Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Paxo v Brand starts in 5 minutes

Interesting reposte to Brand's don't vote schtick from Robert Webb who I've never seen as political person before:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand

This man would like to thank Russell Brand for not voting

article-1191424-0541C380000005DC-841_468x349.jpg

vote labour to keep out the narsis? the fuck...
 
Wel I for one definitely enjoy my politics to be enacted via celebrity spats in the pages of the staggers. This is true represntative democracy. :cool:

Sadly fame gets you to the front of the queue if you want media space to sound off. If they want to use it for a sober debate about the political process instead bollocks about badgers and contrived saccherine poppy day appeals (which is non political of course) thats fine by me.
 
on a side note wrt mays euro elections. I am of the mind to vote anyone other than the far right because being a euro mp opens up funding for the bastards. But is this logical? Its PR rather than FPTP right? so denying them a vote share even if I vote for Elvis Party would work against it. If thats not the case I won't bother.
 
You're starting from the position that we have this, that we have voting right now. We don't. We have no options whatsoever voting, none. Outside of voting we have loads, large and small. From occupations of council offices, rent strikes, mass refusal to pay in supermarkets, blocking motorways, closing down key businesses and so on.

Why should it be either/or though? Even if it's just to pick the least worst candidate voting is a means by which you can exert some kind of influence, however marginal, and to give it up foolish. Especially considering the efforts working-class people went to get that power, and how even to this day capital has to cast it's shadow over politics in a much more discrete and troublesome (for them) way. They have to make it so all the available political choices people can vote for are malleable to their interests, whereas they could've just used more straightfoward domination in the past. 2nd Dimension of Power rather than 1st :D

I don't like Brand's recent comments because it reminds me of the attitude that a lot of Ickeans have - that it's all controlled by some vaguely Jewish-Illuminati-Globalist conspiracy, so there's nothing you can do and all political activity (beyond buying my books and waking up the sheeple) is futile. I don't like that attitude, I think it makes people withdraw into apathy and cynicism, and that ultimately that will benefit the status quo, who aren't that keen on poors voting anyway.
 
Of course you can do all the things i mention and vote too. You can also do them and put a bit of sellotape on the fridge - but neither of the latter things are going to help and one of them has the potential to do damage in that it plays exactly into the states role of legitimising the shadow that capital casts over society, of making it appear as being the result of democratic participatory choice. They want what you see as pressure through voting, it's functional for them in the political sphere same way that unions used to be in the economic sphere.

I think you and others have misread Brand's comments - his 'revolution in consciousness' (for this is all it is) has the intention of making voting worthwhile through other political activity.
 
They want what you see as pressure through voting, it's functional for them in the political sphere same way that unions used to be in the economic sphere.

Well I agree with that, after all it is in the interests of capital to allow some degree of popular democratic participation, not just to keep people happy but as a basis for limited political reforms to be built into the system. But at the same time I'd argue that there is already a major concession they've had to make to protect the system at large, one that we fought very hard for and shouldn't just be dismissed as utterly worthless. Which is the same view I have of trade union leaders, of course capital needs them to enforce labour discipline and act as a pressure valve, but that's a state of affairs they only reluctantly accepted after hundreds of years of struggle, and ideally what they'd like to be able to do without that layer of trade union leaders and be able to enforce labour discipline without their help. Which is actually what we're seeing now, the un-incorporation of the trade unions, trying to get back to how things used to be before they had to make some small accommodations. I think that's a bit part of what neo-liberalism is about, and that although you're clearly right on a lot of things your perspective on this is probably more suited to the pre-Thatcher/Reagan era. I don't think you can say that the union have that kind of leverage today, I mean look at the USA where only 6% of the private sector labour force is unionised, the conditions don't really call for union leaders to play that sort of role any more.

I'm not arguing for a parliamentary road to socialism what I'm saying is when you're fighting a battle you need to fight it on all fronts, including within the constitutional political system. Thanks to the Chartists and Suffragettes we've got an opportunity to make a fight on that front, and we should do so, but the danger comes when people think that political change can only be achieved exclusively by parliamentary and constitutional means. Labourism, in other words. There has to be some kind of pressure internal to the established structures and externally too, working in concert as much as possible.

I think you and others have misread Brand's comments - his 'revolution in consciousness' (for this is all it is) has the intention of making voting worthwhile through other political activity.

I think you might be a little bit charitable to Brand here. His revolution in consciousness could quite easily just mean "buy more David Icke books" he's being so vague about it. We'll see in time, but I'm not sure I share your optimism.
 
