Russell Brand's Take On Voting Etc.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I can't imagine something like this being broadcast on American television.

3YR4CseY9pk

[RebelDog]

It takes a high quality education like that of Paxman's to be able to ask such stupid questions.

[Queen Mab]

I saw it last night and agreed with so much of what he said. Great to hear voices like this on state media.

Admire his naive optimism on the possibility of revolution, but there isn't one coming sadly. :(

[The Feral Underclass]

The prescriptions he makes are silly, but the general attitude is awesome. I'm impressed that he said what he did and Paxman was completely out of his depth.

[Futility Personified]

I was wondering when this was going to come up on here. He's got an article in the New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution, i'm currently reading through that. Much of what he says is true, with his perspective on voting I 100% agreed. He didn't really outline too much, but he admits his own lack of knowledge, which is good. Put Paxman right in his place, that soggy old bastard always tries to put down non-parliamentarian ideas when he can. He's no messiah, but at least he is a very naughty boy, who hopefully can put our ideas (or at least some of them) out there more efficiently. The cynic in me says this is going to end up some green party esque adventure labelled socialism, but at the moment good press is going to the right ideas so may as well enjoy it while it lasts.

[WorkingClassZero]

He's brilliant.

[Crabbensmasher]

I liked when he said something like "I'm in a bloody hotel room, I'm not going to outline an entire utopian vision of the future". For once he's saying 'I don't have the answer, and that's fine'. Nobody ever says that. They'll moan and complain, and when somebody asks them for answers, they stop dead in their tracks, turn pale and try to backtrack.

This guy is actually ADMITTING he doesn't have the answer. As weird as it sounds, it's original.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

"You don't believe in democracy, you want revolution don't you?"

Probably one of the most idiotic questions I have heard in a while.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I can't imagine something like this being broadcast on American television.


To be fair, even if once in a while the media gives someone with revolutionary ideas a spot, they will never give us a fair crack of the whip.
That's why a workers' movement should build its own media outlet (and I'm not talking another trot-paper) to broadcast such ideas.

[Creative Destruction]

Jeremy Paxman is such an insufferable piece of shit.

[Leftsolidarity]

I just found this elsewhere on the web and I loved it. Yeah, he doesn't say communism or whatnot but he's spot on in describing the ills of poor and working people and describing how the system doesn't work for them. He does say he wants a "socialistic" society which is cool I suppose.

[Comrade Jacob]

It's good to see.

[synthesis]

I found it exciting not necessarily because of Brand himself or anything he says in particular, but because 1. it shows that another "prominent person" (celebrity) has become radicalized and more importantly 2. because the video has caught on outside the usual crowd, which I'm hoping is reflective of a broader current emerging.

[Zealot]

I didn't know Russell Brand was so awesome. Good to see he hasn't forgotten his class roots.

[brigadista]

russell knows who's shoulders he stands on

[Nakidana]

Paxman seemed to have a really hard time comprehending the fact that Russel doesn't vote, he asked like three times. It's like a personal affront to him.

[Futility Personified]

This will sound extremely petty, because it is! But...

Dear jesus (or anyone who's listening) is it frustrating when people you've debated with, who are your friends, but have many times patronisingly told you that "capitalism is good" or "things really aren't as bad as you make them out to be" or any number of vague platitudes supporting capitalism, parliament (one even going so far as telling me she'd support the tories!) suddenly are beholden to what you've been telling them for so bloody long, because Russell Brand says it! I don't retract my previous statement but I feel like a need a good strong drink now.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Both the video and the article are brilliant. Brand has an awesome way with words and his willingness to admit he doesn't have the answers is supremely refreshing.

I'm going to share both, because as many people as possible need to see and read them.

[DasFapital]

I was never that big of a fan of Russell brand but if he can get more people interested in revolution and socialism the more power to him.

[Sasha]

good take by someone on libcom: http://libcom.org/blog/russel-brand-revolution-pragmatism-24102013

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't enjoy his comedy and as other's have said nothing he says is new to our moonbat ears but it's refreshing to hear someone in the cultural mainstream admit that they don't think voting means shit.

[Bardo]

I didn't know Russell Brand was so awesome. Good to see he hasn't forgotten his class roots.

This.

I was really irritated by the whole "Russell Brand" character for the longest time. I never found him particularly funny, I never found his commentary on his American tv show particularly insightful.

But this came out of left field, wasn't expecting it at all. When speaking candidly as himself rather than as a media persona, I can really identify with what he's saying. Several times during the interview I found myself saying "fucking right!".

It's good to see.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But what's his party's attitude on the USSR and collectivisation? That's what we really need to know in order to decide whether we like him or not.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also the comments on that libcom article are hilariously inept.

Some person basically saying we shouldn't support Brand because he doesn't use phrases like 'abolition of the state or capital'. Most people don't use such phrases outside of the confines of the left and 'left' academia, and what if he did say it? Nobody would fucking understand.

It's a great interview, precisely because Brand isn't eulogising, precisely because he doesn't prescribe exact answers and precisely because he isn't attempting to lead, or imprint himself upon the working class. It's great that he can just come at these issues from the POV of common sense that working people like me can get behind, we can sit there and, instead of listening to boring, programmatic disagreements, actually sit there and think, "yeah, this guy has the right idea".

Personally, i'd take somebody expressing vaguely the right idea with such sincerity and passion and individuality any day over some boring, bourgeois academic political fuck masquerading as some born-again Lenin preaching a 98-point blueprint for revolution to a room full of 12 sad sacks and a dog longing for Stalin to come back and re-institute the fucking gulag.

