SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interesting stuff DJP.I did a bit of digging about and found articles about the levels of charitable donations among lower income groups and higher income groups in America. The amounts in terms of dollars donated by the rich where higher, but in terms of percentage of income they where significantly lower. The general explanation was that those who had more wealth were more socially isolated from the affects of poverty. They just didn't see it. They tended to give more to the arts and educational causes, rather than the alleviation of the effects of poverty.The below quote comes from the link you provide. I find this one particularly interesting. I can see how the rich being isolated from the social affects of poverty, just don't connect with the reality of what it's like. But the wealthy surely must be aware of what is going on in the world, poverty, starvation, war is everywhere to be seen in the media. It would seem to explain quite a lot.
Quote:4. Too Much Money Can Make You Less Empathetic: UCLA's Keely Muscatell found that people with great income “exhibit less activity in the regions of the brain associated empathy when shown pictures of kids with cancer.” Researcher Dacher Keltner found in twelve different studies that “lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”Alan, I agree with you about Chomsky. I've a lot of time for the bloke and he does indeed know a lot of stuff, as you would expect. Unfortunately he isn't all that exciting to listen to. Always reminds me of the old BBC Open University programes that were shown late at night. A bit harsh perhaps.Like it or not, these days packaging is as important as content when it comes to getting peoples attention. The desperately needed new audiences won't be turned on to revolution with old Open University style packaging. It doesn't matter whether or not the content is sound, if no one is listening.I've done some searching on YouTube for stuff from the SPGB and I was quite shocked at what I found. Unfortunately most (not all) of the stuff I found was in the vein of old Open University lectures. The viewing figures for most of the the videos are embarrassing. No one is watching. Brand may never reach the intellectual level of Chomsky and he may never join us lot, but he is grabbing the attention of an audience who would probably not normally be interested in revolutionary politics.
Wasn't Ben Elton a Labour Party supporter or member?I know he was part of the comedy contingent of Red Wedge in 1987.
gnome wrote:Vin wrote:I hope Brand, Tomlinson and Scarghill become socialists and join the WSM.I don't and they won't anyway. But I hope many workers, who of necessity won't be in awe of celebrities and leaders, will.
Quote:I have no desire to be in a small party of unforgivenessReally? Are you sure about that? What about the member your branch recently expelled? Didn't he qualify for 'forgiveness'?
Interesting.Is there a bar on millionaires joining the WSM? If Brand wanted to join the SPGB would his multi million pound fortune be an obstacle?I was also wondering if the rules of socialism mean he is now a capitalist?
ALB wrote:Socialist Punk wrote:If Brand starts to promote anti-semitic ideas and fascism, then I think it would be safe to conclude he is a dickhead.I think the basis of this accusation is his taking some of David Icke's ideas seriously, the New Age spiritual mumbo jumbo not the stuff about shape-shifting lizards and some Jewish world conspiracy. There is also the Laurence Easeman incident. Brand met Easeman at one of the housing protests he was supporting and invited him to speak at his book lauch without realising that Easeman was an out-and-out fascist. Naturally there was an outcry and Easeman didn't speak. I'd put this down to Brand's political naivety. Brand can be criticised for things many (his New Age spirituality for one, his rejection of class struggle for another) but not for being anti-semitic.The Easeman incident does have a political lesson in that it brings out that it is not only leftists but also rightists who denounce bankers and get involved in social activism. In other words, another illustration that social activism does not automatically not lead to socialist understanding (as some of Brand's anarchist and direct-actionist pals claim) but that the case for socialism has to be expressed explicitly.
I was aware of the errors in judgment you mention here ALB, and agree it is a sign of his political naivety. It's probably proof that unlike his fashion and looks, his politics are not carefully stage managed.Funny how some seem to think he should be opposed simply because he isn't one of us. How dare the R word be used by one not of the faith. The same detractors would be falling over themselves if he started to get closer to our views.Vin put it aptly on another thread with Brands name attached to it, a sure method to turn him away from our view (should he come across it, be nice to think Cliffords letter reached him) would be to attack him and treat him with the same disdain as the Farages of the world.Once more Darren misses the point. No one here is buying into celebrity endorsement. The reason Brand was first ever mentioned on this forum was because of his talk of the need for revolution.
