Anyone see Paxman interviewing Russell Brand?

[Totally_Baffled]

This is the fallacy of the hypocrite.

The exhortation to be good is not lessened for being spoken by a sinner.

lol - glad you reminded me of this, I'm off to buy a brand new V8 SUV without the guilt!

[Little John]

Just thought I'd post up a full transcript of Paul Mason's excellent piece in case any hadn't seen it

http://www.channel4.com/news/russell-br ... lution-bbc

Worlds collide as Russell Brand predicts a revolution

Paul Mason Culture and Digital Editor- Channel 4

When Russell Brand told Jeremy Paxman there would an anti-capitalist revolution, the comedian was speaking for all those who despise what growing inequality is doing to their lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 5nL9gg#t=0

Russell Brand skewered my old mate Jeremy Paxman last night, on the subject of "revolution". Or rather, they skewered each other. It was one of those rare media occasions where each participant achieves exactly what they want to: Russell to inspire a generation, Jeremy to get a feisty interview with one of the key voices of his age.

Russell's normal shtick is benign mayhem: to be the Jungian trickster. Jeremy's shtick is to conduct every interview from the point of view of an 18th century country vicar, who if the times were not so chaotic might - as in Orwell's poem - "preach upon eternal gloom / And watch my walnuts grow".

In Jeremy's world all legitimacy comes from the parliamentary process and the monarchy. In Russell's world things are different. In Russell's world people are so fed up with capitalism that there is a high likelihood of revolution. When he made this point, Jeremy's eyebrow went crazy.

So who is right?

Russell stands up in front of thousands of young people who've paid a serious dollop of their wages to hear him make them laugh. Though he looks like a survivor from Altamont, his audience do not: they are young, professional people; nurses, bank clerks, call centre operatives.

And what Russell has picked up is that they hate, if not the concept of capitalism, then what it's doing to them. They hate the corruption manifest in politics and the media; the rampant criminality of a global elite whose wealth nestles beyond taxation and accountability; the gross and growing inequality; and what it's doing to their own lives.

Russell's audience get pay cheques, but their real spending power is falling. They don't just need help to buy, they need help to pay the mortgage; help to get out of relationships that are collapsing under economic stress; help to pay the legal loan shark and meet the minimum credit card payment.

When Russell Brand tells Jeremy Paxman capitalism is destroying the plant, it's like watching proxies for two different worlds collide.

Above all, they need help to understand what kind of good life capitalism is going to offer their generation. Because since Lehman Brothers that has not been obvious.

Jeremy's audience consists of their mums and dads. They too are worried about the future, but - as a generation - financially secure.

So when Russell tells Jeremy profit is evil, that capitalism is destroying the planet, that politics is corrupt, it's like watching proxies for two completely different worlds collide.

Of course, it's not really Paxman who should be having to defend the status quo: it's the people who think it's a great idea to let a private health guy run the NHS. Or that having most of the press owned by a few rich men who keep their money offshore is normal.

Spiritual revolution

In this week's New Statesman Russell Brand spells out a 4,500 manifesto for what turns out to be a slow, spiritual revolution which he thinks has begun:

"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."

I think, on balance, Russell is right about the prospect of a revolution. It won't be a socialist revolution, nor even an anti-capitalist one in design.

On balance, Russell is right about the prospect of a revolution. It will be a rejection of the corrupt values of those who run society.

It will be something cultural - like the mass uprising of Turkish youth I saw in Taksim Square this year. A complete rejection of the corrupt and venal values of those who run society. In fact, as I've written before, it's already going on.

What's driving it is the failure of the current model of capitalism to answer some basic questions: like where will the jobs come from if automation takes over our lives? Where will high wages come from if workers' bargaining power is just repeatedly stamped down by the process of globalisation? How will this generation be secure in old age, if the pension system is shattered and we face half a century of boom-bust?

To people of my generation the absence of outright anger, rage and aggression sometimes makes it seem like young people don't care about any of this. But anger and rage are behaviourally impossible in our society: show any kind of emotion, or raise your voice, and the range of official responses goes from "being asked to leave" to tasering.

