The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Does that mean you accept the human weakness of morality? If only I could write that in the style of a Dalek.Joking to one side. I notice you use the term "correct decision". The basis of morality is making decisions between what is considered right (correct) and wrong (incorrect) with regards to behaviour.So I suppose your "correct decision" could be viewed as moral.
I have already covered this ANY decision can be described as moral…..even a correct one. However it does not mean that a correct judgement is true or false because it is described as moral. Describing a true statement as moral neither negates or validates it……because morality doesn't mean anything except perhaps as an endorsement from the person describing it as moral.
SocialistPunk wrote:Can you imagine many people objecting to defend themselves, being torn between what is moral and what is correct?Most definitely YES.
Ed wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Can you imagine many people objecting to defend themselves, being torn between what is moral and what is correct?Most definitely YES.
Are you serious?We're not talking about religious pacifists here, I'm using SPGB logic, the socialist revolution will be made up of a majority of class conscious atheists. Maybe you were unaware of that one?Your saying that you think class conscious socialists would refuse to defend themselves if attacked by a minority of capitalists hell bent on resisting democratic change?
zundap wrote:The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.Let me ask you this Robin, you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?The problem, Danny, lies not with the concept of morality but your understanding of it – and that of a number of other comrades here. In rejecting the concept they don't understand what they are rejecting. They are rejecting a caricature. It's very simple really. Morality is about one's motives. Whether a moral decision makes you happy or unhappy does not in any way alter its nature as a moral decision. Such a decision is motivated by a concern for the wellbeing of other individuals – whether they be your family, your class, humanity as a whole – and by the belief that these others have value in themselves and are not simply a means to your own selfish ends. Morality by its very nature is "other oriented" What you are doing and others here are engaging in is what the moral philosopher James Rachels calls the egoistic strategy of "redefining motives". Everything is made to appear as if it is motivated by self interest. Someone who dives into the sea to save a drowning child is only motivated by the praise that others will heap on him. This is manifestly false. Do you you care for your family? Of course you do. Why do you care for them? Because they are the means and instruments to enable your happiness to be realised? . Stop for a moment and try and figure out how deeply insulting such a view is for the people concerned. If you were truly "amoral", which I know you are not, you would be saying that members of your family only matter insofar as they advance your own happiness Is this what you believe? Surely not
Actually, Socialist Punk, Party opinion is more evenly divided on this issue of morality than over letting religious people in. A couple of years ago we had a big set-piece debate on this. Conference 2010 passed the following resolution:
Quote:Socialism is both scientific and ethical (For: 64. Against 52)A Party Poll of all the members then carried this resolution:
Quote:That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism is one of class interest not one of morality'. (Yes: 81. No: 39)I'm not sure why none of those who voted for the Conference Resolution and against its rescindment have intervened in this debate.In any event, two separate debates seem to be going on here. One about whether morality exists. The other about whether or not socialism is a moral issue. I think the reluctance of a majority of Party members to endorse the view that socialism is a moral issue (even as well as a class issue) can be explained by the fact that we see the working class as the agent for the establishment of socialism so the socialist appeal is directed at them on the grounds that it is in their material class interest. If socialism is seen as a moral issue then the agent would become simply people of good will and we would cease to be, or no longer need to be, a class-based party.Ironically those here who are arguing that socialism is in a person's self-interest are also making a non-class appeal (as it could be argued that socialism is in the self-interest of everybody, including the owning class).As to whether morality or ethics exists, I don't like the words myself but I can't see how it can be denied that in socialism (which will be a classless society with an overall common social interest) there will still be choices to be made and some of these will involve invoking general principles whatever you call them.
steve colborn wrote:To have a violent revolution is not immoral, it is just irrational. When a majority of workers want, understand and work to bring about Socialism it will happen. Remember the members of Capitalisms coercive arms are workers themselves, their families are. Do you imagine class ideas will pass them by? Leave no trace on their minds! To posit this is, irrational in itself.Can you answer that contradiction between immorality and irrationality ED?LOL I love how you start this with a subjective statement presented as fact.""To have a violent revolution is not immoral."Well to some people it is. Unless you deny that some people find violence immoral? Some people find violence so immoral, including violence against property, that they will actually use violence to stop violence. Remember the peace police in the occupy movement?The question you should be asking is does class consciousness manifest itself rationally and free of idealism? My answer to this would be clearly not. I think religious people can be class conscious, I think many anarchists are class conscious but not necessarily materialists I'm sure you can think of more examples.
