Sean Penn says that socialism is a humanist system

[MarxistMan]

Hello all, watch this interview of Sean Penn defending the socialist system



sNJ-qeyKffE





.

[Savage]

I don't think that liberal celebrities are the greatest ambassadors for any sort of leftist ideology.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah, because that's what we socialists should do, whenever a celebrity says Socialism is the way to go, we scream "Liberal!" at them. :rolleyes:

[Savage]

Yeah, because that's what we socialists should do, whenever a celebrity says Socialism is the way to go, we scream "Liberal!" at them. :rolleyes:
He's a self described 'Progressive Democrat' that supported Nader, and he makes millions of dollars per year. Sure he's going against the current supporting the bolivarians, but it got him as much publicity as a sex scandal or a nice shop lifting spree.

[Chambered Word]

Yeah, because that's what we socialists should do, whenever a celebrity says Socialism is the way to go, we scream "Liberal!" at them. :rolleyes:

Why are you always the first to heap praise onto figures who have anything remotely leftist to say? Last week it was Jimmy Carter, a ruling class figure who was once president of the United States, because he was critical about Israel.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can someone please take that graphic of Penn at 0:20 and make a Che-like stencil?

I joke. But really I don't really care about the actual progressive celebrities - they have a platform and are at least using it to do more than vapid twitters to be talked about on TMZ. People like Penn and Matt Damon helped expose people to Howard Zinn and so on, so it's positive IMO. And if society were radicalizing, I think some of these progressive celebs could be won over to a even more radical position - at least easier than many progressive writers and thinkers who may have professional or financial stakes in retaining more "sensible" or mainline progressive views.

I'd much rather politically hate on celebs like Bono or Clooney (who I actually enjoy as an actor) for their big-L Liberalism and neo-liberal or pro-imperialist "do-gooderism" than the handful of progressives that may not be totally politically coherent, but at least are aimed in the right direction. Penn's actions are kind of silly, but at least he is encouraging people to take up grassroots activism and rejects many of the "common-sense" consensus held by mainstream liberals and many progressives. While Bono hob-nobbs with Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton, Sean Penn is recruiting young people at the Coachella music festival to hop on a bus with him and go to New Orleans to help relief efforts. At least he's a celebrity do-gooder from below :D

Actually my biggest gripe with Penn is that he's so fucking serious all the time. I think it'd really help his image and help to shake the image of progressives as humorless people if he'd do "Fast-Times 2" or something. I'd love to see him do a comedy about that same character but now middle-aged: his character could have become a teacher, or maybe he's stuck in arrested development and is still the same. Either way, lighten up dude.

[Rakhmetov]

he makes millions of dollars per year.

Does me make those millions exploiting others????

[Amphictyonis]

Can someone please take that graphic of Penn at 0:20 and make a Che-like stencil?

I joke.

You started my day off with a laugh. Thanks.....I'm still giggling a bit. I wonder if he posed for that or if they just cut a profound look from video and freeze framed it?

[Savage]

Does me make those millions exploiting others????
well he represents investment capital, and is therefore a capitalist.

[Blackscare]

He's a self described 'Progressive Democrat' that supported Nader, and he makes millions of dollars per year. Sure he's going against the current supporting the bolivarians, but it got him as much publicity as a sex scandal or a nice shop lifting spree.

What you don't realize is, before we can worry about absolute correctness in political lines from this or that public figure (sean penn, no less :rolleyes:), we have to realize that we are struggling against the almost absolute intellectual and ideological hegemony of capitalism in this country. What is more important is that he is "thawing" the word socialism, making it more approachable and making our jobs easier.



Lets not whine about the fact that he isn't doing our jobs for us.

[Delenda Carthago]

Its been said that Penn's laugh cures cancer.

