ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
norm_burns wrote:But it's not 'our' revolution, now, is it? If it was, he wouldn't be on radio 4, now, would he?
Not a convincing argument on its own. Otherwise why we were invited to appear on BBC2's "Politics Show" ?
Interesting news item in today's Times:
Quote:More people believe in aliens than in God.Belief in aliens and the supernatural is more common than belief in God, according to a poll of 1,500 adults and 500 children. The study found that 55 per cent of adults believed in ghosts, 47 per cent in UFOs, 27 per cent in Angels, but only 25 per cent in God. Among the children questioned, belief in God rose to 33 per cent and in aliens to 64 per cent, according to Ripley's Believe It or Not!A separate YouGov poll found that 2 per cent of Anglican priests do not believe in God. Another 16 per cent of 1,500 Anglican clergy were "unclear about God."Who says the working class can never be wrong! Confirmation, though, of my prejudice that Anglicanism is the least harmful religion. Maybe among the doubters and deniers are the two ex-SPGBers who have become Anglican priests …The serious lesson may be that we should attack paranormal theories as much as if not more than religion.
Actually of course geo-political considerations are a factor in diplomatic and military interventions not just narrow economic interest. I think I read somewhere recently that the US is now self-sufficient in oil and gas (due to fracking) and is now producing more oil than Saudi Arabia. Just found it:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.htmlIronically in their book Petras and Veltmeyer suggest that US multinational corporations are in part agents of US global geo-political strategy.
Black Blob anarchists reject Brand here:http://blackrobinanarchy.blogspot.nl/2014/10/russell-brand-anarchist-critique-of-his.html
He might have been a proto-Bolshevik at that time. See chapter two of our pamphlet Marxism Revisited. Or listen to it here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/did-lenin-really-distort-marx
Brand was interviewed by the Financial Times this weekend. Amongst the things he told his interviewer was:
Quote:This planet — there's a number of people, there's an amount of resources, we need to make sure that the people get the resources. What's the reason we that we're not doing that? The answer is because of the ideology you are propping up.According to the article, he has been
Quote:trying to incite his 8.4 million twitter follows to a peaceful revolution.Ok, his message is mixed up with some New Age spiritual stuff but he is still getting over to millions of people simple points as above that we make. Of course he's never goingto join us or probably any other organisation but I can't see how it can be denied that he is preparing the way for an easier hearing of what we say.
It reads like a bit of a conspiracy theory to me ! Oil companies and multinationals getting together to agree to aim at making less profits than they could.For where Petras is coming from see this book review from the Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1242-february-2008/book-reviews
I had forgotten that Brand did say that revolution wasn't a class matter (though he was ruthless in his denunciation of those who benefitted from capitalism). He also indicated that the Green Party would be the best party if going through parliament was the way to get things down (which he rejected). Basically, he's into grass-roots activism on the environment, housing, organising low-paid workers, etc. rather than reformism through voting and parliament.Meanwhile his book has arrived which I'll start reading after our Autumn Delegate Meeting this weekend.
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:I think Brand is going to end up being like Chomsky., i.e refusing to endorse any particular anti-capitalist movement or party but giving general support to all of them.It's good to see others gradually coming round to the view that a few of us expressed after the Paxman interview a year ago.
That wasn't supposed to be a criticism of him !OK, he is a self-publicist and openly admits it but is offering to put this at the service of grass-roots struggles and the general idea of "revolution". Personally I think he's genuine, whatever we might think of the concept of celebrity endorsement of revolution (but I have heard members speculate that this might help). Incidentally, the fashion designer Vivienne Westwood spoke from the floor at that Guardian interview also to denounce capitalism.