Ed wrote:If they are idealists then they may stay faithful to their ideals.How utterly futile and void of any meaning to the debate. I could just as easily state, if they are psychopaths they will relish the bloodshed, and on and on, back and forth, blah, blah, blah.I wasn't going to bother with this any further, but the reason I jumped into the discussion was to try and bring peoples attention to what it looks like to non socialists.The party looks like a ridiculous historical caricature, stuck in the past, using outdated language and references. From a non socialist perspective the party looks dogmatic, tired and lost in the 21st century.When I left the party some ten years ago, the internet was taking off. You would expect, due to the nature of the internet, (its global communication possibilities, millions of surfers seeking answers to all sorts of issues, random encounter possibilities, imaginative uses etc) that the party would have grown somewhat. I wouldn't expect it to be big by any means but I would expect it to have more members now than when I left ten years ago?Instead it has 332 members. Less if I am not mistaken?Why?The party is on its knees, at this rate the end won't be far off.It saddens me.
It saddens me to Punk, it really does. Reminds me of the 80's when comrade Pat Maratty was on radio phone-ins everyday. Asked the party for help towards the cost, left high and dry.I followed on regardless. Got loads of air time for the parties case, got very little backing from the party.
SocialistPunk wrote:Ed wrote:If they are idealists then they may stay faithful to their ideals.How utterly futile and void of any meaning to the debate. I could just as easily state, if they are psychopaths they will relish the bloodshed, and on and on, back and forth, blah, blah, blah.I wasn't going to bother with this any further, but the reason I jumped into the discussion was to try and bring peoples attention to what it looks like to non socialists.The party looks like a ridiculous historical caricature, stuck in the past, using outdated language and references. From a non socialist perspective the party looks dogmatic, tired and lost in the 21st century.When I left the party some ten years ago, the internet was taking off. You would expect, due to the nature of the internet, (its global communication possibilities, millions of surfers seeking answers to all sorts of issues, random encounter possibilities, imaginative uses etc) that the party would have grown somewhat. I wouldn't expect it to be big by any means but I would expect it to have more members now than when I left ten years ago?Instead it has 332 members. Less if I am not mistaken?Why?The party is on its knees, at this rate the end won't be far off.It saddens me.
It saddens me too, SocialistPunk.Reading the contributions of some members on the list , i fear your words might well prove prophetic. The words, "ostrich", "head" and "sand" spontaneously spring to mind.After this brief dalliance with this forum, I am now more and more coming to the pessimistic conclusion that the SPGB will never ever change. It will stick stubbornly, rigidly, tenaciously and, above all, utterly irrationally to its ultra-conservatism and its laughable pretence to be …what is it ?…a "scientific socialist" organisation, as its heads slowly but inexorably towards the exit door of history. A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB. Oh Boy! Never the SPGB! There is just no point in thinking things could be done differently because "by definition" the SPGB is always right. There are none so blind who do not want to seeSo the SPGB will, I'm afraid, go the way its kindred spirits in the Ashbourne Court Group – only it will take a little while longer and, in the meantime, there is the tempting distraction of all that lovely legacy lolly to fritter away on utterly pointless gestures getting exactly nowhere. They will never ever want to look at themselves straight in the mirror and ask – "how hell did we get it so badly wrong?. If our approach is so correct why are we hemorrhaging members like water through sieve. Why is the working class showing not the slightest hint of ever being interested?". A turnout of 5 members and 2 visitors on a wet Wednesday night in Manchester or Glasgow to listen to a talk about the labour theory of value does not constitute evidence of such an interest. What an incredible waste that after 108 years it should come to this. I too cannot see it lasting much longer. In ten years time the SPGB's numbers will probably be halved again. The pity of it all is that there are some good people in the SPGB . I just hope their emotional ties with the organisation won't drag them down into the pit of political disillusionment as they see the organisation fall apart and disappear – not so much with a bang as a whimper, only to be reincarnated as an obscure footnote in some forthcoming academic book on 20th century politics For my part, I've had enough of this and the snotty carping comments from the SPGB's very own Praetorian Guard mustering under it tatty banner and trying to keep its flickering flame still burning even if it means having to improvise with a cigarette lighter. Sod 'em. I say. They will be relieved that i shall be leaving the forum but then that relief will most assuredly be mutual. Sheesh! What the hell was I ever thinking of, fondly imagining the SPGB could change. "Free at last! Free at last!", as Mr King once eloquently put it
NO,NO,NO, robbo203, your's was the voice of reason, you can not go. You are a teacher, the party needs more like you.Let the bough bend, don't break.
