Finally, an interviewer shows what an incredibly naive, vainglorious, empty headed moron Brand is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. His social commentary works much better than his comedy schtick and this interviewer is a scripted, sell-out cunt. Listen to the fucking words being said, A-ten anis and the opinion not unlike the asshole common to all is but another rusty pore at the end of a shit-snake.

Finally, another interviewer who has attended the Piers Morgan institute of wanking cunts. He's a fucking tool with an agenda designed to keep slave-robots in their stupor. Period.

The interviewer is a "sell-out?" Wrong, he was simply asking what Bland envisaged as an alternative to the present system. Of course he had no alternative except; "revolution man." Jeez, he belongs with the 60's revolutionaries who are now all, thankfully, grown up. I just love it when people like Noam Chomsky and this fool decry and denigrate the system without any coherent solutions to the problems they see. Fine, let's have change, but until you know what that change should be, and are able to offer solutions rather than childish (as you so eloquently put it) Blah, Blah, Blah, be quiet.

Revolusion in of itself, can be a complete answer.
With the theory that every system will eventually turn in on itself, there comes a time when a re-boot of the system and starting over is the only real answer. The new system is irrelevant. But breaking it all down, and restarting with a revised set of rules, although chaotic from the on-start, thereby becomes a new playing field. It's a way to grasp at a new redistribution of power.
No one says a new solution would be a perfect solution forever. But it would be a step back in the right direction for the next one to two hundred years until the greedy and corrupt got their hands back into the pot and screwed things up again.

This comment stream shows that the interviewer succeeded in what he apparently set out to do -- derail the conversation into something other than what Russell Brand came to talk about.

Changing society's approach to drug laws and drug treatment.

It is a complete canard to say that Brand can't talk about using the existing system to change the drug situation because Brand doesn't like the current system. So what if he doesn't like it? He is going to stop trying to fix things?

So far, all the comments aren't about Brand's perspective on drug laws. They are off and running on a side issue.

And that is how the system doesn't change. False equivalencies, derailment from the topic, and nobody even notices.

Fuck.

I don't geddit. Labour voters can't petition Conservatives because they didn't vote for them?

So yah. Initially he's accused of political apathy masquerading as revolutionary, then when he gets stuck in suddenly he's a hypocrite because he's not the apathetic they painted him as.

It's amazing how they had an interview, but nothing was really said. I put a lot of that on Jon Snow, he was all over the map.

Also, he knows nothing. =)

Well, I'm back to saying fuck Snow after looking at his lineage and extant career-If you'd like to peruse my past comments concerning Brand's comedy you'd find me on the first train out and away from that station-I dig his new-and-improved, toned-down 'fuck the system' stance, and Snow??.....

BBC 4, privileged and connected, dad was 'the' headmaster of his school...and if ya wanna read the wiki page, he fawned and fopped his way to where he is today, working for the piss-poor excuse for the queens-approved news-they keep him around as fucking pet, fuck his leading, dismissive remarks, his fucking outlandish set and psychedelic ties, and the stick up his ass full of Pâté and scotch you nor I could ever afford to drink daily...

He's a cunt.

Oh and read your comment, wasn't my intention to derail the thread if anyone could ever blame me for doing so, couldn't agree with you more, Brand was spot-enough on here for the sheit-fest he got a check for in making his daily rounds, and Jon Snows' drinking all the good scotch and eating force-meat liver whilst ordering-out for whatever twisted form of pleasure he demands

I think Brand is in general, a reasonably funny guy who doesn't have a clue about politics, and should shut the fuck up about hand-wavy, airy-fairy notions of revolution without anything solid to back them up. I disagree with @Sagemind. Revolution is meaningless without a goal. That's why occupy failed (and if you think it didn't fail, please enlighten me as to what they actually achieved).

Destruction can be a wonderful catalyst for change. You can't make an omelette, etc. But if you don't actually make an omelette, all you're left with it is raw eggs and shell.

Now, all that said, Brand is completely in the right here. He actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to drugs and in particular rehabilitation from them. Current drug policy is an abject failure by every metric imaginable.

And Snow should know better. As hard as it is for those of you accustomed to the likes of Fox and MSNBC, he's actually a respected journalist.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

"You know nothing, Jon Snow. "

This guy looks eerily like Papa Bear O'Riley.

Complete bastard with a life-time achievement reflective studio set to accompany his poncy, walk-in tie-closet.

Everyone here saying "you can't call for revolution without the answer already in hand" is missing the point. If you come to people with an answer in hand, most of the time they will use their current political BELIEFS to decry your plan as impossible and shut down from the conversation all the same.

