Russell Brand
- This topic has 258 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:A late member, as an aside, used to know JP getty
Would that be JP Getty the First, the Second or the Third, out of interest?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the lesson is be wary of celebs and remember the importance of the party as a tool of clarity and control: we control our collective message, we can't control celebrities.We should welcome anyone who contributes to consensus breaking, and whose words and topics give us an 'in' into conversation. That's it.A late member, as an aside, used to know JP getty,. the billionaire, and send him socialist literature. That didn't do any good neither.tell that to Ed Milliband!Would you have felt the same way had Brand said: "I suggest you have a look at the SPGB, No leaders and they stand for revolution. Have a look at the Socialist Standard."I don't think we should shy away from getting the socialist message across by any means possible. You can't make an omlet without breaking eggs. I don't see celebrity or fame negatively in that way. Famous people are no worse than myself, Why should we dismiss them?I don't apologies if people perceive I have dirty hands, I will keep at it because if we want a revolution we need billions and using the mass media and 'famous' people' is probably the only way we will do it. No good having a message to tell with no one to tell it to.We will achieve nothing doing the same old……..
Quote:I don't think he would have met with Brand if he didn't already know thaat he would receive support. That would be follyI respectfully disagree. If the hand of friendship is spurned, it is not usually the person who hold out the hand who is blamed…Miliband always had the defence…that he tried but it was Brand who wouldn't listen…We will see a Prime Minister Miliband offers access to Brand to the corridors of power when Brand continues a campaign…but he will listen but not hear.I don't envisage though that Brand will follow in the footsteps of Geldof and Bono in the brown-nosing arse-licking they did for Blair and Bush but i may well be proved wrong.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We have to find a way to break this cycle of "lesser evilism"…I'm open to suggestions …'Lesser of two evils' Doesn't make any sense at all. Why vote for any evil? Rolf Harris abused less children than Savill so should we let Rolf babysit?
I think he's been got at by Owen Jones who's always interviewing him:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/04/russell-brand-endorsed-labour-tories-should-be-worriedHe's not in fact saying much different from the assorted Leftist groups, eg the SWP and "Elect Labour and Keep Kicking".That the Tories would be worse is based on the assumption that Labour can do what they promise in terms of making things better (or less worse) for people, but we know they can't because governments are not really in charge of how the economy works.A disapppointment and a blow to his credibility. Maybe he'll be able to restore it when in a few years time he admits that he made a mistake…
Vin wrote:tell that to Ed Milliband!Would you have felt the same way had Brand said: "I suggest you have a look at the SPGB, No leaders and they stand for revolution. Have a look at the Socialist Standard."Yes, and my inherent distrust would be even greater at that point. We only have to look at what happened to the SSP and Tommy Sheridan to see where celebrity driven politics gets us.Up until the point he joined the party, I'd distrust, and then I'd have doubts about using him as a speaker.
Quote:I don't think we should shy away from getting the socialist message across by any means possible. You can't make an omlet without breaking eggs. I don't see celebrity or fame negatively in that way. Famous people are no worse than myself, Why should we dismiss them?The point isn't the celebrity, it's the chasing after them. If they come to us, fine. If they publicly back us, fine, thanks for your support. But chasing after hem saying "Me! Me! Look at me!"…
You make good points, YMS….except for this remark
Quote:Up until the point he joined the party, I'd distrust, and then I'd have doubts about using him as a speaker.I know you didn't mean to infer that there are categoraries of member, some different from others, and that you'd be prejudiced against the celebrities who joined (or is it merely a personal suspicion of Brand even if he applied and was accepted as a member) I'm sure Brand would be a credit to ourselves as a spokesperson….once he took the speakers test….
ChunkyMark on Russell Brand and Miliband…NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A98lzIdqcfg&feature=youtu.be
Young Master Smeet wrote:But chasing after hem saying "Me! Me! Look at me!"…I can't believe you just said that, lol You confirm everything that is wrong with the party.
OK, on whose terms do we interact? With the Celeb on their terms if we happen to attract their attention, or our own terms, when they come to us?
Young Master Smeet wrote:The point isn't the celebrity, it's the chasing after them. If they come to us, fine. If they publicly back us, fine, thanks for your support. But chasing after them saying "Me! Me! Look at me!"…Exactly, but there never was any chance that Brand would publicly support us. He's a transparent charlatan and unremitting egotist who craves only self-publicity and he'll use anyone who's naïve and gullible enough to assist him in the process. Hardly surprising that so many sycophantic 'celebrity followers' were taken in but socialists should have known better.
gnome wrote:but socialists should have known better.Should have known better than what? Trying to convince someone to take the next logical step in their thinking? Some members have an unreal and illogical fear of so called celebs and people in the media. I think it may be an inferiority complex or similar.They are people. It is ignorant and prejudicial to prejudge someone because of a label attached to them.Brand was a druggie who made millions. So what? He holds 90% of the socialist case in his head. He did not take the next step and advocate the abolition of money. Perhaps, like me, he sees it as a nutty idea. But that's for another thread.When famous/celebs (and there are many thousands of them, more than SPGB members) start to become class conscious and join the socialist movement, they will demand the same rights as any other member. Members of the party and those on the EC with illogical prejudices will not prevent them from joining. Tho' the prejudice may drive them away in the meantime.It is clear that many member of the party receive great pleasure in saying 'I told you so' and I think that is sad and so are they.
I think the whole point is being missed here. It was never about Russell Brand. Brand is just one man. It was about getting access to the thousands of young people who follow him on the various networks. People who might never hear of the S.P.G.B.
Vin wrote:Some members have an unreal and illogical fear of so called celebs and people in the media. I think it may be an inferiority complex or similar.or the precise opposite, a sense of our own worth sufficient to not go chasing after appreciation.
Quote:When famous/celebs (and there are many thousands of them, more than SPGB members) start to become class conscious and join the socialist movement, they will demand the same rights as any other member. Members of the party and those on the EC with illogical prejudices will not prevent them from joining.Indeed, though hopefully we will never make a big thing of it, and never stoop to a Labour style celebrity endorsement broadcast. And per Alan's post earlier, we wouldn't use them as a speaker unless and until they had passed the speakers test and we were sure they could and would put the party case adequately, just like any other member.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.