ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ricky Tomlinson is an interesting parallel case in that he also has an unsavoury past: he was a member, even a candidate, of the National Front in his youth (he comes from a Liverpool Protestant background) before becoming a militant trade unionist in the building trade and "celebrity" actor and comedian. He's now a member/supporter of Arthur Scargill's SLP, i.e no revolutionary but a supporter of state capitalism in one country (in the event, Britain).The parallel is, if he can be forgiven for once being in the NF why can't Brand be forgiven for some of his previous antics. Or is it a case of "once a fascist, not always a fascist" but not of "once a sexist, not always a sexist"?
alanjjohnstone wrote:In other words, we may well find ourselves with strange bed-fellows on the morrow of the social revolutionI don't know about the morrow of the revolution, but judging by the time it took them to rehabilitate Galileo it might be a few hundred years after it.And don't forget Pope Pius XI's bull of 1931 "Quadragesimo Anno":
Quote:We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society is utterly foreign to Christian truth.If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.And you want to hear what he said about "Communism" !Actually, we agree with him, don't we? So I nominate him for political personality of the year 1931 or did that go to his fellow countryman Mussolini?PS In the end of course Connolly turned out to be a good Catholic rather than a true Socialist.
This is standard stuff in the state capitalist countries and could have been said at any time in the last 50 or so years — and was, even by Che Guevera when he was Minister of Industry.
Yes, it was. Orwell did see a parallel between between totaliarian fascism and totalitarian "communism", both of which used the word "socialist". 1984 was a criticism of the CP's fellow travellers. For more on Ingsoc see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc
Socialist Punk wrote:If Brand starts to promote anti-semitic ideas and fascism, then I think it would be safe to conclude he is a dickhead.I think the basis of this accusation is his taking some of David Icke's ideas seriously, the New Age spiritual mumbo jumbo not the stuff about shape-shifting lizards and some Jewish world conspiracy. There is also the Laurence Easeman incident. Brand met Easeman at one of the housing protests he was supporting and invited him to speak at his book lauch without realising that Easeman was an out-and-out fascist. Naturally there was an outcry and Easeman didn't speak. I'd put this down to Brand's political naivety. Brand can be criticised for things many (his New Age spirituality for one, his rejection of class struggle for another) but not for being anti-semitic.The Easeman incident does have a political lesson in that it brings out that it is not only leftists but also rightists who denounce bankers and get involved in social activism. In other words, another illustration that social activism does not automatically not lead to socialist understanding (as some of Brand's anarchist and direct-actionist pals claim) but that the case for socialism has to be expressed explicitly.
It looks as if Alan's dream of turning Head Office into a cafe and events centre has already been achieved:https://www.facebook.com/revolution.clapham?fref=ts
Actually, I agree that celebrity intervention probably does help to spread anti-capitalist ideas. As another comrade put it on our facebook page:
Quote:I don't think Brand is a 'diversion' for the working class, because he speaks with little or no authority and is not presenting a coherent philosophy. I think it's his very woolliness that makes him useful. What he does appear to be doing is giving many people permission to open up to and consider certain ideas and perspectives which they may not have done before. I could be wrong but I doubt whether Brand will survive for very long as a political figure. I suspect, though, that before he goes he will have planted a lot of seeds in people's minds where they did not exist before, seeds that have the potential to be developed into something more coherent than he is offering. Ideas don't spread through society in a simple, closely boundaried way, they evolve and change. They all, though, need to have a taking-off point.alanjjohnstone wrote:I have no pat answers to offer. I don't know how we can change the discussion. But i think Solidarity had it generally right.Quote:Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.This should be guiding our attitude as regards Russel Brand and other things such as some in the environmental campaign, Zeitgeist and many others.
In the discussion raging on the Urban 75 forum about him, apart from his dodgy past on sexual behaviour, the main criticism of him is that as a celebrity endorsing struggles he is undermining "the autonomy, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity" of those engaged in grass-roots struggles. According to the critics, this applies to all celebrity endorsements. I'm not sure that it necessarily does. It could help publicise the struggle and would depend on the attitude and perhaps the character and reputation of the celebrity. But that's a side issue.I'm not sure either that Solidarity's definition of "meaningful action" is one "for revolutionaries". It's more for those involved in day-to-day struggles of various sorts within capitalism and, for that, is in line with what say — that these should be conducted democratically by those immediately involved. But Solidarity and most of the critics on Urban 75 believe that "the revolution" will emerge from these struggles while we don't. Of course the political struggle for socialism should be conducted on the same basis but we are not there yet. We are still involved in the battle of ideas. So, at the moment, it is from this perspective that Brand's intervention (and in fact of any other celebrity) should be judged: does it promote the spread of anti-capitalist ideas or impede them?
Here is Pablo Iglesias having a go at the traditional Leninist left:https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/pablo-iglesias-podemos-left-speech/He makes some telling points (though he'd probably say something similar about us). The trouble is the type of "possibilist", "realistic" approach he is advocating has failed to deliver too.
I don't know what this is but Clifford says you can vote for (or against) the Open Letter here:http://opnlttr.com/letter/open-letter-russell-brand-his-book-revolutionor tweet it or whatever people do.
And here's our leaflet for demonstrations like this one:http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/protests-without-end.html
I think this article was turned into a leaflet for demonstrations like this. Don't know if there are any still around:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1247-july-2008/too-little-too-late
Actually, it does say something but it doesn't say it all. The two statements could be true. I think they probably are true, i.e she does care and is endeavouring (though not succeeding) to improve things for people. Not that it makes any difference. Sincere reformists can do no better at trying to make capitalism work for the majority than self-seeking ones.
