Brand and Paxman
- This topic has 245 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Incidentally, Gnome has misunderstood what Brand's show the Messiah Complex (to give it its full title is about). It's not about him being a Messiah. He's actually against Messiahs and Leaders and is not putting himself forward as one.
Yeah, I'm acquainted with the meaning of the term. It describes a form of delusional belief often presented in patients suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia but symptoms of the disorder closely resemble those found in individuals suffering from delusions of grandeur. Fits Brand to a tee.
Occupy Movement and the Zeitgeist Movement are movements of people with relatively clear objectives. Brand is one person with a public profile.
Yeah, I'm acquainted with the meaning of the term. It describes a form of delusional belief often presented in patients suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Knowing something of the latter, I've never come across the term in relation to schizophrenia. Oh well, must have missed it in my 30 year association!!!
As usual some in the SPgb miss the point about why Russell Brand is being discussed on this site.It isn't so much about him, I don't think those of us here who think he is a positive force are falling in love with the bloke. It's more about his fans, the people who might be switching on to his discussion about revolution. It's those people who are importantAs for the messiah complex thing, the guy is a comedian, film "star" social commentator. all rolled into one and he's stated a number of times that he doesn't take himself too seriously. If he was only concerned about being a darling of the entertainment industry he wouldn't bother with the social commentary. I get the impression he means what he sys when it comes to changing society for the better.I've subscribed to Brand's YouTube show, Trews and there are a lot of times when, if I closed my eyes, I could be listening to what we call a socialist and because he tackles a variety of social topics, there is plenty of opportunity for us socialists to get involved with some discussion on the comments section of his YouTube broadcasts.
Brand and Naiomi Klein on climate changehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QoM8BgmUy8Ahttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/14/russell-brand-podcast-naomi-klein_n_5983148.html
I finished reading his book Revolution last night. A bit disappointing in some respects as a large part of it deals with his personal "spiritual revolution" that has led him to his present political position. So there's a lot about "God" and New Age mysticism. The second part, where he outlines what he means by "revolution", is better For instance:
Quote:The answer to the quandry of how to reorganise society isn't new leaders within the same system, the answer isn't leaders at all. The answer is, of course, simple: we can run our own lives and our own communities. We're not idiots, we need to establish a few immutable, non-negotiable principles, mostly to respect the planet and individual freedom, then look at who is benefiting from things being the way they are now and, using no violence when we approach them and not titles when we address them, politely insist they give us our planet back. [Chapter 23, opening paragraph)Not so sure about the "politely" or that he'd be capable of being polite !And in answer to the question "What would this Revolution look like?" (from the opening paragraphs of chapter 29):
Quote:It is defined and achieved by a sustained, mass-supported attack on the hegemony of corporations and the regulations that allow them to dominate us. It is the radical decentralisation of power, whether private or state. It is the return of power to us, the people at the level of community. It is the assertion of spirituality, of whatever form, to the heart of our social structures.Quote:The nation state may have served its purpose and have to be dissolved (….) State power to dissolve wherever possible to empower autonomous, democratic communities.Basically, he sees the world as becoming
Quote:a federation of fully autonomous, interconnected collectivities led by elected local jurors from the community that followed a central edict built on respecting the way of life of others and ecological responsibility.These will be based on direct democracy and can vary according to their members wishes. Some might be religious. Some not. The sort he personally favours would be "secular, mixed, ecologically responsible, electronically democratic".As to any workplaces now owned by corporations "we could collective it and run it as a worker-owned co-operative":
Quote:The people that run the factories, design the cars, work in the canteens, do the admin, all that (I'm not an expert, who knows what they get up to), will own and run the company. Each region will be autonomous and fully self-supporting except in matters that affect other areas of the organisation or the planet or humanity as a whole. They can democratically elect a board from the workforce who will serve for a limited period and are kicked off if they fuck about.The trouble, from our point of view, is that he envisages these worker-run co-operatives still producing for sale. We've met this before and have criticised it when put forward by Richard Woolf of the "Capitalism Hits the Fan" film. Even so, the book will still bring basic anti-capitalist and alternative ideas we share to many people we don't reach.If he is to be categorised, it will have to be as being in some strand of anarchism (though he doesn't do this himself). In any event, Robin Black of the Black Bloc is wrong to accuse him of not being opposed to the state and capitalism and accusing him of reformism. In one passage, discussing a Swedish proposal for "employee investment funds", he dismisses it as "a piece of pipsqueak reformism". Pity we didn't think of that description when Peter Thatchell proposed this as one of his "baby steps" in our debate with him.
It's a pity we can't get him into a room for a one-on-one with a party member. Seems to me his attitude could be fluid enough that he might easily be open to persuasion on the 'non-socialist' aspects of his views, e,g, on the continued existence of money.Not that I think he'd join the party anyway, but at least he might then start saying the same as us, and reach a lot more people than we are. He might even be prepared to point people to the WSM website.But there you are, wishful thinking again.
Actually, I think his position on money would be that if some "autonomous, collectivised communities" wanted to abolish it, they could. But, also, that if other communities wanted to keep it or use labour-time vouchers they, too, could. He's impressed by what happened briefly in parts of Spain in 1936-7 where some agricultural communes used money and some didn't. He writes highly of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, which is a good book well worth reading.
I know I repeat myself but there is not much point in working your arse off to get Brand to this website if what he finds are attacks against him. We should, as Alb is doing, look at the positive aspects of what he is saying. He clearly shares a lot of our views on society.If he was an ordinary member of the working class holding such views we would be encouraging him.Imagine if he directed attention to the WSM. A lot of people would find out about us. edit: If or when we grow, famous people will join, there is no doubt about it. May as well start now.
Yes, i agree with the 'looking at the postive aspects of this subject.' Just read another article well worth the reading,from here: http://newint.org/blog/2014/10/28/russell-brand-liberal-majority/?utm_medium=ni-email&utm_source=message&utm_campaign=intl-enews-2014-10-31 Youssef El-Gingihy is a GP working in Tower Hamlets. – See more at: http://newint.org/blog/2014/10/28/russell-brand-liberal-majority/?utm_medium=ni-email&utm_source=message&utm_campaign=intl-enews-2014-10-31#sthash.LIsPEJWB.dpuf
Comment from a member who is not on this forum:
Quote:Also, this point of his about the future being co-ops/collectivised communities etc; obviously he has to be put straight on production for use NOT sale, BUT might we not share his description of the actual living arrangements? Presumably socialism WILL mean collective, co-operative communities/networks/towns/regions etc… (as opposed to nation-states and companies/corporations etc)So he's not going to stand for mayor of London (in May 2016):http://www.xfm.co.uk/news/russell-brand-i-dont-want-to-be-mayor-of-london/But, judging from the discussion at our autumn delegate meeting last weekend neither are we.
Apparently, Brand's interview with Paxman last year sparked a debate amongst Trotskyists the other side of the world in Australia. Here's the more interesting contribution to that debate:http://left-flank.org/2013/10/31/anti-politics-elephant-room/#sthash.hVAtaewV.dpbsHere's what the SWP think of him:http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/39314/An+evening+in+Russell+Brand%E2%80%99s+disorganised+revolutionAnd SPEW:http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/19537/21-10-2014/russell-brand-strikes-a-chord
jondwhite wrote:Brand also marched on a Anonymous group demo recently.The revolution can't be far away then.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.