i feel like i must be a horribly cynical, critical person, but...

[ed miliband]

this russell brand video that's doing the rounds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGxFJ5nL9gg

i watched it last night and was distinctly unimpressed - not that i expected any better from brand. i mean, it's nice to see somebody take on jeremy paxman like that, and it's cool that brand's publicly saying he doesn't vote and won't (making him better than some of the anarchists on here it seems), but brand doesn't say anything particularly new or interesting, and i always get the sense that he's moments away from slipping in to some sort of conspiracy theory / mystic nonsense (and apparently he does do the latter in the long article he wrote). i really can't watch him without thinking he sounds like a stoned sixth former sounding off about the corporations, maaan. and i guess it's testament to his charm, eloquence and charisma that people are so blown away by whatever he has to say. i imagine if it was somebody else making these remarks people would be nowhere near as impressed.

that was my very hungover assessment yesterday, anyway, but it seems it's becoming more and more popular - in many cases amongst the kind of labour-voting liberal intelligentsia sorts whose opinions don't matter anyway, but you know, some sound people are saying it's amazing and brand is a hero. what am i missing? i'm assuming now, the problem is with me more than anything else. i mean, i wasn't expecting some bordigism from brand, but surely i can't be the only one who found the whole thing i dunno, a bit cringe-worthy?

[/dodges missiles]

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I must confess to having a similar reaction, and his presentation was a bit... incoherent in parts, I thought.

[ed miliband]

he's eloquently incoherent, if that makes sense.

[Jimmie Higgins]

From an u.s. Perspective, just having a long-format interview is novel.

I thought it was hilariously entertaining, although I was stoned (but not concocting conspiracy theories) when I watched it. His style works for me because things are shit in a flaming bag and mainstream culture is more stifling and bland than ever. I think the appeal of this clip is the same resonance Jon Stewart or Colbert gets when they take their shtick off their shows and mock crossfire pundits to their faces with visible frustration.... But brand at least has far better politics than Stewart/Colbert.

[#FF0000]

I think it's pretty cool a guy said "hey profits aren't a good thing" in national media like that. I mean of course what he's saying isn't anything new and exciting to us but it's pretty wild for someone to express that kind of opinion (re: profits, income disparity) on TV.

[ed miliband]

From an u.s. Perspective, just having a long-format interview is novel.

I thought it was hilariously entertaining, although I was stoned (but not concocting conspiracy theories) when I watched it. His style works for me because things are shit in a flaming bag and mainstream culture is more stifling and bland than ever. I think the appeal of this clip is the same resonance Jon Stewart or Colbert gets when they take their shtick off their shows and mock crossfire pundits to their faces with visible frustration.... But brand at least has far better politics than Stewart/Colbert.

in that sense, i think the popularity of the clip comes not from what brand is saying being particularly good, but everything else being so shit.

[Sasha]

i think even in all his vagueness he is a lot more useful than what most traditional leftists in general come up with which boils down to same shit different gravy.
he is a firebrand, a jester, he is pointing out what needs to go without appoiting himself or others (other than "all of us") in its place.
i think its refreshing to see someone obviously deeply engaged intentionally stepping away from wanting to provide the answer, not only giving us all the task of figuring ourself, all together, out what to replace capital with but even putting his trust explicitly in humanities hands.

[#FF0000]

in that sense, i think the popularity of the clip comes not from what brand is saying being particularly good, but everything else being so shit.

Yes exactly.

[Sasha]

I already linked it in the other thread but I guess this one could use it in full:

RussellBrand, revolutionand pragmatism

Comments

1 2 next › last »

TodayRussell Brandhas madethenews as he openlycalls for revolution. Many comrades havebeen quick to criticise his statements forvagueness, but does it really matter if his statements didn't go far enough?

Russell Brand has long been a somewhat leftist friendly celebrity who is no stranger forcausing somemild controversy. From preaching for a more humane, rehabilitative, caring responsetodrug addiction to performing hilarious critiques of themedia with his appearances on MSNBC and theGQ awards, many people have rallied behind him and perhaps been madeto stop and think about certain issues they thought they weresureon.

Though it seems for many anarchists and thoseon thefarleftin general, his efforts are hypocritical, in effectiveand not extremeenough to be worth getting behind. It is my opinion that in light ofthe state of themovement, if onecan besaid to exist in a meaningful way at all, these points are atleast moot, and mostly counterproductive.

