Russell Brand
- This topic has 258 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Oh, by the way. I too have MS. Would I feel more secure, have my illness any more cared for under Labour? Not a snowball in Hells chance.A plague on all their (Pro Capitalist Party's) houses.
stuartw2112 wrote:Hi Alan,Brand changed his mind, something he has not been shy about doing in his public self-development and education. And as he said in his Trews show, he's well aware, and could go on for perhaps as long as you, about Labour's past and probable future failings. But the question on the table is not about Labour's failings. It's about whether we would prefer a Labour(-led) government to a Tory(-led) one. Brand says yes, and I agree with him. It's a reasonable thing to believe (a majority in the Labour movement do, don't they?), even if you're not a dupe of the system, a fool, a knave, a charlatan, have been bought off by the lizards, a careerist only out for yourself, etc, etc.Well I don't agree Stuart. Even if, for the sake of argument, a Labour government was marginally less harsh in its anti-working class policies, a vote for Labour in the short term is in effect a vote for the Tories in the long term (and vice versa I might add), given the see-saw nature of capitalist politics. Invariably the election of one capitalist party to power leads to disenchantment and the subsequent diversion of political support to some political rival, only for the whole process to repeat itself again and again. The political rival gets into power and disappoints its followers who then switch their allegiance back to other one. Its a bleedin' treadmill we are talking about here and the only way to deal with a treadmill is to get the hell off it – something that I fondly imagined Brand had originally done but sadly proved not to be the case. Honestly – at some point you just have to draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough". Otherwise you are liable to find yourself sucked into a quagmire with no way out. and no end in sight.
It is my birthday next week. I’ll be 61. It is a bit blurred now, and I’m not sure if it was the 1964 or the 1966 general election but I stood for Communist Party in our class mock election. I got one vote, my own. The SNP won which makes me think it may have been 1966, the eve of their resurgence.I too have fallen for the siren calls of the lesser evil. I have voted for the SSP and the Greens in the past, for pragmatic reasons. In Scottish Parliament elections there is proportionate representation, not merely first past the post so they were never ever “wasted” votes. It made little difference to politics in the end. All my political life, at every election, I have heard the same thing. It will be better next time. It will change. It won’t be like last time. You’ll be treated better. I promise…I swear…believe me…trust me…I’m different now. Give me one more chance to prove myself …The same old story that every battered wife hears from the abuser. I don’t blame the victims, I don’t say, you made your own bed, now lie in it. I direct my outrage where it is deserved, at the perpetrator of the violence. I ignore the rationalisations, that they too were once victims, and simply part of the cycle that they have not yet broken out of. What Brand has been shamefully complicit in doing, is telling a wife to go back to her abusive relationship (supposedly a sincere and genuine relationship, according to you, Stuart), to suffer the very same happening all over again…Those who counsel…leave him, seek out safety in a women’s refuge,…these alternatives are not viewed reasonable because the hubby brings home the house-keeping money, pays the mortgae for the roof over the head, and what is the occasional black-eye when other men may well break your arm or worse. And you’ve been made to expect nothing else but domestic cruelty from other men, so now better the enemy you know.Labour lesser-evilism has made people fear freedom. That’s the crime you and Brand are guilty of, Stuart. Your advice to vote Labour is shameful.
The comments here have been most interesting and revealing – angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising. I have some sympathy with all that has been said. But deciding who to vote for at an election just isn't a decision with the moral force and political consequence you have all invested it with. It's a purely practical matter – of no great significance, and yet of some significance. I totally agree with Brand. I vote Labour at least partly for all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government, one more committed to keeping the social safety net. For myself, the election will probably have little or not effect. I'm not so sure that will be true for my friends and acquaintances and many others who have suffered so terribly at the hands of this Tory government. I applaud Brand for his decision and hope it had an effect on his followers.