[A.J.]

http://greykodiak.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/brand_stalin.jpg

[A.J.]

Suffice to say, I quite like Russell Brand:)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I was impressed with how he disarmed Paxman. When he asked Paxman 'aren't you sick you having the same people day in day out spouting the same bullshit' (or along those lines) it almost looked like Paxman wanted to say 'yes'. I don't particularly like Brand but if this interview and his article in the Statesman gives the idea of discussing revolution more of an image than 'bunch of nerdy old people meeting in a pub' then I think that's a positive thing.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I found that the whole thing refreshing. He does remind me (as I am sure he does others) of almost every debate I had between the ages of 15 and 23. At times he seemed to lose focus, and at times he was marred by his verbosity. Brand did also (although perhaps inadvertently) fail to answer a few questions, but this may be to his credit; it is nice to see an openly passionate response rather than something prepared.

Paxman did what Paxman does. If he went easier on Brand then credibility would be lost, and the glitch in the matrix may be catastrophic.

[Q]

It takes a high quality education like that of Paxman's to be able to ask such stupid questions.
Actually, his hammering on voting is pretty smart. When Russel was furiously fulminating against voting he would only have to ask "well, you want to levy taxes, you want a government, you want a utopia.... who is going to elect these people?".

Ding ding ding! Now the interviewer has all the strings in hand to put Russel of as yet another left loony.

What should have been explained is how elections are anti-democratic (Russel only got there halfway really by hammering home the point how we live in an oligarchy) and globally explain what a real democracy would look like. Now that would be a big ideological blow. But Russel didn't do that and fact of the matter is that only a very few on the revolutionary left would even think of making that point. This is because democracy is largely misunderstood by the far left itself and so we see only halfway solutions, palliatives at best.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I don't enjoy his comedy and as other's have said nothing he says is new to our moonbat ears but it's refreshing to hear someone in the cultural mainstream admit that they don't think voting means shit. Well, that's the problem with intellectualism, where more is said than ought to be. What ought to be said of a general situation can be said generally.
I mean shit man who can say they got into radical politics cuz of endnotes or aufheben, or even those big verso celebrities like Badiou or Eagleton? Dunno why every public figure speaking on "left-wing" shit has to be original about it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I actually don't really have a huge problem with Paxman's questions (though his tone was kind of dickish at times). He is merely reflecting the assumptions of most people who probably view the BBC regularly. Most people aren't sold on the idea of revolutions, because they hold the kinds of assumptions that Paxman does about the efficacy of voting. Russell Brand was being given the opportunity to critique these concerns through those questions. Had Paxman just asked abstract questions about why equality is good or something like that, there would have been no opportunity to allay those concerns.

It's a journalists job to ask the questions that an audience might be asking, and he asked the questions that I think the average left-liberal labor/lib dem voter who watches the BBC might have wanted to ask themselves.

There was also a huge question left unanswered by the interview - what would a revolution *look* like? Even those of us committed to revolution don't really know (every revolution after all is shaped by its time, and is unique), although we have some ideas. Explaining that would, I think, have shown how a revolution might be more democratic than the modern parliamentary model, which was really the underlying question I think of the interview - "why, if we have parliamentary democracy now, should we not participate and vote if democracy is something we want?"

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I like that the interviewer kept pushing Brand because we wouldn't have those awesome responses. But I like how he at least twice pointed out and got the point across that 1)we need to have a plan for climate change.
2) Economic disparity exists that needs to addressed.
3)People have basic needs that need to be taken care of
And he points out that these are things which are going to be addressed with a revolutionary movement against the capitalist system. He says it more as an aside, muttered lowly almost under his breath when it should have been said louder, that we need a egalitarian socialistic system.

[brigadista]

russel brand focus - due to absence of anything else which would not get airtime anyway

[Os Cangaceiros]

The point that came across early on in the interview, from the interviewer, was essentially, "how can you be opposed to and criticize a system if you don't actively participate in that system?"

[human strike]

Erm, why is everyone suffering from short-term memory loss? This a millionaire misogynist who slut-shamed a woman to taunt and bully her 78 year-old grandfather in front of an audience of millions. Who gives a shit if he was vague or incoherent or refreshing or rousing? Why are we listening to a single word this man has to say? He is a horrible sexist piece of shit. And whilst I'm on a rant, don't buy his spurious, "I'm from such a deprived working class background," act - he had a much better start in life than most working class kids, I assure you. And even if he hadn't, fuck him. I think it is only a mark of just how imbedded and invested the left is in this kind of spectacle of opposition than anyone here or elsewhere is talking about it at all.

And like, this isn't even just me being "rad" or ultra-left - isn't it a fairly universally accepted principle of leftist politics to be anti-sexist?

[Bardo]

^meh

Che Guevara wrote a few racist paragraphs as a youth, so lets disregard the entirety of his revolutionary career or the ripples of revolutionary thought he spread in the 60s. Marx himself never worked in a factory and Engles was quite well off himself. Lets dismiss everything they had to say as well.

Russell Brand is a comedian who happened to provide a great interview involving very relevant issues concerning the left. He's not a great marxist archetype or demagogue. To dismiss everything he said is a bit stubborn.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^meh

Che Guevara wrote a few racist paragraphs as a youth, so lets disregard the entirety of his revolutionary career or the ripples of revolutionary thought he spread in the 60s. Marx himself never worked in a factory and Engles was quite well off himself. Lets dismiss everything they had to say as well.

