Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
Or hiding in plain sight.
Poundshop Jimmy? For a new generation? Nah, that's outrageous, how dare you!
Or hiding in plain sight.
ike's been dead for 40 yearsAs the question, is Ike an irritant or more?
waits for the smart arses to reframe the question.
I thought you'd never ask .What 'utopian anarchist' ideas are getting an airing?
He also writes, on page 165 thatThe people that run the factories, design the cars, work in the canteens, do the admin, all that (I'm not an expert, who knows what they get up to), will own and run the company. Each region will be autonomous and fully self-supporting except in matters that affect other areas of the organisation or the planet or humanity as a whole. They can democratically elect a board from the workforce who will serve for a limited time period and be kicked off if they fuck about.
and (page 189-190) aboutin a devolved, collectivised, participatory democracy a small, self-determining constituency can nominate an accountable figure to act on their behalf.
I think these will be aims shared by even some of his severest critics here as well as by classic federalist anarchism.a federation autonomous, interconnected collectivities led by elected jurors from the community that followed a central edict built on respecting the way of life of others and ecological responsibility.
So, are we saying he's a Poundshop Julian Assange?
If he doesn't see class struggle as the way to socialism, he's not anarchist, communist or socialist. If he thinks it comes about through everyone being better people, he's pushing liberalism, radical liberalism is pretty common these days, intersectionalism fits right in there as does the media stunt "direct action" as a tactic (the tactic actually). Ukuncut probably the best example of a group following this general path.I thought you'd never ask .
Well, this is what he writes on page 237 of his book after saying about General Motors that "we could collectivise it as a worker-owned cooperative":
He also writes, on page 165 that
and (page 189-190) about I think these will be aims shared by even some of his severest critics here as well as by classic federalist anarchism.
He also agrees with the anarchist view that the way to get improvements under capitalism is through direct action rather than elections. And "utopian" because he envisages the sort of society he wants coming about not through class struggle (which he repudiates) but through convincing enough people of good will.
PS If you turn to page 165 of your copy of his book you will see that his definition of "liquid democracy" is not what you assumed.
lidl loopyIceland Icke.
I don't agree with your definitions of "anarchism" and "liberalism". Most anarchists accept that there have been and are people who want an anarchist (= no government) society but who reject the class struggle to get there. Tolstoy would be one example. But only some such people could be called "liberals" in wanting a free market economy with no government to intervene in it (eg the mutualists and the anarcho-capitalists). Brand does not stand for a free market economy but (reflecting the views of the people who have influenced him) for the same sort of anarcho-communist society advocated by Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin and by the AF in Britain. It is just that, unlike the AF, he doesn't see the revolution to bring this about as coming through a class struggle of the working class but through the struggle of all people of good will. Which is not the same as thinking "it comes about through everyone be(com)ing better people" though there is a element of this in his thinking. He's not just preaching "love" but also struggle (even if not class struggle).If he doesn't see class struggle as the way to socialism, he's not anarchist, communist or socialist. If he thinks it comes about through everyone being better people, he's pushing liberalism, radical liberalism is pretty common these days, intersectionalism fits right in there as does the media stunt "direct action" as a tactic (the tactic actually). Ukuncut probably the best example of a group following this general path.
To a certain extent he is, but I think his emphasis is rather on community than workplace struggles (not that he rejects these).Not sure it's utopian either, as he's laying out practical methods of the syndicalist type.
Even though he stood for a no-state society Morris was not an anarchist. In fact he specifically repudiated the anarchists of his day. He was in fact a Marxian socialist and openly said so. This is why the title of the current exhibition of his works in London is misleading. He can only be called "utopian" in the sense that he wrote a utopian novel about an ideal future socialist society (which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).Is William Morris utopian anarchism? That's who I thought of when I saw the phrase.
It baffles me that anyone thinks it could be achieved through any other method.(which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).
I thought you'd never ask .
Well, this is what he writes on page 237 of his book after saying about General Motors that "we could collectivise it as a worker-owned cooperative":
He also writes, on page 165 that
and (page 189-190) about I think these will be aims shared by even some of his severest critics here as well as by classic federalist anarchism.
He also agrees with the anarchist view that the way to get improvements under capitalism is through direct action rather than elections. And "utopian" because he envisages the sort of society he wants coming about not through class struggle (which he repudiates) but through convincing enough people of good will.
