[jondwhite]

Well it was dismissed as anti socialist claptrap on here but Harold walsby made this point way back in 1949

[jondwhite]

In news that will surprise no-one but a handful of those captivated by the Brandwagon, the messiah has declared "People who live in Brighton Pavilion should definitely vote for you.” to Caroline Lucas (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/30/russell-brand-endorses-green-mp-caroline-lucas-general-election-ed-miliband), deigning to endorse Howard Pilott the Socialist Party candidate standing in the same constituency. All of which could have been predicted last year. Why we should keep crawling to Brand to 'go one step further' and 'recognising [his] courage and honesty' or praising '[his] welcome window into reality' is a mystery to me.

[jondwhite]

Class War appeared on BBC Daily Politics recently

[jondwhite]

Labour made mugs saying 'Controls on immigration'

[jondwhite]

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Despite claiming revolutionary credentials he's dismissed communism as crazy,

Where has he done this? I read or heard him say that "sharing" was "communism" (or vice versa). A bit vague, but not saying it's crazy. Just found it. It's on page 289 of his book Revolution:

Quote:

Socialism isn't a dirty word, it just means sharing; really it's just the bureaucratic arm of Christianity.

‘I'm not talking about some sort of crazy communist thing, I'm talking about democracy’ October 25, 2014 The Jonathan Ross Show, ITV

[jondwhite]

Brand values popularity, he's also susceptible to taking seriously those groups with more social weight. He's worked with Caroline Lucas and made positive noises about the Green party. He performed with Owen Jones and scored an interview with Ed Milliband at the height of the campaign. He's edited New Statesman and supported Focus E15, he is a social justice campaigner. Despite claiming revolutionary credentials he's dismissed communism as crazy, and distanced himself from class struggle. An Open Letter was written and printed to Brand and the silent response was deafening. It should be patently obvious what attitude we should have to Brand.

[jondwhite]

CPGB put them in a table here with recommendationshttp://cpgb.org.uk/home/party-news/leftwing-candidates-in-may-2015

[jondwhite]

Russell Brand has met with Ed Milliband according to the Guardianhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ed-miliband-spotted-leaving-russell-brand-london-homeTory reactionhttp://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/why-would-ed-miliband-even-want-to-woo-russell-brand/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/david-cameron-mocks-ed-miliband-russell-brand-interview-labourOpinionhttp://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/russell-brand-ready-vote-last-ed-milibandhttp://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/apr/28/brand-and-miliband-lets-pray-it-was-something-sordid-rather-than-political

[jondwhite]

Quote:

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private, international association. The association is made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers and is also open to all other professions which might help in achieving its aims. All of its members agree to honor the following principles:MSF provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters, and to victims of armed conflict. They do so irrespective of race, religion, creed, or political convictions.MSF observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions.Members undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and maintain complete independence from all political, economic, or religious powers.As volunteers, members understand the risks and dangers of the missions they carry out and make no claim for themselves or their assigns for any form of compensation other than that which the association might be able to afford them.

[jondwhite]

Vin wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'

Hence the point of World Socialist Movement 

Isn't it the same point as 'The Workers of the World aren't uniting with you when you've only 817 Twitter followers!'?

[jondwhite]

Vin wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Is this a fair comment'The Workers of the World aren't uniting with you when you've only 817 Twitter followers!'

I don't think it is a fair comment. It is the only 'comment'  that tossers like Kevin Maguire have against our case. I have replied: "Unlike other parties the SPGB does not change principles to get votes. The Nazis had many followers. Does that make them 'right'"   

'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'

[jondwhite]

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

DJP wrote:

Which other parties with the same goal and aim? There aren't any…

Socialist Studies for one, there was also Keracher's Proletarian Party if I'm not mistaken.

That's rather academic considering they are now both defunct organisations.    Even if that wasn't the case as far as the first one is concerned it wouldn't have wanted to 'unite' with us and we wouldn't have surely wanted to have anything to do with what was a thoroughly undemocratic, disaffected clique of mostly former members of the SPGB.

As far as I know Socialist Studies still meet and publish their journal.

[jondwhite]

DJP wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I read the first issue that criticized the spgb for its hostility toward other parties which have the same goal and aim. Why does the spgb prevent you from associating with other parties and why is the spgb so hostile toward them? If we were to unite with like minded parties we could make a bigger difference and socialist ideas would spread faster. 

Which other parties with the sam goal and aim? There aren't any…

Socialist Studies for one, there was also Keracher's Proletarian Party if I'm not mistaken.

[jondwhite]

maxhess wrote:

Vin wrote:

'Independent' etc.We may not get an immediate response but the message is out there 

Now additionally tweeted to: @IndyPolitics @Peston @FalseEcon @jonsnowC @guidofawkes @mehdirhasan @paulmasonnews @38_degrees @krishgm @paulwaugh @adamboulton @toadmeister @iaindale @Kevin_MaguireTweets include link to "Let’s Stand Together for a Better World": http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1328-april-2015/let%E2%80%99s-stand-together-better-worldMax

Do we follow these users?

[jondwhite]

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

We are resolutely against all reforms, but it doesn't apply here in the way literalist interpretations might assume.

But we're not. The Socialist Party is opposed to reformism – the policy of advocating reforms, either as a way of 'improving' capitalism or as a means to socialism – but we are not necessarily against individual reforms which may be of benefit to the working class.

How do we apply this to following users on twitter?

[Author]

Posts