robbo203 wrote:For my part, I've had enough of this and the snotty carping comments from the SPGB's very own Praetorian Guard mustering under it tatty banner and trying to keep its flickering flame still burning even if it means having to improvise with a cigarette lighter. Sod 'em. I say. They will be relieved that i shall be leaving the forum but then that relief will most assuredly be mutual. Sheesh! What the hell was I ever thinking of, fondly imagining the SPGB could change. "Free at last! Free at last!", as Mr King once eloquently put itSo Mr know-it-all has finally decided to throw in the towel as far as the pathetic SPGB is concerned. He should know full well that an abstract concept has no concrete entity of its own; the sum total (the party) being only as real (and as good) as the constituent parts (its members). The rest is happenstance.As one door closes, another opens, as they say. Now he can concentrate on getting the Spanish socialist party off the ground at long last. Let's hope the workers there are more tolerant of his pious pontifications than some of us mere mortals on this forum. Plenty of religious material to work on that's for sure.
A pleasant send off for Robbo, well done!Here is something Gnome said about Robbo earlier in this thread, the emphasis is mine.
gnome wrote:It's just a bit of tongue-in-cheek banter, northern light. I've known Robin (robbo203) for over 30 years; nice bloke really but takes himself far too seriously
He's been, and still is, one of the SPGB's most ardent critics, both when he was a member and since, but at the same time one of its staunchest defenders, warding off constant attacks, particularly from those on the 'left'. He possesses the rather irritating tendency of giving the impression that he alone is the purveyor of all perceived wisdom who has to have the very last word on a particular topic, yet despite having been in Spain for some eight years we still look forward to the emergence of a genuine socialist party.Anyway, must go now as I'm off to Canterbury with some fellow-comrades to carry out some 'abstract propagandism'.I suspect he is a critic of the SPGB because he cares about the party and can see, unlike some, where the party is going wrong.The party is the same as when I left.I just wish some of the other, hopefully more balanced, socialists will see the need to make an appearance. Maybe then the party may be able to break away from its outdated image.I still find it hard to grasp that the SPGB membership is so low in this digital age of global communication.
robbo203 wrote:A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB.I remember putting this to the North East branch not long before I left. Blank stares are all I got in return. I would refer to such a blank reaction as institutionalized thinking. An inability to step outside the framework of accepted rules and behaviour and so being unable to see what the problem looks like from a fresh perspective. Inevitably the reaction to those who can step outside the structure and air their findings is negative, there will ensue a closing of ranks until the annoyance is neutralized. The initial dust will settle and business as usual continues.A scientific approach would be constant searching, testing and updating to find a formula that works, not repeating the same approach over and over again in the hope it will work.Again I appeal to other voices to make themselves heard. The decline can be reversed.Feel free to criticize, snipe, discuss, nit pick etc. It may eventually lead to progress. Hopefully!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.