The Religion word

[Anonymous]

Recently rediscovered this exquisite statement by Marx.  Pretty much draws a line under the discussion on this thread."The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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 behavior 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!

I think we would all admit that we could be doing better but I don't think that the problem is the policy on religion and any argument for changing it should be based on theory not whether we would attract 10 more members. The fact is ALL political parties of all stripes have been hemorrhaging members for the last 10 years. People just don't join parties at the moment. And it's not about our politics as I'm sure you'll appreciate knowing the non-socialist view so well the fact that there is no clear distinction between us and any other political party for the uninformed. Now if the number of members were important we could of course use the SWP style of fabricating our membership they claim 7,500 but have about 1,200 due paying members. If we are generous and say that 50% of their membership have their dues waived but are active then their actual membership would stand at around 2,800. Now considering that they basically occupy the position of old labour compared to the socialist position which takes an actual shift in a person's political consciousness and a rejection of capitalism. I think if you compare the two we're not doing that bad.The faults with the party are more organizational than theorhetical in my opinion. For example from what I've heard the media department has been almost non-operational for a few years now and currently only has one member assigned to it. Now it's not that comrades fault, it's an immense job, too much for any one person. But the media department should be our largest and most active department with quite a few members sharing the work load. So who's fault is it? It's members like me who don't put in the work on committees, and perhaps, just perhaps socialists like you and Robbo who leave the party and then complain that not enough is being done. If you want more to be done and you want to see progress and want change the only way to do that is from the inside with your voice, your vote and your own action. Not from the side lines. The fact is that not enough comrades put themselves forward for these important positions so not enough gets done. If we want the party to grow then that's where we need to start not with changing our principles.I'm not sure if you've had the chance to view the schedule for the Autumn delegate meeting but there's some great proposals put forward about how to spread the party message more effectively, (not talking about mine) but about creating a film or even hiring a public relations company to assess where we could change to promote a better image. Maybe you won't like any of the ideas presented but if you've got better let's hear them.

[jondwhite]

I'm afraid I don't think we all think we could be doing better. I think we could, but have encountered views that it is a case exclusively of economic circumstances. Or obliviousness to our propaganda presentation under the cover of the primacy of our ideas which would fail Marketing 101.Robbo's right that there's a theoretical case that – though the SPGB are more materialist than anyone else, there's a lack of materialism about their own traditional approach.However I don't think religion is the problem, rather the religious adherance to the efficacy of the approach of propaganda through debates, leafleting etc. More effective attractive propaganda (through the same mediums as SPGB e.g. magazines, meetings, summer schools etc.) is a big reason why the SWP is larger – **not** for admitting religious people – though some jettisoning of principles in favour of Old Labour populism ("We hate Tories" etc.) is a factor too.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I remember putting this to the North East branch not long before I left.

What was it you put to the North East branch? Was it a criticism of our policy or simply of our methods of putting it across?There may only be 300 members in the Party, but decisions as to what we say and do are made democratically and can only be changed democratically.  In trying to change our policy on admitting people with religious views Robbo was on to a non-starter (not made any more likely to succeed by the rather abrasive and aggressive approach he adopted). The membership have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected this. It's just not going to happen.The one about socialism being a moral or ethical issue as well as a class issue is more evenly balanced. Some members have been arguing this since the 1950s and, for a few months in 2010, it was even the Party's adopted position. So that could well change. But only democratically.In either case, adopting what is the minority position is not a bar to membership. It also depends on how important you think the issue is compared with putting over the basic case for socialism. Robbo obviously thought the religion issue so important as to resign from the Party and campaign against us over it. That's his prerogative and an indication of his priorities.If your criticism is only of how we operate this an open question and there is a wide range of opinion in the Party over this. Once again, though, things can only be changed democratically (though as we are not a centralised top-down party there is already plenty of room for branches and even individuals to do what they think best.) That's the way we work. In any event, those who want us to try something different will have a better chance of convincing a majority of us if they are already one of the members.

[Anonymous]

 

socialist punk wrote:

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!

If you had put this to the North East Branch when I was a member, I would have agreed with you! I was always looking for new ways to make the party grow! I am still listening now

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

In trying to change our policy on admitting people with religious views Robbo was on to a non-starter (not made any more likely to succeed by the rather abrasive and aggressive approach he adopted). The membership have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected this. It's just not going to happen.

