Russell Brand

[stuartw2112]

PS my view expressed there is what makes Russell Brand and his following so interesting. Just to keep the thread on track!

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

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.

Actually, he does distinguish between "reformist" and other activity. I've heard him use the term "reformist" in relation to activity in parliament, as by Caroline Lucas, to get the same sort of things as he supports by direct action outside it. Which, actually, comes nearto our definition of the term !And there's this from p. 336 of his book on Revolution. It's about a Swedish proposal to pay workers partly in shares of the company they work for:

Quote:

… that's one idea, that in my view is a piece of pipsqueak reformism and not worth dying for …

I believe you said you hadn't read the book.I'd just add that not all the activities Brand supports fall into the category of even our definition of "reformism".

[stuartw2112]

Fair enough, I did wonder if I'd got that right. Still, he supports Lucas, doesn't he? He supports pipsqueak reformism. Brand should ditch the term too!

[ALB]

ButI thought you'd become a pipsqueak reformist

[stuartw2112]

The term has no meaning! But yes, I suppose in the party's eyes that's exactly what I've become. What's the alternative?!

[stuartw2112]

If I may, I'll pick up on one of Robin's points – namely, that "reformism" is liable to be co-opted by capitalism. Well, as I learnt in my very earliest days in the SPGB, thanks I think to a book Adam tipped for me (see the bottom link below), capitalism isn't actually a thing. Capitalism can't coopt our reforms, it can't do anything. Capitalism is what we do everyday. The only hope that capitalism will end or change into something else is if or when billions of people around the world start doing something else instead. The question then, what kinds of activities best enable us to do things differently? "Revolutionary" stuff or "reformist" stuff? The question answers itself. Finding better things to do is the transition to socialism.http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/07/the-transition-to-socialism.htmlhttp://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/reproduction-everyday-life-fredy-perlman-1969

[Anonymous]

Thanks TWC. Very refreshing. 

[stuartw2112]

Thanks TWC. If I hadn't been either a member or sympathiser of your party for the past 15 years, and been reading Marx over that time till my eyes bled, I might even have found it enlightening. As it is, I'll keep on fumbling around in the dark.Cheers1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[stuartw2112]

If you're confused, twc, I should point out something too few party members seem to understand. Autodidacticism does not have a single endpoint; not everyone who disagrees is a fool or a knave.2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[twc]

Stuart wrote:

Capitalism is not a thing.  It can’t do anything.

