Russell Brand
- This topic has 258 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:Another 'celebrity' to look up to and pin our hopes on? Singer Charlotte Church at a rally in Cardiff, protesting against austerity cuts…
It never ceases to amaze me how some forum members completely disregard everything that has been discussed on this thread. It's not about Brand, it never was. It's about connecting with the people who he may have switched on to the idea of revolutionary political thought and action. It's not as if, anyone is suggesting members of the SPGB stalk Brand, or any other so called celebrities, in the hope he/they might give the SPGB a mention etc.How difficult is it to use modern communication methods to desseminate the idea of socialism to as wide an audience as possible. It's a damn sight easier than trudging around streets posting leaflets, standing on street stalls, organising meetings, debates, (seeing piss poor turnouts) and other old school SPGB activities.
According to the Daily Mail Brand has trademarked his spelling of 'RLOVEUTION' and is selling the T shirts at £30 a go.He claims he is keeping none of the 'lolly' for himself.How about T Shirts with WORLD REVOLUTION SPGB on? Wonder if we would get £30 for them?
Brand's post-election video was misreported in the press and, I think, misrepresented here. All he did was regret the result, ponder the arguments that had seemed so compelling and now seemed so hollow, and renewed his commitment to what really matters and he had long been arguing for – ie, compassionate action and building for long-term, genuine political and social change. Well, what's wrong with that? My feelings exactly. Before the election I would have, and did, say that the days of Tory majorities were thankfully behind us. Shows how much I know.As for Brand's celebrity and money, I will take this seriously when you burn all your William Morris pamphlets.
Stuart, I have some sympathy with that view. I don't have any William Morris books to burn, tho' I do have Brand's Revolution and I would recommend it.
Vin wrote:Stuart, I have some sympathy with that view. I don't have any William Morris books to burn, tho' I do have Brand's Revolution and I would recommend it.recommend reading it or burning it?
Quote:renewed his commitment to what really matters and he had long been arguing for – ie, compassionate action and building for long-term, genuine political and social change. Well, what's wrong with that? My feelings exactly.Quote:Seems he will be returning to single issues and social activism which for all my previous scepticism (see debate on Weekly Worker with SW) i am now wondering how we ourselves can interact more positvely with, without following the Left's transgressions of manipulation by their intervention and by not compromising our own anti-reformism. I'm wondering if out supportive attitudes towards trade unions can somehow be adapted and modified to relate to the many campaigns for social justice that exist from local to worldwide levels.I'm not sure you are classing that comment as a misrepresentation. I thought it was myself re-evaluating where i stand , Stuart.
I didn't have your comment in mind Alan and the direction of march your reevaluation points in is one I wholly support! I'm sure I've made similar comments before. If it's right to support trade unions (and it is), surely it's right to support the groups doing similar things in other areas. As for reformism, as a concept I can't see it's helpful. Just ditch it.
jondwhite wrote:Vin wrote:Stuart, I have some sympathy with that view. I don't have any William Morris books to burn, tho' I do have Brand's Revolution and I would recommend it.recommend reading it or burning it?
Reading it.
PS Haven't (yet) read Brand's book, but I have followed his public self-education with interest and increasing admiration. And when he's on form, he's a wonderful writer. What he wrote about Thatcher in the wake of her death was the best thing in all the acres of commentary and the images in it haunt me still.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher
Charlotte Church explains her protesthttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/12/charlotte-church-prosecco-socialist-protest-peoples-assembly-cardiff
stuartw2112 wrote:I didn't have your comment in mind Alan and the direction of march your reevaluation points in is one I wholly support! I'm sure I've made similar comments before. If it's right to support trade unions (and it is), surely it's right to support the groups doing similar things in other areas. As for reformism, as a concept I can't see it's helpful. Just ditch it.How do you define "reformism" Stuart and why do you suggest ditching the concept?