[erupt]

Besides the heavy liberalism to keep his many fans adorned, seemingly, Penn seems alright. I'm pretty sure I heard on Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations, that Penn's been in Haiti doing a lotta good work with the money he has, or some of it at least. :p

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oops

[Savage]

What is more important is that he is "thawing" the word socialism, making it more approachable and making our jobs easier.
Good point for those that support Chavez-esque regimes, for those of us that don't, this is no step forward.

[MarxistMan]

Indeed, some people need to be less dogmatic and not take leftist socialist philosophy as a strict religion, in which if you wear a Sarah Palin T-shirt or read an Aryn Rand book, you are a traitor of socialism. I think that leftists who think that supporting some of the actions of progressive democrats like watching the Michael Moore films, or supporting Cindy Sheehan or Sean Penn is wrong just because they are not a member of any anarchist, trotskist, marxist-leninist or communist current is wrong, are just being too obssesive, too dogmatic or too perfectionist or too psychorigid

.



What you don't realize is, before we can worry about absolute correctness in political lines from this or that public figure (sean penn, no less :rolleyes:), we have to realize that we are struggling against the almost absolute intellectual and ideological hegemony of capitalism in this country. What is more important is that he is "thawing" the word socialism, making it more approachable and making our jobs easier.



Lets not whine about the fact that he isn't doing our jobs for us.

[ZeroNowhere]

What you don't realize is, before we can worry about absolute correctness in political lines from this or that public figure (sean penn, no less :rolleyes:), we have to realize that we are struggling against the almost absolute intellectual and ideological hegemony of capitalism in this country. What is more important is that he is "thawing" the word socialism, making it more approachable and making our jobs easier.



Lets not whine about the fact that he isn't doing our jobs for us.
We don't have any such 'jobs', nor are we 'struggling' against any ideological hegemonies. In any case, one would think that associating socialism with a form of capitalism would be perpetuating this hegemony.

[S.Artesian]

We don't have any such 'jobs', nor are we 'struggling' against any ideological hegemonies. In any case, one would think that associating socialism with a form of capitalism would be perpetuating this hegemony.

Went through this same dreary "star-gazing" routine in the Wisconsin thread re Michael Moore's supposedly "great" speech, electrifying performance in Madison which was 2/3's nostalgia for FDRism-- "let's make America great by restoring great jobs with great wages so it will attract great entrepreneurs"-- and 1/3 Proudhonism, all in the service of getting out the 2012 vote for the Democrats.

Perhaps people don't realize that Michael Moore, and many like him, the celebrities of the liberal left, are closely associated with moveon.org. Moveon.org got its start during the Bush administration to move the anti-war protests from the street and into the voting booth for the benefit of the Democratic Party.

It reprised that function in the 2008 election for Obama.

That's what it's purpose is-- to canalize the independent movement of workers, students, poor, etc. back into the established structure of the Democratic Party.

Moore and others are critical to that strategy. Hence Moore showing up in Madison, talking about "making the rich pay their fair share." I kid you not. Those are his words.

When push comes to shove, and push has come to shove, Penn, Moore and others have nothing to offer except as a "left-cover" for the Democratic Party.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Went through this same dreary "star-gazing" routine in the Wisconsin thread re Michael Moore's supposedly "great" speech, electrifying performance in Madison which was 2/3's nostalgia for FDRism-- "let's make America great by restoring great jobs with great wages so it will attract great entrepreneurs"-- and 1/3 Proudhonism, all in the service of getting out the 2012 vote for the Democrats.

Perhaps people don't realize that Michael Moore, and many like him, the celebrities of the liberal left, are closely associated with moveon.org. Moveon.org got its start during the Bush administration to move the anti-war protests from the street and into the voting booth for the benefit of the Democratic Party.

It reprised that function in the 2008 election for Obama.

That's what it's purpose is-- to canalize the independent movement of workers, students, poor, etc. back into the established structure of the Democratic Party.

Moore and others are critical to that strategy. Hence Moore showing up in Madison, talking about "making the rich pay their fair share." I kid you not. Those are his words.

When push comes to shove, and push has come to shove, Penn, Moore and others have nothing to offer except as a "left-cover" for the Democratic Party.

