Today Russell Brand has made the news as he openly calls for revolution. Many comrades have been quick to criticise his statements for vagueness, 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 for causing some mild controversy. From preaching for a more humane, rehabilitative, caring response to drug addiction to performing hilarious critiques of the media with his appearances on MSNBC and the GQ awards, many people have rallied behind him and perhaps been made to stop and think about certain issues they thought they were sure on.
Though it seems for many anarchists and those on the far left in general, his efforts are hypocritical, in effective and not extreme enough to be worth getting behind. It is my opinion that in light of the state of the movement, if one can be said to exist in a meaningful way at all, these points are at least moot, and mostly counterproductive.
The fact of the matter is that Russell Brand is a celebrity with a huge public following, regular appearances in the media that reaches and influences the public in its millions. He thus has an enormous opportunity to effortlessly sway opinion in a way that we will perhaps never have. And it costs us nothing. He is not in a tiny under resourced political organization that's size dictates its biggest victory to be confined to the realm 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 hence makes absolutely no sense to only be seen as negative and cynical towards an open call for revolution and a condemnation of government, representative democracy and environmental damage. Yes, in the interview with Paxman he is tactically un clear about what his notion of revolution entails specifically and materially. This is probably because he honestly doesn’t know, but that is fine. Also, as he says the onus is not on him to do so as an individual. Of course Brand is not an anarchist. Of course he is not espousing these ideas from the position of being a proletarian. He is not being radicalised by a life of precarity and fear living on zero hour contracts, 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 at hand.
The reality of our situation as radicals at the moment is that we are isolated and often alienated from the working class, a class we are a part of and a class that we ultimately aim to liberate as members of it ourselves. Our victories are small, our presence is largely misunderstood, limited or even non-existent. This is a truth we must confront if we want the next spontaneous expression of rage towards the status quo to be class conscious, organised, targeted and ultimately politically consequential. If not, it will manifest as it did in the riots of 2011 in the mass theft of consumer goods and wrecking our own communities resulting in imprisonment, repression and being labelled as apolitical thugs; equally condemned by the state and fellow working class people blindly succumbing to calls for draconian and reactionary measures, frenzied by a moral panic engineered by our oppressors.
To put it simply, we need to take what we can get when we are not winning the fight against capitalism in anyway at the moment. I am not calling to strive to become celebrities and to sway public opinion by means of trying to gain access to a platform that will always be against us, no matter how much it tries to simulate a debate and the illusion of alternative available via the ballot box. I don’t want anarchists to try and spread our message by getting spots on political TV shows like Question Time or Newsnight or by writing for publications like The New Statesmen.
We cannot compete with the media and we can’t hope to operate for our own interests using its apparatus which is designed by, and is a tool of those we wish to overthrow. We will never make anarchism a popular ideology by going on the news and whining about the great injustice of words like ‘anarchy’ and ‘communism’ being falsely re associated with notions of chaos and horrific totalitarianism. We can’t hope to become famous and influence public opinion in the way Brand can, or at least aspires to.
But we can influence public opinion by communicating with people on a level, fight by fight, struggle by struggle, conversation by conversation, not closed meeting by closed meeting, not TUC march by TUC march or bookfair by bookfair. And specifically with regards to Russell Brand and others like him, we can do this alongside by using this topical event as an opportunity to talk about our views, an action which does not imply we 100% endorse everything he has ever done or will do.
He's a sexist creep who ought to disappear up his own arsehole, as if you dedicated this much to him. Any thoughts on the 3,000 workers up at Grangemouth who are losing their jobs?
He may very well be sexist. But writing this blog and taking the opportunity of his raising of issues to speak up whilst its topical and people would be much more prepared to talk about it, DOES NOT MEAN I ENDORSE HIM ENTIRELY AS A HUMAN BEING WITH EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE EVER. I said this in the conclusion.
Plus, about Grangemouth and for me not talking about it, that's hardly an argument. There are so many bad things happening all over the world every second, not everyone can know or do anything about them all day every day. If I write about Grangemouth, some one could go, WELL WHAT ABOUT [insert currently happening bad thing], then some one else could go, WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS and it could go on for literally forever.
I just watched this and while he makes a good point about the narrow limits of "political" debate to the complacent and arrogant Paxman, along with the merits of not voting (although he then does say it might one day be worth voting for someone?!?!), Brand's actual ideas are not radical at all.
He does not call for the abolition of the state or capital. He calls for a "reduction" of the profit motive, "heavily taxing" corporations and putting extra "responsibility" on them to be green. The substance of his critique of the political class is not structural but is aimed at the fact that many of them went to public school. He says nothing here that suggests he is a revolutionary in anything other than a leftist sense. I guess that is why the New Statesman let him edit their magazine. Next Verso will be giving him books deals and describing him as a "progressive figure". This is just populism.
I'm not saying that he isn't earnest or that the issues he raises aren't real ones but his understanding is really limited and his solutions are arguably dangerous. Calling for revolution in the context of resentment towards the 1% and public school boys is a recipe for violent scapegoating. Capitalism is not fundamentally a moral problem, a problem made by nasty people, it is a problem about the fundamental structure of a society based on value and the state. I do not think Brand understands that. As such, I believe his ideas, in their current form, can only be corrosive to any revolutionary movement against the real existing state of things.
Everything you've said is accurate. Whats being argued here is that the vitriol from some corners about Brand's comments is unwarranted and pretty ridiculous. I don't see how the existence of a popular figure with some vague egalitarian positions is a negative.
Well quite. Honestly Malva that comes across as pretty unbearably pompous - it really doesn't matter if Brand's personal politics are left of centre, left of Lenin or left of the Cat in the Hat, what matters is that he has used his enormous celebrity to open the terms of the political debate ever so slightly in our favour. It's not tremendously important in the final analysis, but it's refreshing and certainly more welcome than listening to the usual unpopular leftists drone on boringly and ineffectively about how amazing it would be if Labour got in next time.
(@ f-i, beaten to it by a minute) Actually what's being argued is that it opens the door a tiny bit for more radical debate, I tend to agree.
Someone, who's been reading my "libertarian rants" on a non-radical forum, said today (paraphrasing) he's has been persuaded of their truth, and asked me what we should be doing, so I pointed him to the libcom "Direct Action - an Introduction". It's only taken a couple of years for someone to say they now think I'm right. Maybe they're all about to fall like dominoes? I won't hold my breathe ;)
I'm more of a dickhead, but I'd settle for a schmuck.
Firstly, I make it an obstinate point of principle to go the extra mile to avoid finding out about what celebrities get up to and I know it's a bit petty but I'm so fed up with celeb culture that I actively avoid it. So, whatever Russell Brand has done which has pissed people off in his past, I'm functionally clueless about it.
Secondly - and this is the one which is likely to have me taken behind the chemical sheds and shot (where does that even come from? I would have thought chemicals and firearms were a health and safety disaster begging to happen,) I actually really enjoyed that interview.
Sure Brand isn't an anarchist or even a particularly well-thought out lefty. He doesn't have much of an analysis going on, I don't remember him mentioning the word capitalism once and he's appealing to the 99% ideas which were around Occupy but from what I've seen last night and today he seems to have struck a chord with a lot of people, including in the US where Newsnight isn't a regular feature in peoples' lives. It's so rare that on mainstream news that politics is talked about as anything outside the usual paradigm of being something that only politicians do. And when occasionally an unorthodox view comes up, it's usually to give a platform to someone like Alex Jones or whoever the libertarian (in the US sense) of the week is.
What I did take from the Brand interview is that he said that representative democracy does not represent us, and that resonated with a lot of people. One of the greatest obstacles to discussing politics, I find, is the perception that there is no acceptable alternative to what we already have, that you might be able to tinker with it or reform it, but ultimately the only alternative is totalitarianism. Give Brand his due, when asked what he was proposing as an alternative he said he didn't know, but it was a potential conversation opener. That conversation just doesn't happen, except in rarified environments.
Most people I know are vaguely liberal and generally go out and vote. I don't know anyone who is massively energized or enthusiastic about this, it's more of a case of picking the least worst and making the best of a bad job. I don't think Brand is actually revolutionary nor do I expect his interview or stint on the NS to turn any vast swathes of the population. However I can't see that it hurts to have an opening to a conversation that there is an alternative to what we've got.
However if Brand is right, and I suspect that he is not here, and there is indeed a revolution just around the corner, I would like to volunteer to deal with Paxman. He's been on my list for years.
Edit: and as per usual, I started that, my computer crashed, went for a strop, retyped it and crossposted with people who summed it up in a much less rambling way than me.
Except it's not in "our favour" if he is feeding a fetishistic pseudo-anti-capitalism that leads to violent scapegoating. This was my point. Moreover, I did also say that it was a good thing that he suggested voting was pointless (but then he contradicted himself!).
Yet, the other, far more numerous, ideas he mentioned might just as easily push people towards the far right and any left based on it I have no interest in personally. This 1 per cent concept has, as lots of people have pointed out, structural similarities with anti-antisemitism. Even the Nazis talked about "how democracy had failed", spoke of revolution and caring for the environment. Obviously, I'm not saying he is a Nazi(!) but I don't think the sum total of what he has said is in "our favour". I think it shapes discourse about our society in a bad way.
No doubt it is fun and exciting to see a celebrity take up a discourse outside the norm, for those that care about celebrity culture in anyway, but that doesn't mean ultimately it is any more than a bit of televisual transgressive titillation.
Feminists are the real enemy, divisive, blah blah blah got you, off to kill myself now, cheers comrade for your acute analysis
kosmogrrrl
Who has said this ?
Awesome. I look forward to the time when instead of looting shops, people stand outside demanding they pay more taxes.
Just to be clear. I am not condemning him for not expressing my personal opinions about what is and is not radical. I could not care less what he expresses on TV or what is represented on the box in general. I just think that the opinions he is expressing do not necessarily free up critical discourse in the way that is being suggested.
WE NEED A REAGAN OF THE LEFT.
I nominate Russell Brand.
Kinda struck home, from his piece in NS "Just before the kettling and boredom, while things were still buzzing, bongos, bubbles and whistles, I was hurt when a fellow protester piously said to me: “What you doing here? I’ve seen you, you work for MTV.” I felt pretty embarrassed that my involvement was being questioned, in a manner that is all too common on the left. It’s been said that: “The right seeks converts and the left seeks traitors.” This moral superiority that is peculiar to the left is a great impediment to momentum. It is also a right drag when you’re trying to enjoy a riot.
Perhaps this is why there is currently no genuinely popular left-wing movement to counter Ukip, the EDL and the Tea Party; for an ideology that is defined by inclusiveness, socialism has become in practice quite exclusive. Plus a bit too serious, too much up its own fundament and not enough fun"
Paul Mason's take on Brand vs Paxman
http://bit.ly/1gIkwQA
Russelpass
The current weakness of the socialist movement is a result of unfriendly demonstrators? Brand sounds totally clueless.
It's probably more that sort of dismissive attitude. No one is born a communist. People are going to be interested in radical politics without a firm understanding, and they'll just fuck off if they're treated with dismission. I wonder if some anarchists actually want their ideas spread amongst others. Now you might hold someone in the public eye to a higher standard, but people you'd run into will have the same wooly ideas as Russell Brand. Are you going to call them clueless as well?