stuartw2112 wrote:The comments here have been most interesting and revealing – angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising. I have some sympathy with all that has been said. But deciding who to vote for at an election just isn't a decision with the moral force and political consequence you have all invested it with. It's a purely practical matter – of no great significance, and yet of some significance. I totally agree with Brand. I vote Labour at least partly for all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government, one more committed to keeping the social safety net. For myself, the election will probably have little or not effect. I'm not so sure that will be true for my friends and acquaintances and many others who have suffered so terribly at the hands of this Tory government. I applaud Brand for his decision and hope it had an effect on his followers.I don't despise those who vote Labour, but the purely non-sentimental tactical reason for voting socialist is so socialists are in better position to contest the next election not a worse position because Labour claim a renewed democratic mandate to govern. How else have existing minor parties become major players this time around? Not because 'other people voted for what they believed in' but because you vote for what you believe in.
alanjjohnstone wrote:That’s the crime you and Brand are guilty of, Stuart. Your advice to vote Labour is shameful.It is also impractical and illogical and Brand will have blood on his hands like all labour party supporters. The last Labour Government under Tony Blair caused the deaths of thousands of men women and children.I will not be hiring Rolf Harris to look after my GrandDaughter and I certainly will not be voting for lying, murdering con men.By the way this is not moralising I will leave that to bourgeois ideology. I am being practical.
stuartw2112 wrote:The comments here have been most interesting and revealing – angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising. I have some sympathy with all that has been said. But deciding who to vote for at an election just isn't a decision with the moral force and political consequence you have all invested it with. It's a purely practical matter – of no great significance, and yet of some significance. I totally agree with Brand. I vote Labour at least partly for all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government, one more committed to keeping the social safety net. For myself, the election will probably have little or not effect. I'm not so sure that will be true for my friends and acquaintances and many others who have suffered so terribly at the hands of this Tory government. I applaud Brand for his decision and hope it had an effect on his followers.Hi Stuart, Your comments above are also revealing for what they say about you! Do I take it then that you regard the case for socialism is purely a matter of economic interests – pragmatism – as opposed to morality? I have always taken the postition that it is necessarily both these things and was somewhat dismayed when the SPGB elected a few years back to effectively fall in line with Kautsky's observation – namely that "it was the materialist interpretation of history which first completely deposed the moral ideal as the directing factor of social revolution” and that this theory has ‘taught us to deduce our social aims solely from the knowledge of the material foundations’ (Karl Kautsky Ethics and the Materialist Conception Of History,1906, Chapter V . "The Ethics of Marxism"). I dont think you can entirely deduce your aims from a "knowledge of the material foundations of society" – your aims are also a question of values which moreover fundamentally influence how you interpet the world – your knowledge Your supposed pragmatism in choosing to vote for a through and through capitalist political party you attempt to justify on grounds that supposedly separate you from those who express a view point that is angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising . And yet there you are talking about all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government. A slightly less evil government? Can you not see the fundamental contradiction in your whole posture? And if you going to be "pragmatic" about it consider the point that I made earlier. If you are recommending people to vote Labour, you doing so in the certain knowlege that a Labour government is going to disappoint and that as result of that disappointment workers in the long run are almost certainly going to switch their allegiance back to the Tories. Given the see saw nature of capitalist politics this is what invariably happens, does it not? Why not then just short circuit the whole lengthy expostion and simply say "VOTE TORY!! Because, lets face it, that is the long term consequence of voting Labour. You are simply preparing the ground for the return of a future Tory government in the wake of Labour's (inevitable) failure….