Not to mention Michael Moore having an orgasm over Democrats skipping town. It was like a straight minute or two of "I'm so proud of those Democrats sticking it to the man".

[pierrotlefou]

I think it's a good sign that even self professed Nader voters are trying to defend socialism. People are talking about Socialism now and that's better than it has been for the past 30 years. You guys shouldn't hate so hard.

[PhoenixAsh]

Does me make those millions exploiting others????


wel...have you seen some of his films??????

/jk

[PhoenixAsh]

Good point for those that support Chavez-esque regimes, for those of us that don't, this is no step forward.

On the other hands...this isn't really about us.

...many who hear these messages are not even close to even that political position.

[RATM-Eubie]

Seems like on this website whenever someone in the "mainstream", "celebirty", or upper class person accepts something to the left whether it be socialist, or progressive and they come out in support or say so and so in support of it the majority of the people scream "oh he supported Nader" and he "is a capitalist because he is rich" or "he isnt radical enough", honestly people come on.... This is a step forward towards something good, we have someone in support, honestly stop trying to label everyone. Labels are what society gives us, who gives a shit if he isnt radical enough, its a step in the right direction.

[RadioRaheem84]

Seems like on this website whenever someone in the "mainstream", "celebirty", or upper class person accepts something to the left whether it be socialist, or progressive and they come out in support or say so and so in support of it the majority of the people scream "oh he supported Nader" and he "is a capitalist because he is rich" or "he isnt radical enough", honestly people come on.... This is a step forward towards something good, we have someone in support, honestly stop trying to label everyone. Labels are what society gives us, who gives a shit if he isnt radical enough, its a step in the right direction.

I think you miss the point. Most of the time when people like Penn defend socialism it's usually in a context of "give them airtime too". making it seem like we should also be included in the plurality of voices that make up a liberal democracy. In other words he is sort of presupposing the supremacy of liberal democracy in that it's supposed to include all voices ranging from socialist to right wing nuts, and that the nation is being hypocritical (which it is) when it doesn't include us in the process.

At least that is what I gathered from the interview. It seems (I am assuming) he lacks a understanding of how the State or class warfare really works and assumes that the major problem is "hypocrisy" or "special interest fear mongering".

Point is, while he may be a radical liberal borderline soc dem, his message is still one of reform.

I am not knocking it completely, but I think that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up on the basics of Marxism/Anarchism, just because we're desperate to feel included or receive recognition. It's not being dogmatic and I wish people on this forum would quit accusing others of it just because they don't jump on every progressive/liberal bandwagon with such enthusiasm.

[Drosophila]

I support Sean Penn for his support of Nader. More celebrities need to support their cause. Here's looking at you Matt Damon.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's not being dogmatic and I wish people on this forum would quit accusing others of it just because they don't jump on every progressive/liberal bandwagon with such enthusiasm.

well...as far as I experienced it...nothing short of all out denounciation and fillification left-democrats and liberals results in being branded a pro democrat cheer rallyer and false revolutionary who has psychological problems to boot.

Point out anything that is perhaps correct or good in a liberal's speech without also engaging in a thorough and expanded critique on liberals, left-democrats etc. and means you will be accused of all things above and eventually devolves to Marxist selfmasturbation on how everything about liberals is evil and wrong...and nothing..even the things that correspond to what we are saying is could ever be accepted and needs to be denounced.

So I do not share your experience...but both obstruct intelligent debate.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think it has more to do with the fact that liberals, when in power, either in positions of influence through the government, media or business have generally been anti-Red once they've achieved their objectives; namely consolidate power.

From the early progressive era to the the passing of the New Deal, liberals and leftists were really in a popular struggle against the right wing. But after Truman (and during as Truman was a Cold War liberal bastard) liberals were put in a position to prove their loyalty and since then they've been selling out leftists in order to keep from being red baited.

