brand vs paxman

did you think anything of that?

Yes, it was entertaining. No-one's burnt down parliament yet though so I think the moment has passed. As you were.
How to topple this shower of bastards? I think when the Queen gives the nod to the mob it'll be entrails for nooses by sundown.
 
Last edited:

Local Authority

bitch city
Good PR but he pretty much re-iterated and obfuscated his point under dicky prose. He wasn't being clever.

*edit* haven't actually watched the brand v pax but did read half of the editorial for the new statesman

I do find the viewpoint that those excluded from the system don't care about politics and that's why they don't vote to be horribly patronizing and one without any factual basis. The majority of people I met around the time of the election who were 'excluded' did vote. He's as out of touch as the politicians he berates.

When a facebook campaign arose to get Russell Brand in power, someone duly noted, who should vote for him if he's against voting.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing what he has in mind is a gleeful and mischievous occupation of Westminster, flowers down gun barrels, culture jamming, elimination of the ruling classes presumed mandate by non-participation rather than another antiquated folded ballot paper election.
 

Local Authority

bitch city
Its a stance which has been taken up by anarchists for a while now, one which was gaining momentum until the government started using anti-terror laws to spy on them.

Turnout has steadily decreased, with it being 65% at the last election which I don't feel is wholly representative. It may also show that the majority of people feel disenfranchised with modern politics.

Non-voting isn't the solution though, because it allows unrepresentative parliaments to take power. For all of his talk, he doesn't actually have a plan for after the revolution, which leads me to believe its just incendiary rhetoric. For what little I know, I can say that the problem with politics isn't the actual democratic system, its a problem that's entrenched in the houses of parliament and its archaic structure. No one, not even Brand, is attempting to root it out or address it.
 

luka

Well-known member
i thought it was interesting for a number of reasons. brand was repeatedly knocked out of his flow and confidence by paxman. paxman represents something. he represents the dominant paradigm. he represents authority and common sense and everyone feels the power of those things and there were moments were brand was knocked backwards by it and made little retreats into as pax man says facetiousness. i dont think brand is funny but he is in some senses real. it was a clash between two principles. i dont think everyone advocating revolution need have a detailed plan of who exactly is going to collect the rubbish. i dont think it works that way. you need first of all to have enough people convinced of the need for revolution. revolution should create chaos not replace on order with another. no one knows what the revolution will bring about. thats not to say its not worth thinking about just that its ridiculous to dismiss a revolutionary becasue he doesnt have an model of utiopia fully formed in his brain box. the first thing is to create the conditions for revolution which means first convince people of the need for it and second convince people of not just its possibility but its inevitability. that 'we' cant lose. i thought it was a very interesting piece of telly for all sorts of reasons. as a duel between two domineering personalities and enormous egos, a clash of styles, a clash of types, a clash of ideas. i thought it was wonderful. neither man is a hero of mine but styles make fights and this was a good one. i dont think nick cohens response to it was credible.
 

luka

Well-known member
there is something new coming into the world. when i say brand is in some sense real the realness lies in his ability to anticipate the coming change. he feels it. hm govt was disappointed it didnt happen as soon as the banking crisis pulled aside the curtain, so was i but i think something will still happen and i think manning, assange, greenwald and snowdon are all signposts on the way regardless of their personal failings. they are pointing to something. they are tremors which precede an earthquake.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
For what little I know, I can say that the problem with politics isn't the actual democratic system, its a problem that's entrenched in the houses of parliament and its archaic structure. No one, not even Brand, is attempting to root it out or address it.

This may have something to do with problems that are specific to the UK but we're hardly the only nominally democratic country to be run by a bunch of corrupt shits who are busy serving the vested interests of a small minority while screwing over damn near everyone else.

Edit: I really hope luka's right but I'm afraid the powers that be have access to technologies that makes it possible to monitor and control people in ways the great tyrannies of the past could only dream of, and there's this vast distracting glut of material possessions and entertainment like there never has been before. Maybe that's a cowardly thing to say but I think it can't be ignored. This isn't France in 1789 or Russia in 1917, there are different challenges.
 
Last edited:

you

Well-known member
Some are really into Brand on this. I feel he has highlighted a major class and political divide. However, Paxman is the real touch paper... asking "What gives you the right?" This question reveals an awful lot about UK politics and class.
 