Thefact ofthe matter is that Russell Brand is a celebrity with a huge public following, regular appearances in the media thatreaches and influences the public in its millions. Hethus has an enormous opportunity to effortlessly sway opinion in a way thatwe will perhaps neverhave. And it costs us nothing. He is notin a tiny under resourced political organization that's size dictates its biggestvictory to beconfined to therealm of distributing agitational propaganda; propaganda which is seen by the already converted, bar a few small gains against individuals bosses in mostly non unionised workplaces.

It hencemakes absolutely nosenseto only be seen as negativeand cynical towards an open call forrevolution and a condemnation of government, representative democracy and environmental damage. Yes, in theinterview with Paxman heis tactically un clear aboutwhat his notion ofrevolution entails specifically and materially. This is probably because he honestly doesn’t know, but that is fine. Also, as hesays the onus is noton him to do so as an individual. Of courseBrand is not an anarchist. Of courseheis not espousing theseideas from the position of being a proletarian. Heis not being radicalised by a life of precarity and fearliving on zero hourcontracts, or being constantly threatened by benefit sanctions in lieu of finding non-existent jobs or creating them himself. But not only is he plainly aware of this, that isn't really the most important thing athand.

Thereality ofour situation as radicals at themoment is that weareisolated and often alienated from theworking class, a class wearea part of and a class that we ultimately aim to liberateas members of it ourselves. Our victories aresmall, our presenceis largely misunderstood, limited or even non-existent. This is a truth wemust confront if we want thenext spontaneous expression ofrage towards the status quo tobeclass conscious, organised, targeted and ultimately politically consequential. If not, it will manifest as it did in theriots of 2011 in the mass theftof consumergoods and wrecking ourown communities resulting in imprisonment, repression and being labelled as apolitical thugs; equally condemned by thestateand fellow working class people blindly succumbing tocalls for draconian and reactionary measures, frenzied by a moral panic engineered by our oppressors.

To put itsimply, weneed to takewhat wecan get when wearenotwinning thefight against capitalism in anyway at themoment. I am not calling to striveto becomecelebrities and to sway public opinion by means of trying to gain access to a platform that will always be against us, no matterhow much it tries to simulate a debate and the illusion ofalternativeavailablevia the ballot box. Idon’t want anarchists to try and spread our messageby getting spots on political TVshows likeQuestion Timeor Newsnight or by writing for publications like TheNew Statesmen.

Wecannot competewith themedia and we can’thopeto operate for our own interests using its apparatus which is designed by, and is a tool ofthosewe wish to overthrow. We will nevermake anarchism a popular ideology by going on the news and whining about thegreat injusticeof words like ‘anarchy’ and ‘communism’ being falsely reassociated with notions of chaos and horrific totalitarianism. Wecan’t hope to becomefamous and influence public opinion in theway Brand can, or atleastaspires to.


But wecan influencepublic opinion by communicating with people on a level, fightby fight, struggleby struggle, conversation by conversation, not closed meeting by closed meeting, not TUC march by TUC march or bookfairby bookfair. And specifically with regards to Russell Brand and others likehim, we can do this alongsideby using this topical event as an opportunity to talk about our views, an action which does not imply we100% endorseeverything hehas ever doneorwill do.

[Sasha]

Mhmm, libcom is being an quote mess again, here the link; http://libcom.org/blog/russel-brand-...atism-24102013

[The Feral Underclass]

I think any one on the left taking this too seriously one way or the other is being a bit silly.

[Rugged Collectivist]

i think its refreshing to see someone obviously deeply engaged intentionally stepping away from wanting to provide the answer, not only giving us all the task of figuring ourself, all together, out what to replace capital with but even putting his trust explicitly in humanities hands.

I admit I watched it yesterday and I don't think I even finished the whole thing. This was actually what I think bothered me most about the clip. He didn't really say anything at all. As much as I disliked that douche conducting the interview (and I thought it was funny how upset he was) he brought up a valid point. He asked Russel what his alternative to voting was, and Russel just danced around the question for several minutes. I'm not saying he had to spell out some detailed plan for society to follow but surely he could have offered some suggestions.

[ed miliband]

I think any one on the left taking this too seriously one way or the other is being a bit silly.

you are totally correct. my hangover was making me be a dickhead - it's not meant to be taken too seriously and doing so misses the point.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

He came off as incoherent but I've never seen an interview with him before so I wonder if thats how he always comes off? I thought it was kind of cool that he didnt list 10 arbitrary things that needed to happen for the world to fix itself or be fixed by someone. Honestly saying that you're not sure shouldn't mean that you have to stop pointing out how fucked up everything is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

He came off as incoherent but I've never seen an interview with him before so I wonder if thats how he always comes off?