Russell Brand is a comedian who happened to provide a great interview involving very relevant issues concerning the left. He's not a great marxist archetype or demagogue. To dismiss everything he said is a bit stubborn.

No, we cannot let him into our beautiful party, he doesn't agree with the programme and he's not perfect, so let's bin him! I mean, it's not like a guy that overcame drug addiction can learn from his mistakes or anything!!;)

[human strike]

No, we cannot let him into our beautiful party, he doesn't agree with the programme and he's not perfect, so let's bin him! I mean, it's not like a guy that overcame drug addiction can learn from his mistakes or anything!!;)

Are you pinning his misogyny on the fact he has had mental health problems??? What evidence is there that he is any less sexist than he has ever been? "He doesn't agree with the programme"? Yeah, if the programme is not being a dick. I'm not asking anyone to be perfect, but come on, we really have to stop excusing (or simply ignoring) obvious and lazy sexism from men like this. His opening line in his piece in the New Statesman which he repeated in the Paxman interview was, “When I was asked to edit an issue of the New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me.” How can we take seriously at all a call for revolution that opens with flippant objectification? We do ourselves a massive disservice this way. In our excitement for even a hint of revolutionary fervor ostensibly permeating mainstream debate, we enable misogyny and Great Man narratives to go unchecked. It's bollocks.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Erm, why is everyone suffering from short-term memory loss? This a millionaire misogynist who slut-shamed a woman to taunt and bully her 78 year-old grandfather in front of an audience of millions. Who gives a shit if he was vague or incoherent or refreshing or rousing? Why are we listening to a single word this man has to say? He is a horrible sexist piece of shit. And whilst I'm on a rant, don't buy his spurious, "I'm from such a deprived working class background," act - he had a much better start in life than most working class kids, I assure you. And even if he hadn't, fuck him. I think it is only a mark of just how imbedded and invested the left is in this kind of spectacle of opposition than anyone here or elsewhere is talking about it at all.

And like, this isn't even just me being "rad" or ultra-left - isn't it a fairly universally accepted principle of leftist politics to be anti-sexist?

I can think a person is right on one thing and still think that they're being a dick about another thing. He deserved to be criticized for slut shaming but that doesn't make him wrong about this other issue.

It's not like people can't change anyways. Lefty socialists of all people should recognize that moral purity can be hard to come by in our world.

[Os Cangaceiros]

His opening line in his piece in the New Statesman which he repeated in the Paxman interview was, “When I was asked to edit an issue of the New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me.” How can we take seriously at all a call for revolution that opens with flippant objectification?

Really, that's all it takes to discredit someone's entire opinion, self-deprecating comments about being led by your small head rather than your big one?

Also, didn't have any idea what you were referring to re: slut shaming, so if anyone was like me: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080621/Russell-Brand-Jonathan-Ross-face-prosecution-obscene-air-phone-calls-Fawlty-Towers-actor-78.html

[human strike]

Really, that's all it takes to discredit someone's entire opinion, self-deprecating comments about being led by your small head rather than your big one?

That and a whole history of misogynist bullshit. I don't see what's particularly 'ultra' about highlighting that a man who has been around left circles of whatever stripe for as long as Brand has shouldn't be excused for his incredibly sexist behaviour. It's not a matter of occasionally choosing the wrong word, or not knowing the hip lingo, or ghettoised ivory tower intellectuals policing correct speech, it's more a record of continued sexual harassment of people at work.

[Leftsolidarity]

That and a whole history of misogynist bullshit. I don't see what's particularly 'ultra' about highlighting that a man who has been around left circles of whatever stripe for as long as Brand has shouldn't be excused for his incredibly sexist behaviour. It's not a matter of occasionally choosing the wrong word, or not knowing the hip lingo, or ghettoised ivory tower intellectuals policing correct speech, it's more a record of continued sexual harassment of people at work.

Not to detract from your point but what the hell is "ghettoised ivory tower intellectuals"?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Not to detract from your point but what the hell is "ghettoised ivory tower intellectuals"?

I believe the poster is using "ghettoised" in the sense that the academic left is in a social enclave, isolated from the larger society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Really, that's all it takes to discredit someone's entire opinion, self-deprecating comments about being led by your small head rather than your big one?Meh, I thought the same thing when I read the piece. I think it was supposed to be self-depricating like: "I don't care about politics, but a sexy woman asked so..." which is still sexist in a sleezy 60s sort of way.

But ultimately I think this is less about Brand himself than the resonence to his comments in this case... and we should take that gift horse. I don't think anyone is planning on making Brand the standard-bearer of the Left because of this one entertaining outburst about Revolution.

If he wants to be more of a public figure in terms of left activism, then yes, people should expect and insist that he understand the difference between "sexy" and "sexist" and that he's not in the Rolling Stones and it's not 1967. Or explain it in comedian-language: the Austin Powers sctick is old, Brand; there's a lot more virgin comedic territory in being an ally to women and mocking sexism than joining the long dreary chorus of male chauvanism. But I doubt he's really interested in being an activist rather than a comedian with some satiric commentary from the left on occasion.