I think you might be a little bit charitable to Brand here. His revolution in consciousness could quite easily just mean "buy more David Icke books" he's being so vague about it. We'll see in time, but I'm not sure I share your optimism.

Will reply to the other bit in a while, but i'm really not being optimistic or charitable - it's millionaire hippy bollocks and have described it as such throughout the thread whilst going to great lengths to bring out his ickean associations. But he really didn't just say that it's all shit no should vote no one should do anything, he described the reality of this being the current situation as many see it, then argued that they should do something but that he doesn't see voting as the way right now to do it.
 
Well I agree with that, after all it is in the interests of capital to allow some degree of popular democratic participation, not just to keep people happy but as a basis for limited political reforms to be built into the system. But at the same time I'd argue that there is already a major concession they've had to make to protect the system at large, one that we fought very hard for and shouldn't just be dismissed as utterly worthless. Which is the same view I have of trade union leaders, of course capital needs them to enforce labour discipline and act as a pressure valve, but that's a state of affairs they only reluctantly accepted after hundreds of years of struggle, and ideally what they'd like to be able to do without that layer of trade union leaders and be able to enforce labour discipline without their help. Which is actually what we're seeing now, the un-incorporation of the trade unions, trying to get back to how things used to be before they had to make some small accommodations. I think that's a bit part of what neo-liberalism is about, and that although you're clearly right on a lot of things your perspective on this is probably more suited to the pre-Thatcher/Reagan era. I don't think you can say that the union have that kind of leverage today, I mean look at the USA where only 6% of the private sector labour force is unionised, the conditions don't really call for union leaders to play that sort of role any more.

I'm not arguing for a parliamentary road to socialism what I'm saying is when you're fighting a battle you need to fight it on all fronts, including within the constitutional political system. Thanks to the Chartists and Suffragettes we've got an opportunity to make a fight on that front, and we should do so, but the danger comes when people think that political change can only be achieved exclusively by parliamentary and constitutional means. Labourism, in other words. There has to be some kind of pressure internal to the established structures and externally too, working in concert as much as possible.

It's in their interests to allow the image of some degree of popular political participation, the reality of it terrifies them. They construct this image by enclosing the issues that they identify as being politically important to wider society through various ways and bending it to fit their own needs, then restricting the ways it can be expressed down to voting for one of the main parties views on the issues. That's them pressuring the electorate, not the other way round.

I think that you've misunderstood what i meant by my brief words about unions being functional for capital - i should have stuck with my original use of labour rather than unions. And frankly, if you think that electoral politics still allows pressure to be put on capital/the state then it may be you who are too close to a pre-79 perspective.

Have you been reading red pepper?
 
on a side note wrt mays euro elections. I am of the mind to vote anyone other than the far right because being a euro mp opens up funding for the bastards. But is this logical? Its PR rather than FPTP right? so denying them a vote share even if I vote for Elvis Party would work against it. If thats not the case I won't bother.

They're in May 2014 and are falling on the same day as some local elections so there is likely to be a higher than usual turnout. This could work slightly against the far right but hard to tell. UKIP are expecting high gains but they benefited in 2009 from Labour's unpopularity. There is some thinking in the Labour Party that laying off UKIP so they get a good EP result will buoy them up for the GE to lower the Tory vote in marginals. But the possibility of these fucking lunatics being the largest British party in EP is a far more depressing prospect.
 
There are things I like about Brand, there are things I don't like about Brand. Regardless, he has a voice in the media and he's using it to say things that are outside of the received wisdom of traditional media engagement that says "vote and accept your lot because you participated and that's democracy." Even if I don't agree with everything he says or does, at least he's saying something. Even when he faffs around and goes off on a riff about Derrida or something, he's throwing ideas (regardless of their merits) out there that are usually hidden or seen as separate from popular culture. I'd far rather these things be said by someone who's a bit of a prick in the media so that they start becoming "things we can talk about" rather than not spoken for fear that we might not agree with everything he says.
 
That is quite a run and a reality that bears certain consequences. I am mistrustful of my government. I think it lies to us, reflexively and without a scintilla of compunction, on a regular basis. That mistrust began on 22 November 1963. In honour of the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, I stand for truth. I stand for more truth and transparency in government. The intelligence community believes that most Americans don’t want to know how the sausage is made. But I can handle it. I think most Americans, a pretty tough bunch, can handle it, too.
:D
 
Back
Top Bottom