Malva
What's wrong with a little populist class hatred? It's preferable to complacency or admiration of the rich. It's not incompatible with a deeper analysis of society. Sure, it's very limited on its own but it can lead to a more fundamental understanding. Comparisons with anti-semitism are stupid, unlike Jews the richest 1% deserve hatred, hating the rich has always been prominent in anarchism, is a perfectly fine motivator and long predates anti-semitism.
Russell Brand is woolly. This article is woolly. The leftist movement does not need turds muddying the waters. The positive aspects of the democratising of the internet, giving everyone an equal voice, also enables idiots to make every important debate a morass of festering cowshit. I am an elitist, when it comes to "who would you ask to do the job", I will always pick the best, and there is no class bias in that judgement. 95% of people are not 'fit for purpose', in terms of revolution. Articles like this make me want to put my head in the oven.
If we are ever to have a revolution, be it in thought, culture, or even economics, it is going to take more than this sub-gcse rubbish. If you have no clear thought to promulgate, then be quiet.
abysmalmusings
What democratising of the internet? The internet is controlled by, provided by, and owned by private companies and our usage of it is far from free or universal. It is also not in consequential, we are constantly under surveillance using it.
Abysmal, your username is surprisingly honest.
Anyway, I watched the interview this morning. I thought it was enjoyable. I like seeing Paxman lose a debate (even if he didn't seem to realize it).
Brand is pretty damn confused. On the one hand, he's expressing an honest rejection of electoral politics that I prefer to the normal leftist twaddle that we usually here. On the other, he's bascially arguing for revolutionary social democracy - which is probably more astute than it seems given that it took the threat of a revolutionary working class to force social democracy in the first place.
But, yeah, Fleur and Flaneur have already covered this better than I have, so I'll end it there.
EDIT: Cross-posted with Croydonian.
I have no interest in celebrities, or what they do or don't do and I know bugger all about Russell Brand though, to be honest, find him a bit annoying.
But for fuck sake, what is wrong with some of you lot? The guy's been on national telly promoting vaguely anarcho-socialist views and loads of you are acting like a load of smacked arses about it because he's not got his theory totally worked out 100% perfect. Some of you need to get your snouts out of your post grad studies and fucking wise up. True, what he says is not perfect, theoretically sharp and not exactly clear as crystal, hard as steel but if it gets the message across to a few more people then that'll do for now.
At times, anarcho-whingers really get on my tits.
What part of the centralised administrative bodies over-seeing the heavy taxation on corporations, as well as putting a reduced emphasis on the profit motive seemed vaguely anarcho-socialist? I couldn't care less about him not having his theory worked out 100%, there are a load of celebs who have shitty politics. Posting what essentially amounts to an uncritical statement of support on the front page of a Communist website however seems somewhat odd, especially with the kind of problematic content I quoted earlier on.
Reginald J. Trotsfield
Content is posted on the front page for lots of different reasons, in this case because its encouraging debate about an interesting and relevant cultural debate. There is nothing to say that it is uncritical support for what Russell Brand gets up to.
Reginald, did I say that one particular point you've singled out from an interview over 10 minutes long was anarcho-socialist? The point is, many of his comments are vaguely heading in our direction. But, sure, go ahead and piss on his chips if it'll make you feel more revolutionary.
It doesn't amount to an uncritical statement of support. It's clearly not a statement of support. The wording might be a bit dodgy in places ("not extreme enough" as if we're "extreme"); it's obviously a blog, though, and not a statement of "official anarchist position". Maybe it shouldn't be front page, I wouldn't worry though, it's much more likely to get hits from people searching for "russell brand" than people visiting the libcom front page!
There is no problematic content. There is only your opinion that the London riots were awesome and that anyone who has a more measured reading of their significance is a liberal.
What is positive in the video is not the coherence or theoretical value of the RB's views. It is his emotional conviction, honestly expressed desire for revolution. This affective aspect of defending communism is very essential, but it can not be put forward in a defensive mood, accepting the moral superiority of the enemy; the radical spirit dies with a defensive posture. I think that is why RB's interview is so impressive. Not for its academic complexity but for its spirit. There is no melancholic guilt, no apology for "past mistakes done", no emotional uncertainty about the filthiness of the enemy. Prevailing pomo cynicism, liberal petty-bourgeois nihilism tried to kill this spirit in the previous decades, and maybe to a certain extent succeeded temporally.
Well that's sort of the problem. There probably will be a bunch of people who did identify with what Brand had to say who google search and find their way here, and the main blog offers no form of critique or presentation of Anarchist ideas, while at the same time people making criticisms in the comments section are being told they're whinging.
Yep. Because that is my position. I just find language, such as identifying taking goods from chain stores as "theft", and talking about "our own communities", to be problematic.
russell brand revolution = google hit 23. They've got 2 pages of real shite to get through first, before they read this post and take it as the unanimous and comprehensive anarchist critique.
The main thing Brand says rather eloquently is that the system has no alternatives, does speak to or for the dispossessed. The present order is rotten from root to branch, everyone with the smallest bit of power buys into the prevailing universal lie.
But one call out this situation without being anti-capitalist. Any honest democrat would want to boycott the modern state's elections.
Honestly describing the utter hopelessness of the prevailing regime and the universal fabric of corrupt relations supporting it is necessary, requires guts and is something that even many describing themselves as revolutionaries often fail to do. But still, such honesty isn't enough and in fact such honesty by itself gets you nowhere. We know that pushing "redistribution" is like trying to ride a bicycle with no wheels down a cul-de-sac into a brick wall, a waste of time inside a futile venture. But knowing how bad things are, sadly, just doesn't by itself give the clues to a person in isolation (or especially a celebrity).
Maybe Brand is sufficiently self-absorbed that HE will make it to google results page 3, then we can all put him right :D
flaneur
There have always been socialists that have acted in an obnoxious or exclusive manner and while that's certainly not desirable in any way, the notion that "perhaps this is why there is currently no genuinely popular left-wing movement" is really very silly. Since Brand's quote was cited favorably in a post before mine, I see nothing wrong with pointing this out.
I'm not actually speaking to Russell Brand and I doubt he'll ever read my post, so I'm not especially worried about him feeling turned away from radical politics because of what I wrote. I've never found anyone to be swayed toward anarchism through having their knowledge and intelligence insulted so no, I wouldn't tell someone they were clueless for having dubious politics.
abysmalmusings
Russell?
Marlon Brando was a liberal, although many, many looked to him for answers to their political questions. I suspect Russel Brand's radical liberalism is playing a similar role in the Spectacle.
I admit that I'd love to have a discussion with Brand about communism. Perhaps he'll start reading my blog; but I don't hold out much hope. What is socialism/communism?
abysmalmusings
Be my guest.
RB has an opinion qualitatively better than virtually every other celebrity of his stature. Sure, it's confused and inadequate and it's even got some negative aspects to it. It's still vastly better than anything I've seen a celebrity say for at least 30 years. When he states his opinion, he is going to come under attack from the Right. The standard line of attack in these circumstances is the argumentum ad hominem - "You're a hypocrite! If you believe this stuff, you shouldn't be a rich celebrity." And, of course, the other side of the coin is that people who aren't rich celebrities don't get quoted saying radical things, either. If they want to get quoted they have to say things that are approved by the likes of Rupert Murdoch or the Daily Mail.
For people who want the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, and have thought it through somewhat more thoroughly than RB, this situation is therefore a trap. The controversy is actually part of a campaign by capital to restrict the spectrum of acceptable opinion.
What, then, is the appropriate response of people like us? It is two-fold:
1. We defend RB's freedom of speech and his right to be treated equally to others with a point of view to express.
2. We make concrete criticisms of his statements, criticising their inadequacies and advancing superior views.
If this gets one of us noticed in the mainstream media, it will be a small victory against capital.
"jeremy don't ask me to sit here with you in a bloody hotel room and devise a global utopian system"
:lol:
vicent
sorry for the derail but when people talk of capital doing something, so you mean capitalist humans? or capital as a force in itself?
dont agree with half of what he said... i respect that he admitted he doesnt' have a program for revolution, but his self-admitted ignorant posits of what kind of world he'd like to see is in no way revolutionary in and of itself, in no way anti-capitalist, just more regulation, more taxes, more welfare(if you can call it that) and definately in no-way anti-authoritarian. give current state of corruption, power disparity, and apathy and ignorance, i am down right opposed to anything vaguely resembling authoritarian socialist programs... given a more participatory culture and i might entertain that sort of thing, but until then i disagree completely with what brand said, but understand, he doesn't have a rich analysis, and what he said is all you can expect from someone who doesn't spend their time researching revolution and culture change, learning from the past, and wondering how we can get to a more free, equal and just future... even if there is such a thing... also his implication that victory rests simply on there being a revolution, that victory is guaranteed, is dangerous, feeds very well into fascist hands who want nothing more than political instability as well... we need to be ready, and not let these incidences distract us, they can open up dialogues, but we shouldn't necissarily amplify those dialogues, but let it amplify our own
it is refreshing to here some diverse dialogue taking place however... makes me wonder more than anything why we are hearing them
Reginald J. Trotsfield
Aye, we can't let the riff-raff gatecrash the Libcom party without a thoroughly worked out analysis, can we. Fuck me, you sound like Libcom's answer to Mrs Bucket :D
Reginald
No, people that are being dismissive and whingy are being told they're whinging.
If you want want to point out where his politics falter - something that damn near ever poster on this thread has acknowledged - and then offer a more consistently revolutionary, anarchist position no one would tell you were whinging. But having a go at libcom posters for even "dedicating time" to Brand at all or claiming that Croydonian has written and "uncritical statement of support", yeah that's basically whinging.
For that matter, there's nothing stopping you from requesting a libcom blog (I mean, I guess I can't guarantee they'll give you one) and writing up a critique of what Brand said.
vicent
I thought this was a really good line, too.
I mean, obviously, it would have been better if he'd talked about how post capitalist society could only be forged in the furnace of working class revolution. Or how the goal should be moving from "government of people to the administration of things". A critique of the futility of utopian socialist schemes, the failure of state capitalism and social democracy - all those things would have been great.
But, he didn't do that. What he did was to defend the idea that abstaining from voting doesn't mean that you're somehow forbidden from social critique. And, at the same time, not having some sort of planned out post-revolutionary society doesn't preclude you from being a revolutionary.
Those are both pretty basic anarchist principles.*
*And before you go nuts, of course I don't think that makes Brand an anarchist.
I really bloody enjoyed the interview, he's a joker. And I completely agree that, while some of his ideas seem pretty poorly thought through and contradictory, he acknowledges that and doesn't pretend to have all the answers.
But how can people overlook his explicit sexism so easily? People are making the argument that he's sort of opened up debate and pushed the limits of the views you normally hear on tv. But I'm not sure how it can really feel like that to the people (ie women) he undermines, objectifies and essentially excludes from his analysis. In the interview he says he agreed to edit for the New Statesman because a beautiful woman asked him to. That slightly got my back up. Then I read this where he's just so blatently and unapologetically sexist, and talks about women like they're just like frivolous, irrelevant trinkets who exist for his amusement.
I don't know, I can forgive his bumbling and incoherant analysis, and I'm glad he's saying lots of things which resonate with people, but I'm afraid the sexism detracts any resonance I might have felt and this is probably true for a lot of women.