[Invader Zim]

Personally, I don't think he really said anything. I watched the interview, but all I heard were a few 'right on' platitudes and after I finished watching I was left wondering 'what does Brand even mean when he says "revolution"?' I seriously doubt it is revolution as in we understand it, but far more like use of the term 'revolution' as deployed in the 1944 Beveridge Report, i.e. significant, radical even, social and economic change. But I'm absolutely convinced that he is not advocating revolution as I understand it.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Not to detract from your point but what the hell is "ghettoised ivory tower intellectuals"? Academics with academic jobs and academic friends

[A.J.]

Although Brand is correct when he says it dosent matter who gets elected as they only ultimately serve the same corporate interests he is wrong to suggest that this is a reason to abstain from participation in bourgeois parliamentary elections. On the contrary, through participation in in parliamentary elections revolutionaries are able to expose the limitations of bourgeois democracy.

Brand ought to get himself a copy of Lenin's Left Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder

[Devrim]

Although Brand is correct when he says it dosent matter who gets elected as they only ultimately serve the same corporate interests he is wrong to suggest that this is a reason to abstain from participation in bourgeois parliamentary elections. On the contrary, through participation in in parliamentary elections revolutionaries are able to expose the limitations of bourgeois democracy.

Don't you think they are exposed already. Based on the last three UK general elections an average of just over 60% of people voted, with the percentage of young people (18-24) being about 25. It seems to me that the left has more faith in bourgeois democracy than most of the working class.

Devrim

[A.J.]

Don't you think they are exposed already. Based on the last three UK general elections an average of just over 60% of people voted, with the percentage of young people (18-24) being about 25. It seems to me that the left has more faith in bourgeois democracy than most of the working class.

Devrim

I was trying to make a generalisation about bourgeois democracy rather than make specific reference to the model of bourgeois democracy on offer in contemporary Britain(although Brand himself may have been referring to Britain in particular that's not the point)

[Sasha]

I think this should settle the debate:
http://countdowntozerotime.com/2013/09/11/russel-brand-exposed-as-illuminati-co-intel-pro-insider-mk-ultra-handler/
:lol:

[Futility Personified]

How on earth do you come across that? That guy is a few shortcakes short of a sex party.

[Sasha]

Someone shared it on my Facebook wall...

[synthesis]

For those of you who are skeptics the new world order is not run by Men it is run by lucifer. Ever wondered how they keep getting exposed but are becoming more and more powerful. Lucifer is coming but he need’s a fall guy to blame when the son of perdition comes. Well who else to blame but the illuminate. Yes they are exposing themselves in order to be destroyed by Our new nephilim toye saviours. Satanist sexual predator and Mk-ultra sicko Brand is making all the right waves and he is the new darling of the so called truth movement but what is this satanist who is a mason and a satanist up to. He wants to draw people away from the truth and into the new age religion.away from christianity to embrace pikes new doctrine of lucifer. He is teaming up with satanist david ike.who says JESUS DID NOT EXIST ,CHRISTIANITY WAS INVENTED BY THE REPTOIDS. the same man says he is the son of god.Then denies saying it. Ike admits he gets messages from the 4th dimension he knows they lie to him but promotes the message which is ..Christianity is evil and witchcraft is good

[ed miliband]

it's funny though, because brand himself has long time links with the likes of david icke - he's a fucking conspiraloon himself, which has been conveniently ignored by many people, despite brand's language fucking dripping in icke-isms (including his call for revolution, with the ignored follow-up of "of the consciousness").

[goalkeeper]

it's funny though, because brand himself has long time links with the likes of david icke - he's a fucking conspiraloon himself, which has been conveniently ignored by many people, despite brand's language fucking dripping in icke-isms (including his call for revolution, with the ignored follow-up of "of the consciousness").

Thats interesting. I saw this on Facebook. I wasn't sure (and still not) that it wasn't just the usual conspiracy theorists making and misattributing quotes though, but it being genuine seems more likely now.


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/603116_10151835783357779_1318212959_n.jpg

[ed miliband]

here is a recent interview with alex jones (including a really creepy bit where jones praises brand for making women "sexually excited"):

OLnK9poUL08

more:

aJVbccKJwEw

there are also plenty of icke and brand mash-ups.

[ed miliband]

so, my question for all those cheerleading brand: how does this make you feel?

[goalkeeper]

so, my question for all those cheerleading brand: how does this make you feel?

Its weird (or is it?) though that conspiracism in America often takes a virulently anti-'socialist' tone while in the UK it often accompanied by some sort of commitment to 'socialism' or at least hold nominally 'social democratic' ideas of helping the poor etc.; the two don't seem to conflict too much on the point though.

[RadioRaheem84]

I knew this about Brand and conspiracy stuff a while back when he was saying he toured America talking to people about conspiracy theories and reading Chomsky. I thought at the time he was being tongue in cheek but he was serious. He was going around the US talking and attending conspiracy lectures.

EDIT: I take back what I said. I think Brand is genuinely a socialist and an adherent to Marx, it's just he is not an atheist and cares more for spiritualism. I didn't mean to be harsh toward him. After listening to his interview with Jones it made me respect him a lot. He is a good guy! We need more people like him.

EDIT 2: Just saw the second video with Jones and I do have to say that his spiritual stuff is a bit out there but I still like him.

[Popular Front of Judea]

so, my question for all those cheerleading brand: how does this make you feel?

1) I am not a Brand "cheerleader". An 10 minute interview on BBC's Newsnight with a "personality" espousing revolution is worth noting.

2) If Chomsky would accept the invitation Alex Jones quite possibly would run him. Many of the sources of information that Alex Jones and his ilk use actually originate from the left.

