Russell Brand

[stuartw2112]

What has not been considered here is that maybe Russell Brand has advocated a vote for Labour because that's what it makes perfect sense to do, if you are of his broad poltiical outlook. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Perhaps Russell will elucidate sometime in the future of what has changed from the time of the Paxman interview and the date of the Miliband meeting, Stuart. Miliband's promises have never altered, AFAIK,  from the time he was campaigning for the Labour leadership to now. And that should have been a bit of a lesson for Brand, when it comes to promises by a Labour politician.I'm not an expert but perhaps you can tell me what grassroots change from the bottom up and what listening has Miliband done within his own party once he got the top post. We saw how in the Grangemouth/Falkirk, Labour Party and Unite dispute , his was definitely not about enpowering the rank and file or even abiding by the Scottish Labour party hierarchy. He was elected on the back of the trade union vote and he is determined to weaken the union voice in Labour. So much for sincerity.If it made sense today then it made sense a year ago, two years ago…so perhaps we may discover why it was a road to Damascus conversion, but based upon…surely not a brief meeting with Miliband…ALB reckons it has been Owen Jones who has been the influence….I look forward to Brand's offering a timeline of the meetings he has held with Labour Party supporters…You and i know Miliband cannot fulfil the aspirations of the workers, cannot solve the problems of capitalism…and the caveat they both offer that it takes time, may defer the day of judgement to possibly even another term, but it will come when Brand must face reality…that those he supported struggling for a decent life…are still struggling,  even though, to be very charitable, Miliband has did his best to offer the band-aids and mitigate their suffering. (Syriza may not be appropriate but we should take note of the limitations that election promises have) 

[Anonymous]

It has been suggested by more than one member that we should not be using‘look at me! Look at me! Pick me, pick me!’With respect I will ignore that advice. After all, are we not asking Labour, Con, Lib… voters :‘look at me! Look at me! Pick me, pick me!’ ? at the election?And what was all the fuss about the front facia if not:‘look at me! Look at me! Pick me, pick me!’ I will continue with such a ‘tactic’ until the party decides that it is against our interests to draw attention to ourselves in such a way.Which is perhaps why  I don’t have an official party twitter account?There really is a problem with committees deciding policy. Or am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

northern light wrote:

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. 

 Nail on the head, NL.The whole point is being missed.Brand says: Politics is a sham. All the parties represent the interests of the rich. Don't vote for them. Governments are powerless against them. Everthing is for profit not for need. A revolution is needed by the masses but first we should be conscious of what we are doing. Don't put your faith in leaders. We don't need them etc etc It goes on and on, saying what we have been saying for more than 100 years (and getting no where, by the way).He gets 10 million 'followers' on twitter obviously interested in what he is saying :What WE are saying! Very fertile ground indeed.The response of the party has been dismal. A self fulfilling prophecy   Brand is a wanker etc etc then   'See I told you so'Yes gnome I know he has suggested we vote Labour but people interested in what he says about revolution will not take his advice. Look at me and   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A98lzIdqcfg   and has labour gone up in the polls? As a result?We should really have more respect for the workers who 'follow' Brand on twitterBrand is a guy who is seen by many as someone who makes interesting videos and tweets about a democratic peaceful revolution. How capitalism is shit and should be abolishedNever mind his ego.( I have seen bigger in the SPGB) It is WHY people find him interesting. We need to tap into itWhen Karl Marx was Brand's age he advocated violent revolution and state ownership I guess that makes him a tosser,As a cde often says on this forum:Rant over

[stuartw2112]

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. 

[alanjjohnstone]

And just why did he change his mind was what i asked when the situation has never changed. Did you prefer a Labour-led invasion of Iraq with very predictable millions of deaths to a possible Tory one, Stuart when active with No War But Class War? Or was it an acceptable price for a Labour government? As i said, the broader issue is lesser evilism…You may ascribe to the belief that this is the best logic for some of the working class to take …short-termism and self-interest and nationalism. I think that is the problem of lesser evilism is one we must overcome, not succumb to.As someone on the thread said: 

Quote:

Rolf Harris abused less children than Savill so should we let Rolf babysit?

I'm confident enough to predict that Miliband will be as treacherous sell-out as Blair if elected. I do accept capitalism's needs determine the actions of governments. Do i expect Miliband to change the policy to Mediterrean boat-people? Not at all. He may offer different humbug and shed crocodile tears but he'll follow Cameron's approach. I never ever forget i am a WORLD socialist, and i do balance the feeble pledge of a miserly rise of the minimum wage against the lives of fellow workers.Again i repeat we have to somehow challenge this mind-set of lesser evilism and its domination over working class politics…nor is it particularly new…same old debate between socialists and Labourites demanding we vote Liberal…right up to the present of Brand and the Left insisting we must vote SNP.  

