity anarchy and other fantasy efforts, anarchy means without rule, not disorder and chaos, which is often the result of non revolution.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
I would suggest that the enlightened operate on a non hierarchical impetus. Their efforts are always evolutionary rather than frightening the horses . . .
Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!
Mrs Patrick Campbell
Shall we just hope for their enlightenment or protect the least of us?
Not so. Funnily enough, I was reading Noam Chomsky on this very subject recently. Anarchy is popularly used as a term for chaos, but its root meaning is "no ruling class". In this sense it is closer to real democracy because people are involved in all decision making at a local level. The problem with any ruling class is they eventually become corrupted by power.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Had the likes of Voltaire and Thomas Paine not voiced dissent the French and American revolutions may never have happened.
@poptart Prior to writing Common Sense, Paine was an activist and involved with the French Revolution and had been arrested. He was an active participant in the cause of democracy before the American Revolution began. Once again, I ask, what has exactly has Brand done?
Seems to me that Buddha started a revolution without writing a single book.
@poptart, are you really likening Brand to Noam Chomsky, Thomas Paine, and Voltaire?
That's like likening a painting-by-numbers set to the Sistine Chapel....
You do make me laugh out loud!
Oh God do I despise this man. Seems like a swine to me. What a loony lefty Bolshevist? It it is kind of embarrassing because I don't want people to think that this is what British people are like.
Yes, Pol Pot did. Not every government established leads to mayhem, but when anarchy is established, or more accurately, when all forms of civic structure are disbanded, then it leads to guaranteed mayhem.
It's why I can take utopian anarchists no more seriously than utopian communists or fascists who think that all will be glorious if all decisions are made for you.
It seems to me that real revolution (Revolt!) is always violent. Upsetting the applecart doth do violence to the apples, the cart, and its owner —all three.
But putting your faith in a single revolutionary principle may be a very big mistake if you're too rigid. Because eventually, the antithesis after have become the Thesis will have to be met with another Antithesis (Revolution) sometime down the line. You cannot be totally Right[eous] in politics, since somebody is always hurt, even if just a little. The sad thing is, is that the wealthy and more privileged are just unwilling to share. I'm not sure we can count Russell Brand among this flock, though.
Sometimes even the less bloodthirsty "revolutions" come with tremendous conflict. It breaks my heart how much ugliness is proliferated on the mass media ever day against the Affordable Care Act, which was a compromise in the first place. But I know so many relatively well-off people who begrudge the couple hundred dollars loss they have incurred and don't seem even to be cognizant of the fact that millions would have to spend half their incomes to buy health insurance without Obamacare.
Very well written, Nirvana.
The hype against Obamacare is so full of falsehoods (as well as some correct points). My health insurance is through my former employer. Last year -- the first year of Obamacase -- my part of the premium went up the last it has ever gone up. And this year it went up ZERO, but added benefits. Funny how those situations never get mentioned by the nay-sayers. No balance.
The trouble with "revolutions" is that they're not very democratic. People leading revolutions are leading for what they want...not for what the masses want. There have probably been exceptions, but not many.
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves."
-- Lao Tzu
I'm very interested in non-violent philosophies and tactics and have been writing up a manual of sorts in recent months exploring what is required to be successful. Once i've got it drafted I might share it in here, or make it available in PDF form for people to access. I think there are certain dharma practices that will be very helpful in successful non-violent resistance, like 'giving the victory', recognising suffering, and anything else that creates a starker contrast between you and your 'opponent'. Which, I feel, is the key strategy. Violence muddies the water, it becomes difficult for the wider public to distinguish who are the good guys, but the deeper our peace and compassion towards our 'opponent' then the more exposed and defined their less savoury actions seem, not just to the public, but to themselves too, which is the ultimate aim... total victory, all converted to goodness.
I see, @mindatrisk, that you omit any mention of self-centeredness in your words above, although you have posted a thread on a Self-Less Economy above.
As I see it, you seem to be writing from the realm of Spirit —which is fine as far as that goes. But, unfortunately, dreams are not the stuff of which reality is made. In this world, Might Makes Right. Taking an analogy from the physical world, allow me the liberty to truncate the powers that be into three: Earth, Air, Water. (Spirit is in the Air-realm.)
Earth is Iron and Will and steadfast, reliable Power. Those who would wield it, wield it for selfish reasons and are not liable to give it up until they either choose to, are forced to, or are killed. This is the realm of Stricture and Darkness.
Water is also Power; The great universal solvent, extraordinarily bipolar, it not only gives life and conveys nourishment as does the Air, but being Dionysian it can destroy reason in the drinking of too much of its wine and its Tidal Waves and Floods. This realm, also, is not that of the Spirit. But the Spirit is often Tested and Proved through it.
Air, like Water, carries with it Potential either for Nourishment or Destruction. Its ethereal element nourishes every single cell with the saving Breath of Life, but its breath can also be that of Fire. Unfortunately, religions can use Air either for Inspiring their Inner Beings or for burning those whom they'd call Heretics in Fire. Again I say Unfortunately, because (I now Conclude:) the Selves (or souls) of people get so caught up in the Belief that they are Right, that they bring themselves to no little violence to uphold and publish their Right(s). In other words, in this political world it is true that "Might makes Right;" but in the mind of the inhabitants of the "Earth-realm," it is truer that "Perceived Right(s) condone acts of Might."
@mindatrisk You might be interested in the works of Gene Sharp who has been researching and writing about non-violent truffles for decades. His works have been manuals for non-violent movements - including the successful Baltic revolution. http://genesharpinstitution.com/books/waging_nonviolent_struggle/
Very interesting about the elements, @Nirvana.
Non-violent revolution was effective then, but a failure in the 50s. More recently, Egypt's military with the support of vast swathes of Egyptians overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood in a much more peaceful way than the carnage that has gripped Syria. Some leaders have much less tolerance for revolt than others.
I wonder if the syndicate was in control of Russia at that point and wanted a democracy to make more money?