People complain that he's being vague, but that's probably better. He knows he doesn't know what is to be done, that's because he wants all the people to devise the new system. He doesn't want to be a leader, he wants to be a member and a catalyst.
vicent
Well obviously capital isn't sitting in a smoky office somewhere making plans like Dr. Claw or something, but it makes as much sense to talk about capital doing things as it does to talk about the state or the economy. When people on here talk about capital doing such and such a thing I think they're generally talking about actions driven by the needs of capital.
https://twitter.com/rustyrockets
its his twitter, i dont get twitter, but 7 million followers
also his fb
https://www.facebook.com/RussellBrand/info
1.9 mill 'readers'
to the social media comrades ;)
commieprincess
What parts of the full new statesmen article did you find sexist. To me at least, the intro to me sounded heaped in irony and more of a acknowledgement that The New Statesmen isn't that good rather than an actual comment about the woman. The most important thing that I tried to make clear in that article was that taking the opportunity he has created does not mean I support everything he does (including his sexism, though I personally haven't seen massive evidence for it other than the whole incident with him demanding one of his female co workers to expose her breasts to him) or that in the conversations with people I will not go further or critique what Brand himself said.
This is the first anarchist response I've seen that makes a degree of sense.
On the one hand there are those who are going enormously overboard in affirming Brand's performance on Newsnight as a watershed moment that more or less guarantees revolution.
And then there are the other responses (copiously reproduced here) that make attacks on Russell Brand pointing to his sexism, his vagueness, his references to "redistribution of wealth".
Anarchists are supposed to look at actual tendencies in society, no? Aren't we supposed to go to the working class and operate ALONGSIDE them? So let's see what actual material effect Brand's performance has on the tendencies being expressed by the working class...will it have a salient affect on class consciousness, will it help to get people into organising, or will it peter out to nothing, or remain trapped within the realm of Brand-as-commodity/messianic celebrity figure?
These aren't questions that will be answered by moral condemnation, rejection or uncritical affirmation of what he did, said and did not say. They will play themselves out in the world.
Let's stop acting as if we're the moral guardians of the political world and realise that Brand's performance was important because of what it PERFORMED, and not necessarily what it said or didn't say.
As other have said, here was an intelligent, articulate, working class man who argued with passion about the need for revolution, THAT should be applauded, or at least seen as a pretty interesting development. That Brand IS a sexist and is neither an anarchist nor a communist isn't really at issue- unless you believe for one minute he's going to be hoisted high as the leader of a new revolutionary movement (Lenin for the internet age, lulz).
And I would echo the poster who turned attention to Grangemouth. There have been several big announcements in the last few days that all this fretting about Russell Brand has caused so many people to overlook. My twitter feed has been awash with commentary on Brand and comparably nothing about Grangemouth, the appointment of Simon Stevens as the new NHS head in England, the executive of Serco quitting and so on and so on....
If people are worried about the spectacle contaminating politics then they ought to stop engaging with the spectacle and letting it dominate their conversation. On the other hand, we could realise that we need to contaminate the spectacle for our own ends.
I think artistic license exempts him from the usual political correctivism which others must obey to keep their jobs.
commieprincess
I agree completely. Yes he said some interesting things and my criticism is not that he wasn't full communist enough, but that he's created a whole persona based on being a really horrible misogynist but we can just overlook that for now. It's really depressing.
FUCKING HELL.
Ramona, thanks for that and putting it much more elegantly.
Croydonian and Sometimes Explode, I normally really enjoy both your posts and I'm shocked at your responses. (Except I need to stop being shocked by this stuff because it just happens far too often.)
So what, SE, you think sexism is on the same level as vagueness in terms of critiquing someones ideas? And I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but pointing out sexism is the same as claiming to be some kind of moral guardian?
Croydonian, I am seeing sexism where really it's just ironic banter? I just don't understand the joke? Is this really what you're suggesting? I can't be arsed right now to pick back through the article for "evidence", but I do remember that every female throughout the article is mentioned either for her body or looks, or as a victim. The men mentioned in the article might have the piss taken out of them, but it's because of their ideas and/or actions. I'll re-read it later as I can't remember specific examples. But, just so you know, when someone is upset or pissed off about sexism, it's generally considered kind of dickish behaviour to tell them they just didn't understand a joke. And apologies if that sounds harsh, but I'm just bloody sick of dealing with this shit.
CA I think this is quite problematic:
What's wrong with the mass theft of consumer goods? And the places we live are neither ours nor communities.
I don't think that's at all problematic, unless you're an ultra-spontenaeist. While kicking off like in 2011 is not only understandable and has many positive aspects, there are the obvious downsides mentioned in the quote. But if we ever want to get anywhere as a class, we need to be organised, clued up and more politicised in terms of going beyond rebellion.
In the first paragraph, he says
Much further down he writes:
These are the only mentions of women in the article. I don't see the victimisation. I see the mention for looks, in the very first sentence - a sentence which on its own would be ridiculously vacuous. However in the context of the paragraph, where the second sentence is quite shocking for a mainstream political publication, it makes comedic sense. It's part of a one-two to shock people at the start of the article.
It's even possible that he's taking the piss out of himself with this opening. A woman I know wrote on Facebook: "Wasn't he making a self-deprecating joke alluding to his own weakness to refuse an attractive woman? To me, this was how it sounded - making a mockery of himself rather than objectifying a woman."
However, it is definitely ill-judged, as loads of people are going to be offended by it regardless of whatever his intent was. I think what Musa Okwonga ahs to say about this is relevant.
Good article, Croydonian.
Directly because of people I know on Facebook posting or talking about the Brand/Paxman interview, I have been able to introduce several people to the Anarchist FAQ. Working people, intelligent people, but people who would not under normal circumstances read or think about anarchism.
Everyone I posted that link to said they found it really interesting, one of my friends even posted "I think I'm an anarchist!".
As regards to his problematic casual sexism, another (female) Facebook contact wrote:
...which I think is sensible.
commieprincess
I am sorry if I have offended you but honestly my interpretation of the jokes in that article sort of make sense to me and they are obviously different to yours and I don't think is alone a problematic thing. Perhaps my tone was not on point but honestly I just wanted to sort of say "well tbh i am interpreting it differently on these specific occasions" rather than pretend its ridiculous for some one to interpret it otherwise and act as if I wouldn't think his sexism was a problem, but like I said on that joke and article, I don't personally interpret anything he has said to be sexist. Of course him being sexist is a problem, but as I tried to make clear me writing the article and not mentioning it doesn't mean I don't care about it or think it's a problem. Of course it's a problem, but it is something we can address alongside the positive things he said in the conversation I believe his statements have started, or could start.
bastarx
A lot of people here seem to have assumed I have a moral problem with the looting because I used the word theft. This is not the case. I have no moral qualms about stealing consumer goods, the point I was trying to make was that the riots could have been a lot better if all the anger that it was spurred by had been directed at political targets rather than falling prey to our materialistic desires which have been engineered and shaped by the media etc.
The places we live may not be ours but they certainly are communities. This seems a really odd suggestion that is more reminiscent of the atomised liberal society with everyone just acting in their self interest and their self interest alone that our enemies would want. If they weren't communities, how has any solidarity or actions ever been possible around say, the closure of local hospitals. Yes this pride in where you live can often be nationalistic or including of the areas bosses, business owners, petty bourgeois etc but it can also be really useful and good, mostly because there is a often un spoken notion of working class spirit underneath it.
commieprincess
Of course not. Pointing out sexism is obviously important and it's obviously not on a par with conceptual vagueness. I'm probably expressing myself poorly, but what I'm trying to get at is the that
yes RB is a misogynist; yes he is a millionaire even if from a working class background; yes he is part of the spectacle; no he isn't going to ensure revolution over night.
All the critiques, including the feminist critique, are perfectly accurate and true.
That is the critique at the level of content.
There isn't just one level at work in this though.
Brand is a celebrity- we can't pretend celebrities don't have a massive psychodramatic potency over the minds of their fans, and of the broader culture around them. There is a psychodramatic effect here that neither moral nor political critique alone can understand.
Brand is part of the spectacle that turned against the spectacle- is this the recuperation of dissent? No. If it were recuperation the word "revolution" would never have been uttered. There is something that is absolutely significant about the spectacle turning on itself like this. Somehow the spectacle became authentic- if only for a moment- and that is interesting and exciting.
There is also the question of the singularity of RB's performance. Here was a working class voice* that expressed genuine rage about the way capital exists in antagonism to life. When you go around everyday carrying that rage inside you, to see it expressed on television, to have an experience of affective resonance so that it feels like your rage is being shouted into Paxman's face, so that it feels like you are shouting in Paxman's face.......that is deeply felt and deeply important. At least it was for me.
The critiques of Russell Brand the man- yes, absolutely, I agree 100%. But these critiques don't touch Russell Brand's performance as a symptom of something strange happening to the spectacle itself. They don't touch the completely impersonal transmission of affect- the rage that isn't contained in any one body and so doesn't belong to any one person.
So my post is more about making the critiques and moving on to analyse these other aspects of what's happening. And I want to be clear, because I've been involved in a couple debates about this on Twitter as well (admittedly some of that being to do with my lack of care with my wording). I'm not advocating for Russell Brand as a revolutionary, I'm not affirming Russell Brand as a good man, I am suggesting this is evidence that mass radicalism is around the corner.
I'm just not going to reject the importance of his performance on that basis.
I don't know if any of this makes my position any clearer, or if it's just more evidence that I'm missing the point... if I am missing the point, then it isn't wilfully.
* whether or not he's actually working class doesn't matter now- the psychology of accent has its effects regardless
I tend to agree with Malva on the political content of Brand's interview but also a bit with mikail on the emotional impact of the interview which, despite my general dislike for the guy, did strike a chord with me given the usual blandness of Paxman's efforts on the BBC. But the fact that we can get at all excited about this episode and the claimed opportunities which this opens up for anarchists and communists in casual conversations with people when we, and most of our fellow workers, have so demonstrably failed to effectively respond to the current economic and social crisis, up to and including Grangemouth, is frankly just sad - a sign of our weakness and a false belief in the significance of both media debates and the milieu's puny efforts at propaganda.
Spikeymike, you're a big doomlord....
... though basically right :oops:
[deleted]
Since you can't be arsed - the article only refers to women in the first sentence that you took issue with and indirectly in a crap metaphor halfway through.
I think its fair to say most men and women have related more positively than average to a person they've found attractive. I don't see how a comic making that explicit is sexist.
the croydonian anarchist
Felt the need to respond to this, although I don't particularly want to derail the tread from the Brand topic which I think is interesting and pertinent. I find this narrative that is often put about regarding the riots of August 2011 somewhat troubling - specifically the idea that what was wrong with the riots was a lack of the 'correct' political consciousness, or that the rioters were sort of 'brainwashed' into wanting 'consumer goods' by 'the media', or that people were destroying 'their own communities' rather than 'the real enemy'. I do find this logic moralistic, and moreover I find it patronising, elitist, and blinkered. I also think it's based on a particular narrative of the riots that bears little resemblance to what actually happened.
I mean this idea that the rioters were falling prey to "materialistic desire" inculcated by the media rather than choosing "political" targets - firstly, this is nonsense. I mean do you have any idea how many cop shops were attacked over the course of the riots? How many pigs were beaten up in the street, how many cop cars burned? To say nothing of the attacks on wealthy neighbourhoods in London, in a clear and unmistakable display of pure class antagonism, this gives the lie to the idea of "apolitical" rioting. The rioters were deliberate and conscious in their choice of targets. They were not animalistic monsters, and nor were they brainwashed frustrated consumers, they were competent political actors who were able to assess the situation they were in and make rational decisions about it, just as much as me and you. Simply looking objectively of the actual targets of the riots shows this to be the case.
