Brand and Paxman
- This topic has 245 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There's also this article from 1968 which may be relevant http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1968/no-762-february-1968/politics-pop
Surely both of them.
It seems Paxman may be more our wave-length than Brand. "…the person who chooses not to vote – cannot even be bothered to write 'none of the above' on a ballot paper – disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all." He warned: "We ignore the democratic process at our peril … People died for the right to choose their government, because otherwise power is wielded by the rich and strong for the benefit of the rich and strong."(my emph)http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/05/paxman-politics-russell-brand-voting The SPGB does not commend voter abstention but spoiling the ballot paper, in our case a pro-socialist slogan writen on it……Paxman even recognises that the choice is sometimes simply between the rich and strong. "At the next election we shall have a choice between the people who've given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess, and the people who signed public pledges that they wouldn't raise student fees, and then did so – the most blatant lie in recent political history," wrote Paxman. "It won't be a bombshell if very large numbers of the electorate simply don't bother to vote. People are sick of the tawdry pretences,"
More video from Brand on politics. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/russell-brand-revolution-_n_4213849.html Assessing previous Marxist revolutions, the 38-year-old said that in its "traditional form" revolution was ok but it "went a bit genocidal, it was just a bit of sharing, then it got spoilt." Brand insisted that he wanted a peaceful revolution. "Once you are violent you'd get nicked. If you're disobeying without being violent they can't nick you, it's a paradigm breaker." Again he has many insights tht many will agree with . VBut, I'm still not impressed by his humour and still find it distracts from the ideas he presents. Brand said: "I'm not saying lets go smash people up and certainly not kill people. Just for the record, I'm not in on the old death camps… I'm double, double against genocide. I am talking about a revolution of consciousness."Brand added: "Definitely no killing. I'm against that; I'm a vegetarian, I think we're all equal. I'm not saying smash people's stuff up, and definitely no killing."
Brand's view on revolution in news again responding to Robert Webb's criticism:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/russell-brand-revolution-_n_4213849.html"I'm not saying lets go smash people up and certainly not kill people. Just for the record, I'm not in on the old death camps… I'm double, double against genocide. I am talking about a revolution of consciousness."
kohara66 wrote:Brand's view on revolution in news again responding to Robert Webb's criticism:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/russell-brand-revolution-_n_4213849.html"I'm not saying lets go smash people up and certainly not kill people. Just for the record, I'm not in on the old death camps… I'm double, double against genocide. I am talking about a revolution of consciousness."It can only assist the socialist case if people begin to recognise that revolution does not necessarily involve violence and riots but can refer to a big change taken by the vaste majority.
In addition to the video i linked to above, he is also in the Guardian and in particular draws attention to voting tactics"…my friend's 15-year-old son wrote an essay for his politics class after he read my New Statesman piece. He didn't agree with everything I said, he prefers the idea of spoiling ballots to not voting "to show we do care" maybe he's right, I don't know. The reason not voting could be effective is that if we starve them of our consent we could force them to acknowledge that they operate on behalf of The City and Wall Street; that the financing of political parties and lobbying is where the true influence lies; not in the ballot box… A system that serves the planet and the people. I'd vote for that." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight Also in connection to other threads he talks of his meeting and discussions with some soldiers and some Muslim women. "…Our differences irrelevant. With no one to impose separation we are united. I realised then that our treasured concepts of tribe and nation are not valued by those who govern except when it is to divide us from each other." Yes, i am beginning to soften in my criticism of Brand and respect the fact that he is hitting a number of spots in the flabby belly of capitalism and it is getting plenty of media coverage.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Yes, i am beginning to soften in my criticism of Brand and respect the fact that he is hitting a number of spots in the flabby belly of capitalism and it is getting plenty of media coverage.Seriously tho' some good stuff!
Wonder if he puts in a Form A? On second thoughts, it would not be a good time for him to do that: what with his history!
As i pointed out on another thread Brand's Form A for membership would be turned down on the grounds of his religious belief in God that he has made public. I think my initial guarded scepticism was due to some on the lists overly and totally unrealisable hope ,IMHO, of the party establishing some sort of relationship (political, that is) with Brand when much more viable and achievable ambitions are being procrastinated about. A swallow does not make a summer but it is surely an indication of its imminent arrival. We have been witnessing many early signs of the incipent re-surgence of political radicalism, from Occupy to all those left unity talks. Our socialist task is to join the dots.
Hi Alan,I may have appeared as one of those who looked like they were overegging the pudding somwhat with respect to Brand. I can assure you, such was not my mindset.This aside, it was and is refreshing, to see "revolution" and Marx also, in the public spotlight. A chink of light assuredly but one that mayhap, the Party can turn to an advantage Stevie C.
I can tell you that, according to a facebook status, a member has managed to stuff a Socialist Standard into Brand's hand at a demonstartion last night.
"The reality is we have more in common with the people we're bombing than the people we're bombing them for." This is my favourite quote from yesterday's Guardian article.And then there's this… "We could use the money accumulated by those who have too much, not normal people with a couple of cars, giant corporations, to fund a fairer society." I still forgive him though. God I hope he reads that Standard. Or will his Messiah Complex get in the way of being able to construe our message even if he does read it?
Having originally and mistakenly assumed the Brand interview was part of the passing show [business] i have indeed been forced to eat my words with humble pie.Another article in the Guardian today by a columnist based on the Paxman/Brand interview which includes a very familiar phrase to ourselves – "Demand the Impossible" (plus a reference to Rosa Luxemburg.)http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/06/dont-vilify-russell-brand-right-revolutionHe certainly hit a chord with journnalists and political commentators if not with the general public !!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.