Darren redstar wrote:I am bored with the discussion over Brand, here, just as elsewhere, no criticism of his conduct, his collaborators, or his 'ideas' ( it's difficult to know what these actually are, as opposed to those of his ghost writer Johan Hari, or the fascist who filmed his Trews, or the conspiracy nuts who he has spent so much time with) is ever actually acknowledged by his fans, who no matter how much they deny that they think he's some sort of perfect hero, clearly consider him to be immaculateDarren,There is a simple solution to fix your boredom. Just don't read the thread and most crucially, don't contribute to it.Now, no one on this forum sees him as an immaculate, hero figure. Some of us simply see value in public figures speaking out, as Vin puts it:-
Vin wrote:Could it be that he believes people should reject leadership and corrporations and run their communities themselves?Or perhaps that he disagrees with the fact that the earth and its resources being owned by a tiny minority. or is it because he said that the media is controlled by an elite and is filling us with lies?or is it because he said that they have us fighting for their oil and resources?Perhaps the spew of the Farages of the world is preferred. I suppose we could say Farage has lain some fertile revolutionary ground with his anti EU and immigration attack on the UK establishment and he has the strength of character to work to change the European Parliament from the inside, despite his dislike of the institution. [sarcasm]I expect Brand does associate with some "weirdos" and "freaks". Hell, we are "weirdos" and "freaks" for advocating socialist revolution. I wonder just what dirt could be dragged up to discredit the politics of the SPGB? Maybe membership should be tightened up to consider the politics of family, friends and associates, maybe even include DBS checks to make absolutely sure. If Brand starts to promote anti-semitic ideas and fascism, then I think it would be safe to conclude he is a dickhead, but until that time I'll see him as potentially beneficial in comparison to Farage any day.
Get voting people. The more positive votes the better the chances of getting some mileage out of Cliffords letter. Ya never know what the outcome could be. We got nothin ta lose.
Unfortunately, Farage has probably had the biggest impact on the political landscape in Britain. But not for any new or interesting ideas.It's the three R's yet again. The Right always Rise in a Recession.
Adam,I doubt if there is any way of proving whether or not celebrity intervention promotes the spread of anti-capitalist ideas. My own view point is that the likes of Brand manage to achieve something our efforts could never match, they reach a huge audience that may never have come across revolutionary or anti-capitalist ideas otherwise. If only a tiny fraction of those people continue to explore further then it is a positive thing. Definately something that should not be sneered at, by socialists like us.At the very least for the majority, who will not deliberately explore further into revolutionary politics, the word revolution may no longer be seen as a dangerous, alien concept.Just my view, for what it's worth.
Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:…but like it or not he's got more people talking about revolutionary politics than us lot here. Socialist or not, if that gets some people switched on to questioning the way society is organised at present, for the benefit of a minority, and thinking about alternatives, that is absolutely fine with me.I agree. Since when has revolution been seen by most people as possibly a happy peaceful process? I know we have been saying it for more than 100 years but not many have heard us.I have no illusions about Brand, but he says a lot of things we have been saying but – and this is the important bit – million have heard him. I suspect he will begin to water things down and in fact he is starting to support things here-and-there that have nothing to do with revolution but so what? I am sure there are many things each of us 'support' or would like to see happen as individuals.Which could be a new thread under oo-topic
Spot on Vin.I've no illusions regarding Brand either and I don't see him as some saviour. I simply see him as someone who has media mileage right now and instead of just partying and enjoying his celebrity lifestyle, he chooses to talk openly about revolution and advocating people power. I also think he really means it.I'm not so sure he is watering things down. Lending his support to the plight of the residents of the Newham council estate in London, is a worthy cause. A group of women took on an issue that affected them directly. An issue that wasn't going to wait for the glorious socialist revolution to fix for them. Is it all or nothing? Socialists have always involved themselves in the trade union movement along side fellow workers, in the here and now struggles within capitalism. Involving yourself in the here and now struggles doesn't mean you can't advocate socialism. Surely the fact that workers have the capability to organise and empower themselves supports our case for socialism being a global system of people working together for the inclusion and betterment of all? For the cynics out there, having a go at Brand because he isn't a socialist as we understand it, comes across as what I would call, revolution envy. Someone, somewhere on this forum, said something along the lines of SPGB propaganda being more like a sign to let those who have already found socialist ideas for themselves, know the Party exists. If that is the case then the Brands of the world are important in creating fertile ground for revolutionary ideas.
We're getting nowhere with these tit for tat one liners JDW. You never did flesh out what you meant by your bizare one liner statement below.
jondwhite wrote:Bet Farage gets more votes than Brand at the next election.Now you may well think Brand is a flash in the pan, self confessed sex addict, former heroin addict, attention seeking, lefty joker, but I and a number of others on the forum think he is a million miles ahead of Farage when it comes to a social conscience. Brand wants people to empower themselves and do politics for themselves, not simply voting for yet another right wing con artist preying on the insecurities and fears that capitalism rams down our throats on a never ending basis.The Brand sceptics can sneer at Brand til the proverbial cows come home, but like it or not he's got more people talking about revolutionary politics than us lot here. Socialist or not, if that gets some people switched on to questioning the way society is organised at present, for the benefit of a minority, and thinking about alternatives, that is absolutely fine with me.
jondwhite wrote:Contesting elections is a major component of entering the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties and calling upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner.I think Farage would agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
jondwhite wrote:Quote:Mr Farage dismissed the apparent drop in his popularity, telling the Evening Standard it was “a volatile market”.“Ukip has had a pretty remarkable year,” he said. “If we are ending on a slightly softer note, it’s perhaps not surprising.”Bet Farage gets more votes than Brand at the next election.
Has Brand announced he is gonna stand in the next election?
