The right seeks converts and the left seeks traitors.
The left is proving, once again, how stupid and politically naïve it can be. Since comedian Russell Brand’s interview with the BBC, many within the left have spent a considerable amount of time criticising Brand for being sexist and a misogynist. This particular point has become the heated topic of debate rather than the magnitude of what he is doing in a mainstream setting: disrupting, questioning, ridiculing and dismissing existing discourses that legitimise how we think and talk about things, who should talk about them, what it means to be political, how politics should be enacted, how power has the ability to mystify and normalise deeply violent discrepancies and injustices.
The questions from Jeremy Paxman typifies the current discursive mode of silencing dissenting voices by trivalising and dismissing them if they did not adhere to the political script given to them: if you vote and pay your taxes, you have the legitimacy to speak. Brand’s responses shatter the ideological myths – that underpin current democratic systems – of what speaking actually means today when no one is listening? Within 10min, Brand has succinctly articulated the deeply embedded distrust and apathy people have in the system: the marriage between liberal democracy and neo-liberal capitalism. His point being, simply, a system should be judged by what it does for “the people”: the growing social and economic disparities at both a local and global level and crippling opposition to it are already signaling change is inevitable.
This, I’m sure, many of us are already aware of both a ground and theoretical level though we shouldn’t discount the salience of a celebrity who has done incredibly well by the system he’s publicly denouncing. However, Brand isn’t trying to lead a revolution, he isn’t pretending to be some ideal, and that’s precisely the point: he is someone who has simply brought to attention the world isn’t exactly the way we talk about it.
Yes, he’s rich and a celebrity, with elements of absurdity, but does this negate his much-needed critique of unfettered capitalism and the failure of politics? He is aware of his subject position in these conversations – and more importantly, one that he is also aware is vulnerable to change. Why else would he see in the slums of Kibera in Kenya, the beginning of Armageddon? He has tasted the economic and social poverty as a former drug addict of a politically disenfranchised working class. He knows the spiritual and material limits of the capitalist mirage he’s been bestowed with. He’s also recognized the limits of his own knowledge and why he has frequently pointed to the need for those more knowledgeable than he deserve to be listened to.
My defense of Brand’s interjection is simple: he wasn’t a sexist and a misogynist until he started to speak about the state of the world – and I have to wonder why it is that the left prefers to cut-down anyone the moment they start developing a conscience and expressing views that desperately need to be heard in a medium that doesn’t often voice radical politics? The constant policing of politics is more conservative than one wants to admit and similarly has a depoliticizing affect. This is not to say sexism and misogyny are okay – of course not – but sometimes the left needs to pick its battles, question why it is intervening the way it does and if it is worth the fallout?
The call to deny Brand a following (not sure what that even means) overlooks a crucial imperiative: everyone is embedded and reproducing the system – capitalism is inherently contradictory and so are its proponents and opponents – to pretend otherwise is pure fantasy and sanctimonious drivel. I’d rather listen to Brand than some wanker who spends his/her days haranguing others on getting their Marx or feminism wrong or dismissing crucial political interventions on the grounds that s/he has made offensive comments – and never going beyond such disagreements because these things must be corrected before the ‘revolution’ arrives
The left needs to broaden its politics and this doesn’t mean compromising on its principles. It means maturing enough to put aside a destructive ego for a moment, and make some room for converts.
SG
SG is a ‘traitor’ living among the ‘enemy’ (Australia)
Excellent. Agree – this articulates my uneasiness about some of the responses to Brand. He was at pains to point out that he was not an expert with the solutions and that this didn’t invalidate his observations about the state of the world. We need more Brands who are able and willing to use their public profile to speak out.
I agree too. Brand’s interview with Paxman, and his New Statesman editorial are excellent.
God, it’s so depressing. Attacking Brand for perceived imperfections is just another form of prejudice. The trouble with being on the left is you can’t be racist, sexist or homophobic which means it’s pretty hard to find people to take out your hatred on. The possibilities include the class of people popularly referred to as “white trash”, christians and of course anyone who is racist, sexist or homophobic.