Secondly, the notion that high street retailers, shopping centres, and even those "small businesses" everyone makes such a fuss about, are somehow not political targets is just nonsensical coming from someone with even the most basic communist analysis of such things. The idea that tesco's or sports direct or whatever are not legitimate targets for political violence is simply absurd to me. Not least because, when interviewed, rioters made this connection themselves. Again, the rioters were not idiots. These companies and the billionaires who own them are as much a part and parcel of the system as the state is, and expropriating their goods and wrecking and burning their stores is at least as "political" as going on a march or standing outside a shop chanting slogans, if not substantially more so.
Thirdly the idea that our "materialistic desires" are somehow contrary to a revolutionary political programme seems deeply wrong headed to me. The satisfaction of human desire, which is by it's very nature materialistic, is surely the only legitimate goal of the communist project. The idea that we should resist the urge to loot, to pillage and to ransack the property of our exploiters in order to pursue "political" targets smacks of the self-sacrificial Protestant moralism that so infects the left: The revolution is serious business. It's not meant to be fun, in fact having fun is diametrically opposed to and detracts from furthering The Cause. To be truly devoted to The Cause you had to put all such distractions to one side, and devote yourself to pure revolutionary activity with no regard for your own needs. And you definitely, definitely can't lift a new pair of trainers or a flatscreen whilst you're doing it.
Looting a luxury clothing or electronics store is not in itself a revolutionary act - but neither is it a non-political act simply because the main motivation behind it was to get some cool shit rather than making a revolution. A truly revolutionary movement will be as much about people's material needs and desires as their political convictions. Moreover, these things are not fundamentally in contradiction from a communist perspective. A communist politics should be specifically about the realisation of human desires against the inhuman system of exploitation in which we find ourselves.
~J.
Well we ARE weak in comparison to the organised forces of the state and capitalism, and yeah this IS sad, but if it's going to change then we need to engage with people. I don't think it's sad that a recovering addict from a working class background has gone on television and talked about how the current system completely fails the working class, in a way that has engaged the interest of shitloads of people who previously were less engaged.
I agree that fleeting, constrained, debates in the mass media don't hold great individual significance. But as a springboard for our own "puny efforts at propaganda" they are useful.
(I'm sorry but I don't know what "milieu" means, and this is a genuine request for someone to inform me. So having admitted my ignorance, maybe the rest of this post is invalid...)
But whilst I admit that the phrase "the milieu's puny efforts at propaganda" has a nice ring to it, does it actually just mean "talking to people about radical anti-state anti-capitalist politics"? Cos that isn't insignificant. Precisely because the working class is so fragmented, disorganised, and as you say weak, what we really have to do at the moment is get people (a) engaged in criticism of the state and of capitalism, and (b) engaged in effective action. Effective propaganda is necessary, considering how few people calling themselves "anarchists" there actually are. Spectacular shit like this Russell Brand interview/article, in my opinion, are useful for this.
All you anarchist Brand bandwagon propaganda opportunists better get in there quick as I see the SPGB is already hot on the trail with equal enthusiasm!
I think the term is "the Brandwagon" :)
I have never seen the point in Russell Brand, I've only ever seen him as a self obsessed TV presenter. I've read about 40 pages of my booky wook and I doubt I will read any more.
If he makes people think about politics great, but I am not sure that he will.
Also the Illuminatisti are getting in their angle: Russell Brand Puts BBC Paxman In His Place - But Could He Be Illuminati Puppet? :wall:
It's because he's expressed something in a potently affective way that pretty much any group broadly against the status-quo could claim him. That only matter if any one here is trying to claim him as an anarchist or communist. I don't think any one has done that.
“If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.”
― Oscar Wilde
I only quote this because morality and political correctivism always get in the way of the truth, and I suggest that any liberating movement which hopes to win the hearts of a majority of folk do away with their idealism and look at life from the perspective of the those whose only form of emotional freedom left is to laugh. The rest of their time is stressing within a fear dominated matrix of economic servitude.
While I do not want to take the piss too much out of a comrade, this article was truly horrific. This is even more disappointing than seeing Brand in the news on a new celebrity poverty crusade.
What makes Russell Brand sad? He went marching against tuition fees a couple years ago, and somebody asked him why a mysoginistic millionaire was taking part. A perfectly legitimate question. If Brand cannot comprehend why someone would ask him that - he ain't a leftie. That is not divisive.
This article should be removed from libcom. If I want to read platitudes about Russell Brand I can go to nearly every other website around, or talk to a variety of idiots. What next? Are we going to applaud the various other cynical ploys of the mainstream political rags to boost their readership? Start lambasting anarchists for calling Boris Johnson a priveleged revisionist b****** because he kind of looks like a guy that might have smoked a joint or two?
I do not want to discourage the author from writing and participating in the left-wing movement, but the he is just wrong here. This article is wrong. The NS appointment is attention-seeking on the part of Brand and the NS. The NS is a failing magazine looking to boost its readership. Brand is an insignificant non-entity looking to boost his popularity. I am not even sure what Brand does any more. Is he a stand-up comic?
I feel a retraction and apology would be appropriate, and we can all get on reading about things that are more interesting.
jef costello
Did you see his early standup on 'the secret policemans ball' ranting about pedophiles. I didn't know who the hell he was but at the time around 2007 I was blown out by his audacious wit concerning such a nasty topic. If someone can transform and bring out into the open one of the most heinous social crimes, thus from un-inhibiting the processes of discourse, surely this applies to the political arena. As I said before, artistic licence has its merits.
batswill
So, he has got some cracking pedo jokes so we should listen to his views on the Syrian conflict?
Fair enough, but sometimes people who have lived in the gutter can't help themselves when fortune comes their way. I don't expect any battling worker who wins the Pools to still stay in the factory and I wouldn;t begrudge them any extravagant crass displays of their newfound wealth. Good on them, let them splash it around and ride the wave while it lasts. Its only paper, its not like Russell is enslaving us with his fortunate bounty, he's only made me laugh, he didn't order me to work or pay the rent.
I am not saying he is a hypocrit, I am saying he is an attention-seeking idiot. There are far better leftie celebrities about.
No we shouldn't, he's a comedian, not a political commentator. Nevertheless he may satirize the Syrian conflict, this being the means by which humor and politics can become adaptable to an audience's perception of conflicting ideas. I better see the interview before I say anymore.
Bunion_on_my_foot
I misinterpreted again. I'm sure there are, can you give me some names of comedians, I need some laughs at the moment :)
Bunion_on_my_foot
Well, I just viewed the interview and found Jeremy Paxton most reactionary. As for his rhetoric concerning democracy as being the will of the people, well, sorry Bunion onf, Paxton is a worn-out media hack whose intellectual scope is contained within the parameter of a smug bourgeois geo-political arena. I found RB to be passionately genuine, I saw no hubris or ignorance in his statements, in fact he revealed many of the fallacies that so-called democracy pretends to have addressed, and I think his plea to not vote is relevant since democracy has become a minority power mechanism. No, sorry Bunion omf, I cannot agree with you, but I'd still like some names of good leftist comedians, thanks :)
Stewart Lee, Mark Steel, Geogre Carlin (deceased), Dick Gregory
Stephen Colbert - need to find a website that will show it in the UK...
OneKlart
You nailed it. And about milieu, yeah I went to a bar-b-que milieu last weekend :)
Sod it, I'm trying to keep quiet but I can't help myself on this one.
My main point here is that to me personally, it is ENORMOUSLY exciting to hear, on a national platform, that disgusting fucking lie, that people have power through the ballot box, and that nobody is entitled to an opinion unless they vote. It's so fucking obvious but somehow people of all persuasions seem totally oblivious to this colossal elephant in the room. If for no other reason than this the Brand interview was fucking great! But it was great in other ways too - for a start, that arrogant prick Paxman was eventually rendered silent in the end by the truth of Brands critique of the current system and the clear anger and integrity with which it was delivered. To suggest that Brand was doing this to boost his ego and line his pockets is just elitist myopia.
I'm not a particular fan of Mr Brand and am not defending him in general and nor did I agree with all that he said but credit where it's due, eh?
As for Brand's ego, hell, it seems blindingly obvious to me that it is something he is acutely aware of and is a stick he uses to beat himself with, both for comic effect and sometimes to make a point. Surely I'm not the only one to notice that his talk of his own grandiosity is totally self deprecating?!!!
As for CA's piece being awful and that it should be removed from Libcom? Pah! What a load of pompous, sanctimonious bollocks.
Jesus, there's some right smacked arses about - if you found a fiver, you'd complain it wasn't a tenner. I don't know much and nor do I care about pointless celebrities, let alone Russell Brand who, from what I've seen previously is a right div. But if the bloke, just for once in his life says something remotely relevant about anti-capitalism and revolutionary politics on national TV, then it's a fucking gift and you take advantage of this temporary spotlight on revolutionary politics. Instead, we get the sound and the fury of the Youtube generation giving it the 'he's shit, he's this, he's that, he makes certain theoretical errors which I will later critique in my dissertation on... blah blah...' What a clueless bunch, wakey fucking wakey :lol:
Yes, in terms of political insight, there's no comparison between the annoying Brand and the brilliant Stewart Lee. However, Russell Brand is what the bourgeois media call a 'household name' while Stewart Lee is not. Make the most of it while it lasts folks.
jolasmo
Not numbers wise, but I know it went on. But it certainly wasn't the focus of things, it wasn't what the people who got arrested got arrested for, and I have never heard anything about the riots attacking wealthy neighbourhoods. I heard a shit tonne more about looting in Tottenham, Croydon, Manchester, a lot of places, that aren't wealthy.
jolasmo
I don't think I ever said the looting was apolitical. Its obviously political, as most things are. Obvioulsy shops are fair targets and I don't blame the rioters for robbing shit in of itself, I just think there could have better things done. Better doesn't mean "what already happened is un important/political"/
jolasmo
When I said materalistic, I meant materialistic in the sense of desire for things (consumer goods), commodity fetishism etc. But the main thing is that of course the satisfaction of human desire is pretty much one of the main reasons we do anything ever. Of course communism is geared towards better fulfilling these desires. But these sorts of desires tend to be a shit tonne more natural than "oh my god I can totally go and loot myself a new ipod". Plus in a post revolutionary society, of course we will still be making cool things that aren't all that socially useful, but we will also be producing a lot less and using them communally rather than making millions that are designed to break in under a year and that will be superseded by the next version soon after its release.
Bunion_on_my_foot
ThanksI checked out all these, LOL George Carlin's Modern man, thanks dude.
For the record I think Stewart Lee is an insufferable, arrogant pretentious dick.
sometimes explode
Great post, I do see where you're coming from a bit better - I think maybe I misunderstood your previous post.
croydonian
I completely get that, I'm not saying you were endorsing his sexism, it just felt like it was an irrelevant side issue – not necessarily from you in particular, but just throughout the thread.
croydonian
You might not and that's fair enough, but it just seems worth contemplating that something might be sexist if someone says they felt that way.