PS If you turn to page 165 of your copy of his book you will see that his definition of "liquid democracy" is not what you assumed.
“From a technological standpoint,” writes DeGraw, “we are ready for ‘Liquid Democracy’; with Liquid Democracy you can designate your vote on any issue to any person of your choice. For example, if there is an economic policy that is coming up for a vote, but you don’t understand the policy that well, you can give your vote to someone you trust who does understand the policy. With the level of technology that we now have, that’s a common-sense sensible political system that would provide a vibrant democracy and legitimately reflect the will of the people.”
Horrible objectifying here. "Imagine her head on a fat woman"
And he's friends with Paul McKenna.
It baffles me that anyone thinks it could be achieved through any other method.
That really is horrible stuff. His delivery is witty and fast, there's some predictable 'irony' in there if he wants to defend himself from accusations - but the bottom line is just plain, crude misogyny. Politically, there's a bit of me that isn't too worried that he's now focused on revolution, but at a personal level he's just a common or garden shit.
I don't agree with your definitions of "anarchism" and "liberalism". Most anarchists accept that there have been and are people who want an anarchist (= no government) society but who reject the class struggle to get there. Tolstoy would be one example. But only some such people could be called "liberals" in wanting a free market economy with no government to intervene in it (eg the mutualists and the anarcho-capitalists). Brand does not stand for a free market economy but (reflecting the views of the people who have influenced him) for the same sort of anarcho-communist society advocated by Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin and by the AF in Britain. It is just that, unlike the AF, he doesn't see the revolution to bring this about as coming through a class struggle of the working class but through the struggle of all people of good will. Which is not the same as thinking "it comes about through everyone be(com)ing better people" though there is a element of this in his thinking. He's not just preaching "love" but also struggle (even if not class struggle).
To a certain extent he is, but I think his emphasis is rather on community than workplace struggles (not that he rejects these).
Even though he stood for a no-state society Morris was not an anarchist. In fact he specifically repudiated the anarchists of his day. He was in fact a Marxian socialist and openly said so. This is why the title of the current exhibition of his works in London is misleading. He can only be called "utopian" in the sense that he wrote a utopian novel about an ideal future socialist society (which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).
Actually I agree with you that an economy of worker-owned co-operatives would not be socialist/communist but it's a popular anarchist view (even the mainstream view in Spain and France where anarcho-communism is not very popular and of the Maurice Brinton mentioned earlier on this thread whose books are not sold at Sainsburys while Brand's is) but Brand does not actually say whether or not a money economy (with markets and wage-labour) will continue to exist in the post-revolution society he envisages. I expect that like most anarchists he's confused on the point seeing whether or not to retain money as one option after the revolution.This is not anarchism as understood by Kropotkin, Bookchin and certainly not the AF.
I was using "utopian" in the sense Engels did in the title of his pamphlet Socialism Utopian and Scientific in which he labelled Robert Owen for instance as one for not seeing socialism as the outcome of the class struggle between the working class and the capitalist class.Utopian doesn't mean what you seem to think it does when used politically like this either ("convincing enough people of good will.") - it means people who build ideal societies of the future today rather than concentrating on the seeds of the new world in the shell of the old - i.e ongoing political activity dealing with current problems whose solution points to moving beyond current conditions rather than drawing up plans for lemonade seas. And this is why Morris was actually partially a utopianist too - given his many decades work on precisely such plans.
I don't like the term. I prefer "delegate democracy". But are you saying that nobody should ever vote for a delegate to act on their behalf? In that case, you really would be an anarchist but of the individualist variety. One of the reasons, incidentally, why Morris was opposed to anarchists in addition to their bomb-throwing.As for liquid democracy - the way Brand specifically uses it even more reactionary than bog standard classic democracy. It involves giving your vote (and he doesn't note the whole current electoral and economic system would have to largely remain in place) to someone that you trust more than yourself - i.e you can give/sell your vote to those more powerful than you
Yes I was pointing out that most people share the view that he is a hypocrite. I don't know whether it's true or not, but not many people here seem prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he's got an unsavoury past, dabbles in New Age mumbo-jumbo, and that the revolution doesn't need celebrity endorsement but I'm surprised at the hatred of the man shown by some here to the total exclusion of what he is trying to say about what's wrong with the world and the alternative even though they would probably agree with it.
I don't think he's funny either.
It doesn't really matter whether he's "sincere" or not.