The underlying emotion of needing to direct hatred toward an out-group is exactly the same – it’s just pointed in a different direction.
Before we focus on trying to make the world a better place it might be an idea to try to make ourselves a better place and own up to our own prejudices and imperfections.
Wow I didn’t even know Russell was anything other than man fluff. I’d much rather listen to his political ideas than his comedy. Good on him about time someone told the whole system to shut up and listen to common sense. Bring on the revolution, look at the body language of Paxman. Thanks for that.
Its obvious that socialists have plenty of bosses and their lackeys to vent their hatred on.
They do not need to turn it on the deficiencies of those on the left.
They need to understand that those deficiencies are usually learned ignorance and racist, sexist and homophobic divisions introduced by capitalism all of which are capable of being overcome by political education and class solidarity.
We should welcome Brand’s critique of capitalism and at the same time constructively critique its shortcomings. Just as we do with everyone else on the left.
In Brand’s case this process of education would be very public and in itself a public education.
After all socialists even propose that their class enemies be given the right to re-education.
“…all of which are capable of being overcome by political education and class solidarity.”
Yet 40 to 65 years of intensive “re-education” in the Soviet bloc on such areas as class solidarity didn’t seem to make much of a long term impact on those countries.
Read animal farm by George Orwell.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Don’t worry, Gooseman, maybe we could learn from Murdoch. His style of reeducation seems to change people on a much shorter time scale. Demolition is obviously quicker than construction.
The more liberal the regime, the easier it is to hijack. Karl Marx gave it as his opinion that whatever else was required for communism to succeed, humankind would have to undergo ‘a change of nature.’ The change he envisaged would be not so very dissimilar to the way we imagine of one ‘born again’ as a follower of Christ.
Whilst we live in an age in which the hijacking of free societies is not merely likely, but certain, we can kiss goodbye to any permanent change for the better for the good of all.
But, bless you, my boy! Surely you don’t expect Bankster Capitalism to benefit humanity at large do you?
Jeremy’s expressions are classic – editing aside, he looks to me like he could see his well trodden system for unsettling unagreeable guests was doomed. All the pointed cliches fired blank. An unsettled automaton even.
I have never been a fan of book selling celebritised philosophies or Sir Russell’s Branded idiosyncrasies and personality either.
But this interview changed my view of Mr Brand, if what he said he carries in his heart with his honour and truly stands by the dispossessed, I stand next to him and others like him who have realised these facts and seek a balanced society free of parasitic culture.
Brilliant brilliant brilliant. He is so sharp & excellent command of english he could run rings around John Key, and really put him to shame, not to mention make a pathetic spectacle of Paula B.. I would so love to see that . how I’d love to see that. That would be my ultimate fantasy.
It’s all true what he says, he knows how the world is really being run these days. Here in little old NZ the public havent actually awoken to the fact that corporations are running the world and politicians have been bought, and the media as well whose job is to keep people ignorant. It’s perfectly true that voting is just “a game” while the main agenda is pushed through regardless..
People accuse politicians of favouring Big Business as if they shouldn’t be doing that,
..well..HELLO. They are doing it , because the rules have been rewritten. It’s a different game now and the public weren’t told.
So, what to do now??? First people need to wake up. Russell Brand is doing a superb job..so far, and I fear they will try to shut him down
According to the logic of some here Russell Brand is a coward as he is unwilling to stand for public office. Worse than this he discourages others from even voting.
I’ve never been a big fan of the revolutionary fervour of celebrities on speed, but more because they seem to become co-opted, like Bono. However, what Brand says is positive enough – things can change and a revolution is possible. More than not criticising him, we need to take it further and change things, make this revolution, free the shackles, etc etc. The good that comes from Brand may be that he inspires people to look for alternatives, to get off their bums. Too much of liberal and radical politics is cult-like, where your ability to quote from the relevant philosopher and use the correct language at all times is seen as paramount. Many people get so worried about causing offence that they just give up. This is tragic, because we can make a revolution despite our faults, but we can’t make one without people.
I enjoy Russell Brand’s acerbic style of humour, yet he comes across as a rather more sympatico human being than his detractors will admit.