All the repression of the various protests - Sol, Syntagma, Taksim, Occupy - has done is to force the anger and rejection inwards.

Social unrest

The revolution that's underway is more about mental and cultural rejection of the story on offer: to leave college with a heap of debt, to work as a near-slave in your early twenties in the name of "work placement" or "internship".

And it is not only Russell who thinks there's going to be a revolution. Analysts at the Gartner group, an IT consultancy, recently issued this warning:

A larger scale version of an 'Occupy Wall Street'-type movement will begin by the end of 2014. Gartner group IT consultants

"By 2020, the labor reduction effect of digitization will cause social unrest and a quest for new economic models in several mature economies. A larger scale version of an "Occupy Wall Street"-type movement will begin by the end of 2014, indicating that social unrest will start to foster political debate."

So Russell versus Jeremy was a big cultural event, akin maybe to one of those David Frost interviews in the Profumo era, only in this case it's the interviewee, not the interviewer, who speaks for the upcoming generation.

Because while on my timeline everybody over 40 is saying, effectively, "tee hee, isn't Brand outrageous", a lot of people in their twenties are saying simply: Russell is right, bring it on.

[vtsnowedin]

This is the fallacy of the hypocrite.

The exhortation to be good is not lessened for being spoken by a sinner.

lol - glad you reminded me of this, I'm off to buy a brand new V8 SUV without the guilt!

Maybe not guilt but I expect you will feel some remorse everytime you pull it up to the fuel pump. Are we transporting a football team to and fro or some other useful transport that needs the V8?

[emordnilap]

Brand's stance on voting is particularly interesting. It makes you stop and think. I've always advocated voting because otherwise, someone else votes for you. But he's right - it makes no difference whatsoever. I still think you should vote but obviously, it's not enough.

Take, as an example, the 'peace movement' of the 1960s - I recall Ringo Starr (no doubt amongst many others) more-or-less stating that 'things will change when this generation gets the vote, when these peace lovers get in government'.

Did it?

[extractorfan]

Take, as an example, the 'peace movement' of the 1960s - I recall Ringo Starr (no doubt amongst many others) more-or-less stating that 'things will change when this generation gets the vote, when these peace lovers get in government'.

Did it?

My pet theory is that we are just animals obeying instincts but feeling like we do things based on value judgements. The effect being we are no better than yeast and eventually we drown in our own excrement just like them, the only possible difference is that some of us are aware of what's killing everyone.

It's a gloomy theory.

[emordnilap]

Personally I vote green

I used to. I still do, if there's nothing better. Will I never learn? Trouble is, they got in power in Ireland and helped to royally fook the country. So it's my fault.

[emordnilap]

Because while on my timeline everybody over 40 is saying, effectively, "tee hee, isn't Brand outrageous", a lot of people in their twenties are saying simply: Russell is right, bring it on.

I'll never see 40 again but include me out on the first clause. Brand has been a long time coming and I would support any and all similar thinkers.

[biffvernon]

This is the fallacy of the hypocrite.

The exhortation to be good is not lessened for being spoken by a sinner.

lol - glad you reminded me of this, I'm off to buy a brand new V8 SUV without the guilt!

The point is that if you were to tell people that to avoid global warming we should stop burning fossil carbon, the truth of your statement would not change whether or not you then buy an SUV. I don't suppose the planet cares whether or not you feel guilty.

[Totally_Baffled]

This is the fallacy of the hypocrite.

The exhortation to be good is not lessened for being spoken by a sinner.

lol - glad you reminded me of this, I'm off to buy a brand new V8 SUV without the guilt!

The point is that if you were to tell people that to avoid global warming we should stop burning fossil carbon, the truth of your statement would not change whether or not you then buy an SUV. I don't suppose the planet cares whether or not you feel guilty.

I get that Biff, apologies I was being a bit glib (I'm not getting a V8 SUV you will be glad to hear! )

I take your point about the strength of the argument should not be tainted if you like by the person making the argument (the fallacy of the hypocrite issue).