OneKlart -
russel brand
These are the only mentions of women in the article. They are all wanky, sexist statements and all refer to looks/bodies/victims.
OneKlart
Great, I'm glad it makes comedic sense to you. It makes me feel like shit.
Brand's quite capable of being a sexist prick as well as a comic, and has been exactly that on numerous occasions. There's absolutely zero point denying it, and coming up with guff like "oh it was all part of the act" makes you sound like an utter fool. Let alone this hackneyed shit about "oh you must have no sense of humour," which became a cliche around the same time as A-Line flares.
batswill
Of course, any woman who isn't amused by demeaning references to women must just not have a sense of humor. Maybe you'll accuse someone of hysteria next?
batswill
So when some famous guy you like says of does something sexist the only possible explanation is parody and the idea that they could be actual be sexists is ridicules, i mean whos acutaly sexist in really life, its not a real thing that exists is it, and it certainly doesn't reenforce sexism, because parody
Glad we got that sorted out
Edit: i see i was to slow
Rob Ray
I dunno Rob, its more in the delivery and not the actual terminology used. Some dialogue can appear sexist or defamatory because the context in which it is employed is lost and also the nuanced tone in which it is spoken not heard. To a blind person he is sexist, but we can not all be deadpan rationalists.
the croydonian anarchist
I found George Carlin brilliant, he even eclipses RB. That a satirist and revolutionary stand-up comedian could not find fame and fortune infuriates me, he had the nous to counter-exploit an industry bent on conventionality, and 'celebrity' would have become another cultural icon he could have torn apart in his repertoire of subjects to be critiqued.
Bunion_on_my_foot
Worth noting that both Colbert and Jon Stewart scabbed during the writer's strike. I know, disappointing as fuck.
Batswill, that post was way out of line and I think you're coming pretty damn close to violating posting guidelines.
Also, Jesus man, I get that you're responding to a lot at once, but really, the 8 posts in a row?
batswill, it's interesting that your response to me has been so venomous, nasty and personal.
You're not an anarchist. You might go round calling yourself one, and some people might even believe you, but the fact that you obviously have some deep-seated hatred towards 50% of working class people and passionate anti-feminist rage means it's impossible for you to actually be an anarchist.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but it's obviously your problem if you think good comedy has to include jokes at the expense of women. Guess what? Some comedians are not sexist wank jars like yourself. It is possible to make a joke that isn't sexist. So if a comedian lazily chooses to make jokes about women, why in the name of cock wouldn't anyone with a vague flicker of sense see them for what they are: sexist and lazy.
Also, more importantly, admin: some - very understandable - flaming removed.
On this issue of the revolutionary movement being weak. I think that this is only true in a quantitative sense.
It is true that in your everyday life you do not meet lots of people with a critique of capitalism or who are willing to actively engage in such a critique in theory or in practice (let alone both).
However, qualitatively, we have never been in a better position. All the old ideologies of revolution have been exposed as utterly vacuous and, at the same time, our theory of capitalism and what abolishing it actual means and takes (the abolition of all fetishistic social forms value, the state, exchange, work etc.) has never been more lucid. As an historical movement we have been through so much and learned so many lessons. So much is in place for an immediate and massive change in consciousness. If large numbers of people decide to adopt radical theory, discovered spontaneously or what speaks to them in books and conversation, it will not be because we've been super-friendly and oblique with them like some Christian evangelicals looking for huge numbers of converts to their faith, or because the representatives of the mass media give voice to popular resentment. It will be because revolutionary theory (again, spontaneous or otherwise) speaks on a rich, qualitative level to people’s subjective, practical need to realise their desires in a given historical moment.
The fact that taking note of the poverty of Brand’s ideas is implicitly described as a purely academic pursuit by a commentator above and that his accent was used as a measure of the video’s importance is a disturbing sign of how little theory is considered and how a lot of superficial cultural baggage is taken more seriously (including celebrity interviews). And before anyone jumps down my throat for being overly “intellectual”, such anti-intellectualism is just a form of intellectualism in bad faith. We all have ideas about what and how and the reasons why things should be done. This is theory. Everyone is a theorist. It is patronising in the extreme to suggest that you cannot discuss or critique someone’s ideas directly with them because they are not "born a communist” or have not got a fully worked out critique of capitalist society yet. How are they ever to become one or to develop one if they are not challenged on their beliefs? I am grateful to all of the authors and people I have met who have challenged mine. It has helped me be clearer in my own mind and changed my ideas massively throughout my life.
So if I critique Brand it is because I think people will be excited by what he said because he clearly speaks to people’s real anger but I want to temper that excitement with caution. I don’t critique him because he does not hold a “fully worked” out revolutionary perspective but because he is a theorist, as we all are, and, more importantly, he also spoke publicly as one. So I think it is fair game that I critique him because he voices resentment and then aims it at scapegoats: the 1 percent, public school boys, corporations. If people on this forum are genuinely excited about the expression of this kind of superficial theory that history has shown time and again to be so dangerous and counter-revolutionary then I find this state of affairs deeply troubling. If the “revolutionary” has any kind of a meaningful role then it is precisely preparing the tools necessary for the abolition of the economy (including the rejection of this kind of scapegoating) when the proletariat looks for them as part of its own spontaneous activity. Otherwise, this kind of ideology will intervene instead and history will repeat itself all over again.
It is quite possible that this video is a "sign" of deeper radical currents in contemporary society. That is precisely why Brand’s theory, which did not seem “wooly" at all to me but very clear, is so toxic. The only way I would be dismissing him is if I failed to engage with his ideas at all, which seems to be what most people who found my original post "unbearably pompous" have encouraged me to do. This is based on the erroneous assumption that debates about theory are only for the initiated and specialists of revolution.
Batswill, I've just unpublished some of your more sexist posts. Consider this a warning, any more sexist posts on this thread or anywhere else on the site will lead to a ban.
That's probably true (and it was a stupid thing for me to write in the first place), but - c'mon - you are singing Russell Brand's praises who said this;
“First, though, I should qualify my right to even pontificate on such a topic and in so doing untangle another of revolution’s inherent problems. Hypocrisy. How dare I, from my velvet chaise longue, in my Hollywood home like Kubla Khan, drag my limbs from my harem to moan about the system? A system that has posited me on a lilo made of thighs in an ocean filled with honey and foie gras’d my Essex arse with undue praise and money.”
That is the language of a sufferable, humble, honest comrade right enough. Not pretentious at all. He said a lot using accessible language, a real breathe of fresh air from all the pomposity on telly.
Seems like everyone's drunk on analysis.
Brand's ramblings make it easier for me to start talking about my politics with people who might otherwise have never encountered them. It doesn't matter how off the mark he is, in the context of me just using him to springboard into conversations about anarcho-syndicalism.
Fucking hell, this is like pulling teeth. Come on Bunion, just come out and say it - Brand gets right up your nose so you can't bear it that any good could come from a single word that he utters.
Kureigo San - what you said with brass knobs on!
Kureigo-San
This. Jesus christ this. Why are people finding it so hard to comprehend all I wanted to say was this.
I know! I mean, I consider myself right at the bottom of the Libcom league of political understanding but this point was so obvious to me from the first minute!
My mind boggles at some of the mental gymnastics that seem to have been performed on this thread in order to steer around it.
Webby
However well meaning, I just do not see how someone like Russell Brand will do any good particularly if he becomes some sort of spokesperson for all those 'quirky' radicals out there.
Great so this has all been helpful and wonderful for anarchist men? Ladies, don't get your knickers in a twist because a sexist man's lefty ideas have given some men the opportunity to talk to some other men about The Anarchy.
Just to reiterate, I don't expect RB to be this faultless bastion of morality and righteousness. I expect him to have inconsistancies and flaws - and he's completely honest that he's hasn't got all the answers and isn't perfect. He says some fun things, and some things which make sense. And is hilarious.
It's just that in the midst of all this, he's saying things which are alienating and disparaging towards 50% of working class people. I'm just not sure how people can be quite so excited about him when this is the case. He's being a wanker about your comrades. That seems like a big deal.
I think it's great that he gave Paxman a rattling. But I'm just not sure I buy the argument that this is useful for anarchists or working class people. I'm not saying we shouldn't engage with it at all, I'm just saying that his rampent sexism (which the more I find out about him, the more unpleasant it gets) is quite an important, central part of what he's saying - for me anyway - and it shouldn't be overlooked when responding to 'lefty' things he says.
Commie Princess - I really hope I'm not going to come across as a schmuck here and I'm saying this with full awareness that I have no idea what it's like to be on the receiving end of sexism on a daily basis.
I don't know much about Brand. I watched a TV show about drug treatment etc and was mildly impressed by his attitude but not by many of his solutions and I am led to believe that he can be a pretty intolerably sexist sleaze by people who's opinion on such matters I trust. If I could have chosen a celeb to make a reasonable job of exposing the failure of parliamentary democracy on national TV he would have been way down the list, I mean, imagine if David Attenborough or Judy Dench had done it, then there really would have been a debate! The fact of the matter is that HE came out with this stuff and I would far rather he said than it not have been said at all. I admit that I am taking this in isolation but I feel in these circumstances that is ok. He has put an idea in a public arena and I'm glad of it. Similarly, many of the men that I work with are so horrendously sexist, vocally as well as inwardly that it makes my toes curl, but if one of them did a Brand and got the idea being talked about around the building site I would grab the opportunity with both hands and try to keep the idea personality free.
This has been a gift to me - I don't move in political circles and I'm not always too hot at explaining and idea from scratch but with this a springboard I have had a number of fruitful conversations including one with a women I know that has been a staunch advocate of parliamentary democracy and is now seriously reconsidering her views. This is probably due mostly to general disenchantment but I think me sending her link to the interview and our subsequent chat has had at least some impact.
So, do I sound like a schmuck? Am I still missing the point? I know it wouldn't be the first time.
Could it be that RB is already a Libcom poster? Reckon so. I don't think that last post will be around for long Russ. Well done all the same - you must be very proud.
Edit - admin beat me to it. I'll just say the removed post scraped the very last dregs out of the shock jock wankstick barrel. What a fucking jerk.
Webby
Guy comes off as a complete ass in his interviews, you can just tell how phony he is. "People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints - such people have a corpse in their mouth."
Soapy - I don't agree that RB is a phony but I don't really give much of a shit. I am however, rather curious as to the connection between the quote from my post about Batswill and your assertion that RB is an ass and a phoney???
Webby
I am the night
You have to be more specific... I missed it!
That'll be me. Hmm... the fact that you use the words "the poverty of Brand's ideas" actually shows your own pompousness and the poverty of your grasp of reality :roll:
For the record, I'm not anti-intellectual or anti-theory, and as I've said on more than one occasion, from the little I've seen, that Russell Brand strikes me as a right annoying div. However, I can't be doing with smacked arse whinging about his politics not being 100% anarcho/libertarian/left/council communist and fuck "the poverty of his ideas and piss poor theory." Who really gives a toss about him? Yes, his ideas are feeble but they're really not worth the criticism. Yet if his half-arsed ideas manage to get basic revolutionary politics and the notion of anti-parliamentarism out of the anarchist ghetto and into wider public discourse, then we'd do well to make hay out of this instead of bellyaching about what bits we disagree with or how much we don't like him.
Webby, I don't think you missed the point or were being schmucky at all - great post.