Capitalism is a thing.  Capitalism does everything.It is only the philosophical mindset that gets hung up by such hairsplitting.  The distinction you wish to make proves nothing, except that you refuse to recognise social systems as such, and so—as a good Labourite—proudly repudiate Marx, as a dead dog.Capitalism is a social system based on private ownership of the means for reproducing daily life with a view to consuming the social surplus.  The social surplus belongs to the owners by right of possession of the means that create it—human labour [power] and the raw materials.You, as mere supplier of labour [power] are merely a part of the means for reproducing daily life.  You are therefore owned, just like the raw material.  As such, what right do you possess to the social surplus when you have already forfeited your right to possession of your own labour [power]?From the start, every working day of your life, you willingly allow yourself to be dispossessed of the social means of production, and willingly become the possession of the capitalist class.  And yet, you fondly imagine that by advocating for the Labour Party, Stuart can magically withdraw from the rightful ownership of the capitalist the proceeds of the surplus labour he has legally forfeited to the capitalist.The delusion of capitalism could not be more complete than in the mind of Stuart.Stuart, your daily consumption is not siphoned from the social surplus, like that of the capitalist class.  Your meagre daily consumption is simply that paid portion that is necessary to reproduce the social surplus for the owners of your labour [power].  Unlike the social surplus itself, your consumption is not an end in itself, no matter how real that illusory end bulks in your deluded mind.Similarly, our general communal needs are only met insofar as their general neglect might impact adversely on the privileged consumption of the social surplus by the capitalist class.  Nothing can be permitted to impede that social imperative.  That’s what capitalism—the thing—is all about, and only about. Just look at the present desperation of the capitalist class world wide.Capitalist society is there solely for the capitalists, to serve their consumption of the social surplus.  Society is subservient to their consumption of its surplus product.  Our consumption is incidental, merely necessary to theirs, and is getting less so when it can be obtained more cheaply in foreign markets.  We are becoming a burden to privileged consumption of the social surplus.  Something will have to give.Their social right to consumption of the social surplus is backed by might.  This “non-thing” capitalism is very brutal for the non-thing you “philosophically” claim it to be.Of course, Stuart, capitalism is not a thing for you.  You are a thing for it.  That may be the source of your dim satisfaction in making vapid philosophical hairsplitting distinctions over “thingness”.You, as a thing for capitalism, are compelled deterministically to live out your stunted daily life by reproducing the social surplus for private consumption of the class of possessors of the means of daily life—for the class that you freely permitted to possess your labour [power] and everything it produces.  Sorry, dear thing, you get back your wage, and that’s as fair as it should be.Of course, you are perfectly free to withhold your labour [power] on principle, as being too proud to be owned along side, and classed with, mere raw materials.  But if you refuse to play the ignominious part of a possessed means of production, you are perfectly free to starve with honour.But far worse for us socialists, whom you take immense pride in mocking, you, as Labour praiser Stuart, do the capitalist class—presumably a “philosophical” thing that doesn’t exist in your book—an incalculable service in their interest by agreeing to keep their deterministic ownership relation in tact when you blindly attempt the impossible—to divert by Labour Party legislation their legal consumption of the surplus to yourself.  Oh folly, a thousand times over!The Labour Party only has an imaginary right to the social surplus, and that real thing, capitalism, will put it right on that score, now, and in the future, as it always has in the past.  Stuart, the mocker of socialism, has failed to see through its greatest political smokescreen, the Labour Party.Try as you might, oh mighty Labour campaigner Stuart, the system of capitalism is deterministic—just as our Declaration of Principles state—and negative feedback in the thing, capitalism, simply brings private consumption of the social surplus back on track to its rightful destination.  Homeostasis deterministically returns the social surplus, stolen from the capitalist class, back to its rightful owners, the possessors of the means of reproducing daily life.  That is determinism.The history of the 20th century proves this determinism.Every well-intentioned, Labour-inspired diversion of the social surplus away from its rightful social owners has found its way back to them.  The challenge to you, oh Labour idolator Stuart, is to show us one—only one instance is necessary—just one diversion of the social surplus from its rightful owners, the capitalist class, that didn’t find its way back to its true social destination.The thing, capitalism, does not work—as you Labourites misconceive it—in the social interest.  You, a willing Labourite, are compelled to eke out your daily working life till your last gasp labouring to ensure the social surplus arrives exactly where it should.  You, my proletarian, have no other social function under the thing capitalism.If that’s not a thing—and a deterministic thing—then nothing is.If capitalism does nothing—as you claim—then neither does a hurricane of raindrops, nor a tornado of air molecules, nor an earthquake of shifting rocks, nor anything that humans conceive of collectively or hierarchically.  By the way, that happens to be everything we conceive of.But dogmatic shallow idealists, like you, conceive the world, as Marx put it, trapped within a philosophical mindset:

Marx, Grundrisse wrote:

Let us now consider how all of this is misconceived by the kind of consciousness—and this is characteristic of the philosophical mindset—for which conceptual thinking is the real human being, and for which the conceptual world as such is thus the only real world.

There, to satisfy your bleating, I've made no mention of the words ‘reform’ or ‘revolution’.  But they lurk as opposites in everything I’ve written.We want, as always, common ownership and democratic control of the means for reproducing daily life.  Nothing, my deluded Labourite, has changed.The issue is exactly the same as Marx and Engels formulated it.  Exactly the same as the founders of World Socialism formulated it in the Declaration of Principles and Object over a century ago in 1904.  The solution is exactly the same.  Until people comprehend what capitalism is about, they will remain totally powerless to implement socialism.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[twc]

Stuart wrote:

not everyone who disagrees is a fool or a knave.