I'm sure that, strictly speaking, ALB is right here, but I can't help thinking that he's overly harsh on Robbo, who to my mind has been as much sinned against as sinner. Robbo has many years of experience within the Party and yes, no doubt, his frustrations understandably come to the fore every now and then. But the reaction he gets perhaps indicates that his points hit home more than some would like to acknowledge.ALB is no doubt correct in saying that there's no chance of over-turning the SPGB position on the matter, although it's sometimes hard to tell what the Party thinks given that up to two-thirds of members don't bother voting on Party matters. (Symptomatic of Party-alienation, at the very least).

Quote:

It also depends on how important you think the issue is compared with putting over the basic case for socialism. Robbo obviously thought the religion issue so important as to resign from the Party and campaign against us over it. That's his prerogative and an indication of his priorities.

However, as he's pointed out, the religion question is *not* in itself the main issue he has with the Party, but it's symptomatic of other issues.Still, and rather belatedly for me on the religion issue, here's my 2p worth -Robbo was never trying to claim that a religious world view is comparable – let alone superior – to a socialist one. He was referring to the Party recruiting people *as socialists*, and *not* as religious people. In other words, accepting into membership those socialists who agree with the object and D.o.P.; who agree to abide by the Party rule book and our various procedures; and who satisfactorily answer all the membership questionnaire, (other than the religion question). Such people are socialists, but we don't let them in. That's what annoyed Robbo; that's what he regards as irrational on our part.

[Anonymous]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

ALB wrote:

In trying to change our policy on admitting people with religious views Robbo was on to a non-starter (not made any more likely to succeed by the rather abrasive and aggressive approach he adopted). The membership have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected this. It's just not going to happen.

I'm sure that, strictly speaking, ALB is right here, but I can't help thinking that he's overly harsh on Robbo, who to my mind has been as much sinned against as sinner. Robbo has many years of experience within the Party and yes, no doubt, his frustrations understandably come to the fore every now and then. But the reaction he gets perhaps indicates that his points hit home more than some would like to acknowledge.

Huh? How exactly has Robin Cox been "sinned" against?  He's been 'on our case' for over 25 years now and has always been completely free to put forward his arguments as to why the party, in his opinion, is wrong on a number of counts.  Anyone who doubts this should refer to "Critiques of the Party" in the Spintcom files section where Guildford Branch (more accurately, Cox) put forward their economic gradualist argument as the road to socialism back in 1987.  A number of comrades at the time, amongst them Steve Coleman, Pieter Lawrence and Adam Buick, responded in great detail to these views which included the advocacy of the LETS scheme and co-operatives as a means to advance the socialist revolution. For a flavour of the debate at the time and for those who do not subscribe to Spintcom see below:-http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/19536http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/18704When all is said and done what lies at the bottom of all these criticisms, whether from Cox or from others on this forum, is a sense of frustration with the slow growth of socialist ideas. An erroneous thought process may be encapsulated thus: Failure of the working class to attain socialist consciousness + Socialist party been around since 1904 = Something wrong with the party's case and/or its methods.

[jondwhite]

With regard to "Something wrong with the party's case and/or its methods", contrary to the attitude of some determinists there absolutely is room for improvement by dispensing with traditional approaches but not in a non-materialist direction for liquidationist reasons.

[Anonymous]

 If Robin or any other socialist goes off to join any of the other parties calling themselves 'socialist' they will not be debating 'religion', or 'why are we not growing?', they will be arguing about what socialism actually is and how it has nothing to do with state capitalism etc. The fact is, he SPGB is the only party that stands for socialism. 

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Huh? How exactly has Robin Cox been "sinned" against?

Hi Gnome,My comment was referring to Adam's point about Robin's approach being "rather abrasive and aggressive" on this thread – I thought he gave as good as he got, all part of the rough and tumble.You say

gnome wrote:

"He's been 'on our case' for over 25 years now and has always been completely free to put forward his arguments as to why the party, in his opinion, is wrong on a number of counts."

Yes, of course, and I would like to stress that many of those years was as a Party member – all fair enough and again part of the ebb and flow of debate and Party life. What I object to is any implication that somehow Robin has pursued a vendetta against the Party, as though his arguments – whether right or wrong – can therefore be more easily dismissed.

gnome wrote:

"When all is said and done what lies at the bottom of all these criticisms, whether from Cox or from others on this forum, is a sense of frustration with the slow growth of socialist ideas. "An erroneous thought process may be encapsulated thus: Failure of the working class to attain socialist consciousness + Socialist party been around since 1904 = Something wrong with the party's case and/or its methods." 

