Russell Brand
- This topic has 258 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:If the party took the same attitude to reformist campaigns and social activism of all kinds as it does to the trade unions (and why not, since the unions are often leading them anyway), then I would no longer have any problem with its position or attitude or politics. Speed the day!Funny you should mention Pieter. I always think of him when talking about reformism. Once he was telling me about the (reformist?) campaign he had been involved in to save the local bus service. You'd really have to be mad to oppose or not get involved in supporting such things, which Pieter might well have said, though I can't quite remember!
This illustrates once again what is a real problem for socialists – what exactly do we mean by "reformism"? I don't know what Brand's position is on the subject but I don't think what is vaguely called "social activism", such as he is involved in, can strictly be called "reformist" – not in my book at any rate. For the same reason, I don't think Pieter's involvement in a campaign to save a local bus service is a "reformist" either. These kinds of activities , though different in form to trade unionism, are in a sense analogous to trade union activity and should therefore be regarded in much the same light as the latter "Reformism" to me necessarily entails two key aspects 1) It involves the introduction of legislative enactments or policies by the state operating within the political field which are designed to address and ameliorate the various problem thrown up by capitalism. So, for example, Pieters' campaign to save his local bus service was not about trying to change a particular piece of legislation but rather to challenge an executive decision made by his bus service provider to cut a particular bus service. It was therefore not reformist. The same would be true of groups of workers fighting cuts in spending on the NHS which is part of the social wage that workers receive 2) Its focus is essentially economic. This follows from the fact that capitalism itself is defined in essentially socioeconomic terms and what reformists are attempt to "reform" is precisely the way capitalism operates as a socio economic system in respect of the particular problems it seeks to address. So for example, a measure that increases the scope of democracy in the political field would not strictly speaking amount to a reformist measure Yes I know all the usual objections will be thrown up in response to this argument – such as that you cannot exactly disentangle the political and the economic fields (even though that is effectively what the Party does by approving of trade union activity but disapproving of reformist activity). I would say in response that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and if you are going to draw such a line it would be far better to do so from the standpoint of a rigorous and tightened-up definition of reformism. The political field is about what kind of society we would like to have . Its about social aspirations and choice. It is completely correct that a revolutionary socialist party should have as its sole objective the socialist transformation of society. You cannot both strive to end capitalism and mend capitalism. These objectives are fundamentally incompatible. However we also live in the here and now – or, as Marx would have put it, the "realm of necessity" as upon which the "realm of freedom" is predicated – and so while the goal of a socialist political party is necessarily oriented to a socialist future, it has also to take on board the needs of workers in the present – not in the sense of advancing a reformist programme to meet these needs but rather of acknowledging these needs and endorsing the action by workers to meet them rather than dismissing such action as futile or pointless. It, as a Party, quite rightly cannot get directly involved in such actions , but that is no reason not to give such actions it enthusiastic endorsement It is lack of clarity over what the Party means by reformism that gives rise to the kind of objections that Stuart raises which are understandable in a way but which. I think, can be shown to be ultimately groundless if only the party were to more rigorously tighten up its definition of reformism. Conveying the impression that any kind of activity to improve the lot of workers in the here and now is futile does the Party no favours and reinforces the impression of it being "utopian"
I'm curious.Russel Brand gave his support to the Focus E15 women in their bid to save a doomed council estate in Stratford, London. Does the SPGB membership consider such action, by the people of Focus E15, an act of futile reformism? Or the sort of direct participatory, democratic action that is essential to build a socialist society?
robbo203 wrote:I don't know what Brand's position is on the subject but I don't think what is vaguely called "social activism", such as he is involved in, can strictly be called "reformist" – not in my book at any rate. For the same reason, I don't think Pieter's involvement in a campaign to save a local bus service is a "reformist" either. These kinds of activities , though different in form to trade unionism, are in a sense analogous to trade union activity and should therefore be regarded in much the same light as the latterI would agree. Being a socialist doesn't mean you have to stop struggling but I would stop short of supporting a capitalist party like the labour party as Stuart and Brand suggests.
Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
alanjjohnstone wrote:.but, importantly, we do not say they should also then abandon their campaigns and protests and concentrate solely on the socialist case, as i think Vin, suggests we do,Haway Alan. I never said that! I was a a rabid supporter of the miners stike in 84 and I supported Scarghill as our rep but I did not support his new party. Give me a break! My reputation is bad enough!st 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.
moderator1 wrote:Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.Eh?
stuartw2112 wrote:I've been banned with no warning for nothing – the moderators need reining in or sacking. All discussion spins away from the point – it's the nature of it.Untrue. You ignored the reminder I posted and then also ignored the two warnings I issued. On the 3rd warning its standard practice to issue a suspension for an indefinite period. I also note that although I notified you that you are entitled to make a complaint you never made one.Its standard practice to issue warnings and suspensions which are acceptable and appropriate to the circumstances. In line with this practice your suspension was for only three days.However, your present suspension, given the number of occasions you've breached the rules on this thread, warrants a lot longer period of suspension.
moderator1 wrote:stuartw2112 wrote:I've been banned with no warning for nothing – the moderators need reining in or sacking. All discussion spins away from the point – it's the nature of it.Untrue. You ignored the reminder I posted and then also ignored the two warnings I issued. On the 3rd warning its standard practice to issue a suspension for an indefinite period. I also note that although I notified you that you are entitled to make a complaint you never made one.Its standard practice to issue warnings and suspensions which are acceptable and appropriate to the circumstances. In line with this practice your suspension was for only three days.However, your present suspension, given the number of occasions you've breached the rules on this thread, warrants a lot longer period of period of suspension.
I dont think Stuart should be suspended. This is absolute nonsense.
Reminder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Resizing and placing photos is beyond me on this site so a link will have to dohttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2015/05/selective-criticism.html
I don't where that photo came from but it comes very close to being nasty, anti-semitic stuff. Brand isn't and doesn't claim to be a Marxist, but anti-semites typically associate the Rothschilds and Marxists as part of some joint Jewish world conspiracy. Where did it come from?
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1432081938.htmlNo, i did not get an anti-semitic message from it , only that Brand himself is linked to members of the elite, (and how 'incestuous' those links are)Is there parts of the establishment he deigns to be openly critical of because of divided loyalties? i recall ex-member Bill Knox in his biographies of Scottish labour leaders, making a particular point of linking the upward mobility of them by referring to their marriages to women from the 'upper class' rather than from their own.
i did bit of googling and you are correct…a number of conspiracy websites cite the connection to dismiss Brand and highlight the infiltration of the "Zionist bankers" into the "opposition". Here's one examplehttp://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Is-Russell-Brand-an-Illuminati-plant-This-was-predicted?pid=6779541Hard to get away from this web of supposed connections…David Icke, he too thinks Karl Marx is part of the big conspiracy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.