Russell Brand

[Ozymandias]

Ach well. It was just a thought. I know Brand is basically a reformist and his meeting with Miliband is proof positive. Brand never goes far enough and from what I've read it looks as if Miliband swayed him. Fuckin hell! I guess the whole world and his dog will be sniffing about to get on his show. I just don't know how the party will ever get out of its quagmire of obscurity. It's a fuckin shame.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Despite claiming revolutionary credentials he's dismissed communism as crazy,

Where has he done this? I read or heard him say that "sharing" was "communism" (or vice versa). A bit vague, but not saying it's crazy. Just found it. It's on page 289 of his book Revolution:

Quote:

Socialism isn't a dirty word, it just means sharing; really it's just the bureaucratic arm of Christianity.

[Anonymous]

90% of what Brand says the Party would agree with. He ticks a lot of boxes. We should not dismiss him because he is famous and publicity seeking. What's wrong with that any way? We should be the same.I don't 'follow' brand but when someone so famous and with 10 million twitter followers says what I want to say then why should I try and knock him down? I don't place Brand on a pedestal, he himsel tells those that will listen that he is not offering himself as a leader, he is opposed to movements with leaders, we have to do this en masse The fact that so many people likes what he say is positive, because he says what we say. The only problem is we are 'invisible'. (at the moment)Think positive. What if he declares, "well I never, there is a group of people called the SPGB that stands for leaderless revolution and the abolition of capitalism" That can't be bad for us. It is not about going 'cap in hand' to anyone. It is using the material we have at hand.Alienating Russell Brand would be shooting ourselves in the foot

[alanjjohnstone]

YMS, not sure i fully agree with your observation on Campbell. 

Quote:

Brand won’t decide the outcome of the election. The politicians will, by what they say and do, and above all the public will, by what they make of what the politicians say and do.

For a spin doctor he endows the media with very little power in influencing what the poilicians say and do or how the public view whats said and done by politicians.I think there is a case that media determines elections to a vast extent, historically from the times of Hearst, to the Zinoviev Letter, to the more recent Sun That Won It against Kinnock and also Murdoch's approval of the SNP here north of the border. It is not accidental is it, this omission? He never ceases to spin and ho wants to expose himself as part of a profession that  is pulling the strings of the puppets?

[jondwhite]

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Despite claiming revolutionary credentials he's dismissed communism as crazy,

Where has he done this? I read or heard him say that "sharing" was "communism" (or vice versa). A bit vague, but not saying it's crazy. Just found it. It's on page 289 of his book Revolution:

Quote:

Socialism isn't a dirty word, it just means sharing; really it's just the bureaucratic arm of Christianity.

‘I'm not talking about some sort of crazy communist thing, I'm talking about democracy’ October 25, 2014 The Jonathan Ross Show, ITV

[Ozymandias]

Surely here he was referring to Russia etc. His remark about Christianity is dodgy as fuck though. 

[Anonymous]

I can't find the reference but his book 'Revolution' includes a piss take of Christianity only equalled by Monty Python's  Life of Brian.I think his 'spiritualism' is closer to a 'sense of community' and a connection with nature which capitalism  has stripped us of and replaced  with atomisation, alienation and competition.

[DJP]

Perhaps he’s ‘ultra-spiritual’ rather than ‘spiritual’

[Anonymous]

Trolling is unbecoming of a member of the Internet CommitteOr perhaps you can explain what the video has to do with this discussionIs it even on-topic? 

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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.

[DJP]

Vin wrote:

Or perhaps you can explain what the video has to do with this discussion

I thought it was fairly self explanitory. It's poking fun at people (like Brand) who talk about 'spirituality' and showing, in a comedic way, how meaningless the term really is…

[Anonymous]

And your point of poking fun at 'people like' Brand? On a forum that is trying to attract members? 

[alanjjohnstone]

For those who have yet to watch Russel and Eddie show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDZm9_uKtyoWhatever his intent, Brand simply offered an Establishment figure who from his family, educational and job background skilled in debate,  a vehicle to expand and justify his views, with Brand offering a counter-argument that would not be a socialist. Brand, simply, let Miliband off the hook too often and i felt was supportive of Miliband's position. "Banks are a good thing…energy companies…"Whatever happened to Brand's fundamental anti-capitalism. He treated Miliband as an ally, even if he has got differences, not as a class enemy as Miliband effective is…Sadly disappointed by Brand in this clip…He should have been reading from a list of Labour Party collaborations and failures ..If Miliband has economic sovereign power on world-wide economics then why didn't Brand hold Miliband responsible  if that is so and accuse Miliband culpable for the crisis…

[Ozymandias]

Pathetic. Couldn't watch any more of it. Just a celebrity in awe of another celebrity. 

[DJP]

Vin wrote:

And your point of poking fun at 'people like' Brand? On a forum that is trying to attract members? 

Last time I checked this wasn't the Russell Brand fan club and religious mysticism was a bar on membership so I don't know what you're going on about..Criticising mysticism might even attract the right kind of people.. But that's another subject for another time..

[Author]

Posts