I definitely see where you're coming from. Like I say, I think Brand said lots of good things, and if that's given you an opportunity to open up conversations with people you know, that's great.
But in terms of what he said resonating with people, I'm saying that's problematic. His sexism certainly gets in the way for me. I think when we're discussing his supposed egalitarian ideas, its essential to discuss his sexism. Ignoring this hypocracy, or downplaying it's importance seems utterly bizaare to me. It's a huge elephant in the room, and I don't think RB should get away without criticism because he's lefty and funny. Saying it engages working class people without mentioning that he has absolutely no respect for half of them carries the implication that women aren't really proper, effective or important members of our class.
Anyways, my main point was just that we shouldn't overlook the sexism when discussing his lefty ideas. But I think I've made my point...
None of you have any right to say anything about politics because you don't vote....
I finally got round to watching the video and I thought Brand did OK answering that question, which was after all the central point of Paxman's attack and is still a major plank of bourgeois ideology. Also agree with Mikhail some time back when he said that the emotional honesty was probably the main strength. I wasn't looking for a clear exposition of the communist programme, but some knowledge of what previous revolutions have created in opposition to parliamentarism would not have been beyond him.
@Serge Forward
I feel like you did not even bother to read my post. I said that his ideas were not wooly but clear and not in anyway shape or form revolutionary. My entire point is that Brand does not get our ideas outside of any ghetto because he does not express our ideas. If I am wrong about this then perhaps I have the wrong idea about libcom.org. I literally saw very little in terms of revolution in this video that could not have equally come out of the mouth of a member of the far-right in the 1930s or a Bolshevik. How easy it was for so-called communists to cross the aisle to fascism when they shared so many of the same ideas! How easy also for so many "revolutionaries" to rally to the cause of Bolshevism in Russia. And yet, I am the one you present as dismissing Brand by engaging with his theories, not you, who seem to ignore them because ... what? He got up the nose of a bourgeois in the mass media? Because he has a working-class accent? Because he is a celebrity?
So it is pompous of me to try to use a language that is a bit strange to you and that was being used to make a point about quality? I'm sorry but you in turn sound like some boring, pusillanimous communist bureaucrat. I look forward to reading the official anarchist regulations on approved stylistics that you are no doubt drawing up right this moment to ensure we all articulate our ideas in a way that is acceptable to the man in the street.
You might say that you are not anti-intellectual, in the negative sense (there is a good way to be anti-intellectual), or anti-theory, but your actions say otherwise.
Oh yeah, forgot to reply to this -
futility index
If you look at my later post, I found the bloody "evidence" of sexism you needed (because of course you should never believe a woman when she says something is sexist. Best way to deal with that is say she's either lying, has misunderstood, or is overreacting and demand evidence.) I couldn't be arsed to re-read a 4500 word article at that particular moment. But I'm not sure why some supposed comrades think I should be shot down and treated like shit until I can prove the sexism I'm saying exists.
For that you massively owe me an apology - I know I'll never get it because you'll justify your behaviour to yourself. You'll never feel guilty about being the kind of ballsack who, rather than believing a comrade against some distant, sort of leftyish celebrity, or perhaps finding the evidence yourself, stubbornly disbelieves them as hard as you can.
futility index
I get you don't see it. That is crystal clear. Have you heard of this thing called patriarchy? Maybe you've picked up that women's attractiveness is discussed really quite a lot. And perhaps you've picked up (but this is the really advanced stuff) that men's really isn't as much? I know, it's a lot to take in. Perhaps now you can begin to see how making a joke about how a woman's persuasive power not coming from her brain, personality, intelligence etc, but from her looks is kind of shitty and insulting.
Guess what? This judgement of worth based on looks happens to women 100 times a day. And guess what else? It doesn't happen to men 100 times a day. Yeah I know! Shocking! This bit's gonna blow your mind - capitalist institutions reinforce this difference because it's very economically useful. So our entire economy, culture, society, political structure is constantly reinforcing this stuff. I think some people have, like, written some books about it or something.
Surprisingly, this can become quite irksome for women and certain pesky, shouty feminists sometimes even complain about it.
I should add that Brand's misogyny is also implicitly part of his theory too. Again, something he would have shared with a number of so-called revolutionaries in the past. It is funny how describing yourself as a revolutionary can get you off anyone actually having to look at what you say!
Malva, I apologise if I misunderstood any of your earlier post but it's as if you don't read what I say either. I never mentioned RB's accent once and I am 100% opposed to representations of class as another form of identity politics, which is what you seem to be suggesting with your cack-handed straw manning. Surely you can see the 'sublime to the ridiculous' bathos of a statement such as "the poverty of... Russell Brand's ideas," as if we were dealing with a real political heavyweight here. And I'm not arsed about that Paxman either. Hey, I don't even disagree with all of the points you make, although frankly, saying RB's views are a whisker away from the far right demonstrates a debatable grip on reality. You say my actions demonstrate that I am anti-theory. You are very much mistaken (though I wish I was better at it). I'm only anti rubbish theory that does not relate to social and economic reality but seems to be based on a dislike of someone (in this case, Russell Brand) as a person or as a duff celebrity.
Edit in response to your second post
I don't know if he is a misogynist in the sense that he hates women. But then I've never really watched him for more than 5 seconds before changing the channel. I'd hazard a guess he's probably sexist, his routine seems to be tinged with casual sexism and he seems to base his 'humour' on a moronic lowest common denominator bullshit. Anyway, you seem to be implying that I support his sexism and am therefore, by further implication, sexist (or even a misogynist?). When did I support his sexism Malva? Or is this another one of your whisker away from fascism analyses?
To be fair to you Serge, although the general thrust of the first post was directed at you, many of my comments, such as the one about misogyny and accent, were more general statements about what has been said before.
Also, I said that Brand's comments could be associated with both far-right and far-left discourse because, disturbingly, they have very much in common. This is really the point that I have been trying to make throughout. I appreciate that maybe these arguments are not familiar and perhaps I could have been clearer on that point. If we are going to "strong" as a movement it means not having any time for these ideas - misogyny, scapegoating, only critiquing the sphere of circulation and exchange, voting when people you like are standing for election in a parliamentary democracy etc. - whoever is saying them.
Finally, I do not think that it is only "heavyweights" who should be engaged with. This, again, is an expression of the idea that theoretical discussion is for specialists only and that thinking is something only academics do.
I understand how certain aspects of Bolshevism can (and did) have strong echoes in fascism and national socialism, just as I am aware of the role social democracy played in ushering in the Hitler regime. What I am not sure about is how this all relates to Russell Brand's comments. I honestly don't see the similarity. And if we are going to ruthlessly critique Brandist Theory - sorry, couldn't resist it :D - for all its woolliness, then we'd also have to ruthlessly critique the shit out of everyone who was in the process of arriving at revolutionary and anti-parliamentarist ideas the moment they first introduced themselves on Libcom's 'say hello' page. I don't have a problem with criticising aspects of what RB said but I do have a problem with some of the knee-jerk vitriol against his views because of who he is. This basing our theory on personality is just sloppy.
Malva, I accept you may have been referring to others about sexism and misogyny and, indeed, there was one poster in the discussion who definitely did cross the line. However, in your earlier post, you implied that I supported sexism or was possibly a misogynist. You can see why I wouldn't be happy about that and a retraction would be nice.
Right, a few things:
Firstly, batswill posted a massively misogynist comment above (to which webby was responding) which we removed and he has now been banned permanently.
Secondly, on this point (and everything else she said for that matter) Commie Princess is entirely correct:
commieprincess
Every mention of women in that article treats them as objects for his enjoyment. Which is fucked up, especially in article supposedly preaching egalitarianism and revolution.
In general, I would agree with Mikhail's point above, that the strength of the interview is in its genuine passion and emotion.
Unlike some people I do think it's genuine. Bit of a disclaimer here, I love Russell Brand. I think he is extremely funny and intelligent. Knowing him vaguely from Big Brother's big mouth etc I always just thought he was really obnoxious and annoying. However, I then watched the documentary Russell Brand - Naziboy, and thought he came across as a really genuine, passionate and decent bloke and anti-racist.
So then I bothered to watch some of his stand-up and it's actually very good, the over the top thing is basically just a showbiz persona.
Now, none of this is to say that he isn't a sexist. Which he clearly is (although not to downplay its importance I think he's probably about as sexist as your average young UK male, or probably a bit less so, at least ideologically. I'm not saying this to try to play down his sexism, just pointing out how widespread it is).
However, I was still pleased by the interview (a lot of my apolitical friends, male and female, were sharing it on Facebook, talking about etc). I think for me he is an entertainer, not a political activist or theorist. So if Noam Chomsky wrote an article talking about women like that it would be completely outrageous.
Russell Brand doing it would be more equivalent to someone like Jay-Z going on the news and saying the same thing. I would be glad that he said that, but still it would be worth criticising his sexist views, and pointing out that they conflict with the supposed egalitarianism.
If I implied it, this was by accident only. I certainly don't think anything you said was misogynist. So I am sorry if I gave that impression.
Thanks Malva. It's appreciated :rb: :vb: :pb: :r: :rb:
5 pages of comments, a massive mixed response and a ban hammer. DIDN'T I COME BACK WITH A FUCKING BANG.
The Brand interview has today given me an opportunity to discuss this stuff with "non-activists", on another forum. I didn't raise the topic, I took posts about his interview as an opportunity to say that many activists have a lot of criticisms of Brand, and I pointed them to this discussion here to get an idea what some activists think about it all. I pointed out that the comments are more enlightening in terms of critique than the blog post itself. Hopefully someone will click through and get a better idea of how these activists see this stuff.
I didn't even raise the notion of "activists", one of the forum members said that "no doubt grass-roots activists are trying to raise ideas like Brand". So it was completely natural to point here.
Surely that can't be a bad thing? Or have I done the wrong thing? I'm not an expert at this stuff, I just do what seems possible to me.
commieprincess - Right on the money about not getting an apology. The idea that you should get one for being asked to support your argument is fucking ridiculous. If I controversially called out a public figure for being racist I wouldn't throw my toys out the pram if someone challenged what I had to say or expect my status as a member of an oppressed group to carry any rhetorical weight. Also, ballsack. lol.
How much its discussed is irrelevant. I'd say the majority of discussion on female attractiveness comes from women in any case. I don't see a lot of men marking out circles of shame or writing articles about lena dunham's thighs. Still wouldn't matter, because from infancy *both* men and women judge other humans on attractiveness and respond differently according to that judgement. Thats a scientific fact, and despite human nature being a dirty word for anarchos thats what it is. Do radical feminists think there is some alchemical property of THE MEDIA that turns a thought sexist when it hits a page or screen? If not then how the fuck is admitting in print that you did something everyone does semi-conciously in anyway sexist?
Why are you being massively dismissive of commie princess? Seriously, think about it, why?
futility index
Really awful post, all around.
Just when this thread was getting civilised again...
Its an argument. She tries to dismiss mine, I try to dismiss hers. I haven't got personal like she did either, so whats the problem?
Futility index, first of all there is absolutely no need for that kind of rudeness. Be polite on here.
futility index
you may not apologise here, but you were wrong, as CP did point out a bunch of mentions of women in the article which were sexist and which you did not notice.
