Russell Brand, revolution and pragmatism

Russell Brand,  revolution and pragmatism

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.

Posted By

Croy
Oct 24 2013 14:16

Share

Attached files

Comments

Serge Forward
Oct 26 2013 13:06

Spikeymike, you're a big doomlord....

... though basically right embarrassed

jolasmo
Oct 26 2013 13:13

[deleted]

futility index
Oct 26 2013 14:07

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.

jolasmo
Oct 26 2013 17:05
the croydonian anarchist wrote:
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.

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.

OneKlart
Oct 26 2013 14:26
Quote:
a sign of our weakness

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.

Quote:
a false belief in the significance of both media debates and the milieu's puny efforts at propaganda.

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.

Spikymike
Oct 26 2013 14:31

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!

OneKlart
Oct 26 2013 14:36

I think the term is "the Brandwagon" smile

jef costello
Oct 26 2013 14:39

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.

OneKlart
Oct 26 2013 14:40
sometimes explode
Oct 26 2013 14:59

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.

batswill
Oct 26 2013 15:15

“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.

Bunion_on_my_foot
Oct 26 2013 15:48

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.

batswill
Oct 26 2013 15:29
jef costello wrote:
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.

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.

Bunion_on_my_foot
Oct 26 2013 15:40
batswill wrote:
jef costello wrote:
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.

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.

So, he has got some cracking pedo jokes so we should listen to his views on the Syrian conflict?

batswill
Oct 26 2013 15:41
Quote:
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.

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.

Bunion_on_my_foot
Oct 26 2013 15:46
Quote:
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.

batswill
Oct 26 2013 15:54
Quote:
batswill wrote:
Bunion on my foot wrote

jef costello wrote:

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.

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.

So, he has got some cracking pedo jokes so we should listen to his views on the Syrian conflict?

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.

batswill
Oct 26 2013 16:09
Bunion_on_my_foot wrote:
Quote:
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.

I misinterpreted again. I'm sure there are, can you give me some names of comedians, I need some laughs at the moment smile

batswill
Oct 26 2013 16:44
Bunion_on_my_foot wrote:
Quote:
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.

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 smile

Bunion_on_my_foot
Oct 26 2013 16:54

Stewart Lee, Mark Steel, Geogre Carlin (deceased), Dick Gregory

Stephen Colbert - need to find a website that will show it in the UK...

batswill
Oct 26 2013 16:55
OneKlart wrote:
Quote:
a sign of our weakness

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.

Quote:
a false belief in the significance of both media debates and the milieu's puny efforts at propaganda.

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.

You nailed it. And about milieu, yeah I went to a bar-b-que milieu last weekend smile

Noah Fence
Oct 26 2013 17:22

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.

Serge Forward
Oct 26 2013 17:33

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 laugh out loud

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.

Croy
Oct 26 2013 18:18
jolasmo wrote:
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.

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 wrote:
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.

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 wrote:
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.

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.

batswill
Oct 26 2013 18:55
Bunion_on_my_foot wrote:
Stewart Lee, Mark Steel, Geogre Carlin (deceased), Dick Gregory

Stephen Colbert - need to find a website that will show it in the UK...

ThanksI checked out all these, LOL George Carlin's Modern man, thanks dude.

Croy
Oct 26 2013 18:58

For the record I think Stewart Lee is an insufferable, arrogant pretentious dick.

commieprincess
Oct 26 2013 19:54
sometimes explode wrote:
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.

Great post, I do see where you're coming from a bit better - I think maybe I misunderstood your previous post.

croydonian wrote:
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.

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 wrote:
I don't personally interpret anything he has said to be sexist.

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 wrote:
When I was asked to edit an issue of the New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me.

...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...

Like most of the superficially decent things I do in life, my motivation was to impress women more than to aid the suffering. “A couple of days in Africa,” I thought, “and a lifetime cashing in on pics of me with thin babies, speculate to accumulate,” I assured my anxious inner womaniser.

A few weeks later I was in Paris at a Givenchy fashion show where the most exquisite garments cantered by on underfed, well-bred clothes horses.

Now, I bow to no one in my appreciation of female beauty

These are the only mentions of women in the article. They are all wanky, sexist statements and all refer to looks/bodies/victims.

OneKlart wrote:
I don't see the victimisation....it makes comedic sense. It's part of a one-two to shock people at the start of the article.

Great, I'm glad it makes comedic sense to you. It makes me feel like shit.

Rob Ray
Oct 26 2013 23:17

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.

Tyrion
Oct 26 2013 23:29
batswill wrote:
commieprincess wrote:
sometimes explode wrote:
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.

Great post, I do see where you're coming from a bit better - I think maybe I misunderstood your previous post.

croydonian wrote:
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.

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 wrote:
I don't personally interpret anything he has said to be sexist.

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 wrote:
When I was asked to edit an issue of the New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me.

...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...

Like most of the superficially decent things I do in life, my motivation was to impress women more than to aid the suffering. “A couple of days in Africa,” I thought, “and a lifetime cashing in on pics of me with thin babies, speculate to accumulate,” I assured my anxious inner womaniser.

A few weeks later I was in Paris at a Givenchy fashion show where the most exquisite garments cantered by on underfed, well-bred clothes horses.

Now, I bow to no one in my appreciation of female beauty

These are the only mentions of women in the article. They are all wanky, sexist statements and all refer to looks/bodies/victims.

OneKlart wrote:
I don't see the victimisation....it makes comedic sense. It's part of a one-two to shock people at the start of the article.

Great, I'm glad it makes comedic sense to you. It makes me feel like shit.

So you obviously have no comprehension of parody? We're talking about a person with a renowned agenda for satirically tearing down moral icons and mindsets, and suddenly he is assumed to have 'gone to the other side', Hey, I haven't been laid in 5 yrs, but if I ever became famous and had women craving to sleep with me, I would have to be a gay guy or a brain-dead burnout not to take them all on. Alas, I fear I am brain-dead. Next you'll say that viagra is a patriarchal construct!

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?

radicalgraffiti
Oct 26 2013 23:33
batswill wrote:

So you obviously have no comprehension of parody? We're talking about a person with a renowned agenda for satirically tearing down moral icons and mindsets, and suddenly he is assumed to have 'gone to the other side', Hey, I haven't been laid in 5 yrs, but if I ever became famous and had women craving to sleep with me, I would have to be a gay guy or a brain-dead burnout not to take them all on. Alas, I fear I am brain-dead. Next you'll say that viagra is a patriarchal construct!

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