rigorousintuition.ca

On Edit, Oct. 25th 2013: Continuing & branching off from this great thread (started by 8bitagent), which has now been running for four months: "Comedian-Actor Russell Brand Dismantles MSNBC Show". Brand is remarkable and inspiring, but this new thread shouldn't only be about him, and hopefully won't be. Credit where it's due, but no personality cults! This thread is for anyone calling for actual real and radical change now, especially for those who manage to do so convincingly in front of a large mainstream audience, and most particularly for those who aren't scared to use the words 'socialism' and 'revolution'. Also for any and all responses thereto, whether verbal or manual or both. Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell Brand did something heroic last night. I hate the word "must-see", because we all have our own lives and our own priorities; but I do urge everyone to find the time to watch this ten-minute video.

- Some essential info upfront for non-Brits:

Newsnight is a daily BBC Television current affairs programme which specialises in analysis and often robust [sic] cross-examination of senior politicians. Jeremy Paxman has been its main presenter for over two decades.

Several of the programme's editors over the years have gone on to senior positions within the BBC and elsewhere. Along with Paxman, the programmes regular presenters are Kirsty Wark, Gavin Esler, and Emily Maitlis.

Newsnight has been broadcast on BBC Two since 1980. It goes out on weekday evenings between 10:30pm and 11:20pm.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight

So... both Newsnight and Paxman have been daily fixtures on the BBC for decades, and are therefore now "national institutions". And Brand simply ran rings around Paxman -- that complacent, patronising, pseudo-tough careerist -- eventually reducing him to a nonplussed silence:



It was not just a moral triumph, nor was it merely a brilliant verbal performance. A commenter called 'margo' on the British board Media Lens describes their respective body languages well:

Posted by margo on October 24, 2013, 10:34 am

What's that about communication being 90% non-verbal...

Paxman starts off the interview with one arm thrown nonchalantly,
confidently over the back of his chair.

Brand owns him within 20 or so seconds, mirroring the stance
and hooking his own arm over the back of *his* chair.

Paxman climbs down, brings his arm forward, his options more limited now.

Paxman's legs crossed/closed.

Brand spread across his chair, owning it.

Brand calls Pax 'darling', evoking feminine emotion,
leans forward, almost touching P's knee.

Paxman a rabbit in the headlights for a nano-second there ...
Brand's before him, owning the space because he can, without permission,
because he understands he needs no permission from Paxman,
however dearly Paxman would like to make Brand believe he does.

Paxman shrinks back in his seat slightly as Brand fails to be suitably awed.

Paxman's arm is protectively across his upper torso now, defensive,
palm (unusually) turned outwards *towards* Brand.
Not just defensiveness then, but personal anxiety.

Whatever gravitas Paxman wields in the BAP cigar bar has just been grabbed, rolled into a ball of wax
and bounced around the room for a laugh.

And Paxman knows it.

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens ... 07268.html

Russell Brand, on Oct 23rd 2013. wrote:"Yes, Jeremy, I want revolution. I want change."

No wonder. The last time such anger, passion, seriousness and wit were allowed in Britain, he was a toddler. So, something better change.



Russell Brand: the even sexier reincarnation of Jean-Jacques Burnel.

Brand is absolutely stellar. Thanks for posting the link!

You're welcome, Neon - but thank streeb! He posted it here first!

The video has already gone viral (I first saw it at Media Lens this morning), and Brand's exchange with Paxman is already making big waves in Britain. I would love to believe -- and actually do believe -- that it marks some kind of turning-point.

When I used the word "heroic" at the top of this thread, I hesitated for a millisecond, because, as Brecht said: "Pity the land that needs heroes". But it's the only word that fits, and I think I've almost only ever applied it to people I've seen performing gracefully under huge pressure, live in public - e.g., certain actors, musicians, athletes, public speakers, and especially stand-up comedians. One of the many things I love about Brand's interview is that, despite being such an effortlessly witty man, he vehemently resists Paxman's smug attempts to reduce him to the role of a mere clown. Russell Brand has that and much else in common with Bill Hicks: he knows that not everything is funny, and he has now reached the stage where he would much rather be unfunny than untrue. They both knew that wit has more than one meaning.

Sometimes even career politicians perform heroically -- and wittily. From July 2012:



Something better change.

Just stumbled upon this:

http://libcom.org/blog/russel-brand-rev ... m-24102013

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.

Many comrades have been quick to criticise his statements for vagueness,...

"Comrades"..."vagueness"... AD, that poor well-meaning sixth-former's desperate blogpost -- and especially the witless and sometimes literally imbecilic comments-war that follows it --shows precisely why so much of What Calls Itself The Left is so deeply unattractive to anyone who would actually like to have a life. (One good comment: 'It’s been said that: “The right seeks converts and the left seeks traitors.”' Right. QED.)