[Jimmie Higgins]

so, my question for all those cheerleading brand: how does this make you feel?Awesome! I mean all the people here who think that that interview was a trip and generates a braoder conversation around those questions are obviously working towards forming a new political tendency based on the works of Brand.:lol:

I guess I also have to defend/cheerlead his remake of "Arthur" now too.

EDIT: actually I wouldn't mind a t-shirt that said "Profit is filth", good line Brand.

[o well this is ok I guess]

so, my question for all those cheerleading brand: how does this make you feel? Contemporary politics have left us so jaded that we'll take any bone thrown at us

[ed miliband]

I knew this about Brand and conspiracy stuff a while back when he was saying he toured America talking to people about conspiracy theories and reading Chomsky. I thought at the time he was being tongue in cheek but he was serious. He was going around the US talking and attending conspiracy lectures.

EDIT: I take back what I said. I think Brand is genuinely a socialist and an adherent to Marx, it's just he is not an atheist and cares more for spiritualism. I didn't mean to be harsh toward him. After listening to his interview with Jones it made me respect him a lot. He is a good guy! We need more people like him.

EDIT 2: Just saw the second video with Jones and I do have to say that his spiritual stuff is a bit out there but I still like him.

sorry, i feel bad saying this, but you are absolutely mad and desperately clinging to any scrap of shit you can find. i can see no other reason for thinking brand is an "adherent to marx" unless you're making a really good joke i have missed, but then you always seem to do/say stuff like this.

[Fairfax]

so, my question for all those cheerleading brand: how does this make you feel?

I found it throughly enjoyable. Although it was excruciatingly unbearable when Paxman couldn't understand that you don't need government to have a thriving society.

[MarxistMinx]

Never been a fan of Russell brand but I am very impressed. I think he is taking a massive risk because the right wing corporate press and the media in general will inevitably now be in attack mode and this is probably not the greatest career move for him.

When Paxman said Brand didn't want democracy but revolution, Brand lost a real opportunity.

Paxman isn't ignorant he is just mouthing the bullsh*t of a cultural, political and economic elite. He's in the trenches upholding capitalist cultural hegemony.

[goalkeeper]

I found it throughly enjoyable. Although it was excruciatingly unbearable when Paxman couldn't understand that you don't need government to have a thriving society.

Except the only vision Brand offers, beyond empty platitudes about "oneness" and all being "on the same planet", is a restructuring of the UK's tax system. How radical.

[Bardo]

OLnK9poUL08


At the end of this interview, Jones pretty much undoes everything Brand said during the interview while he had him on and tried to frame it into his own point of view. Brand was talking about socialism and measuring a society by how it treats it's poor classes, after he hung up Jones pretty much framed it as an argument for "Jeffersonian style liberty" and individualist idealism.

On the cheerleading bit, I don't think applauding one interview can be considered cheerleading the full body of one man's political dialog. I certainly don't buy into the conspiracy theory thing, or the heavy emphasis on spirituality.

But it was a good interview. :shrug:

[ed miliband]

At the end of this interview, Jones pretty much undoes everything Brand said during the interview while he had him on and tried to frame it into his own point of view. Brand was talking about socialism and measuring a society by how it treats it's poor classes, after he hung up Jones pretty much framed it as an argument for "Jeffersonian style liberty" and individualist idealism.

On the cheerleading bit, I don't think applauding one interview can be considered cheerleading the full body of one man's political dialog. I certainly don't buy into the conspiracy theory thing, or the heavy emphasis on spirituality.

But it was a good interview. :shrug:

goalkeeper raised a very cogent point earlier, and one that i can attest to if only from experience: british conspiracy theorists do use the language of "socialism" (and let's be very clear here, we're using a piss poor definition of the word if brand's vision is part of it, but whatever) which their american counterparts would be opposed to. but they're still on the same page. you have to ask yourself why brand is willing to rub shoulders repeatedly with the likes of alex jones and david icke and vice versa - what do they see in brand?

on brand's misogyny, which 'whatever singularity' was basically mocked for bringing up, i think if brand was a member of the swp rather than a celebrity, people would be calling for his head. i don't say this to mock what happened within the swp, but to point out that placing brand in a different context might make it more clear to people how dismissive he is towards women, with some behaviour being very concerning - we wouldn't stand for it in our organisations (i hope..)

[Lily Briscoe]

I finally listened to the first few minutes of this interview this morning, and I really don't get what all the hype is about... unless I haven't gotten to the good part yet...?

[Sea]

http://greykodiak.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/brand_stalin.jpg
hehehe where did you find this?

[A.J.]

hehehe where did you find this?

Its from Russell Brand's public apology following the "Sachsgate" scandal a few years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_telephone_calls_row

The video of Brand's apology is on youtube, incidently.

[Devrim]

I was trying to make a generalisation about bourgeois democracy rather than make specific reference to the model of bourgeois democracy on offer in contemporary Britain(although Brand himself may have been referring to Britain in particular that's not the point)

It is not just true about the UK though. It is true of the entire Western world. We have just had a general election here in the Czech Republic, and less than 60% of people bothered to go out and vote, and this in a country which only 20 odd years ago was completely bombarded with the propaganda of democracy, and now the majority of the working class has so little faith in it that they can't even be bothered to take the little effort it requires to stroll down to the polling booth, and put a cross in a box.