Local Authority

bitch city
as i said before, this is subject wherein my toes are dipped into the pool so please correct me if i'm wrong.

if you look at previous revolutions, they have all failed because there hasn't been a defining ideology underpinning. the common thread is, remove these people from power and so they fail. we do not live in a tyranny in the way that syria or libya or egypt is however the 2 party power structure endemic to ours and many western politics could be seen as tyrannical as their views hover ever closer. someone please explain to me the motifs behind previous revolutions, russia, algiers etc

as much as ive tried to see the inherent problems it ends in swings and roundabouts, the media is as much part of the problem as the politics. the media has one agenda, its own, and both parties try to pander which dilutes the politics. as well theres an ever growing old guard, out of touch and increasingly forceful.

the problem with brand is that his beliefs are not substantial and in themselves are not revolutionary, the cynic that i am i cant help but see this as a cynical attempt to get pr, especially from young people. which will inevitably tally up as money in the bank come his next tv show or film. the black bloc circa 2009 had an idea but were criminalised. its good someone is drawing attention to this (but didn't we all know anyway)
 

Local Authority

bitch city
the class and political divide was highlighted before brand mentioned it. the excluded knew they were excluded and the rich knew they were excluded, its just the middle class yapping on twitter over a glass of wine who didn't.

whether or not the 'revolution' will be on the ground, we'll have to see
 

you

Well-known member
the class and political divide was highlighted before brand mentioned it. the excluded knew they were excluded and the rich knew they were excluded, its just the middle class yapping on twitter over a glass of wine who didn't.

whether or not the 'revolution' will be on the ground, we'll have to see

Could you point me towards a decent mainstream instance where such a divide was highlighted. The riots obviously were not.
 

luka

Well-known member
i think this was clearly wonderfully symbolic and as you says, it was on the best possible platform. he's even called pax man. you couldnt make it up. (even if you could be cynical and talk about brand and a pr stunt.)
 

you

Well-known member
also... to tag on to this:

"its good someone is drawing attention to this (but didn't we all know anyway)"

drawing attention to peoples political apathy is not a new thing, nothing to shout about there... but drawing attention to how the ruling classes assume (and pedal such an assumption) they ought to be ruling and assume political apathy is a symptom of laziness and disconnected from their (the powerful's) positions is a newer thing. This was half of Brand's argument, political apathy is caused by the rulers.... this is one of the ideas that the ruling elite do very at repressing...via positing P.A. as a symptom of inbred WC idleness or poor education...this appalling elitist view was exemplified by the snorts of Paxman....
 
Last edited:

you

Well-known member
I'd agree with luka in that it is symbolic, I don't feel Brand himself will make any change. But is is fascinating to see the platform highlight an apathetic political view asking the question of the establishment -
"Aren't you to blame for my apathy?"
"No we have told you a million times - no!"

It just really shed a light on the very core of the rulers double bluffing democracy, they manoeuvre so that the majority have little agency and become disillusioned... then blame the disillusionment on said people. As politically responsible members of the ruling class under a democratic system the first priority ought to be political engagement... absurdly, this has been re-formatted to be seen as not just not their problem, but a short fall of the people they extort from and control.

Under the austerity thumbscrews (that even the IMF brand as nonsensical) put in place by the tory party that took 36% of a 65% turnout highlighting the elites assumptions and strategies around apathy is potent stuff.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
It's a bit rich for the political class to lambast the proles for their apathy when apathy is clearly what they thrive on. Large-scale abstinence from voting is only going to perpetuate the status quo, which is exactly what they want. If large numbers of people suddenly lost their apathy and got very engaged, the result could be at the very least the re-election of a genuinely socialist, pre-Blair-style Labour government, if not a full-on revolution. So really they're blaming the public for behaving in precisely the way they want them to.
 

you

Well-known member
It's a bit rich for the political class to lambast the proles for their apathy when apathy is clearly what they thrive on. Large-scale abstinence from voting is only going to perpetuate the status quo, which is exactly what they want. If large numbers of people suddenly lost their apathy and got very engaged, the result could be at the very least the re-election of a genuinely socialist, pre-Blair-style Labour government, if not a full-on revolution. So really they're blaming the public for behaving in precisely the way they want them to.

it just doesn't bear thinking about!
 
Top