Quite so, but you have proved that you are one of those who is a fool and a knave.You are not escaping so lightly by clinging to such a miserable subterfuge.Fool.  Your ostentatious pride in “making a difference” by voting Labour—the same bunch of fools and knaves that were humiliated in the polls beyond your wildest dreams and most confident fantasies.Your party is not expected to “make a difference” in the sense you imagined for another five years.  Well done!On this very forum, you turned your personal disappointment and frustration over socialism into supercilious mockery aimed at demoralising the political efforts of your erstwhile colleagues.Well, you foolishly set yourself up.  And the proof of the pudding reveals yourself to be a self-proclaimed totally willing fool of capitalism.Knave.  You took great malicious pleasure in mocking the small socialist party for sticking to its socialist anti-capitalist politics of over a century.You constantly sought to emotionally bolster your socialist renegacy by demoralising the very working men and women who hold the socialist conviction that you no longer can.  Such is an act of political and emotional malice.You crave sympathy for your own highly important—to you—emotional disillusionment.  Stuart, capitalism is not about you!  If you are so deluded as to think it is, you are seriously deranged beyond being a mere fool.I do not know you personally—only impersonally—but to me you are simply the ordinary fool and petty knave that you have ably demonstrated yourself to be here on this forum.2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

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.

I have now placed on record on this forum that i do think we need to return to the debate and see where our position may be weak or may be offer some strengths …I'm no one man genius with all the answers and would personally benefit from the application of a collective group-think on the question. But right now, my starting point is that we have stood aloof from day-to-day bread and butter issues and many of the myriad manifestations of the oppression and repression our fellow workers suffer under. My primary concern is solidarity to instill confidence and determination but also to urge the next step… 

Quote:

the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"

But to continue with my own angle on that general approach i would add that  we have never held a callous desire to bring the system down by letting people starve, as is sometimes attributed to us. We have tried to argue that it is a lot more difficult to build socialism on the ruins of society.On the contrary, we aim to show people that by organising and struggling, they can defend themselves and even occasionally win.  We don't object to reformism because it advocates reforms, but because it has such a sorry record for obtaining them. Paradoxically, i would declare that reformism is not the way to win reforms.Meanigful, social gains can only be won through the militant collective action of working people and mass movements.  Without such pressure from below, the actions of well-intentioned reformers is basically toothless.  Also there is a danger that in the absence of this revolutionary politics, the aim of socialism would be sacrificed to the strategy of "moderation".I would also argue that if people share the goals for making a better world, they should allow the loudest and be the most recognised voices to be the ones that denounce the continuation of our oppressive, repressive system rather than others, the so-called pragmatists and realists who suggest collaboration and accommodation. In other words, those who point the need for revolutionary change shouldn't be asked to be silent and take a back-seat in case they cause offence or fear.The effect of demanding everything would be that the ruling class will let bigger crumbs to fall from their table, they will offer larger slices of the pie to divert and disarm the protest and resistance.I know some members may recognise the flaws in what i say…the ease we can be drawn into the swamp to sink into the morass without a trace. But to paraphrase Luxemburg "the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest political party."2nd warning:1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'll follow on with some additional remarks, Stuart, and apologies if i misinterpreted but what you appear to say is that all this talk about socialism and the working class is old stale stuff, no longer appropriate for today. Many on the left of the political spectrum have indeed come to believe so.  They argue that the hope for socialism is a romantic hopeless dream. They seek to focus on identity politics class such as race, gender, nationality and other such factors used to oppress us rather than class. Nevertheless, the revolutionary potential of the working class has been demonstrated many times. Through debate and analysis, socialists help one another understand what's happening in the country and the world and how best to face the challenges working people confront. History is full of examples of workers’ struggles.Our political practice should be conducive to better activism. The main reason to join a socialist organisation is to work toward socialism and we constantly keep our eyes on the prize. But membership in a socialist group ought to complement our practical work – not compete with our activism, nor drag us into sectarianism. Only a visible and vocal socialist organisation makes the alternative to capitalism known.Final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[stuartw2112]