It is true than in some countries the idea of 'democracy' has more sway, witness protestors calling for 'democracy' in Turkey and Egypt this summer, but in the Western world, I would say that the left has many more parlimentary illusions than the working class does.

Devrim

[A.J.]

It is not just true about the UK though. It is true of the entire Western world. We have just had a general election here in the Czech Republic, and less than 60% of people bothered to go out and vote, and this in a country which only 20 odd years ago was completely bombarded with the propaganda of democracy, and now the majority of the working class has so little faith in it that they can't even be bothered to take the little effort it requires to stroll down to the polling booth, and put a cross in a box.

It is true than in some countries the idea of 'democracy' has more sway, witness protestors calling for 'democracy' in Turkey and Egypt this summer, but in the Western world, I would say that the left has many more parlimentary illusions than the working class does.

Devrim

So your saying because an increasing proportion, possibly most, of the working class *nowadays* don't bother voting the left should shun particpation in bourgeois elections altogether?
I can understand such a position although obviously don't entirely agree with it.

However, this attitude towards electoral participation dosent seem at all applicable when, at other times, voter turnouts amongst the working class has been high(for example, during the keynesian post-war consensus in Britain).

[synthesis]

When Paxman said Brand didn't want democracy but revolution, Brand lost a real opportunity.

I honestly don't think Brand would've been equipped for that discussion.

[Aleister Granger]

So what have we learned from all this?
That Brand is real, faking it, or just saying the right words?
That he's talking to barking dogs about a better society?
That Brand is a sexist misogynistic and, like how Marx said 'n****r', we should abandon them and oppose everything they stood for?
That Alex Jones turned a explanation of socialism into a plea for Jeffersonian """liberty"""?

[reb]

On the contrary, through participation in in parliamentary elections revolutionaries are able to expose the limitations of bourgeois democracy.

By jumping off tall buildings and trying to fly by flapping their arms can morons expose the limitations of human aerodynamics.

[RebelDog]

However, this attitude towards electoral participation dosent seem at all applicable when, at other times, voter turnouts amongst the working class has been high(for example, during the keynesian post-war consensus in Britain).

Back then the working class could have some effect on policy. Since money increasing rules elections the working class ability to infuence policy has withered. If you are turned into a spectator, powerless to influence any decent change, you lose interest. Its just rational.

[reb]

Back then the working class could have some effect on policy. Since money increasing rules elections the working class ability to infuence policy has withered. If you are turned into a spectator, powerless to influence any decent change, you lose interest. Its just rational.

The problem isn't that money has increasingly influenced politics, it is that the whole edifice of the state is built upon the relation of labor to capital. You can reconfigure and present this edifice in different ways but the underlying social relations remain. This is why stalinists arguing participation in such an apparatus just to expose it is farcical because they may as well be arguing that people vote Republican or Fascist just to expose it. The only thing it would expose is the ineffectual attitude that some people take. Rather than going to where the struggle is, they'd rather participate in parliaments because this is what their idealism leads them to.

[RadioRaheem84]

sorry, i feel bad saying this, but you are absolutely mad and desperately clinging to any scrap of shit you can find. i can see no other reason for thinking brand is an "adherent to marx" unless you're making a really good joke i have missed, but then you always seem to do/say stuff like this.

I always do what? What are you talking about?

I watched one video and thought that brand got it but then I heard the other interviews and began to really suspect his understandings and then I saw him arm in arm with David Icke and then I figured ok brand is a bit kooky. I still think he's genuinely trying to make sense out of what is clearly a capitalist mess and he understands capitalism is the problem but he's just gone off the deep end with the spiritual religious stuff.

[human strike]

on brand's misogyny, which 'whatever singularity' was basically mocked for bringing up, i think if brand was a member of the swp rather than a celebrity, people would be calling for his head. i don't say this to mock what happened within the swp, but to point out that placing brand in a different context might make it more clear to people how dismissive he is towards women, with some behaviour being very concerning - we wouldn't stand for it in our organisations (i hope..)

But the thing is, many leftists do stand for it and as a matter of course. Martin Smith, Steve Hedley and Russell Brand all have this same thing in common; they are all charismatic white men, and there are plenty more examples besides.

http://ioneglobalgrind.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/screen_shot_2011-11-16_at_9-32-09_am.png

But at least he isn't boring, right, comrades?

[Devrim]

But at least he isn't boring, right, comrades?

On the contrary, I think he is an extremely boring, self obsessed ego-maniac.

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

Now that I hear more about his religious views and his admiration of David Icke I'm kinda skeptical about him. He looks at Marxism as just a revolution in conscious thinking and that what Marxism lacks is spirituality that connects it with the rest of philosophy. Brand seems to have a command of the English language but some of things he says just seems like he's trying too hard to sound intellectual so ppl will take him serious while at the same tone throwing in humor to appeal to a younger base to not make him look too stodgy.

While I do think its great to have him open the debate and to have a celeb reveal the illusion of wealth fame and the establishment, this guy still isn't the right guy to offer a detailed popular critique of capitalism.

[ed miliband]

but man where are you getting this idea he is an "adherent of marx" or even "looks at marxism" from?? he has never made mention of marx, he has never called himself a marxist, there is no trace or marx, marxism, marxist thinking or marx's categories and method in anything he has said. where have you got this idea from?