From sending comrades to jail, execution, COINTELPRO, Cold War, Hot War, purges. It's not at all unexpected for leftists to not trust liberals, especially when their back is thrust against the wall and they have to prove their loyalty to the nation.

Even when they say something that happens to coincide with what we say it still doesn't match up rhetorically. It would be like saying Buddhism and Christianity are one in the same because they both preached the Golden rule or love thy neighbor. Both had fundamentally different presuppositions when it came to the reasons for loving thy neighbor and had fundamentally different doctrines.

When we talk about equality, democracy and freedom, they're fundamentally different from what a liberal talks about even if some of the things they say appear on the surface to match what we are saying.

But as Chomsky said; their critique of society goes thus far but no further. Leading many liberals in academia, media, government to only agree on reform not total systemic change.

I surely do not denounce liberals or progressives for some of the great work they do, that is not the point. The point is that we can't see it as a be all to end all and expect to fall in line with what they say just because it has a familiar ring to it. They never look at it as them agreeing with us, they always look at it as us agreeing with them. They always make themselves appear as if they're the only ones right and socialists are just in a coalition of their movement based on their ideas.

Besides, most liberals (in the establishment, not the base) today are obsessed with finding market based solutions to problems these days and spend most of their time propping up NGOs and supporting charity initiatives in lieu of having the people direct their tax dollars to go to things they want to see improve in their communities making them their own agents of social change.

Liberals tend to believe in the sanctity of the established institutions and thus would eventually deem our views subversive and "extremist".

[RadioRaheem84]

Question: I assumed that Anarchists were supposed to be the most radical of the leftists tendencies but a lot sure seem quick to extend their hand out to liberals? Almost quicker than they would extend it out to Marxists. I assumed that this would be counter productive as many liberals tend to believe in the sanctity of established institutions and use it as a basis for their reformist ideals; i.e. the government/state is good but just needs tweeking?

[S.Artesian]

well...as far as I experienced it...nothing short of all out denounciation and fillification left-democrats and liberals results in being branded a pro democrat cheer rallyer and false revolutionary who has psychological problems to boot.

Point out anything that is perhaps correct or good in a liberal's speech without also engaging in a thorough and expanded critique on liberals, left-democrats etc. and means you will be accused of all things above and eventually devolves to Marxist selfmasturbation on how everything about liberals is evil and wrong...and nothing..even the things that correspond to what we are saying is could ever be accepted and needs to be denounced.

So I do not share your experience...but both obstruct intelligent debate.

Now, now, brand new forum, try not to introduce the same old distortions. What happened was that you made certain claims for big Michael Moore-- that he could introduce new and radical ideas to the workers, that he could move the workers in Madison to the "left," and when challenged on that you couldn't produce a single new idea supposedly introduced by Moore, nor could you give any evidence of him moving workers further left than they already are.

In fact, given Moore's ongoing, explicit support for "voting Democratic" and his overt populism, his ideas are somewhat to the right of where the workers are by the very nature of their actions.

[PhoenixAsh]

Now, now, brand new forum, try not to introduce the same old distortions. What happened was that you made certain claims for big Michael Moore-- that he could introduce new and radical ideas to the workers, that he could move the workers in Madison to the "left," and when challenged on that you couldn't produce a single new idea supposedly introduced by Moore, nor could you give any evidence of him moving workers further left than they already are.

In fact, given Moore's ongoing, explicit support for "voting Democratic" and his overt populism, his ideas are somewhat to the right of where the workers are by the very nature of their actions.

No what I said was that Michael Moores speech was more left than the democratic current position and practice...who most of the workers till vote for....and are more open towards listening to...ie. he has their ears; we do not.


And what I further actually said was some points of Moores speech correspond to ours and use these points as a starting point to explain the Marxist theory those workers who are still voting democrat and believing in the humane face of capitalism in order to revolutionize and radicalize them instead of outright denouncing the man the just cheered on.