I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant. And this doesn't mean that patriarchy is not to blame - patriarchal values are absorbed by everyone, men and women. In the same way that racist ideas permeate the whole of society, including racially oppressed groups. And of course, in this case the discussion of female attractiveness was from a man.
this may well be the case - but it doesn't mean it's appropriate to someone to bang on about it in an article preaching egalitarianism and revolution! And you will notice that this is not just people judging other humans by their attractiveness. Every mention of women in his article is about their appearance or their status as sex objects - not in a particularly extreme or degrading way, mind, but it's still there. And not a single mention of the men is.
Jesus fucking Christmas, Futility Index, there was so much wrong with that post. Steven's covered it pretty well already, but your impressive level of dickheadedness warrants further response:
Controversially? Man, it takes serious effort to ignore Brand's sexism. I don't think there's another poster on this thread who'd claim Brand isn't sexist. The conversation has been on the balance between his bad politics/his sexism and his emotion and public spotlight. But, of course he's said sexist things, that's a given. To claim otherwise is madness.
Not to mention that commie's already quoted from the article at length. I mean, your argument seems to be that women aren't mentioned much at all, only as part of a "crap metaphor". Even if that was true (it's not), think about what you're saying. It's still basically an argument in favor of Brand's sexism.
And, as long as we're going all ad hominem, I assume what you're trying to imply is that using a term like this is somehow contradictory? Sounds pretty similar to arguments coming from the right. How come black people can use the N-word? How dare a feminist use male genetalia as an insult? Don't they know it's like as bad as the c-word? lol :roll:
In terms of institutional promotion of sexism, you're utterly batshit wrong. But that aside, you are aware that a large percentage of feminist literature is concerned with how men and women both internalize patriarchal norms?
In all seriousness, have you read any feminist critique? At all?
Chilli Sauce
No I think they are saying ballsack is a really funnily bad insult.
Good feminist response to his interview/article here:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/i_dont_stand_with_russell_brand_and_neither_should_you/
I don't claim to be an expert on Brand and I'm not a fan of his comedy. I haven't talked about whether his sexist in his other work. The question of whether the NS article is sexist is pretty obviously controversial here and thats clearly what I'm talking about.
No, its not. I don't agree that his statements were sexist. I addressed the initial sentence already. As for the rest of commie's quotes, I don't even know where to start. Maybe you'd call it content analysis, I'd call it confirmation bias.
Nope, just found it to be an amusingly childish insult. Nice rant though. The fact that a grown-ass man can't bring himself to write the word 'nigger' in full says a lot about the kind of PC alternate reality some of you exist in.
I am aware of it and I disregard it, along with most other 'false consciousness' theories. And if I'm so batshit wrong then go ahead and prove it.
I can be condescended to and insulted, but calling someones ideas 'fucking ridiculous' is overstepping. Right.
So is mentioning a woman's appearance sexist inherently? Or is it the frequency? Does the context and intent of the comments even matter? Women are sex objects for hetro males, and vice versa. The idea that making reference to that diminishes either the reader or authors understanding of women's person-hood is nonsense. Out of all the previously apolitical people on my facebook feed who shared and enthused about Brand's video, the majority were women. So I'd question whether anyone outside the anarchist scene really gives a shit about 'appropriateness' in the way libcom's radical feminists and their allies do.
futility index
Actually it's completely not controversial - you seem to be the only one who is adamant it's not sexist.
futility index
Rather than actually address the quotes I provided and explain how there's supposedly no possible way that they're sexist, you just make massive assumptions about me based on (interestingly enough) no evidence.
futility index
Ah women, with their childish tantrums. You know what's childish? Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of something which is plainly and clearly laid out for you in black and white. I'm not sure if it's because it makes you feel inadequate or threatened or what. But it's pretty pathetic either way.
futility index
Ah, racist and sexist in one, neat, bite-size package. Firstly, what, it takes a MAN with BALLS and a BALLSACK to use big racist words? People who show some level of racial sensitivity are not really "grown-ass men"? Oh, but of course you didn't mean it in a racist or sexist way - you just didn't care if it made a whole ton of people feel like shit so that you could make a point about being a big man.
futility index
Yeah, cos you entered this debate with good, honest intentions. It's not like you wrote some half-arsed, shitty, dismissive, sexist post to begin with.
As for your last paragraph, I guess I'm not going to waste my energy explaining this whole thing called feminism to you - there's really quite a few sources which can curb your ignorance if you're interested. Just to say, about your female friends who shared the interview - I liked the interview on facebook, I also watch TV, read books, listen to music which has explicitly sexist content. It's impossible not to. I fucking loved the interview. I just don't really like sexism.
My only point, which seems to be so upsetting and threatening to you, is that when we get excited about Brands egalitarian ideas, we should just perhaps mention that he is sexist, and he needs to work on that.
Futility, we all reproduce sexism. I do it, you most certainly do it (and seem to basque in the joy you get from being disparaging towards women, and spelling out the full n word), everyone does it. All it takes is a simple bit of self-reflection, instead of being defensive, and I promise you it's better than the sense of self satisfaction you get from making other people feel like shit because of things they have no control over (like race, gender etc)
Oh and I'm not a radical feminist.
futility index
My post was supposed to indicate an exasperated 'I know where this is going' rather than a criticism of your post. That said, I almost totally disagree with you.
I don't like plain insults on the forums whoever they come from and I piss myself off when I do it and would rather I hadn't called Batswill a jerk.
I watched the vid about racism and was a bit surprised by Brands contradictory attitudes between racism and sexism but all in all thought that he seems like one of the good guys. So I then checked out some of his stand up - fucking hell, he is hilarious! And smart, and sensitive, and insightful, and endearing. But Jesus, he is so sexist it defies belief. It's like he has a fucking disease! It's so incongruous in the light of his overall personality and attitudes.
Surely, at some point he will realise this and address it? His addiction recovery program is all about looking at your behaviour and attitudes and amending them where they cause harm to yourself and others. This shit takes years - I found recovery in the same program and its an ongoing process, the amount of time he has been clean may be years but is not long when turning round a life's worth of thinking.
I also read the article linked by Steven which I thought was fair and balanced but overall by position changed one bit - I didn't for a moment think of myself a 'standing with Russell Brand'. I was just glad that an idea had escaped from the underground and received a bit of daylight.
I thought CP was fairly good at giving Brand a fair hearing, he said some good things, but he is also a bastard*. Struggling to see exactly why futility index is getting so heated up over this one.
* Phoning the grand-dad of the stripper that time, sexually harassing that woman on the film set (her workplace). Pretty shit behaviour by anyone's measure.
Say what you will about Russell Brand, he certainly has the ability to bring libcom sexists out of the woodwork. That said, post-by-post, Futility, I'm beginning to wonder more and more what you're actually doing on libcom. Luckily, I think you're steadily working your way towards a ban.
Anyway, I just want to address the main strawman in your argument. Everyone here agrees it's good if Brand opens up some space to talk about revolutionary politics. And, that's even true if it opens up the space for you to have those discussions with women.
However, just because some women also found the interview enlightening, it doesn't somehow means Brand's not a sexist. Likewise, if we're going to be consistent as anarchists, we need to call out patriarchy and misogyny when we see it.
I mean, seriously man, there's nothing wrong with saying, 'Yeah, he said some good things. But he said some inconsistent things politically and he's also said some really sexist things'.
None of this particularly seems that complicated to me and certainly doesn't justify your elaborate strawmen or your bizarre, macho use of the N-word.
delete
Arbeiten
on this point, the story about sexually harassing a woman on the film set was made up by The Sun:
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/billy-connolly-denies-claims-in-sun.html?m=1
but he has done stuff like make prank phone call to a hotline live on stage when police were looking for a sex attacker:
http://www.contactmusic.com/news/russell-brand-apologises-after-sex-attack-prank-call_1074416
and I am personally aware of his past douchey behaviour towards women - he asked an ex of mine for her number before we went out, which she gave him. Then he sent her a text a few days later at like 2 AM saying "come over for sex, text me your address and I'll send a car". Which tempting offer she somehow declined…
Anyway, another excellent post from CP above.
Chilli, I don't think you need to start questioning what people are doing on libcom or talking about banning. CP was rude to FI in her initial post - although I think there was justification for this, so futility responding in kind is understandable but he's going well over the top.
Futility index, responding to some of your points above:
I don't think the idea the New Statesman article is sexist is "controversial" as you are the only one who has claimed it is not.
I didn't say that it was massively misogynist or anything, just that it was about as sexist as an average person. But when you are trying to be an egalitarian revolutionary this is not okay.
Regarding the N word, lots of people find it offensive. And there is no point needlessly causing offence to people who may have already suffered racial abuse or discrimination. It's neither inherently grown-up or manly to needlessly cause offence to people.
so a you now saying you disagree that women internalise patriarchal norms as well as men? This seems to contradict with what you said above about women making judgements about other women's appearance.
Rather than spuriously demanding people "prove" things, I think it's pretty self-evident that women internalise patriarchy as much as men. For example, in the US the majority of women are anti-abortion.
If you can't see how women in this society are used as sex objects more than men then I suggest having a look at these images advertising unisex clothing:
http://www.businessinsider.com/american-apparels-unisex-ads-2013-5?op=1
Or this video where they reverse gender roles in advertising to show how ridiculous they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HaB2b1w52yE#t=163
I don't think there is anything inherently sexist about mentioning women's appearance (indeed, I have even done so in some of my writing, like this). But if almost every reference to women is sexualised, and not a single reference to men is, then that is problematic. I mean come on board you think giving out a leaflet about a strike or whatever with reference to "fit birds" on it? You could quibble over minutiae over whether it was technically sexist or not, but either way it's totally unnecessary.
Anyway if the tone on this thread does not become more conciliatory and less aggressive we're going to have to lock it start deleting stuff. So please be polite even if you disagree with each other.
Like I also said above, a lot of my friends on social media who shared this were women. But then, a couple of my female friends on Facebook are big supporters of Julian Assange, and don't care at all about the rape allegations.
That doesn't mean this isn't problematic, or that we shouldn't try to challenge this.
Steven, great post.
Can I just say, I realise I'm partly responsible for this getting snappy and unpleasant, but I'm just sick of being polite and restrained towards people like this. I'm sick of people behaving like this, completely getting away with it and having a little victory wank. I'm sick of so called anarchists having no respect for female comrades.
My initial post was met with a barrage of people demanding I "prove" Brand's sexism, implying my reading of the article was hysterical feminist madness etc. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that's ok.
I don't think my snappiness or my use of the word "ballsack" justifies futility's response and even if I'd been really deeply personal and insulting, I just don't think anything can justify the level of sexism displayed here.
Anyway, for my own mental well being, I'm going to duck out of this one.
Alright, there is something very wrong going on here. The level of casual sexism in this thread has been really high and a female comrade no longer wishes to post in it because of this. That is not ok. We can do better than this Libcom!
RedEd
I agree. We shouldn't be content with just putting our up/down votes in the right places.
Just wanted to step in quickly and say I agree entirely with both commieprincess and Steven's posts on this thread, and the article Steven linked to is really good.