It matters whether his involvement aids or damages.
The most damning thing is that quote on the cover of the Neil Strauss book because, yes, it makes what he says in that video look very insincere.
That's more like it. He must be having some effect, on ideas if not on actual struggles. Difficult to guage of course but utopian anarchist ideas are being given an airing they don't usually get.
I don't agree with your definitions of "anarchism" and "liberalism". Most anarchists accept that there have been and are people who want an anarchist (= no government) society but who reject the class struggle to get there. Tolstoy would be one example. But only some such people could be called "liberals" in wanting a free market economy with no government to intervene in it (eg the mutualists and the anarcho-capitalists). Brand does not stand for a free market economy but (reflecting the views of the people who have influenced him) for the same sort of anarcho-communist society advocated by Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin and by the AF in Britain. It is just that, unlike the AF, he doesn't see the revolution to bring this about as coming through a class struggle of the working class but through the struggle of all people of good will. Which is not the same as thinking "it comes about through everyone be(com)ing better people" though there is a element of this in his thinking. He's not just preaching "love" but also struggle (even if not class struggle).
To a certain extent he is, but I think his emphasis is rather on community than workplace struggles (not that he rejects these).
Even though he stood for a no-state society Morris was not an anarchist. In fact he specifically repudiated the anarchists of his day. He was in fact a Marxian socialist and openly said so. This is why the title of the current exhibition of his works in London is misleading. He can only be called "utopian" in the sense that he wrote a utopian novel about an ideal future socialist society (which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).
It baffles me that anyone thinks it could be achieved through any other method.
It's always nice when someone who isn't an anarchist tells anarchists about anarchism.
I still say, though, that the idea of the world being a federation of self-administering communities is a basic anarchist concept espoused by Kropotkin, Bookchin and the AF.
The "central edict" bit comes in to deal with the question of what happens if one of these self-administering communities wants to discriminate against women, gays or practice FGM. But that's a problem for those who argue that local or regional communities should have "autonomy".
I enjoyed Russell Brand vs Nigel Farage on Question Time the other night.
Brand was right to say it's the bankers and tax-dodging rich individuals and companies which are the main cause of our recession, not immigration like a lot of right-wing politicians and the right-wing media would have us believe.
However, it has to be acknowledged that immigration has its problems in some areas which are noticing the effects of it on public services, GP appointments, housing, schools and general integration.
It's not racist to flag up these concerns and want to deal with them, but it's frustrating how politicians like Farage are left to misrepresent, exaggerate and paint an inaccurate picture of the pros and cons of immigration. We don't hear enough about the positives and what the true cause of our financial mess is.
The blue haired woman who heckled .
She obviously equates ukip with the bnp which is a mistake as ukip's support is coming from a wide section of society who aren't all racists but who perceive mass immigration as something that has brought too much change too fast. The figures given on the show were a rise in population of 8 million in the last 25 years. It's probably more as millions of brits have moved abroad.
I expected more of a verbal punch up on Question Time so was a bit disappointed with the result. I thought the panel, despite the supposed heavy weights, wasn't up to much.
Who else in the UK could have been on instead of Brand to counter the right wingers on the show?
The blue haired woman who heckled made me angry when she interrupted an audience member in mid question by screaming "racist", trying to impose censorship on a question as if she had the right to do so. What's more typical is she didn't even listen to the context of the question before she knee jerked. She obviously equates ukip with the bnp which is a mistake as ukip's support is coming from a wide section of society who aren't all racists but who perceive mass immigration as something that has brought too much change too fast. The figures given on the show were a rise in population of 8 million in the last 25 years. It's probably more as millions of brits have moved abroad.
What (since we've started to discuss this) is it, then? Except for "general integration" these are all problems that are aggravated by any increase in population somewhere or by migration from one part of the British Isles to another. As also by capitalism not giving, and not being able to give, priority to services for the majority because its priority is profits and profit-making. This is conceding too much ground to the current anti-immigration hysteria.However, it has to be acknowledged that immigration has its problems in some areas which are noticing the effects of it on public services, GP appointments, housing, schools and general integration.
It's not racist to flag up these concerns and want to deal with them,
This might be the view of some here but it's not mine. I couldn't be more opposed to trotskyism/leninism/vanguardism.As opposed to being governed by a vanguard of members of political class who will construct a top-down apparatus that can enforce non-discrimination,, you mean?