That said, and its a matter of a opinion, but I personally feel a bit suspicous of (in this case) rich left wingers talking of "spreading the wealth as the wealth gap is so wide and unfair", when filthy rich themselves (and have got rich from the system they're criticising too!) I wonder if they genuinely believe in what they are saying, and if they really would hand over the majority of their wealth if it came to it?

I guess another example (at the other end of the spectrum) might be David Camerons/George Osbournes "Austerity/We're all in it together". Technically true, but its some what weakened by the fact they they are both stinking rich! (and I have read plenty of criticism on this forum for this very reason but the "fallacy of hypocrisy" didn't get mentioned then!!)

[biffvernon]

I personally feel a bit suspicous of (in this case) rich left wingers talking of "spreading the wealth as the wealth gap is so wide and unfair", when filthy rich themselves (and have got rich from the system they're criticising too!) I wonder if they genuinely believe in what they are saying, and if they really would hand over the majority of their wealth if it came to it?

The Labour Party, right from it';s 19th century roots, has been populated by rich people who, whether despite of because of their personal circumstances, argued for greater equality. Most, I am sure, were genuine and sincere in their views.

I am very rich (relative to the mean wealth of all 7 billion people) and I genuinely believe that much greater equality, even if it meant me being poorer, would be a good thing.

And, no, don't ask me to give away my wealth to the poor. That would achieve very little. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

[SleeperService]

I personally feel a bit suspicous of (in this case) rich left wingers talking of "spreading the wealth as the wealth gap is so wide and unfair", when filthy rich themselves (and have got rich from the system they're criticising too!) I wonder if they genuinely believe in what they are saying, and if they really would hand over the majority of their wealth if it came to it?

The Labour Party, right from it';s 19th century roots, has been populated by rich people who, whether despite of because of their personal circumstances, argued for greater equality. Most, I am sure, were genuine and sincere in their views.

I am very rich (relative to the mean wealth of all 7 billion people) and I genuinely believe that much greater equality, even if it meant me being poorer, would be a good thing.

And, no, don't ask me to give away my wealth to the poor. That would achieve very little. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

That would achieve nothing as I think you realise biff. The action needs to be bring everybody up to a reasonable level and curb the excess.

This is not the same as having the same amount of money BTW. It's about providing an equivalent standard of living. Unfortunately as things stand at the moment that's as likely as me walking to Mars.

I agree totally with Russell Brand on the need for a revolution ironically to reverse what the young of the 60s put in place.

[kenneal - lagger]

I didn't put anything in place that couldn't have been replaced the young of eras since.

The rebel pop stars of the sixties and seventies and their socialist lovey colleagues when faced with 80% to 90% tax rates from the Labour government at that time nearly all emigrated to France or the US rather than pay the "fair" taxation. Rich socialists could always afford to be talk socialism while avoiding its consequences in a similar way to those who governed the "socialist " states at that time.

Socialism has always only even been for the masses. Please excuse my cynicism?

[SleeperService]

I didn't put anything in place that couldn't have been replaced the young of eras since....Socialism has always only even been for the masses. Please excuse my cynicism?

I believe that even the oil shock of 1972 wouldn't have been enough to change the system, the time wasn't right. It still isn't but, possibly, it's nearer. There was a lot good about the 60s but political enlightenment wasn't part of it. It was 1968 before the Ecology Movement got off the ground, the catalyst was the Earth pictures taken by the ultra conservative space programme.

As it stands today there are a vast number of young people mired in debt, before they've got somewhere to live as a result of further education that hasn't led to the level of employment they were conned into believing would result. Hope is rapidly evaporating.

I admire and share, to a degree, your cynicism. Socialism should be about narrowing the gap between rich and poor, it is the right who claim it means everybody earning the same.

[woodburner]

I think Mr. Brand is more mouth than deed.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think Mr. Brand is more mouth than deed.

Erm...and what sort of deed are you demanding/expecting of him?

Looks like he's doing a fine job to me, especially if he's p*ss*ng the likes you off.