But yeah...you indeed were the one who then proceeded to distort the entire discussion with baseles accusations of us cheering for Moore, voting democrat, and actually being cheerleaders for liberalism and being psychologically disturbed....because we offered no extensive denounciation brutal criticism of liberals...or at least not enough in your eyes.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think it has more to do with the fact that liberals, when in power, either in positions of influence through the government, media or business have generally been anti-Red once they've achieved their objectives; namely consolidate power.

From the early progressive era to the the passing of the New Deal, liberals and leftists were really in a popular struggle against the right wing. But after Truman (and during as Truman was a Cold War liberal bastard) liberals were put in a position to prove their loyalty and since then they've been selling out leftists in order to keep from being red baited.

From sending comrades to jail, execution, COINTELPRO, Cold War, Hot War, purges. It's not at all unexpected for leftists to not trust liberals, especially when their back is thrust against the wall and they have to prove their loyalty to the nation.

Even when they say something that happens to coincide with what we say it still doesn't match up rhetorically. It would be like saying Buddhism and Christianity are one in the same because they both preached the Golden rule or love thy neighbor. Both had fundamentally different presuppositions when it came to the reasons for loving thy neighbor and had fundamentally different doctrines.

When we talk about equality, democracy and freedom, they're fundamentally different from what a liberal talks about even if some of the things they say appear on the surface to match what we are saying.

But as Chomsky said; their critique of society goes thus far but no further. Leading many liberals in academia, media, government to only agree on reform not total systemic change.

I surely do not denounce liberals or progressives for some of the great work they do, that is not the point. The point is that we can't see it as a be all to end all and expect to fall in line with what they say just because it has a familiar ring to it. They never look at it as them agreeing with us, they always look at it as us agreeing with them. They always make themselves appear as if they're the only ones right and socialists are just in a coalition of their movement based on their ideas.

Besides, most liberals (in the establishment, not the base) today are obsessed with finding market based solutions to problems these days and spend most of their time propping up NGOs and supporting charity initiatives in lieu of having the people direct their tax dollars to go to things they want to see improve in their communities making them their own agents of social change.

Liberals tend to believe in the sanctity of the established institutions and thus would eventually deem our views subversive and "extremist".

O...I agree with what you are saying about liberals...problem is...most workers currently are liberals or republicans or democrats. Not socialists and not really completely apolitical either.

[PhoenixAsh]

Question: I assumed that Anarchists were supposed to be the most radical of the leftists tendencies but a lot sure seem quick to extend their hand out to liberals? Almost quicker than they would extend it out to Marxists. I assumed that this would be counter productive as many liberals tend to believe in the sanctity of established institutions and use it as a basis for their reformist ideals; i.e. the government/state is good but just needs tweeking?

Hmmm....you approach this from another position...we do not disagree with what you are saying there...nor do we even in the slightest agree with liberal politics or goals. But we do acknowledge that some things these liberals are saying corrsponds with what we are saying.

When you want to radicalize people you do not start throwing marxist rethorics at them and outright attacking what they believe.

You do that on your own turf and from your own organisations...and in the information you write, your literature and propaganda.

But when speaking to workers who are not at that political and economic level of awareness and really think Anarchism and Marxism are theories leading to brutal massmurdering dictatorships or social chaos...our messge does not come through....and when you want that to happen you do not criticise them outright and attack their core believes...but you start from what they know to be true which corresponds with our theories expand and argue towards them concluding Marxism from there.


>>

About radical left cooperation...that has in the past been a complete pipedream for Anarchists...Anarchists have been prosecuted and denounced just as much and perhaps more by the so called radical left fellow Marxists when they gained power as by the liberal and democratic left.

[DiaMat86]

Sean Pen's father Leo Penn was blacklisted from working in hollywood. That probably explains his left activism.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I love how some people on the left spend more time laying in to people who may possibly agree with them than hardened reactionaries. Do I think Sean Penn is a revolutionary socialist? No. Do I care if he is or not? Not particularly. Is it good to hear something favorable about socialism from a public figure (even if you have contextual or semantic qualms with it)? Yeah, I think so. I think one of the problems with people who spend too much time on this forum is that they only know how to argue with other leftists...