So easy to misrepresent the opposition in your own terms, Stuart, to justify your stance. Rationalisng it as i say most offenders usually do as i described.It is not from sentimentaliism or morality that i and others criticise you and Brand from but a strong principles and for us a fully justifiable political position. You are defending the ruling class and hindering any understanding for the need for socialism. Re-define the motives of us all you wish to fit in with your own outlook but the de facto, effective politics you serve is the ruling class. Dodge all you want but that is the truth.I am sure i and many of friends, family and acquaintences can equally produce a list of detrimental and damaging things that the Labour Party has done to us …But you seek to create a hierachy of suffering…Pain from the Tories is higher up the scale than the pain done to victims by the Labour party…you want to blot out all the nasty things Labour has done, and, you, yourself, the supposed campaigner against the Iraq war, how trivial now a million or more lives are to you these days. I think it was 2004 that Dave Perrin first introduce me to you and Dave, you were still angry at Blair's war, still no war but class war..But now tell that to the Libyans and the Afghans, wars supported by Miliband.(i also recall the discussion was about the pussy-footing attitude the Party had to the Miner's Strike. You and Dave were critical of the Party not offering unconditional support to the strike if i remember correctly…and here you are calling for support for one of the political parties that actually acted to undermine the NUM…strange days, indeed)I worked in the sorting office during 1997, nothng to do but to sort the mail like an automaton and talk. After decade of Tory rule the prospect of Labour was greeted with overwhelming optimism by my co-workers. I kept reminding folk that while Blair was still in opposition and while we were out on strike, Blair took management's side and this would surely should offer an insight in what was to come but no…We had had enough of the Tories and Blair promised a Third Way…and everybody believed this fresh young energetic visionary and what's more he got a landslide victory, a huge majority scarcely seen in history of UK elections…He could do what he want through Parliament…he had Blair's Babes, ambitious career women..he had all the clever professionals such as the Mandelsons …those dullards from the union movement were few now. Did he side with the disadvantaged, the vulnerable, the exploited? Did he push through a radical transformation to strengthen the safety net you believe the Labout Party defends? I kept saying to the people i worked alongside when the media were hyping this new labour messiah that the honeymoon would not last, that Blair was not pro-worker and in my job under Labour some of the bitterest disputes took place and a supposed public service was prepared for privatisation, something Thatcher backed away from, and to ensure it went smoothly my union was emasculated (ably helped by my union leader and namesake who took the Labour MPs seat in parliament and a then place at the Cabinet table) We in Royal Mail had a taste of Blair's industrial relations. And i have to endure you telling me that the labour movement and the Labour Party are partners and share a common bond. But i wasn't so angr with my colleagues as i am with you. They were pretty much swept forward by the media and their own lack of political knowledge, especially of the past. You have no such excuse…You cannot plead ignorance.I know too much have now flowed under the bridge…you resigned because of Occupy and what you saw was our negative approach to it…even though members were sympathetic and only disagreed with you on how to relate to it. You then went off and joined Left Unity which failed to satisfy you and i am not sure if it was the dismissal of your proposal for the Basic Universal Income that got got described by the LU economic workshop as undermining the welfare state you defend on this thread. You now call for support for Labour. On what basis – Labour's commitment to a social partnership with the ruling class…and we know who will be paying the price for that if Miliband is PM …merely will take time to shed the SNP (and Miliband's first job in the Labour Party during the 90s was to counter the nationalist effect in Scotland, something he failed to do )No if i'm being sentimetal and have a moral position, it is now pity for yourself and your lost run-around in circles politics. I feel sorry that you are on a course which will lead you more and more complicit in being anti-working class – and i speak as i said, not on narrow nationalist terms but as a world socialist. Your position reinforces all those around the world that will offer themselves up as lesser evil such as Hillary Clinton.If you follow any of the threads, you know i have admitted that we as a Party have failed to counter this invidious approach to politics and that i seek to find a way to battle it . You, on the other-hand. have embraced it full-heartedly…and you must hold yourself responsible for the consequences, the blood (metaphorically) will be on your hands. You will be fully complicit in the actions of a future Labour Government if it is elected as if you were Miliband himself because as i said earlier….you know better and chosen to ignore the evidence.1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Everyone arguing against my position has to make a pretence. The pretence is that there is some choice to make today other than the apparent one.The apparent choice is (to simplify only slightly) whether you would prefer to see a Labour or a Tory government running modern-day capitalism for the next five years. For people like me, living in a marginal seat, my vote could actually determine the answer. To argue abstention from that choice is to say that it doesn't make ANY difference who wins. My view, and my view is in