[rodshaw]

But all credit to the guy for getting people to talk about revolution, and not being intimidated by the likes of Paxman, who wouldn't recognise a socialist revolution if it hit him in the face. (And, you never know, it might.)Brand undoubtedly has the personality, and the popularity, to get the message across even more – all the better if it were to be 100% socialism, not mixed with airy-fairy nonsense. So I think it is worth trying to contact him. And there's absolutely nothing to lose.

[rodshaw]

An article by one John Bunzl about the Brand interview here:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-bunzl/russell-brand-new-revolutionary_b_4170644.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics

[rodshaw]

Wow, not bad, apart from the Leninist bit.But is this one person or two? Halfway down it says 'Sir/Madam', as if another letter is starting. And presumably we are going to contact them?

[rodshaw]

And to think I've always regarded Russell Brand as a bit of a prat without two political ideas to rub together. With a bit of tweaking he could be a perfect spokesman for socialism but I rather suspect he is rather too diffused for that. But we won't know if we don't try.

[rodshaw]

LBird wrote:

Given that we usually claim that Communism will involve a 'coming-to-consciousness' of the proletariat, so that we humans consciously start to take control of our lives, I'm not sure how this 'natural springing' will happen.Surely the 'first generation to be born into a socialist society' will be inculcated with our Communist ideals?

I'm not sure what you mean by ideals.We want to see the end of class-divided society and the establishment of common ownership. We see that as being in the interest of the overwhelming majority. We don't see it as an ideal (at least I don't), but as necessary for our emancipation.A future socialist society will have freed themselves from the stranglehold of capitalism, and all the oppressive anti-working class wars, deprivations, laws, rules and restrictions that dog our lives now. Of course they will have taken control of their lives, and if that doesn't give rise to a radically different mindset and behaviour patterns, then I don't know what will. But whatever 'ideals' they hold, won't they be their ideals, not ours?

[rodshaw]

LBird wrote:

All societies enforce 'ideology', and personally I think that the contents of this 'ideology' should be discussed and voted upon by all of humanity. Someone or something has to set limits – if it isn't us, it'll be 'god'.In that case, I wonder who'll interpret his/her/its thoughts?

I take it the references to god are tongue in cheek. Or are you suggesting that people in a socialist society, having collectively rejected gods, will re-invent one to justify some form of social control? I don't think so.The first generation to be born into a socialist society will have an outlook on life that is radically different from ours. Any forms of social control or conditioning that are seen to be necessary will spring naturally from collective ownership and control of the means of production. I suspect they will be kept to a minimum.

[rodshaw]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The latest video on SOYMB blog is relevant to Goldacre and  this thread too. http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/09/science-video.html

That's a cracking video.

[rodshaw]

So everybody will have to support Manchester United or Cardiff City.

[rodshaw]

jondwhite wrote:

Will fashion exist under socialism?

No, all clothes will be red.

[rodshaw]

Rule 1 doesn't actually give reasons why an application may be rejected. In fact, it doesn't mention the questionnaire as such, it just refers to signing a form. I presume the form and the questionnaire are the same thing?

[rodshaw]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

Just referring to people as men and women is oppressive, we are HUMANS!

Out of interest, does anyone know of any societies whose language doesn't differentiate between the sexes? No 'he', 'she', etc?

[rodshaw]

The notion that the colour red should, or can, be reclaimed is a pigment of the imagination.

[rodshaw]

Capitalism is forever re-inventing the past by imposing more recent ideology on it. I find the idea that any particular type of perceived transgressor from the past should be posthumously 'pardoned' or honoured by a capitalist state as daft. Does it mean that society as a whole is more civilised? Not from our standpoint. It's still being done by a capitalist state to make some kind of statement for itself and, to my mind, is neither here nor there for socialists.Would a socialist society posthumously pardon past criminals?

[rodshaw]

There was a recent article in The Times arguing that the reason middle eastern investors buy British football clubs is not to make money (and football is so volatile financially that I can see this) but to 'buy in' to the west and thereby give themselves more credibility, and maybe a bit of 'protection'. All very capitalistic, all the same.But as for making money from buying individual players – apparently, after Real Madrid paid £20 million or so for Beckham some years ago, they made over £100 million in resulting shirt sales. I wonder how many Bale shirts they've already sold?

[rodshaw]

I wonder how the council ever let next door get away with that awful black.

[Author]

Posts