Talk about picking your battles guys...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Question: I assumed that Anarchists were supposed to be the most radical of the leftists tendencies but a lot sure seem quick to extend their hand out to liberals? Almost quicker than they would extend it out to Marxists. I assumed that this would be counter productive as many liberals tend to believe in the sanctity of established institutions and use it as a basis for their reformist ideals; i.e. the government/state is good but just needs tweeking?

That says a lot about spontaneism, fetishizing minorities, and glorifying the concept of "right" that both liberalism and anarchism (outside anarcho-syndicalism) share.


Hmmm....you approach this from another position...we do not disagree with what you are saying there...nor do we even in the slightest agree with liberal politics or goals. But we do acknowledge that some things these liberals are saying corrsponds with what we are saying.

When you want to radicalize people you do not start throwing marxist rethorics at them and outright attacking what they believe.

You do that on your own turf and from your own organisations...and in the information you write, your literature and propaganda.

But when speaking to workers who are not at that political and economic level of awareness and really think Anarchism and Marxism are theories leading to brutal massmurdering dictatorships or social chaos...our messge does not come through....and when you want that to happen you do not criticise them outright and attack their core believes...but you start from what they know to be true which corresponds with our theories expand and argue towards them concluding Marxism from there.

You and S. Artesian are coming from the wrong perspective. You can popularize class-strugglist left politics through liberalism, or you can popularize this through Populism. The former is the time-and-again failed strategy of anarchists, Academic Marxists, and fellow travellers. The latter led to mass worker-class party-movements in Europe.

[Geiseric]

Sean Penn was heavily influenced by Phil Ochs, a singer songwriter from the 60s so I almost completely understand his policies based on what he was influenced by.

[Jose Gracchus]

That says a lot about spontaneism, fetishizing minorities, and glorifying the concept of "right" that both liberalism and anarchism (outside anarcho-syndicalism) share.

How do you make that connection? What do you mean by "right"?


You and S. Artesian are coming from the wrong perspective. You can popularize class-strugglist left politics through liberalism, or you can popularize this through Populism. The former is the time-and-again failed strategy of anarchists, Academic Marxists, and fellow travellers. The latter led to mass worker-class party-movements in Europe.

Ah yes, the problem is we haven't found the right kind of marketing pablum for your left program; a little "family values" here, a little "traditional relationships" there, and a lot of reactionary BS that has no respect for the changing sexual and cultural dynamics and tendencies among working people (particularly First World workers) today.

[Le Socialiste]

Good point for those that support Chavez-esque regimes, for those of us that don't, this is no step forward.


I agree. While it certainly can be argued that Penn is "thawing" the word socialism, he is doing it from a position that praises and supports the Chavez government (I refuse to say regime). I find myself struggling with Chavez's style of governance, but then I find any top-down style of "democracy" difficult to stomach anyway. In my eyes, a government hostile to the U.S. doesn't necessarily translate into what I'd consider an ally. Chavez remains something of a social-democrat, and as such can only do so much in the way of "revolutionizing" the Venezualen public. Furthermore, his government is becoming increasingly authoritarian in terms of stifling dissent and expanding a program of statism. Penn's heart might be in the right place (I wouldn't know), and his political inclinations may or may not mirror Chavez's own - but the government currently in power in Venezuala shouldn't be considered the epitome of socialist achievement. It's respectable that Chavez has sought to better those who might not have been able to under more capitalist-friendly regimes, but his policies can only do so much in the way of revolutionary action. To truly mobilize the people, he should steadily seek the redistribution of political and economic power into the hands of the workers themselves. A government that cares for its citizens is all well and good, but it doesn't go far enough in furthering the struggle for emancipatory politics and social/class consciousness.

But then I've strayed too far from the topic at hand...we are talking about Sean Penn after all. I apologize. :p