I don't define it Robin, other people do – in contradictory, confusing, arbitrary and unhelpful ways. Precisely why it should be ditched!I say it should be ditched, but of course it already has been. No contemporary political discussions of importance that I'm aware of have any use for it (except of course the tiny groups on the far left who talk among themselves in their own private language). Does Russell Brand, to keep to the subject of this thread, divide political activities into revolutionary ones to be supported and reformist ones to be rejected? Not as far as I know. Imagine if his engagement with the question of whether to vote had been merely to reject on principle anything he mentally labelled "reformist". How enlightening would the whole process have been, for him or for his audience?I'm aware of course of your own definition of reformism – a very model of arbitrariness! And one that could only by any possibility be accepted if one accepts your particular Marxist vision of the world, of "how capitalism works" and must work. Which, of course, next to no one does.
Hi Stuart, I'm in a rush to get off to work but I will come back with a more detailed critique of your position later. I don't think the relative unpopularity of an idea is any measure of its validity and the question posed by Rosa Luxemburg all those years ago – reform or revolution? – still stands and its relevance to anyone seeking to bring about social change of any kind, remains undiminished. Unless you draw a line in the sand somewhere or somehow, what is stop any movement simply being coopted by capitalism? The tragic history of the parties of Second International that all without fail having adopted a reformist strategy, transformed themselves into thoroughly capitalist organisations bears witness to the folly of denying this simple truth. You cant just brush this under the carpet, Stuart There are others ways of supplementing or complementing revolutionary political activity but reformism in my view is not, and cannot be, one of them… Cheers
As someone so erudite, you are often careless with your language, Stuart."your own definition of reformism – a very model of arbitrariness!" – synomyns being capricious , whimsical, random, chance etc etcYou are well acquainted with the 19th century roots of the party within the social democratic traditions of the time and well aware that the policies and principles of the party were determined by their specific experience and situations encountered. The reformism and our hostility clause too were not arbitary but resulted from a reaction of the then political practices of our "mother" organisation that gave birth to us. They were clear upon its usage and application and we were clear upon our denounciation of it. To simply dismiss the SPGB ideas on reforms as arbitary won't lead to any real understanding why they were adopted and i don't think we can move forward if we don't take into consideraation if any of those conditions still apply today.Certainly the term has shifted in importance and meaning. The socialists of the SLP and the SPA debated over them but in a totally different context and the intent for both was very different than, say, a Trotskyist and Labourite debate today is. It is not merely a difference in emphasis but about what role reforms play. Simply because the original discussion is no longer discussed, does not lead automatically to the conclusion that an answer was provided and no more is to be said about it, that instead we should follow the loudest and most vocal – the prevailing orthodoxy. We have always differentiated between reformism and reforms. I think we should explore the relationship between the two in regards of organisation and campaigning and importantly politcally as a form of self-defence, class self-sufficiency, as a means of propaganda towards a new type of society, as a sort of re-confirmation of the practicality of socialism. This also involves questioning the relationship between protest and parliament.We should return to the debate in depth and discover if there is indeed still some validity to our current position, or whether it should be modified to fit different setting, or even jettisoned as you suggest as superflous. But it is something i have no intention upon taking hasty decisions about and i would guard such impetuousity.When the party moves, it must take all its members with it – or did the Socialist Studies "rebellion" and expulsion teach no lesson.
You both make good points. You both seem to be saying the same thing – that the "reform vs revolution" debate had a serious and important meaning in its own time (agreed), a meaning and relevance it continues to have for our own time (not agreed!). I'd be interested to hear your cases for it. My own view is that our crisis runs too deep for the old answers to be any use. The Marxist critique of capitalism and its proposed alternative has lost its force, and it ain't coming back. The world has changed – "class consciousness" ain't coming back either. The idea of material abundance and free access and economic growth is a non-starter – the ecological crisis is too severe for that. None of which makes me at all gloomy. New conceptions and new battles and awakenings are happening all the time. Perhaps one of them will take hold and hold out the promise of a better future. Let us hope that, when it arises, there aren't too many people around to dismiss it as "reformist" or not worth the hassle in comparison with old Utopias.Cheers
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.