Brand and Paxman
- This topic has 245 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Brand and Evan Davies on Newsnight (23/10/14)https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152808218619120https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152808223724120https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152808229069120https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152808233844120
I went to a cinema in Kingston last night(with about 30 to 40 others) to see the screening of Owen Jones interviewing him for the Guardian. I think he's entirely sincere. He's a showman who has decided to devote his talents as a showman to helping grass-roots campaigns against what capitalism is doing to people and the environment and is urging them to get together to bring the whole profit system to an end instead of each waging their campaign separately ("revolution"). He leaves open the question as to how this is to happen except that it will involve people taking over and running the places where they work or live or what a post-capitalist society will be like except that it should involve a decentralisation of powet. This would make him a bit of an anarchist (even though it wouldn't be incompatible with what we mean byl socialism; in fact he didn't repudiate being called a socialist when Jones asked him if he was one) but he came across as someone who genuinely wants to know more about what he's committed himself to.I ordered his book which should arrive today. It will of course be reviewed in the Socialist Standard, by the same comrade who reviewed the Paxman interview. In fact he was at the book launch on Wednesday and gave out some remaining copies of the reprint of that article we did as a leaflet.
There were SWP and SPEW leafleting and selling papers outside the event in Liverpool. The SWP had a specific meeting titled 'As Russell Brand calls for an uprising – Is a Revolution possible in Britain'.The event itself was interesting enough. One of the last questions posed to Brand was 'What do you think of the Zeitgeist movement'.It was an easy crowd for Brand to play to as most were in agreement with him. As Peter Hitchens has attested to, Brand is not beneath engaging in cruel mocking ad hominems with opponents. from 2012
Quote:[Brand] responded to my point about selfish rich kids with a tirade of personal abuse and the standard all-purpose false accusation of racial prejudice that is the universal sign of a person who has no good argument, and knows he has no good argument. As his voice rose to a whine similar to the sound of an ill-tuned hand-dryer, he railed at me for daring to work for a newspaper he didn’t agree with (and which caught him out in a piece of behaviour which doesn’t exactly redound to his credit). It is amusing to be accused of bigotry by someone who fulfils its characteristics himself.Mr Brand was one of three people that evening who chose to abuse me personally and crudely.Quote:He was also ingratiating, making various protestations of friendliness to me, which I politely but firmly rebuffed because I didn’t think they were genuine, and because I saw no reason to pretend friendliness towards him when I dislike everything he does.Quote:My summary of this exchange. Mr Brand seeks to patronize me, calling me ‘frustrated’, and later asking why I am ‘angry’. There is no doubt that he (having had the opening few minutes of Newsnight devoted to a film about his BBC3 programme (uninterrupted by me or anyone) and then a solo interview with Ms Flanders (also uninterrupted by me or anyone) is repeatedly interrupting me without the presenter making any effort to restrain him. His interruptions are destructive, in that he never waits for an answer to any of his questions but talks over the response, often with another question. And they are of course personally abusive (again unrestrained by the presenter). It becomes necessary for me to point this out, so reducing the time available to make my case.Quote:Oh, and Mr Brand made no attempt to kiss me, though he did stand too close to me and make yet more unconvincing protestations of friendliness, in a TV Centre corridor, after the programme. In the end, after I had had to back away from him, he said (rather more honestly) words to the effect that I was part of a dying breed and he wouldn’t be sorry when we were all gone, and I responded that at least that was his honest opinion.http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/08/no-kiss-took-place.html
Hitchens is what Johnny Rotten would call a "bumhole" and, as Brand himself pointed out last night, people who attack him on this sort of ground identify themselves as supporters of the status quo and those who benefit from it. And the Sunday Mail, like the Daily Mail, is of course part of the gutter press.I think Brand is going to end up being like Chomsky., i.e refusing to endorse any particular anti-capitalist movement or party but giving general support to all of them. Of course he's not anywhere nearly as knowledgeable as Chomsky and wouldn't claim to be.
What usually happens in this sort of situation is that somehow Brand will hear about us, look at the Standard or on this forum and find some members calling him names – reformist, opportunist or whatever – and immediately turn away. What is the point in shoving a Socialist Standard in his hand if the contents include an attack on his basic integrity?I am not getting at members who do this, I can see where they are coming from, but it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. 'Told you he wasn't interested' etc. When we attack Brand, as far as the media is concerned, we are attacking the idea that a revolution need not involve violence. This happened with the likes of Scarghill and Lennon. We attack these people and we are attacking all the 'good' things they have said.Not sure what the solution is
ALB wrote:I think Brand is going to end up being like Chomsky., i.e refusing to endorse any particular anti-capitalist movement or party but giving general support to all of them.It's good to see others gradually coming round to the view that a few of us expressed after the Paxman interview a year ago. Above all else though, Brand is a self-absorbed, self-publicist; he craves the limelight.For those who haven't seen the latest Newsnight interview which went out last night, it's available to watch here for another six days. Listen carefully and, in particular, observe the body language. Starts at 28.28 minutes in.http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04mgxnj/newsnight-23102014
Anyone with a public profile might expect statements they make will come in for praise or criticism.Having acknowledged this, if members wish to publicly comment then members should be making informed (ie. not ill-informed), proportionate, polite, political (not personal or ad hominem) relevant comments and not verbally abusing anyone with the temerity to be critical. Something I don't think was done appropriately with Stephanie Flanders, Michael Portillo or Elizabeth Jones from Ukip.Most media personalities in demand stand to lose independence or credibility by attaching themselves to (or opposing) any particular party. Members ought to be realistic about this and not expect figures to jeopardise their livelihood. Meetings with figures as guest speakers are within the realms of conception too but this isn't for members to blunder an approach rather this is for campaigns committee to approach and arrange.