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 [He addressed this explicitly, wittily and succinctly during the actual 10-min interview!- MacC], 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 [Nonsense!] Of course he is not espousing these ideas from the position of being a proletarian....[...]

Enough. It is simply unfair to submit a schoolkid's writing to any kind of close critical scrutiny in public. But you did post it. Good on him for at least making an effort to resist the most boring idiocies. But let's draw a line under it:

_______________________________________________________________

Onwards.

MacCruiskeen » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:22 pm wrote:

Many comrades have been quick to criticise his statements for vagueness,...

"Comrades"..."vagueness"... AD, that poor well-meaning sixth-former's desperate blogpost -- and especially the witless and sometimes literally imbecilic comments-war that follows it --shows precisely why so much of What Calls Itself The Left is so deeply unattractive to anyone who would actually like to have a life. (One good comment: "It’s been said that: “The right seeks converts and the left seeks traitors.” Right. QED.)

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 [He addressed this explicitly, brilliantly, wittily and succinctly during the actual 10-min interview!- MacC], 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 [Nonsense!] Of course he is not espousing these ideas from the position of being a proletarian....[...]

Enough. It is simply unfair to submit a schoolkid's writing to any kind of close critical scrutiny in public. But you did post it. Let's draw a line under it:

_______________________________________________________________

Onwards.

If he continues down this path, this will be just the beginning.

He'll be "embraced" by every nutjob there is, both real and manufactured. He'll be guilty by association with all manners of extremist groups and imbeciles and mentally ill delusionists.

The media will see to it. The PTB's will see to it.

And if they can't utterly discredit him that way, they'll shut him up some other way. You know, he'll tragically die all -too-young of a sudden cancer or maybe his car will explode while driving down Sunset Blvd.

Nordic, I think those days will soon be gone. Certainly Russell Brand is brave too. He could very easily just lie back and bask in the fame, the money, the adulation and the laughs. He could just swan around effortlessly on talk shows cracking funnies and making the ladies melt. Certainly he's now making some powerful enemies instead. But I think he knows that attack is now the best form of defence, and if Manning and Assange and Greenwald et al can endure what they are enduring (and if the poor of Britain & the families of Iraq & the prisoners of Guantanamo can endure what they must endure) then I think Brand himself knows that he has relatively little to worry about. What will it profit a man if he gain a BAFTA award and lose his own soul? Or even his own mortal life?

Russell Brand is now 38. To me, a large and fascinating part of his recovery from addiction has been his ongoing and inspiringly successful attempt to combine an unstoppable delight in the simple good things in life with the development of some more arduous pleasures and fulfilments, such as the pleasure & fulfilment of taking real risks and doing the right thing.

Russell Brand, on Oct 23rd 2013, wrote:"There's going to be a revolution. This is the end. I haven't got a flicker of doubt."

I love him for saying that. And, talking of fulfilment; some prophecies are self-fulfilling. Maybe every fulfilled prophecy is.

Lots of other people come to mind who loved life & took risks (great and small) & endured ridicule (and worse) & struggled to do the right thing & made powerful (and sneaky) enemies and often actually died before their time. Giordano Bruno. Gerrard Winstanley. William Blake. Georg Büchner. John Keats. Robert Burns. Mark Twain. Ignaz Semmelweis. Oscar Wilde. Mother Jones. James Joyce. Sophie Scholl. Eugène Marais. Wittgenstein. MLK. Noam Chomsky. Rosa Luxemburg. Rosa Parks. Bill Hicks. [...]

Wilhelm Reich wrote:Love, work and knowledge are the wellsprings of our life. They should also govern it.

C'est la vie.

^^Brilliant, just brilliant. This guy just keeps going up in my estimation.

Chris Hedges
Let’s Get This Class War Started

Posted on Oct 20, 2013

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/let ... 20131020//

Except it started long ago. It's just been extremely one-sided.

Up to now.

it is a rare moment when someone combines a position of influence with a genuine affection and love of humanity and clever, well informed and incisive attack on the power structure,

Brand's statements are well aimed, his responses are well toned and intentioned, he is not easily made to look silly as someone else already wrote,

the next few months will be critical for Brand, he will have to think carefully about what he says, how he acts, and who he associates himself with

i wish him the absolute best of luck with it ...