Yes. Before all this I had seen a clip of him on a daytime news show mocking the hosts for having an innane job and then he began to read their cue cards and read the news over them to demonstrate his point. It was amusingly chaotic and incoherent.

The following clip is with him interviewing the bigots of the Phelps church... it's sort of like old-school early 90s daytime talk show sensationalism, except more humerous than Geraldo or Springer (which isn't hard).

+ YouTube Video

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I wouldn't say it's the most important intervention in terms of publicised political acts - far from it.

However, it seems crazy to me that our reaction to somebody expressing a revolutionary perspective on national news, to a potential audience of millions, would be to sort of disown them, criticise them for not being an intellectual or theoretical update of Marx and the like. That sort of POV actually tells me more about the mindset of people on the left than someone like Russell Brand (And this isn't really directed at the OP because I know he's got fairly sound politics, it's more at other comments i've heard elsewhere).

As I say, it's not a game-changing interview, but it's something to share, to get behind and to discuss with people, and it shows perhaps more importantly that the idea of opposing the profit motive, the idea of actually just saying 'voting changes nothing', isn't crackpot, or despotic, or down the road to authoritarianism, but it's actually something that holds water and, judging by the general backing of Brand in the wake of the interview, something that many working people can get behind.

His politics are imperfect - particularly some of his tree-hugging and spiritual stuff, or at least the way he expresses such views -, but they are also accessible and, at a basic level, quite decent, so let's just spread it as propaganda against profit, against bourgeois politics and capitalism, instead of spreading it with this message of 'oh, he's not quite good enough for us'. Fuck sake.

[The Feral Underclass]

[Jimmie Higgins]

I wouldn't say it's the most important intervention in terms of publicised political acts - far from it.

However, it seems crazy to me that our reaction to somebody expressing a revolutionary perspective on national news, to a potential audience of millions, would be to sort of disown them, criticise them for not being an intellectual or theoretical update of Marx and the like. That sort of POV actually tells me more about the mindset of people on the left than someone like Russell Brand (And this isn't really directed at the OP because I know he's got fairly sound politics, it's more at other comments i've heard elsewhere).

As I say, it's not a game-changing interview, but it's something to share, to get behind and to discuss with people, and it shows perhaps more importantly that the idea of opposing the profit motive, the idea of actually just saying 'voting changes nothing', isn't crackpot, or despotic, or down the road to authoritarianism, but it's actually something that holds water and, judging by the general backing of Brand in the wake of the interview, something that many working people can get behind.

His politics are imperfect - particularly some of his tree-hugging and spiritual stuff, or at least the way he expresses such views -, but they are also accessible and, at a basic level, quite decent, so let's just spread it as propaganda against profit, against bourgeois politics and capitalism, instead of spreading it with this message of 'oh, he's not quite good enough for us'. Fuck sake.

His New Statesman editorial basically makes this argument at one point: the right is always looking for converts, the left looks for signs of traitors.

I think your attitude is right on: this video has a little resonance and it's an opening to discuss revolutionary ideas - even if only for the moment.

He's a comedian and we shouldn't expect that he would give a rousing propagandistic speech based in a deep understanding of marxist or anarchist revolutionary politics. He basically seemed to be expressing profound frustration but unlike most countered that with a revolutionary/utopian yearning rather than cynacism and nihilism which has been the standard responce of many for the last decades. He's playing a subversive fool and that's refreshing IMO. I've always had a soft spot for public personas like Hunter Thompson or John Waters or Charlie Chaplin even if I wouldn't go to any of them to try and figure out strategy or theorhetical questions. We deserve more revolutionary Fools that can mockingly remind us that the Emporer has no clothes and we can all see his wormy willy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE]

His New Statesman editorial basically makes this argument at one point: the right is always looking for converts, the left looks for signs of traitors.

Indeed, it hits the nail on the head.

He's a comedian and we shouldn't expect that he would give a rousing propagandistic speech based in a deep understanding of marxist or anarchist revolutionary politics.

I'd go further and say that actually, I wouldn't want him to give some speech based on a deep understanding of Marxist programmes and what not. I mean, perhaps yes an understanding of Marxism as a philosophical system to organise one's thoughts, but not in terms of the party political bullshit that the existing left is generally riddled with.

Also TAT you're annoying.

[The Feral Underclass]

Maybe you should learn not to get so annoyed, so easily.