I agree with ALB, Brand does come across as genuine and enthusiastic and that he will probably end up endorsing no one group but supporting everyone who seeks a genuine revolutionary solution to the mess we have at present.The "bumhole" bit about Hitchens is spot on.Vin is correct as well. There will be some in the Party that dismiss Brand because he doesn't support the SPgb or join up etc, forgetting what I have heard many times on this forum, that the SPgb will be one of many parts of the peoples global revolution.So long as he sticks with the idea of revolution, he's ok by me.
I believe it is better to highlight the things we agree with rather than search beneath the surface for something negative to say. We tend to join in with the anti working class propagandists or rather that is the impression.
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:I think Brand is going to end up being like Chomsky., i.e refusing to endorse any particular anti-capitalist movement or party but giving general support to all of them.It's good to see others gradually coming round to the view that a few of us expressed after the Paxman interview a year ago.
That wasn't supposed to be a criticism of him !OK, he is a self-publicist and openly admits it but is offering to put this at the service of grass-roots struggles and the general idea of "revolution". Personally I think he's genuine, whatever we might think of the concept of celebrity endorsement of revolution (but I have heard members speculate that this might help). Incidentally, the fashion designer Vivienne Westwood spoke from the floor at that Guardian interview also to denounce capitalism.
I don't think its simply an issue of encouraging members to not be negative. Hence why I think the conference resolution in the 1990s about putting the positive case for socialism was stupid.If it was not being negative. then members would be praising Owen Jones, someone class conscious (which incidently Russell Brand explicitly rejected as well as defining socialism as 'sharing'), someone keen to vote and encouraging of others to vote and Owen is better informed.However, members don't praise Owen Jones. Why? Because of negativity? No, because he is a committed member of the Labour party, a party the SPGB is hostile to. So its clearly about the way non-members or opponents of the party are treated not just members being negative. Otherwise why would members be negative to Jones but positive about Brand? Whats the difference?
I had forgotten that Brand did say that revolution wasn't a class matter (though he was ruthless in his denunciation of those who benefitted from capitalism). He also indicated that the Green Party would be the best party if going through parliament was the way to get things down (which he rejected). Basically, he's into grass-roots activism on the environment, housing, organising low-paid workers, etc. rather than reformism through voting and parliament.Meanwhile his book has arrived which I'll start reading after our Autumn Delegate Meeting this weekend.
Hi jdw. Do you really consider Owen Jones as "Class Conscious"? Not a very class conscious thing to do, join an overtly pro Capitalist political party like Labour? However, I digress. I have a lot of time for both Brand and Jones, even with his dubious links to Labour.Jones, each and every time I have heard him, has proved himself erudite and learned, with a grasp of anti Capitalist argument, plus the ability of the quick and clean put downs to the usual apologists for the system, (notwithstanding his Labour links). Bland, on the other hand puts the case in another way. More impassioned and emotive, and dare I say it, down to earth.The Party, IMHO, wouldn't be harmed by being associated, at this time, with either of these two. Owen would need to read up on the Anti-Working Class history of Labour and leave the con men behind. Bland would need to cut down on the theatrics and histrionics.
steve colborn wrote:Hi jdw. Do you really consider Owen Jones as "Class Conscious"? Not a very class conscious thing to do, join an overtly pro Capitalist political party like Labour? However, I digress. I have a lot of time for both Brand and Jones, even with his dubious links to Labour.Jones, each and every time I have heard him, has proved himself erudite and learned, with a grasp of anti Capitalist argument, plus the ability of the quick and clean put downs to the usual apologists for the system, (notwithstanding his Labour links). Bland, on the other hand puts the case in another way. More impassioned and emotive, and dare I say it, down to earth.The Party, IMHO, wouldn't be harmed by being associated, at this time, with either of these two. Owen would need to read up on the Anti-Working Class history of Labour and leave the con men behind. Bland would need to cut down on the theatrics and histrionics.You can be class conscious and not engage in the class struggle. You can see the interests of the working-class as extracting maximum reforms from the ruling-class whilst leaving the ruling-class in a situation of ruling.
For those who would not have read the Scottsh tabloid, the Daily Record's Sunday Mail , this article by Jones on the Scottish Labour Party will be of interest.http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/owen-jones-scottish-labour-face-4463712
Quote:They face an existential crisis. Greece and Spain provide examples of how traditional social- democratic parties – when they turn on their own supporters – collapse and are surpassed by more radical rivals.Whatever happens, the tradition of working people in the UK uniting against their common enemies – today, bankers, tax dodgers and poverty-pay firms stripping workers of rights and security – must surely be strengthened.It is up to Scottish Labour to decide whether they will be part of that, or whether the party of Keir Hardie and Jennie Lee face a long, painful period of terminal decline.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.