[Young Master Smeet]

Vin wrote:

It has been suggested by more than one member that we should not be using‘look at me! Look at me! Pick me, pick me!’With respect I will ignore that advice. After all, are we not asking Labour, Con, Lib… voters :‘look at me! Look at me! Pick me, pick me!’ ? at the election?

We don't.  We say 'Here we stand, vote for us if you agree, it's up to you'

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 

Quote:

Rolf Harris abused less children than Savill so should we let Rolf babysit?

I guess Brand and others who vote for the lesser of two evils are OK with the slaughter of fellow workers under labour( and other horrors that I would expect a class conscious worker to know about)Why hire Rolf Harris to babysit and why vote labour. Don't do either and at least your conscience is clear and there is no blood on your hands. 

[stuartw2112]

The situation did change. Previously, Brand was a celebrity prancing tit (who I nevertheless quite liked) who was asked a question by Jeremy Paxman. He was obviously a sentimental anarchist of some kind (what decent person isn't?), and said he never voted and never would. Fast forward to the present day, and Mr Brand has transformed himself into a political activist and commentator, who prances and preens rather less and thoughtfully considers and acts rather more. No doubt his involvement in campaign work of various kinds, and his self-education about the realities of political life, has led him to a similar conclusion to the one I drew long ago – that, sentimental anarchism aside, whether or not we have a Labour or a Tory government does make a bit of difference actually to very many people. Small differences perhaps, but ones that matter.And anyway, what's the alternative? There isn't one.What Brand says is political common sense. Elections ultimately don't matter all that much. But they do matter a bit. So vote for the lesser of the two evils. But if you want real change, get involved in politics. What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Vin wrote:

It has been suggested by more than one member that we should not be using‘look at me! Look at me! Pick me, pick me!’With respect I will ignore that advice. After all, are we not asking Labour, Con, Lib… voters :‘look at me! Look at me! Pick me, pick me!’ ? at the election?

We don't.  We say 'Here we stand, vote for us if you agree, it's up to you'

So it is OK for you to say to labour voters 'Labour  are not socialists, look at us instead' but if I say to Brand's followers Russell Brand is not a real revolutionary, have a look at  @OfficialSPGB instead, I am guilty of prostitution?I do hope this is not the opinion of the party as a whole 

[Anonymous]

stuartw2112 wrote:

What Brand says is political common sense. 

 And everything he said before was not?I never liked Brand, I thought he was a tit but I liked what he was saying to millions of people who were following him on twitter.That is until he suggested voting for a party that represents the interests of the 1% against the rest of us I now believe my original opinion of him was accurate.  

[stuartw2112]

Labour doesn't "represent the interests of the 1% against the rest of us" – that's too simplistic. It actually does more or less what it was set up to do: to represent the interests of labour in capitalism. Since labour is weak, it does that badly. Since capitalism exists and there is no alternative, it has to make all kinds of compromises all the time, even when labour is strong, including wooing business and pandering to anti-immigrant feeling, to name just two.But all that's irrelevant to the main question (of this thread, and in the election): do you prefer a Labour or a Tory government?

[Anonymous]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Labour doesn't "represent the interests of the 1% against the rest of us" –

Yes I know. That is why under labour hundreds mines were not closed because profits were falling, troops weren't used to break strikes, Old workers didn't die of the cold in their thousands, There were no working clas families unemployed and in poverty, That is why under labour the rich 1% didn't live in obscene luxury while workers suffered in poverty.That is why under Labour there were no wars in which workers slaughtered each other for oil and poppies that did not belong to them, others returned home to beg on the streets.Nothing like that happened under Labour The rich get richer under the Labour Party. Why do you think the capitalists support it?

[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

But all that's irrelevant to the main question (of this thread, and in the election): do you prefer a Labour or a Tory government?

Would you prefer a plain poke in the eye, or a poke in the eye by someone who gloats about it later?As far as I'm cocerned there's much of difference, I'd prefer to not be poked in the eye and so, if the option arises I'd state my preference for not being poked in they eye, even if I going to get a poke no matter what…

[stuartw2112]

And under the next Labour government, if we get one, we'll certainly get more of the same, for the reasons already given. But the question remains, and sensible people (if they are of or for the working class) will vote Labour.

[Author]

Posts