I just finished his new book, Revolution. The
Trews is good too, have you seen that yet?
If you've missed either of those, it's still highly likely that you've seen Russell Brand's public activism, as his speeches and appearances seem to be ubiquitous in the media right now. I've seen him on MSNBC, Russia Today, Fox (as an object of scorn), and of course the BBC. He shows up at Occupy Wall Street protests, gets interviewed by prominent British journalists like Jeremy Paxman and Mehdi Hassan, and is a frequent panelist for broadcast discussions of drug policy. Oh yeah: he does movies and standup too.
Why does he have such a broad audience? Quite simply, it's for stating the obvious; he articulately, passionately, accessibly, and entertainingly makes a compelling case for people everywhere to reject the pseudo-democratic oligarchy that's rapidly trashing our planet, hoarding our resources, and saddling us with massive debt.
I don't have to explain that "pseudo-democratic oligarchy" statement to you, do I? That's because the evidence is overwhelming - and not just to people who are paying attention. Your agreement with that statement is even something you have in common with the Fox News crowd - the difference is that they think it's the Democrats that are selling us out, not the Republicans. The truth is: we're both right. Sure, the Democrats want to address global warming and pass a Constitutional amendment to end Citizens United, but Bill Clinton ended Glass-Steagall (causing the financial crisis of 2007) and Barack Obama gave away billions of dollars worth of radio spectrum and decided Wall Street is too big to fail. The parties have also both conspired to build a political system that excludes 3rd parties and preserves their own power. Russell delivers this message with precision in every appearance.
Jon Stewart may deliver political news with the appropriate expression of incredulousness, Stephen Colbert may have given the Republicans the raucous mocking they deserve, and Bill Maher may elevate the discourse and provide an ounce of accountability to corrupt politicians (and they all make it tolerable to follow politics), but Russell does something different: he moves the burden of proof. The onus is not on the victims to justify change; it's on the oppressors to justify their privilege and its consequences. That's the core of Russell's message, and he's right.
"We're past the point of playing nice. If someone offered you a society where 85 people got to hoard half the planet's wealth, you'd say no. Then if they said it would saddle you with massive debt you'd say fuck no. Now that this system is simultaneously destroying the planet, it's time to get out the pitchforks and riot."
*Note: I totally paraphrased that, after scouring the book for an hour.
He's right about most things too (rein in the power of big business, re-localize food and farming, and prioritize life over profit), and while I could line up with the critics to take shots at peripheral features of his arguments - like his affinity for anarchist collectivism built around spiritual principles, or his abstinence from voting - the core of his thesis is too valuable: the prevailing political-economic system will not allow reform that effectively addresses climate change or ends the continuing consolidation of wealth while driving governments and citizens into debt. Considering that those are the most pressing issues of our time, serving as primary drivers for all global conflict (and potentially suicidal destruction), then the most proactive way I can participate in genuine problem solving is to work to dismantle that system.
This leaves me in a quandary, however, because I'm an anonymous citizen with a career and a family. Even if I could take us off the grid entirely, I'd be forsaking a world I enjoy and disempowering myself and my family from participating in meaningful change (upon which my progeny depend). As I consider these circumstances and the political reality that my priorities (which are widely popular) are effectively opposed by a minority of oligarchs and religious fundamentalists who persistently vilify and undermine the legitimacy of our common unity and government, I land at the conclusion that the most proactive solutions I can serve are 1) movements to rewrite the Constitution, as called for in our existing Constitution, or 2) movements for states to secede from the United States (and the Union's eventual dissolution, which can absolve us from the burden of debt that's been accumulated to enrich the oligarchs).
Certainly, I can focus my private consumer habits to withdraw my support for the fossil fuel and military industries. I can also support political candidates and public figures who advocate positively. But what about my own activism, in writing and conversation? With a morass of important issues at hand, how do I visualize positive change in a meaningful way?
If the political will of American majorities were reflected in government policy, then I'd have good reason to support it - even if my own priorities were thwarted. If the choices made by our leadership were effectively addressing problems of serious concern, then I'd have good reason to support them too. To the contrary, though, our leadership represents minority extremists and our system enables this. The right wing of the American electorate has withdrawn its "consent of the governed" for 20 years - and effectively handicapped the federal government in the process. Perhaps it's time for the American left to withdraw our "consent of the governed," because the only options that remain tenable are: 1) religious oligarchy if we appease the right; or 2) dysfunctional oligarchy by remaining in the existing system with asymmetrical consent - and both options still trash the planet, bury us in debt, and transfer wealth to a sliver of the population. The structure does not allow reclamation of political power and wealth from the oligarchy. I reject both of those options.
Secession movements are typically supported by conservatives and opposed by liberals, but I think it's time for liberals to consider re-directing our consent as a viable, proactive step in rejecting the prevailing system. A post-united America doesn't have to be an anarchist collective like Russell Brand is proposing; regional governments could persist or reform as constitutional democracies that have Rights based on modern ethics - including modern technology that empowers more direct participation by voters. We could build steady state economies with a distinction between free speech for citizens and commercial speech for corporations.
I'm visualizing an open-source Post-America Project; a societal survivalist or war game exercise where we visualize reformation of the United States to formally utilize the consent of its citizens. The project could serve current reform at the same time as it prepares us for a safer transition once this generation of unsustainable governing bodies fails. By visualizing a sensible, responsible, creative, fair, healthy society - and preparing to facilitate it's possibility - we'd also be providing a clear alternative to the inefficient, corrupt, and exploitative society we're supporting right now.
So what do I do about Russell? I think I follow his lead.