harmony with the majority view and of pretty much all informed commentators, is that it does make SOME difference. (It's the majority view since the facts support it: Tony Blair's government, whatever else you might think of it, and even correcting for the effects of the economic cycle, spent more on health and education than his Tory predecessors, for example. Indeed, if it made no difference at all, you might like to wonder why capitalists spend so much of their money trying to determine the outcome, why this election is being watched eagerly by international institutions, or why no one but the ultra-left fringe had noticed that it didn't matter) At this election, indeed, the difference, and the choice to be made, is bigger than at any time for many years, arguably since 1945. There is, in other words, a definite left/right split. Since left-wing governments tend, where they can, to spend more on such things as the welfare state, it makes sense for people who are of or for the working class to vote Labour. Most people on the left, or who are of the labour movement, can see this and do so.The only way to reject this rationally is to bring in the pretence that there are broader political and/or moral issues at stake. The argument with the most force for me, though no one's mentioned it, is the question of legitimacy. By giving these governments our vote, it is claimed, we are lending the holder of the monopoly on violence and the whole capitalist system a legitimacy it would be healthier for us to deny it. But this is a crazy – indeed, the really shameful – argument. The plain fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, there is no alternative to capitalism. There won't be until there is a majority or a sufficiently determined minority of people organised to try to achieve something different. That at least a decade off, if it ever happens at all. To deny a democratic government legitimacy in the absence of any well-organised alternative is a scary prospect. What would the result be? Probably social and political chaos. Probably the end of democracy and the establishment of military rule. Something, actually, probably much like this (scroll to 47 mins in):http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05tr714/charlie-brookers-election-wipeSo, shameful indeed – your not-voting position is as bad as the Leninists and anarchists you mock. Get out and vote for what's left of the Labour movement and for democracy. Vote Labour!1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Alan, Thank you, it's touching that you care so much and have followed my political career (if you can call it that, which you can't) with such interest!There's an alternative explanation to the one you offer. Maybe I'm not ignoring evidence or betraying my past or being ludicrously flighty. Maybe I'm just a serious minded chap who is looking for answers, and changes his mind every now and then, as would be normal and healthy. The alternative is dogmatism and faith, which surely you can't be recommending. I wonder if anyone here has read the first couple of chapters of "The Economics of Feasible Socialism" by Alec Nove? I must admit, my faith in Marxism and non-market socialism could not survive the encounter. But perhaps that's for another thread:http://digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdf2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
The Labour representative at the last hustings we went to in Oxford East on Monday took the same indignant view as Stuart when our candidate, Kevin Parkin, said that the choice between Labour and Tory was a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.He claimed that people would be thousands of pounds a year better off under Labour. The Tories claim the same for their policies. But why should we believe either of them when their claims/promises are based on the false assumption that governments can manipulate capitalism to bring about this when experience has shown that they have to govern capitalism on its terms?Actually, I've come to the conclusion that when people vote they don't consider themselves as electing a government but as expressing a personal preference. Why else would people vote for the Greens, UKIP or even the Liberals, let alone for us, in most constituencies?
Adam is a bit right, but as is usual on this thread, is obliged to strong arm reality into an insane strait jacket. Politicians can't do all that much about forces beyond their control – the forces of global capitalism. This is true. That they certainly won't be able to deliver on their promises is also true. (The promises are a sales pitch. You don't take them seriously.) But to say that therefore they can't do anything and it doesn't matter who gets elected is definitely not true. Ask the CBI. Ask the TUC. Ask anyone.As for people's preferences, it's also a commonplace that people do indeed do what Adam says they do – unless, that is, their choice really matters. Then they think about what government they want elected. It's why support for minor parties goes up between elections, and down again as they approach.
Quote:Thank you, it's touching that you care so much and have followed my political career (if you can call it that, which you can't) with such interest!Oh, i started reading your and Dave's online contributions upon the recommendation of Darren O'N. I have never doubted you are very well-read individual. And from what i gather, you do tend to adopt the position of whatever you are reading at the moment…Today it is Janet and John Goes to the Polls.
Quote:my faith in Marxism and non-market socialism could not survive the encounter.Is that now an admission that you no longer view yourself as a Marxist? I'll follow your advice and give Nove a read. For others , he was reviewed back in 1984 in the Standardhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1984/no-956-april-1984/abundance-feasible2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.