Russell Brand and Nigel Farage on Question Time tonight.
- This topic has 91 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Could it be that he believes people should reject leadership and corrporations and run their communities themselves?Or perhaps that he disagrees with the fact that the earth and its resources being owned by a tiny minority. or is it because he said that the media is controlled by an elite and is filling us with lies?or is it because he said that they have us fighting for their oil and resources? just what is it about him that gets your goat?
vin, perhaps it's his close collaboration with those who think that that tiny minority are Jews or lizards, or Jew lizards.
Just what is it about Russel Brand what gets my goat?I could just as easily ask,What is it about the misogynist pal of rape promoters, of fascists and conspiracist mongers that you like?
i think some may have forgotten an earlier contribution of mine to this thread when i said that Brand is being permitted ample publicity because he is simply an individual and not part of any structured political movement. While he continues to simply be a personality without a party, the Establishment can afford to allow him access to the media. (Perhaps in the hope that in due course he will have enough rope to hang himself, but who knows, it simply might be for the mercenary reason that he is good entertainment and nothing more). He is no real threat, no matter how on the ball he might be with his observations and criticism, just as many others have in the past have been or have we forgotten how the Beatles handed back their OBEs in protest at the system (and forget how the passing of years allowed one of them to be be re-absorbed and given a knighthood) I suggest that if Brand ever puts his criticism into a concrete form…either as an organised party with a manifesto or become identified with a party, like the Greens, that begins to attract members he will quickly find himself shut-down and silenced. Despite those on the thread who argue he is "politicalising" many people who otherwise wouldn't be, the simple fact is how can we judge this when there is no way of evaluating any possible increase in consciousness, because no one is signing up for a political oragnisation , but instead merely as someone said likes on Facebook and that is a very dubious measure of political awareness. While Brand remains politically unalligned and elastic in his politics he will carry on drawing support and sympathy Once he takes a more clearly defined political step, what happens to that audience when he has the full venom of the media hacks upon him, is a question i would like to know the answer to. I hopefully await the SPGB to face a similar challenge when we have some "media superstar" as an active member and who begins to use his or her publicity status as a platform for socialist ideas.
Darren, my apologies if my post appears personal it wasn't meant to be. It might have something to do with the single malt my son gave me for xmas. (Which I am paying for now)I just don't think we should be attacking Brand with more venum that we use against the Coalition for example. The actions of the Coalition have had a direct impact on people I know. Anyway, hope you have a good Solstice
ALB wrote:Just come back from the pub myseld. Don't catho;ics call christmas the Feast of the Consumption?I went to a Catholic school but I don't think I'v heard of that, Alb
In this debate about Brand let us not forget that the meaning of the word socialism has always been a contested one, right from the beginning. This is why Marx nd Engels went to such pains in the Communist Manifesto to distance themselves from the various currents of "other" socialists and spell out what they meant by the term.Our task, as i see it, and just as how Marx and Engels saw their own task within the workers movement, is to concentrate on ensuring that our version becomes the prevailing one and like it or not this means disagreeing with other well-meaning people and rejecting well-intended proposals, and then acquiring these unjust labels of dogmatism and sectarianism. It is unfortunately not an approach that guarantees popularity for us and i think we can safely say that Marx and Engels also suffered for a long time the same marginisation. It was only when they became actively involved, for instance, in the Communist League and later the First International that they acquired a certain amount of influence, often indirectly such as through the proxies of other people eg Kautsky. It wasn't the face that mattered, it was the case (albeit Marx's ego did suffer when Hyndman declined to name him as his source), It was more important to get over the ideas than being a well known personality. The famous Gotha critique, after all, was a private circular not for publication.I simply saying all this to suggest that we should think out the box concerning spreading our views. Our own Party interests can perhaps become secondary if there is a benefit for the promotion of the idea of free access socialism rather than the namby-pamby half-measures passing for a genuine socialist goal.
