stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
PS my view expressed there is what makes Russell Brand and his following so interesting. Just to keep the thread on track!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
I was speaking to a TUSC candidate recently who told me that, when he first stood in his constituency, he had got quite a respectable vote, but the second time, it had plummeted. I suggested that maybe the reason was that the electorate had had time to get to know him…
Oh, one final final thing, because I know no one bothers clicking on links, but do go to my post above that links to the BBC because I'm sure it'll be right up your street. It's the one where Russell Brand abolished money. I expect to see a "Cooking the books" on it soon! Cheerio
PS Thanks Alan. Yes, I do tend to do that, you're right. And yes, as I said, I don't see how Marxism can survive an encounter with Nove. Leaving now, but if you or anyone else read it, would be glad to hear your view at stuartrag@yahoo.co.uk. (The SS review is rubbish btw!) cheers
OK, I'm off to vote now, and I'll leave it there. Thanks everyone for humouring me and helping me think through what it is I think. Till the next time I launch a passing bombing raid on this forum…All the bestStuartFinal 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.
Adam is a bit right, but as is usual on this thread, is obliged to strong arm reality into an insane strait jacket. Politicians can't do all that much about forces beyond their control – the forces of global capitalism. This is true. That they certainly won't be able to deliver on their promises is also true. (The promises are a sales pitch. You don't take them seriously.) But to say that therefore they can't do anything and it doesn't matter who gets elected is definitely not true. Ask the CBI. Ask the TUC. Ask anyone.As for people's preferences, it's also a commonplace that people do indeed do what Adam says they do – unless, that is, their choice really matters. Then they think about what government they want elected. It's why support for minor parties goes up between elections, and down again as they approach.
Alan, Thank you, it's touching that you care so much and have followed my political career (if you can call it that, which you can't) with such interest!There's an alternative explanation to the one you offer. Maybe I'm not ignoring evidence or betraying my past or being ludicrously flighty. Maybe I'm just a serious minded chap who is looking for answers, and changes his mind every now and then, as would be normal and healthy. The alternative is dogmatism and faith, which surely you can't be recommending. I wonder if anyone here has read the first couple of chapters of "The Economics of Feasible Socialism" by Alec Nove? I must admit, my faith in Marxism and non-market socialism could not survive the encounter. But perhaps that's for another thread:http://digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdf2nd 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.
Everyone arguing against my position has to make a pretence. The pretence is that there is some choice to make today other than the apparent one.The apparent choice is (to simplify only slightly) whether you would prefer to see a Labour or a Tory government running modern-day capitalism for the next five years. For people like me, living in a marginal seat, my vote could actually determine the answer. To argue abstention from that choice is to say that it doesn't make ANY difference who wins. My view, and my view is in harmony with the majority view and of pretty much all informed commentators, is that it does make SOME difference. (It's the majority view since the facts support it: Tony Blair's government, whatever else you might think of it, and even correcting for the effects of the economic cycle, spent more on health and education than his Tory predecessors, for example. Indeed, if it made no difference at all, you might like to wonder why capitalists spend so much of their money trying to determine the outcome, why this election is being watched eagerly by international institutions, or why no one but the ultra-left fringe had noticed that it didn't matter) At this election, indeed, the difference, and the choice to be made, is bigger than at any time for many years, arguably since 1945. There is, in other words, a definite left/right split. Since left-wing governments tend, where they can, to spend more on such things as the welfare state, it makes sense for people who are of or for the working class to vote Labour. Most people on the left, or who are of the labour movement, can see this and do so.The only way to reject this rationally is to bring in the pretence that there are broader political and/or moral issues at stake. The argument with the most force for me, though no one's mentioned it, is the question of legitimacy. By giving these governments our vote, it is claimed, we are lending the holder of the monopoly on violence and the whole capitalist system a legitimacy it would be healthier for us to deny it. But this is a crazy – indeed, the really shameful – argument. The plain fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, there is no alternative to capitalism. There won't be until there is a majority or a sufficiently determined minority of people organised to try to achieve something different. That at least a decade off, if it ever happens at all. To deny a democratic government legitimacy in the absence of any well-organised alternative is a scary prospect. What would the result be? Probably social and political chaos. Probably the end of democracy and the establishment of military rule. Something, actually, probably much like this (scroll to 47 mins in):http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05tr714/charlie-brookers-election-wipeSo, shameful indeed – your not-voting position is as bad as the Leninists and anarchists you mock. Get out and vote for what's left of the Labour movement and for democracy. Vote Labour!1st 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.
The comments here have been most interesting and revealing – angry, sentimental, all about identification with an ideological position, moralising. I have some sympathy with all that has been said. But deciding who to vote for at an election just isn't a decision with the moral force and political consequence you have all invested it with. It's a purely practical matter – of no great significance, and yet of some significance. I totally agree with Brand. I vote Labour at least partly for all those people desperately hoping for a slightly less evil government, one more committed to keeping the social safety net. For myself, the election will probably have little or not effect. I'm not so sure that will be true for my friends and acquaintances and many others who have suffered so terribly at the hands of this Tory government. I applaud Brand for his decision and hope it had an effect on his followers.