[Os Cangaceiros]

on brand's misogyny, which 'whatever singularity' was basically mocked for bringing up, i think if brand was a member of the swp rather than a celebrity, people would be calling for his head. i don't say this to mock what happened within the swp, but to point out that placing brand in a different context might make it more clear to people how dismissive he is towards women, with some behaviour being very concerning - we wouldn't stand for it in our organisations (i hope..)

That depends, I think...when speaking to someone or reading someone's writing, I judge them more harshly for their misogyny when they proclaim their affiliation for the far-left, or belong to far-left organizations, because I expect them to be on top of their shit. On the other hand, if some random person I know with questionable beliefs regarding social issues says something I strongly agree with, I'm not going to dismiss that person outright, simply because I realize how widespread those aforementioned questionable beliefs are in society.

With that being said, there's no indication that Russell Brand wants anything in common with our goals. I meet people all the time who think that "what this country needs is a revolution" but believe me, it's nothing like how the left uses the word.

[Iosif]

Russel Brand is just echoing his typical bourgeois class moralisms about voting. He and his class dont want us to vote or to try to have political power, he's perfectly happy being rich and famous and doesn't need the social order to change. We have to partake in parliament not with the idea of winning but withthe idea of discrediting the whole thing!

[RadioRaheem84]

but man where are you getting this idea he is an "adherent of marx" or even "looks at marxism" from?? he has never made mention of marx, he has never called himself a marxist, there is no trace or marx, marxism, marxist thinking or marx's categories and method in anything he has said. where have you got this idea from?

In the Alex Jones interview that was just posed on here he says clearly that his outlook from a more Marxist Socialist perspective than Jones's libertarian one. Also he has made mention before in the past that he thinks highly of Marx but thinks Marxism just lacks spirituality.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2886693/Russell-Brand-blasts-basketball-after-LA-Lakers-game.html

He has workers of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your chains tattoed on this arm. He wears Karl Marx shirts and when asked he doesn't shy away and explain that its just an art short. Its safe to say he reads Marx. Whether he fully understands it is another thing entirely. I agree that his concept of what revolution is is largely of the mind: a revolution of conscious humanity is reaching

[KurtFF8]

I thought this article was interesting, thoughts?

Russell Brand-Bashing and the Left’s Preferred Powerlessness (http://my.firedoglake.com/natparry/2013/10/31/russell-brand-bashing-and-the-lefts-preferred-powerlessness/)


By: Nat Parry (http://my.firedoglake.com/members/natparry/) Thursday October 31, 2013 8:19 am
http://static1.firedoglake.com/common/images/twitter_favicon_2.pngTweet (http://my.firedoglake.com/natparry/2013/10/31/russell-brand-bashing-and-the-lefts-preferred-powerlessness/#)333 http://static1.firedoglake.com/plugins/share-this/images//digg.gif (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://fdl.me/16OtlDZ&title=Russell+Brand-Bashing+and+the+Left%E2%80%99s+Preferred+Powerless ness) http://static1.firedoglake.com/plugins/share-this/images//stumbleupon.gif (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://fdl.me/16OtlDZ&title=Russell+Brand-Bashing+and+the+Left%E2%80%99s+Preferred+Powerless ness)

A recent viral video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk) of British comedian Russell Brand taking on a smug and dismissive BBC Newsnight interviewer by the name of Jeremy Paxman, and ending with Brand making a fervent case for social revolution, has had a surprisingly substantial impact, grabbing the attention of Facebookers, Tweeters, independent journalists and mainstream media alike.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5225/5622506876_9bbd3bc967_n.jpgRussell Brand

Although certain establishment gatekeepers eagerly took it upon themselves to denounce Brand’s remarks as “trivial” and “half-baked,” many others warmly received his call for revolution and remarkably, his radical analysis of the status quo broke through what is normally a fairly strict firewall erected by the mainstream media to shield the general public from “dangerous” and “subversive” ideas.
The UK’s Daily Mail for example correctly reported (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2476191/Russell-Brand-lays-political-revolution-Jeremy-Paxman-Newsnight.html#ixzz2jIpzdbEG) that Brand’s vision is for “a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibilities for energy companies exploiting the environment,” which the Daily Mail not unsympathetically described as “a Robin Hood ideology” born out of a frustration with “a system he just doesn’t think is working.”
Also remarkable was the impact that his call for revolution had within what is generally an apolitical and frivolous social media sphere more receptive to funny cat memes and baby pictures than political diatribes. The website Trendolizer, which tracks the videos and links that are popular on Facebook at a given moment, reported (http://www.trendolizer.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Russell%20Brand&IncludeBlogs=16&limit=10&page=1) that no fewer than ten stories were trending related to Brand’s revolutionary call for economic egalitarianism and environmental justice.
What is perhaps most remarkable though is the way that Brand was immediately attacked by factions of the left, which decided that rather than piggyback off of the sudden popular interest in revolutionary ideas that Brand’s comments provided, they would rather denounce him as an inauthentic revolutionary who fails to pay due attention to favored leftist causes such as fighting patriarchy, LGBTQ liberation and immigrant rights.
That’s right – the left is briefly given a window of opportunity in which much of the country is openly discussing revolutionary ideas, and instead of welcoming and leveraging that opportunity, the leftist instinct is to attack the messenger and effectively shut the window by bringing up divisive issues related to identity politics and the culture wars.
At Salon, for example, Natasha Lennard penned a piece called “I don’t stand with Russell Brand, and neither should you (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/i_dont_stand_with_russell_brand_and_neither_should _you/),” in which she urged against “jumping on the (likely purple velvet) coattails of a mega-celeb with fountains of charisma and something all too messianic in his swagger.”
Lennard irrationally complains that because Brand’s ideas have had such a profound impact on the popular discourse, we should reflexively be wary of the deliverer of those ideas, who may or may not be some kind of false idol. “If we’re so damn excited to hear these ideas in (in their slightly haphazard form) from a boisterous celebrity,” she says, “then clearly we have some idolatry and ‘Great Man’ hangups to address.”
It seems completely lost on Lennard that if anyone is revealing unaddressed and deep-seated hangups (over Brand’s fashion sense, for example, his “swagger,” or the possibility that he might be – gasp – a great man), it is clearly her.
But the left wasn’t done yet in marginalizing itself and ensuring that the window of opportunity that Brand briefly opened is firmly and safely sealed shut.
In an op-ed published (http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19711-the-revolution-will-not-be-russell-brand-ed) by Truthout, Youngist and Rabble.ca, Suey Park and Isabelle Nastasia praised Lennard’s piece and questioned “Brand’s personal commitment to justice for oppressed peoples” by pointing to a Native American outfit he once wore to a costume party and a 2012 allegation of sexual harassment emanating from the Sun, a British tabloid. Without so much as providing context, Park and Nastasia highlighted these alleged transgressions as ironclad evidence of Brand’s shameful “appropriation of Native culture” and “his sexual exploitation of women.”
Park and Nastasia, who describe themselves as “young organizers and radical thinkers,” wonder why the British comic is “getting so much attention, while we – the ‘disenfranchised underclass’ – been saying this shit for years?”
Rather than looking to Brand for leadership, Park and Nastasia suggest that instead, we need to look at real revolutionaries, specifically “people of color-led movements for transgender and queer justice,” “movements fighting the school-to-prison pipeline, and other prison abolition movements,” and “undocumented youth and students who are fighting for an end to deportations.”