Sounded like a rave and ramble of socio/anarchism to me. Started nowhere and ended nowhere
I agree with the general premise that the political system is broken and that people are disenfranchised with the system.
However, his ramblings seem to be a populist rant glorifying violence and nihilism.
Furthermore, I think people are mistaken to draw lines along a left/right boundary, when so-called “right wingers” are also calling for a revolution against the political class.
I fear that we might have left it a bit late though.
Russell Band echos the sentiments (more or less) that I’ve held for the last decade. I wrote on Tumeke! a few years ago that Helen and Clark and John Key probably high-fived each other when they passed in the Beehive hallways. Democracy is largely a sham, a facade used to placate the masses in order to keep the status quo and stop the elites from getting their just desserts. A system where we are continually forced to vote for “the lesser of two (or 5) evils”. All the while we SHOULD know that in doing this we are ENDORSING evil, we are validating and justifying a system that doesn’t give one whit about YOU, the voter – just a subtle change in the outcome for the candidates and their crony friends. This should all be crystal clear by now, with the indistinguishable politics of Blair/Brown/Cameron and Clinton/Bush/Obama and Howard/Rudd/Gillard/Abbott. But I guess we all cling to some sort of phantom hope, that THIS TIME it really will be different. It won’t be. I voted in the last two elections only to specifically NOT vote for John Key, who represents literally everything I hate about politics, not because I thought I could enact some sort of genuine change. Brand is probably right, the system is broken and revolution IS coming.
I wonder if you’d be so forgiving of his sexist and misogynistic comments if they were instead racist, SG?
Hahaha ! The Wasps are buzzing . Someone must be poking at their nest . Russell Brand is a brave , brave soul . He challenges perverse convention and is brilliant at it . If that’s what speed does to the inquiring mind then I have the straw , where’s the line ?
Sexist and misogynistic ?
He’s a man who loves fucking women . Ahhh ? Am I missing something there ?
He says he’s enamored by beautiful women . And he’s a man . And the problem with that is … ?
Ask paula bennett , judith collins , hekia perata , anne tolly , ruth richardson , jenny shipely , helen clarke or God forbid margaret thatcher , hilary clinton or that freakish condalisa rice what emasculation means ?
Russell Brand is man and he’s right so get the fuck over it . Don’t remove the anthers from his flower baby . Hahahahahaah a!
Russell Brand had some very simple yet very good observations, although he wasn’t harsh enough on our current democratic system.
Our democratic system operates pretty much the same way as the Iranian electoral system. Over there the priests check to see if they are worth electing. Over here it’s the media that do it. If anyone announces they want to go back to a 66% tax rate will be treated as an insane communist by the media, and wont get elected.
Brand also wrote a wonderful piece in the guardian when thatcher died –
if you missed it:
guardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher
I’ve seen this dynamic at play too many times. Veteran activists who have given up on beating the real enemy – concentrated power and its lackeys – instead turn on an enemy they think they can beat; each other. As Dave says, we do need to educate ourselves and each other about divisive prejudices and their toxic social effects, but watching people beat potential allies with the sexist/ racist/ homophobic stick is deeply frustrating. People who do this need to be told to pull their head in, but also shown some compassion and support – they do it because they feel defeated and powerless, and in some ways, this illusory feeling is the most important enemy to beat.
I agree 100%. These people give up on the real fight and turn on those they think they can beat. I think so much of what became political correctness was an admission of defeat, and often a surrender everywhere but inside academia. For example, I remember a campaign to change the colour of rubbish bags in London, which didn’t even go close to addressing the wages and conditions of the rubbish collectors. What a sad waste of time!
Well, I do think he was sexist before he started to say this stuff, but it’s just that people are paying attention now. You may’ve missed the BBC Andrew Sachs scandal, which didn’t quite become news here. Having said that, I think Brand is evolving as a person, and there’s always hope his “lazy sexism” will change.
But, by and large, I agree with what you’ve said. I overlooked one or two sentences that were slightly (and only slightly) problematic because the larger message was important. And correct. The sentence you’ve latched onto “the left seeks traitors” is also one that resonated with me.
Comments are closed.