I am with Russell

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... revolution

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... revolution

ok. here are a few quick reservations amongst the jubilance, and they are important

imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way I can be enthused about politics
I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites.

completely agree

Is utopian revolution possible?
The freethinking social architect Buckminster Fuller said humanity now faces a choice: oblivion or utopia.
We’re inertly ambling towards oblivion, is utopia really an option?

so here is where i get nervous, because all attempts at utopia have ended in tragedy

To me a potent and triumphant leftist movement, aside from the glorious Occupy rumble, is a faint, idealistic whisper from sepia rebels. The formation of the NHS, holiday pay, sick pay, the weekend – achievements of peaceful trade union action were not achieved in the lifetime of the directionless London rioters. They are uninformed of the left’s great legacy as it is dismantled around them.

these gains of the left were made by social democracy, not revolutionary socialism

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.

yes, the left is too divisive of its self because it demands a higher standard of argument and evidence than the right, it is genuinely interested in critical theory whereas the right only needs a flimsy veil to hide its kleptocracy behind,
but ...
socialism has not been defined by inclusiveness, in fact, from Marx and Engels onwards, class war is central to the doctrine and class war by definition is the dominance of one exclusive group against another, like it or not, certain interpretations of Socialist theory are exclusionary and oppressive by their nature

For me the solution has to be primarily spiritual and secondarily political. This, too, is difficult terrain when the natural tribal leaders of the left are atheists, when Marxism is inveterately Godless. When the lumbering monotheistic faiths have given us millennia of grief for a handful of prayers and some sparkly rituals.

Socialism was certainly not godless in its origins and many of the early socialists were Christian socialists, but the Church was rightly seen as a component of the dominant structure and rightly attacked
Any new holistic left wing movement that places the planet, human dignity and freedom, and equality as its priorities must accept atheist and religious points of view as equally valid

Buckminster Fuller outlines what ought be our collective objectives succinctly: “to make the world work for 100 per cent of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous co-operation without ecological offence or the disadvantage of anyone”.

Fuck yeah

The price of privilege is poverty. David Cameron said in his conference speech that profit is “not a dirty word”. Profit is the most profane word we have. In its pursuit we have forgotten that while individual interests are being met, we as a whole are being annihilated.
We have succumbed to an ideology that is 100 per cent corrupt and must be overthrown.

Fuck yeah

Perhaps in a system where legitimate, peaceful protest was heard that may have been an appropriate option for them, but Stop the War marches don’t stop wars, at the top of the pyramid larceny is rewarded with big bonuses. They may have been misdirected but they certainly had some vim. How beautiful it would be to see their passion utilised and directed at the source of their grievances.

Right on, but the most oppressive systems produce the most destructive reactions and everyone needs to be mindful of that. Lenin appeared in Russia and built the machine of terror for Stalin in the name of Marx, but he was able to do so because the Russian Aristocracy of the Romanovs was the most brutal, repressive and backward in all of Europe.

The hypocrisy – me, working for MTV with my fancy shoes – is a problem that can be taken care of incrementally. I don’t mind giving up some of my baubles and balderdash for a genuinely fair system, so can we create one? We have to be inclusive of everyone, to recognise our similarities are more important than our differences and that we have an immediate ecological imperative.

yep, thats the spirit

We now must live in reality, inner and outer. Consciousness itself must change. My optimism comes entirely from the knowledge that this total social shift is actually the shared responsibility of six billion individuals who ultimately have the same interests. Self-preservation and the survival of the planet. This is a better idea than the sustenance of an elite.

fuck yeah

The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation.

woah there, the first bit is right but the unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology is worrying Russell, Saint Simon wanted an all inclusive pseudo-spiritual ideology as well, but it sets you down the road to exclusion, unifying spiritual ideologies are the very essence of the springboard to fanticism, the march of the true believers, this way only ruin lays

To genuinely make a difference, we must become different; make the tiny, longitudinal shift. Meditate, direct our love indiscriminately and our condemnation exclusively at those with power. Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster. We should include everyone, judging no one, without harming anyone.

again, i like the vibe, but certainty is again the route to tyranny, doubt is an essential tool in the kit of the thoughtful revoltionary

Now there is an opportunity for the left to return to its vital, virile, vigorous origins. A movement for the people, by the people, in the service of the land. Socialism’s historical connection with spiritual principles is deep. Sharing is a spiritual principle, respecting our land is a spiritual principle.

yes, i want this movement, i am in, and i get that it needs to be constructive and empowering as against divisive and judgemental,
but beware certainty, beware religous fervour, beware the movement towards eschatological utopia, and remember that most of the real gains of the left were gained by the very gradual reforms that sociopaths like Lenin mocked so thoroughly,
smashing things is easy, and Russell is right that he shouldnt be expected to come up with the singular answer that has eluded so many great thinkers of the past,
but a clear plan of intentions and actual institutions is necessary when you jump forward, because the State does not wither away when the 'right' group grab power by violent means
As Georg Luckas noted in 1918 "Bolshevism rests on the metaphysical assumption that the bad can engender the good". That proposition was wrong. Lets not repeat it.