Darren redstar wrote:I am bored with the discussion over Brand, here, just as elsewhere, no criticism of his conduct, his collaborators, or his 'ideas' ( it's difficult to know what these actually are, as opposed to those of his ghost writer Johan Hari, or the fascist who filmed his Trews, or the conspiracy nuts who he has spent so much time with) is ever actually acknowledged by his fans, who no matter how much they deny that they think he's some sort of perfect hero, clearly consider him to be immaculateDarren,There is a simple solution to fix your boredom. Just don't read the thread and most crucially, don't contribute to it.Now, no one on this forum sees him as an immaculate, hero figure. Some of us simply see value in public figures speaking out, as Vin puts it:-
Vin wrote:Could it be that he believes people should reject leadership and corrporations and run their communities themselves?Or perhaps that he disagrees with the fact that the earth and its resources being owned by a tiny minority. or is it because he said that the media is controlled by an elite and is filling us with lies?or is it because he said that they have us fighting for their oil and resources?Perhaps the spew of the Farages of the world is preferred. I suppose we could say Farage has lain some fertile revolutionary ground with his anti EU and immigration attack on the UK establishment and he has the strength of character to work to change the European Parliament from the inside, despite his dislike of the institution. [sarcasm]I expect Brand does associate with some "weirdos" and "freaks". Hell, we are "weirdos" and "freaks" for advocating socialist revolution. I wonder just what dirt could be dragged up to discredit the politics of the SPGB? Maybe membership should be tightened up to consider the politics of family, friends and associates, maybe even include DBS checks to make absolutely sure. If Brand starts to promote anti-semitic ideas and fascism, then I think it would be safe to conclude he is a dickhead, but until that time I'll see him as potentially beneficial in comparison to Farage any day.
Socialist Punk wrote:If Brand starts to promote anti-semitic ideas and fascism, then I think it would be safe to conclude he is a dickhead.I think the basis of this accusation is his taking some of David Icke's ideas seriously, the New Age spiritual mumbo jumbo not the stuff about shape-shifting lizards and some Jewish world conspiracy. There is also the Laurence Easeman incident. Brand met Easeman at one of the housing protests he was supporting and invited him to speak at his book lauch without realising that Easeman was an out-and-out fascist. Naturally there was an outcry and Easeman didn't speak. I'd put this down to Brand's political naivety. Brand can be criticised for things many (his New Age spirituality for one, his rejection of class struggle for another) but not for being anti-semitic.The Easeman incident does have a political lesson in that it brings out that it is not only leftists but also rightists who denounce bankers and get involved in social activism. In other words, another illustration that social activism does not automatically not lead to socialist understanding (as some of Brand's anarchist and direct-actionist pals claim) but that the case for socialism has to be expressed explicitly.
I agree that our opposition to Brand should not be greater than our opposition to the coalition, but I do think we should oppose him, not simply because of the failings of his message; which is idealist in the scientific materialist sense, or in the company he keeps; which is suspect in the extreme, rape promoters, fascists and anti Semites, but chiefly because Socialism must be the self emancipation of the working class, and this cannot be achieved by celebrity endorsement and a new range of snake oil products.I hope all comrades have had a safe and happy holiday, for a socialist new year
ALB wrote:Socialist Punk wrote:If Brand starts to promote anti-semitic ideas and fascism, then I think it would be safe to conclude he is a dickhead.I think the basis of this accusation is his taking some of David Icke's ideas seriously, the New Age spiritual mumbo jumbo not the stuff about shape-shifting lizards and some Jewish world conspiracy. There is also the Laurence Easeman incident. Brand met Easeman at one of the housing protests he was supporting and invited him to speak at his book lauch without realising that Easeman was an out-and-out fascist. Naturally there was an outcry and Easeman didn't speak. I'd put this down to Brand's political naivety. Brand can be criticised for things many (his New Age spirituality for one, his rejection of class struggle for another) but not for being anti-semitic.The Easeman incident does have a political lesson in that it brings out that it is not only leftists but also rightists who denounce bankers and get involved in social activism. In other words, another illustration that social activism does not automatically not lead to socialist understanding (as some of Brand's anarchist and direct-actionist pals claim) but that the case for socialism has to be expressed explicitly.
I was aware of the errors in judgment you mention here ALB, and agree it is a sign of his political naivety. It's probably proof that unlike his fashion and looks, his politics are not carefully stage managed.Funny how some seem to think he should be opposed simply because he isn't one of us. How dare the R word be used by one not of the faith. The same detractors would be falling over themselves if he started to get closer to our views.Vin put it aptly on another thread with Brands name attached to it, a sure method to turn him away from our view (should he come across it, be nice to think Cliffords letter reached him) would be to attack him and treat him with the same disdain as the Farages of the world.Once more Darren misses the point. No one here is buying into celebrity endorsement. The reason Brand was first ever mentioned on this forum was because of his talk of the need for revolution.
I think the way 'celebrity' is now 'celebrity endorsement' is probable. Most 'celebrities' like Brand and Lennon were working class. It is feasable that one day attention will be drawn to us by a 'celeberity'If Brand or someone like him declared in the media. 'Look at this party, it advocates real socialism'. Would that be of benefit to our case? I agree with socialist punk, it is counter productive to attack such people with venum . We should treat them the way we would like to be treated: for our ideas and socialist case and not by who we drink with or play football with. One of my life long friends is a conservative and I despise and hate the toriesClifford has the right approach, always has.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.