rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I've posted the following comment on their website:'According to your manifesto you are basically advocating local capitalism as opposed to global capitalism.I fully agree that we need to establish an alternative to capitalism. But that doesn't just mean big business – the answer is not simply to rein in global corporations and 'Buy Local' – all capitalism needs to go, and be replaced by a world-wide society based on common ownership of the world's resources in the interests of all. This entails the abolition of the entire capitalist class and the establishment of a classless, moneyless society – world socialism. It's the only way. For more information see http://www.worldsocialism.org.'
steve colborn wrote:I think the least we can do for the old chap, is send him a bunch of Standards, so that he has some info to broaden his attacks on Capitalism. You never know, he may even send a donation as a thank you! Or, heaven forfend, attend a meeting. Steve Colborn.I can see it in a year or so – Russell Brand and Prince Charles on the EC.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.htmlThat's a cracking video.
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?