Also here:http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/03/how-william-morris-beauty-and-anarchy-uk#start-of-commentsI added a couple of comments that Morris was not actually an anarchist and refused to call himself one as he regarded individualist anarchism and its denunciation of democracy as "the tyranny of the majority" as absurd and didn't think much of the bomb-throwing anarchists who ruined the Socialist League
Hitchens is what Johnny Rotten would call a "bumhole" and, as Brand himself pointed out last night, people who attack him on this sort of ground identify themselves as supporters of the status quo and those who benefit from it. And the Sunday Mail, like the Daily Mail, is of course part of the gutter press.I think Brand is going to end up being like Chomsky., i.e refusing to endorse any particular anti-capitalist movement or party but giving general support to all of them. Of course he's not anywhere nearly as knowledgeable as Chomsky and wouldn't claim to be.
LBird wrote:I have already said that I think that ALB's 'strategy' of saying to workers that they should just carry on employing 'naive realism' (whether they understand the term and its political implication or not) is not acceptable, if we wish to help develop the class consciousness of the working class.You never stop, do you? I never said that. I just said that in practice people in their daily life act as if they were "naive realists", i.e treat the things they use as if they were separate entities. It's not a conscious thing (anymore than writing prose is) but it suffices for daily life. It's what we all do, including you. Even Dietzgern himself said it was ok for "household use".Of course "naive realism" is unacceptable as a method and theory of science. So, no need to make this false accusation again.
I went to a cinema in Kingston last night(with about 30 to 40 others) to see the screening of Owen Jones interviewing him for the Guardian. I think he's entirely sincere. He's a showman who has decided to devote his talents as a showman to helping grass-roots campaigns against what capitalism is doing to people and the environment and is urging them to get together to bring the whole profit system to an end instead of each waging their campaign separately ("revolution"). He leaves open the question as to how this is to happen except that it will involve people taking over and running the places where they work or live or what a post-capitalist society will be like except that it should involve a decentralisation of powet. This would make him a bit of an anarchist (even though it wouldn't be incompatible with what we mean byl socialism; in fact he didn't repudiate being called a socialist when Jones asked him if he was one) but he came across as someone who genuinely wants to know more about what he's committed himself to.I ordered his book which should arrive today. It will of course be reviewed in the Socialist Standard, by the same comrade who reviewed the Paxman interview. In fact he was at the book launch on Wednesday and gave out some remaining copies of the reprint of that article we did as a leaflet.
LBird wrote:My position? You mean 'democratic controls on power'? I think it's called a 'minority position', but perhaps you're not au fait with the details of democracy?I am very familiar with the details of democracy I daresay more than you since I've been a member for a number of years of an organisation that practises it not just a lone individual theorising about it.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Or is there a difference between saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?The notion of democracy seems to hold great difficulty for you. The majority is 'right', but any minorities can dissent.
As I understand it, democracy is summed up as "the majority has its way, the minority has its say". You seem to be turning this into "the majority is right, the minority is wrong".
LBird wrote:So if a scientist says 'A', and their society, after reading the scientists reasoning, decide that 'B' is the 'truth', then 'B' is the truth. The scientist can disagree, but the science books say 'B'.I take it the scientist can still publish a book saying A?
LBird wrote:So, the dissenting scientist can say that 'they are right, and society is wrong to hold its views', but the books say 'B'. Does that answer your question?I'm confused about the grammar here. You appear to be making the dissenting scientist have to say "you are right, but I think you are wrong". Is this what you mean? And that what the socialist minority today has to say to the pro-capitalist working class majority is: "You are right to support capitalism, but we think you are wrong to support capitalism". I don't see why we have to utter such contradictory nonsense. I'm going to continue saying "You support capitalism. that's your right but you're wrong".
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?I do so because I claim 'materialism' is anti-democratic,
So, it's not because a majority of workers have rejected what you call "materialism" (not that we do support "materialism" in your sense, but that's a different argument and a different thread)? Come to think of it, why do you claim that your view of epistemology is right when most workers reject it? You ought to say "Critical Realism is wrong, but I think it ought to be right".You've heard the one about whether you can believe someone who says "All people are liars". There's a new one now about the person who says "I hold the minority view that all minority views are wrong"As I said
ALB wrote:Your position is full of contradictions..