Yeah, I'm aware of the pitfalls of that possibility, but it ain't always necessarily so; there is also the possibility that the Party may not be perfect and has got some things wrong…  (Heaven forfend ) Hence Robin and sundry critics, internal and external, er, criticise…In other words there is the opposite danger that the Party dismisses criticism on these grounds alone. Another pitfall to be avoided.

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

With regard to "Something wrong with the party's case and/or its methods", contrary to the attitude of some determinists there absolutely is room for improvement by dispensing with traditional approaches but not in a non-materialist direction for liquidationist reasons.

OK, fine; put some meat on dem barebones.  Entice us.[quote-pfbcarlisle]What I object to is any implication that somehow Robin has pursued a vendetta against the Party, as though his arguments – whether right or wrong – can therefore be more easily dismissed.[/quote]Who's suggested any such thing?  However, if they had, they might well have a point, considering Cox has been carping and harping for much of 25 years.  And what does it all boil down to?  Support for LETS schemes, co-operatives and allowing religious nutters into the party.  Dunno about you but I can easily dismiss all of those options and expose them for what they are.  No sweat.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

[quote-pfbcarlisle] What I object to is any implication that somehow Robin has pursued a vendetta against the Party, as though his arguments – whether right or wrong – can therefore be more easily dismissed.

Who's suggested any such thing?[/quote]Okay, well the implication of some of the criticisms I've seen of Robbo's posts are that he has no substance to his points, and that somehow he is acting out of vindictiveness to the Party. This is my  impression, but if you don't get this impression then c'est la vie…And now in a spirit of mild mischief (and a wee bit of irony) I quote

gnome wrote:

"Cox has been carping and harping for much of 25 years"

Hmm, somehow you forgot to mention… 'and promoting socialism to all comers, be they hostile or interested observers' – see his efforts on RevLeft, for example.

gnome wrote:

"Support for LETS schemes, co-operatives and allowing religious nutters into the party."

Oh crikey! Sounds grim, doesn't it   But who on earth has suggested that 'religious nutters' be allowed in to the Party? No one I know of. Robbo has spoken here only of admitting socialists. I hope you don't regard your branch's active sympathiser as a 'religious nutter'!

[Anonymous]

[quote-pfbcarlisle]

gnome wrote:

And now in a spirit of mild mischief (and a wee bit of irony) I quote"Cox has been carping and harping for much of 25 years"

Hmm, somehow you forgot to mention… 'and promoting socialism to all comers, be they hostile or interested observers' – see his efforts on RevLeft, for example.[/quote]Well. actually I didn't forget; see an earlier post on this thread:-http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/religion-word?page=16#comment-2782

Quote:

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.

pfbcarlisle wrote:

gnome wrote:

"Support for LETS schemes, co-operatives and allowing religious nutters into the party."

Oh crikey! Sounds grim, doesn't it   But who on earth has suggested that 'religious nutters' be allowed in to the Party? No one I know of. Robbo has spoken here only of admitting socialists. I hope you don't regard your branch's active sympathiser as a 'religious nutter'!

In my book 'never the twain shall meet' and the active sympathiser to whom you refer knows full well what I and fellow-branch members think.  But she has a broad back………….

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

With regard to "Something wrong with the party's case and/or its methods", contrary to the attitude of some determinists there absolutely is room for improvement by dispensing with traditional approaches but not in a non-materialist direction for liquidationist reasons.

OK, fine; put some meat on dem barebones.  Entice us.

I don't think there is anything wrong with any activities we are doing at the minute, only that we need to do more of it. I think an area where the party has not been so strong has been in embracing the Web 2.0 era, social media and online video etc.But myself and comrades have put many hours of sweat and tears into learning to how to do these things, hence the (not so) new website. And as we read there is a group working on making short films.So in short I think our problems lie not in a shortage of ideas but in a shortage of people to put in the hard work necessary to see them put real.Also I don't see what this question has to do with the determinist / libertarian debate and I don't know what 'liquididationist reasons' are!?I was going to say some stuff about ethics but I think everyone's probably sick of that one. But there's some good stuff in the book 'Language, Truth and Logic'

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Well. actually I didn't forget; see an earlier post on this thread:-

Quote:

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.

Ah right – graciously put, for the most part … Worth half a thumbs-up   

[Author]

Posts