This whole "it's not broken, so don't fix it" nonsense doesn't work when it comes to our societal structures. We have poverty in all the modernized, rich nations still. How the fuck is that a thing? It needs to change, we need to change that. Recognizing that need for change comes first. After we've come together and said "hell yeah, we need to make this a real priority!," THEN we can start discussing potential answers.

When you still have a huge portion of society either drowned in garbage rhetoric they've been force-fed since youth ("America is the best! Drugs are evil!") or blindly ignorant of the problems because they've grown up fortunate enough to live away from poverty and violence, you have to bring attention to the fact that what we're doing isn't working first before you can agree that you need a revolution, before you can decide what that revolution would entail.

It sounds like what you're saying is "yes, we need to fix this shit," so instead of complaining about calling for revolution, how about you start figuring out how to impact attitudes and opinions of people around you about things that need to be fixed/change? This is the long and difficult part of the process, but it has to happen before anybody can really expect political action to occur, especially with how our societies roll these days.

I enjoy listening to Russel Brand as a comedian very much but people should not die for ideology or religion.

People die and useful stuff gets destroyed in revolutions. Also which revolution has ever actually brought about the implementation of what was promised to start it, in a good way? I mean besides the industrial revolution, obviously :-) And independence wars dont count as revolutions.

Why shouldn't people die for their beliefs? What gives you the right to decide what every human being on the planet should or shouldn't do? Everyone has their limits, just because you don't understand another person's actions when they are pushed past their limits doesn't necessarily mean their actions are wrong - it simply means you don't understand them.

Also, name one revolution where something was 'promised' (in your words) to every single individual who took part in the revolution. People take part in revolutions for their own personal reasons, the fact everyone has to be promised something to take part is fairly implausible.

Also, assuming you had asked a valid question like, "which revolutions had positive outcomes"... try reading up on some of them? I think you'll find that many of them have had positive outcomes. Sure, none of them have resulted in utopia, and that's because that will never exist.

The thing is, Brand does have notions of what the post revolution system would resemble but he does so by reference to people he considers better informed than himself.

i.e. he is reluctant to give people some half baked concoction of his own as it's not the area he is most qualified to speak about. Instead he points us at philosophers and activists who have a lifetimes study and insight on such matters.

I think this is a far more laudable position than either A. defining a post revolutionary world arbitrarily or B. taking no position at all.

It's far more dangerous for a Revolution to have a half baked goal than none at all, hence he keeps his mouth shut about specifics he's not qualified to comment on as any wise person should.

The worst possible position to me is to accept the status quo regardless of what better solutions one may or may not have. There is clearly a massive problem and moreover one which causes untold suffering on a global scale. It's essential to recognise that before anything productive is going to happen.

Brands only goal is to help make recognition of this simple fact more prevalent. From there people far better qualified step in to work on the details. Such people are very much already around and have done a great deal of work to further this goal but they don't have media platforms like Brand.

All he and other such media personalities have to do is switch people on to the idea, leaving other things to the better qualified. Good revolutions are co-operative efforts rather than personality cults. (I'd even go so far as to say they go bad precisely because figureheads fail to recognise their limits)

That wasn't Jon Snow. It wasn't even Theon Greyjoy.

Fair enough..., I've never been through a revolution...
I just know that when the system has passed the point where there is nothing anyone can do to steer it back, then the system needs to be kicked, because those corporations in power aren't giving it up willingly.

Yes, Occupy absolutely failed. I had no illusions it would ever bring about change in any form...) And it always will as long as the guys in power have control of the government, while hiding behind their untouchable walls.

Oh its perfectly OK to die for your personal beliefs, just not ideology or religion.

A revolution by definition leads to a change of government, just not by vote, so the guys who want to be the new government should be expected to promise you something if you help them. Do they ever deliver?

If you take part in a revolution for your own personal reasons, no ideology involved at all (like Russell :-) and no trust in any promises promised, than that is OK too. Im pretty sure fighting for freedom is OK, so if a side-effect of a revolution is more freedom for individuals, fine.

Which revolutions have had positive outcomes? Which new government installed by a revolution has had a better long termish (more than just opening the safe and handing out the money) track record than the one overthrown?

Actually I can easily think of some revolutions that have had positive outcomes overall, but they were really counter-revolutions, reinstating some form of democracy where a revolution or coup had previously "succeeded".

Dont worry, hardly anyone cares what I think :-)

Dieing for religion is dieing for someone else's beliefs.

It's a Game of Thrones reference. http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Jon_Snow