While those groups are undoubtedly doing some important work, it’s pretty astounding that a couple of young American lefties would so quickly denounce and distance themselves from an individual who while undoubtedly imperfect has done more to get a popular discussion going about radical change than anyone in recent memory.
Here, Russell Brand provides the opportunity to advance a discussion about the need for revolutionary change, and all that certain elements of the left can think to do is to attack the messenger.
It should be noted, of course, that this all comes at an interesting and opportune time in which the general public is probably more open to real alternatives than most on the left or the right would be willing to acknowledge.
The recent government shutdown and the narrowly averted debt ceiling crisis (which followed countless other controversies of the past several years, including the 2008 bank bailouts), have stirred up a widely shared contempt among the American people for their elected representatives, a disgust that is possibly unparalleled in modern history.
Already well below average historically, the public’s general approval of its elected representatives plummeted to mind-blowingly low levels during the shutdown and its immediate aftermath. One poll found (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/10/congress-losing-out-to-zombies-wall-street-andhipsters.html) that among the things that are more popular than Congress include hemorrhoids, toenail fungus, dog poop, and cockroaches. The popularity of communism is more than double the approval rating of Congress, with 11 percent of Americans approving of the U.S. becoming a communist state and only 5 percent approving of the job that Congress is doing.
What’s beyond doubt is that the American people are deeply dissatisfied with their government and that this dissatisfaction cuts across party and ideological lines. While the Republicans rightly bear the brunt of the blame for the recent crises in Washington, Democrats are also widely disliked.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/14/National-Politics/Polling/release_270.xml) in mid-October found that 74 percent disapproved of the way Republicans were handling the budget negotiations while 61 percent disapproved of congressional Democrats. An earlier AP poll found (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/government-shutdown-republicans-poll_n_4069254.html) that Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Republican John Boehner, the House speaker, shared a favorability rating of just 18 percent.
Most Americans disapprove of President Obama, with 53 percent unhappy with his job performance and 37 percent approving of it. The one thing that virtually everyone agrees on is their contempt for Congress, with 95 percent of the American people disapproving of that institution.
With these kinds of numbers, it seems that the time is ripe for a real political alternative to emerge in the United States. While that likely would not be Russell Brand – a Brit with a controversial past of drug and alcohol abuse – the aggressive (and somewhat jealous and petty) response to his sudden uptick in popularity makes one wonder whether the American left is even interested in taking power to effect change.
Perhaps the left is uninterested in revolution (or even developing a viable third party electoral challenge to the status quo) because that would mean that they would actually have to take responsibility for something and come up with solutions to our many problems.
The left may be more comfortable remaining a protest movement lobbing complaints from the sidelines than in seizing the reins of power in order to establish a just, democratic and sustainable world.
In other words, it seems the left may have decided (whether consciously or unconsciously) to consign itself to a permanent state of powerlessness, if not irrelevance.
This article originally appeared at Essential Opinion (http://essentialopinion.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/russell-brand-bashing-and-the-lefts-preferred-powerlessness/).
Photo by Eva Rinaldi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/evarinaldiphotography/5622506876/) under licensed Creative Commons

[human strike]

If there was anything radical in what he said it was instantly recuperated. Everyone from the Daily Mail to Jeremy Paxman himself has said they agree with Brand. Perhaps large swathes of the left will refuse to acknowledge that the interview was passive rhetoric because passive rhetoric and sloganeering about "revolution" and "all politicians are the same" makes up a large part of what they spend their time doing. The fact that any leftists have jumped on this at all is further evidence of the spectacle of opposition.