And commieprincess I share your frustration about having to deal with this level of dismissiveness:
futility index
As for the NS article and whether talking about women like that is sexist or not (it is), we're on old familiar harmless banter territory here, hanging out with harmless banter's mate, ironic sexism. It's tedious, and it's what a huge amount of Russell Brand's persona seems to be built on, have loads of fun pretending to be a sexist pigdog then say something about a continental philosopher and hey presto, it's ok, he was just kidding! It's an act! But when your act is essentially you indulging yourself in performance of sexist fantasy, and knowing that people who indulge in sexism for real aren't exactly vilified in mainstream culture, you're not really doing anything clever or edgy, you're just being a sexist with a pretty lame get out clause. [/killjoy]
I haven't seen much of him but I'm not sure if this is true. I got the impression that in this department the guy is simply a moron - for example, in the Naziboy vid his comments about black women. WTF!!! Still, maybe I just haven't seen enough.
Alright I have seen this going on long enough and I going to have call bullshit on a couple people and speak up. I am defending NO ONE completely, from either side. I am going to quote from Stevens post because its the most accurate summary of what has been going on recently in the thread.
Steven.
This is why I think Futility asking Commie for evidence and to back up her claims was a perfectly legitimate question. Asking some one to back up their claims is a neutral process of reason when trying to make decisions, regardless on what your questioning, trying to say them asking this is somehow evidence of sexism and non willingness to admit its presence because they asked a question is really quite bad.
Steven.
All this talk of saying that no one has questioned or to put it in more emotionally charged, argument provoking terms, denied sexism in the article is quite simply false. If you read earlier I clearly said to commie that I don't think anything he said in there was sexist. Like I said before, they were mostly, in my opinion, jokes that were ironic and more mocking of his shallowness than an attack on the women. This is an interpretation . It seems to have been implied here that I should automatically retract my interpretation and feel bad about it purely because women that might be affected by the perceived sexism has interpreted the same article to be sexist. This does not make me feel at all comfortable. An attitude of "I feel offended as a woman because I think its sexist so I shouldn't even have to give evidence because it makes me feel bad" is not a helpful attitude that will make me tempted to look again and re evaluate my thoughts, all that attitude says to me is "this is not up for discussion and I will not try and help you to see things my way". And finally, when I talked about perceived sexism, I am not using this word to try and belittle others views. I am not saying people are wrong for thinking the NS article is sexist. I am just saying, thinking its sexist is still ultimately an opinion derived from personal interpretation of a piece of text. With all the above I am talking about the article only, not the other actions of RB in person.
Steven.
This. I am really glad this blog and the resulting discussion has stirred shit up here. I would hate for all this debate to be lost.
Unfortunately using Brand's comments to start a conversation on revolution isn't always neatly distinct from addressing the dodgy sexist views he and his admirers have. It felt some people were sharing the video on Facebook primarily because they admire him as the edgy lad who shagged Katy Perry. Early comments were 'I agree with what he says!' but attempts to get a discussion going on what alternative revolutionary methods we had quickly dissolved into comments like 'I'd do anything he told me to, cos he had Katy Perry... He must teach us.'
Tommy Ascaso
I'm not suggesting sexism should be tolerated for one moment but how is any of that going to challenge it? As Steven said, sexism is rife amongst 'normal' men and the things Russell Brand says seem tame compared to the disgusting shite I've heard come out of people's mouths. For that to change, we're going to have to think up other ideas than ostracising.
I don't have all the answers but I've always liked the story of the Lesbian and Gay Miners' Strike Group;
I didn't get that response or anything like it from anyone that I spoke to. In fact, apart from the initial mention of his performance with Paxo and one female friend saying he was 'a bit of a fucking lech' my conversations(about half a dozen) got straight to the meat of the topic.
Looks like I've just found yet another justification for my complete avoidance of Facebook.
I haven't really looked in on this for a couple of days. wtf? I'm not at all surprised that Commie Princess got pissed off, and that's without me seeing the really offensive post which was unpublished. Do some people really feel that discussing sexism in relation to revolutionary politics is a derail? Because we women do make up half of the population and it sounds a bit like a "we'll get to that one later, when all the important stuff has been dealt with" argument.
I'm not suggesting that most people here are defending Brand's sexism and as I said, way back on page 1, I think it's a good thing that the interview got people talking but I'm, quite seriously jaw-dropped at some of the things Futility Index said. I know other people have already rebutted them, but I just wanted to add my voice here. Do you have any concept of sexism, feminism,women at all?
Yeah, because it's exactly the same, isn't it? Men are often subject to catcalls, street harassment, objectification on a daily basis; attractive, scantily dressed men are draped over vehicles at the Grand Prix and images of the perky-looking young ones are used to sell things all the time. Sure, both men and women find people sexually attractive but the way that is represented is just a little bit different, don't you think?
Women do comment on other women's appearances and body shame each other, I wonder why that is? You don't think it has something to do with women having spent their entire lives being judged upon and defined by their appearance?
And this one
Really? It's a scientific fact is it? Babies spring from the womb fully equipped to judge each other and sexism is just"human nature." I guess we should just suck it up then. We're all just naturally born that way, it has nothing to do with socialisation. It was entirely my imagination that when my daughters were little whenever an adult who didn't know them interacted with them, they always commented on their appearance, whereas nobody ever told my son that his clothes were pretty or his hair was cute.
I've been a bit busy for a few days and I've probably paid way less attention to Russell Brand than the rest of the world seems to have during this time and I'm glad he's got people talking politics when they wouldn't normally. However, I find it monumentally depressing that if people are going to be talking about a revolution that sexism should be a massive part of that discussion. Not a side issue.
Alright, couple of things here:
Croydonian
I think there's a fundamental problem here, though, Croydonian. It's two totally different things to say 'I didn't pick up any sexism here, could you show me what you found sexist?' and 'I didn't find it sexist, therefore it's not sexist unless you can prove to me why it's sexist'. I have no truck with privilege politics, but when three regular female posters find an article sexist, I think the response of male posters should be to willingly re-examine the article, not demand proof, justifications, or "call bullshit".
Also, mate, no one is saying you're trying defend Brand in his entirety, don't worry.
JC
Jim, I understand your wanting to keep this discussion practical, but as I said in a previous post, I think Brand's sexism is pretty relevant to how anarchists respond. I mean, personally, prior to that article, I had no idea Brand's schtick was so clearly patriarchal. It seems that the anarchist response should be to support the worthwhile bits of Brand's interview, while rightfully engaging interested individuals in his shortcomings - political, patriarchal, or otherwise. This conversation would certainly help me do that.
This. There's nothing unreasonable there yet it seems a certain competitiveness often comes to the surface when sexism is brought up.
Maybe so, but dependant on who you're talking too I think one thing at a time may be the right approach. In this case that doesn't mean putting sexism at the back of the queue until the important stuff is sorted out, it means explaining why parliamentary politics is fucked because that is how the whole debate started and for most people that you may talk to its a massive ask to get them over such a heavily indoctrinated hump.
How about you run this past some women that are not leftist ideologues. Ask them their opinion of your 'black and white' sexist quotes. Might be interesting, I certainly found it to be.
A white woman just called me a racist for typing the word 'nigger' on the internet. This is truly a special moment. I'm going to be charitable and assume you don't remember me IRL, but either way you continue to validate my comments about alternate realities. I've dealt with more than my fair share of racial abuse, yet I can survive seeing a slur in full online. Maybe its because I don't subscribe to an ideology that continually reinforces a persecution complex? Or perhaps because I don't wilfully blind myself to context?
As much as you and other feminists want "we all reproduce sexism" to have the same gravity as "we all reproduce capital" it never actually will. You can state it as condescendingly as you want, but the former is a theory and the latter is a fact. I'm sure you would like it to be as beyond question as aspects of your class politics are, but its not happening.
There was nothing sexist in my post. At all. I asked for evidence, you didn't like it and got personal. Here it is again -
As usual, challenging feminists is itself sexist. Convenient.
Will come back to other people's replies later, had enough of this circlejerk for tonight.
futility index
Appalling post, what an explosion of resentment toward women.
I don't think this conversation is going anywhere at this point, so I'll try to keep this short.
I'm not sure it matters if you showed some quotes to some women who didn't find the quotes offensive. As Steven's already pointed out, a majority of women in America purport to be opposed to abortion. Does that suddenly mean feminists are wrong to fight for reproductive rights?
Similarly (and I just figured out who you are) it's good that you have the stomach to handle the N-word - however, some people certainly won't. Disparaging someone who chooses to err on the side of inoffensiveness regarding this particular matter is, to me, fairly strange behavior.
And, sorry mate, but we all do reproduce sexism. Obviously, we can try to consciously fight it, and we should. But we're all going to act (quite possibly unconsciously) in certain ways - based on the conditioning we've received by living in a patriarchal society - that are patriarchal. In those acts, we help to reproduce that patriarchy.
I have no truck with privilege politics either, and I know very little about Russell Brand. One of the few things I do know is that he has an absolutely appalling attitude towards women. The New Statesman article isn't the worst of the few things I have seen from him in this regard, but reflects this attitude to women.
What I find a little surprising though is the idea that he had anything interesting to say in that interview. What I took from it is that he said that his not voting was a reflection of a general attitude in the social environment he comes from. We all know that in most Western countries there is voter turnout of around 60% in general elections. What that means is that around half of the working class doesn't take part in the electoral process, which suggests that they don't think it is worthwhile. If we add to that people who vote without much conviction anyway I'd say it is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of the working class has no conviction that the electoral process has anything to offer them. We all knew that anyway though, and I think the working class knows it much better than the left, which is full of parliamentary illusions.
Devrim
Good post Devrim.
What I might add is that, in my experience, that rightful reluctance to vote expressed by - in American anyway - the absolute majority of the working class is quite passive. Not voting certainly doesn't equal class or revolutionary consciousness. If the Brand interview opens up the space to catalyze those underlying sentiments into something more concrete, well, then I think it has some value.
It's all about context, Devrim. If Russell Brand had posted his views (without any sexist bits) on Libcom, for example, they would have been seen as unremarkable but nevertheless might have been criticised for their woolliness... albeit nicely, if he was a 'newbie' ;)
Likewise, if he had spoken the same views in a pub frequented by a random cross-section of working class people, I suspect many of those present would say his comments were fair play.
The telly, however, is not how it was years ago. I remember Channel 4 when it showed films about the IWW and the Jewish anarchist movement and had interviews with Cornelius Castoriadis - compare today with its facile reality TV and home-makeover programmes, There was also a time when BBC1 had peak viewing time programmes about class struggle, WW1 mutinies, general strikes, with occasional revolutionary ideas chucked in (Days of Hope, Close the Coal House Door and the Monocled Mutineer) - today it's endless Eastenders and the One Show. Even ITV had programmes like Ray Gosling's On Site, in which he would interview people 'on site' who were involved in some local community struggle - that slot now shows Emmerdale.
The context is that nowadays, the views expressed by Brand (even though they may be held by many) are rarely seen on national telly. The fact that they were, and the fact that they were spoken by this archetypal dumb-down TV merchant is what is remarkable.
Futility - I'm not gonna get sucked back in, there's a lots I'd love to say in reponse to what you just shat out onto the page, but just wanted to apologise for assuming you were white in response to the n-word stuff. That was shitty of me.
futilitymisogyny
Too bad you just gave empirical evidence for precisely how sexism is reproduced right there. Indeed, your whole behavior on this thread has been you reproducing your own sexist behavior. You are fucking clueless and your arguments are embarrassingly pathetic attempts at justifying patriarchy. You really should think through what it is you are saying or go to some MRA forum on reedit because that is where your views belong, not on libcom.
This thread has now been locked.