"But membership in a socialist group ought to complement our practical work – not compete with our activism, nor drag us into sectarianism."Thanks Alan. I particularly agree with and applaud the quote above. In my (limited) experience, it is a tricky thing to do, particularly in our age, where membership of a political party is viewed with suspicion if not outright hostility. But then, why are they suspicious? Perhaps they suspect that those members are there with ulterior motives of their own. And let's be honest – they're absolutely right! But then they're there with reasons of their own too. As you say, there are no easy answers.I think there is a general lack, in the discussion on this thread, and in the party generally, of what might be called "scientific socialism". In other words, let's not concern ourselves too much with our creaky old theory and our ideas about the future and how to get them over to others or put them into effect. That's utopian socialism (which I'm not abusing, I think it has its place, and wish very much that our society had more of a place for it). What about, instead,trying to identify the trends and movements and forces in our contemporary society, economic, social and political, and ask which of those we might like to encourage, support, get involved in, cheerlead, etc. And when doing that, don't be too abstract about it. Marx wrote volume I of Capital, as no one can deny, but did he, when he turned to write about contemporary social affairs, the Paris Commne say, just dismiss it all as so much rubbish that was bound to fail when you consider the law of value, then nature of commodities, etc, etc? Of course I've not done all that much towards what I'm recommending, but who is doing it? Paul Mason is one perhaps. I don't buy everything he says, but his whole approach is more Marxist than any other Marxist I'm aware of. His blog and Twitter feed is a must-read (and his books are pretty great too). http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/(And yes, I know he's an old trot.)Final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

"In my (limited) experience, it is a tricky thing to do, particularly in our age, where membership of a political party is viewed with suspicion if not outright hostility."

As our previous exchanges on WW concerning Dave Douglass and social activism showed the suspicions are both sided…The cautIon a political party may have when embarking on involvement with a movement that comes in all shapes and forms and cannot be easily slotted into one pigeon-hole. Sometimes the purpose of a reform campaign is questionable, other times it is the tactics they are using, and others it is the organisational structure running it. But we are accustomed to not expecting perfection in the union movementMy problem is how to offer critical support that does not deter what people are doing by discouraging them  nor distancing them from ourselves by not always agreeing. Once more, as i have said, i'm open to other folk's ideas…and i often re-evaluate my politics, as much as you do, probably (as seen by my now mellower attitude to social activism).

Quote:

why are they suspicious? Perhaps they suspect that those members are there with ulterior motives of their own.

We witness how all our good intentions not to manipulate or control the trade unions based on sound theory, in my view, and to ensure their political independence are mistaken for apathy and passivity, despite all the contrary evidence. So yes it is not easy, particularly if the motives are not sincere and purposefully ignore or derail our relationship with economic organisation for political party upmanship. I think though that our principle on unions can be transfered to reform campaigns without raising too much suspicion on our motives…honesty is the best policy, and we all know the many left infiltrators lack that integrity which we possess. One of our rare strengths that we can build upon I wouldn't recommend intervening in local or one-issue campaigns unless i had good reason to be part of it…But members not always getting personally involved doesn't discourage the party from sympathetically reporting such campaigns as perhaps homelessness (and we probably do more now of that but is it enough?). And we can offer some logistical solidarity …office and meeting space and  use of computers and printing – and, of course, not to mention trucks full of literature At a higher level, I recall the late Pieter Lawrence suggesting that we fail to interact effectively with the NGOs and charities like Oxfam in presenting our global solutions…and since he first raised this lapse several years ago, haven't these organisations become even more political about the system of society and could well have been influenced in a small way by our views on the exchange economy and not merely the distribution of wealth…who knows… 

[Author]

Posts