stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Listing the evils of past Labour governments does precisely nothing to answer the question. How like politicians you are! As for the choice, it's actually a bigger one than normal, as signalled by the fact that business and the press are out against Ed.The only sane argument against Labour would be a pro-Tory one – that workers would be hurt by market upheaval. But I don't expect to find all that many sane arguments here!As for blood, I think you'll find that Marxists and revolutionaries have more of it on their hands than the reformists do.
Well, what else could try do? According to Marxian theory, they've no choice but to under capitalism. And since, at this election, capitalism is a given, vote Labour.
And under the next Labour government, if we get one, we'll certainly get more of the same, for the reasons already given. But the question remains, and sensible people (if they are of or for the working class) will vote Labour.
Labour doesn't "represent the interests of the 1% against the rest of us" – that's too simplistic. It actually does more or less what it was set up to do: to represent the interests of labour in capitalism. Since labour is weak, it does that badly. Since capitalism exists and there is no alternative, it has to make all kinds of compromises all the time, even when labour is strong, including wooing business and pandering to anti-immigrant feeling, to name just two.But all that's irrelevant to the main question (of this thread, and in the election): do you prefer a Labour or a Tory government?
The situation did change. Previously, Brand was a celebrity prancing tit (who I nevertheless quite liked) who was asked a question by Jeremy Paxman. He was obviously a sentimental anarchist of some kind (what decent person isn't?), and said he never voted and never would. Fast forward to the present day, and Mr Brand has transformed himself into a political activist and commentator, who prances and preens rather less and thoughtfully considers and acts rather more. No doubt his involvement in campaign work of various kinds, and his self-education about the realities of political life, has led him to a similar conclusion to the one I drew long ago – that, sentimental anarchism aside, whether or not we have a Labour or a Tory government does make a bit of difference actually to very many people. Small differences perhaps, but ones that matter.And anyway, what's the alternative? There isn't one.What Brand says is political common sense. Elections ultimately don't matter all that much. But they do matter a bit. So vote for the lesser of the two evils. But if you want real change, get involved in politics. What's wrong with that?
Brian: can't think of a better answer than DJP gave. It's an insight into our own thinking and that of others, and such insight can only surely be of huge benefit?Alan: thanks, but as it's all about Brand, will leave further discussion to that thread!Cheers
Hi Alan,Brand changed his mind, something he has not been shy about doing in his public self-development and education. And as he said in his Trews show, he's well aware, and could go on for perhaps as long as you, about Labour's past and probable future failings. But the question on the table is not about Labour's failings. It's about whether we would prefer a Labour(-led) government to a Tory(-led) one. Brand says yes, and I agree with him. It's a reasonable thing to believe (a majority in the Labour movement do, don't they?), even if you're not a dupe of the system, a fool, a knave, a charlatan, have been bought off by the lizards, a careerist only out for yourself, etc, etc.
What has not been considered here is that maybe Russell Brand has advocated a vote for Labour because that's what it makes perfect sense to do, if you are of his broad poltiical outlook.
PS Anyone having trouble with the idea that socialists might be lacking in rationality should go over and have a look at the Russell Brand thread. Apparently, his advocating a vote for Labour, an infallibly rational position given his politics and outlook, is explained there in basically conspiratorial terms – perhaps he's been bought, he's a dupe, he's a puppet for the ruling class, he's a naive fool, a self-serving opportunist looking out for his own career, etc, etc.
These kinds of studies have implications for all human beings, not just the "irrational" ones out there who for some strange reason just won't accept my brilliant ideas. So the best thing to do after reading them (see especially the work of Daniel Kahneman) is not to think, "Hmm, folks are irrational, so how on earth can I get them to accept my supremely ultra-rational ideology", but rather to hold up a mirror, and think, "Hmm, now just what in all this shit cluttering up my brain is irrational, deluded, subject to cognitive biases of all kinds, merely the result of tradition and conditioning, of repeating unthinkingly the ideas of others, etc, etc?" A very very close look might lead to something like humility.
The assumption in the question is that the issues raised are quack ones that can be tackled with a good strong argument – in much the same way that arguments against climate change or for conspiracy theories might. But the assumption is all wrong as can be seen on this very forum. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the history of the Labour Party and the Soviet Union hold useful lessons for those who would call themselves socialist; that certain well-verified aspects of human nature militate against glib assumptions about how people would necessarily act in a more cooperative society; and that considerations of economics makes the idea of running a complex industrial society without markets unfeasible.No advice on how to debunk these will be of much use to anyone. You just have to engage with them. If you do, you might find you have a harder job ahead of you "tackling" them than you dared imagine.
My "going away to ponder" involved finally getting round to reading this short book, a favourite of SPGB friend Ken Macleod:digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdfAlthough dated in some respects, I think it would be a bracing read for any party member. The book was reviewed (entirely unconvincingly in my view) in the Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1984/no-956-april-1984/abundance-feasible
