[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do i hear the squawk of the Nazi parrot again?

Please keep these insults coming, so that others can draw their own conclusions.  It's all you have, as you lack arguments or even a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

Ah-ha! Not if one is dealing with a racial sub-species of the 'common toad', the 'infantile common toad', Latin name Hrothgar simpletonus all-whytus.A little known fact.

You think we are all 'black underneath' and related to Africans – that's what you have stated on here, no?  This shows a complete ignorance of, or failure to understand, the basic science, or worse still, it demonstrates a determination to distort, twist and ignore facts to suit your prejudices.  I am very sorry to be the one who corrects you.  You are very welcome to call me a simpleton or whatever else you can throw-up from the gutter.  Like Buick and Johnstone, I hope you fill this thread with your insults and childish inanities.  That level of response is all you have when confronted with facts that are inconvenient.  

[Hrothgar]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi Hrothgar, sorry you feel that way. You are right you owe nothing to anyone on this site and we are free to disagree. I was only trying to understand why you would make an insulting statement about laughing at children and grandchildren, mixing with Africans and Asians, from your words below. You are of course free to try to divert attention from your flaws, by labeling my use of your words as distortion. But you still wrote them, and still fail to explain them.

Where have I insulted you?  Nowhere.  So when you refer to an "insulting statement", you're attaching an interpretive value to a statement of mine and taking vicarious offence on behalf of others for your own purposes.  I think it's safe to say that is a typical low-brow tactic of anti-racists.  Now, why do they do that I wonder?  You mention nothing about the insults hurled at me by Messrs. Johnstone and Buick or the reference to "special needs" by LBird.  I only reluctantly mention that behaviour, as I recognise its didactic irrelevance.  Insultive or offensive statements do not affect the validity of any arguments made.  My objection in this case is to the obvious inability of my opponents to tolerate different ideas and perspectives and the readiness to resort to insults and distortions in lieu of any reasoned argument.You are also wrong when you suggest I have not explained myself.  I have already explained my comments, in the very post you are quoting from, but I will develop the point further here.  I believe race-mixing is dysgenic due to the mean average differences in fluid intelligence between racial populations, and for a number of other reasons which I won't labour.  It is also socially-harmful and actually makes a socialist society less likely.  If I find all that laughable, then it is a hollow laugh.  In truth, there is nothing funny about it.  What I do find funny is the tendency for certain people to closet themselves from the realities of human nature and preach to others about their behaviour while practising otherwise.  How many non-white members does the SPGB have?  None is my guess.  How many of you have married non-whites?  My guess is: very few of you, if any.  And if you haven't married a non-white person, why?  I am also aware that several of your prominent members live in comfortable, leafy, and very white areas.  I do find hypocrisy very funny, especially when it emanates from the pens and lips of the pious and self-righteous.  However, I am also sufficiently fair-minded to admit that the presence of hypocrisy – and it's certainly present here – does not invalidate your position.

SocialistPunk wrote:

I have never ever made any statement supporting any homogenous mixing of humans to satisfy some socialist communal agenda. In all my previous years in the party and watching from without, I have never heard a socialist from the SPGB make any such claims either. That is a view from someone who doesn't really understand our position.

I am familiar with the SPGB's arguments about socialism and its meaning and the SPGB's critique of capitalism.  You'll have to accept my word that I understand all of it and I agree with almost-all of it.  I have been reading your publications for years and I understand the anti-Leninist socialist current.  I also understand the SPGB's position on race matters and multi-culturalism.  My contention is that the two issues are linked.  You cannot be dismissive of race as a comparator and at the same time critique multi-culturalism as a force for capitalism.  I accept that neither you, nor the SPGB, supports multi-culturalism (mixed-racialism), but in this case the absence of support does not make for opposition.  In reality, you are supportive of these developments, or at least don't mind what is happening, which for all intents and purposes amounts to the same thing.  You believe (I think mistakenly) that a mixed-race society will assist you by evacuating the racial and ethnic basis of nation-states.  I disagree.  I think there is no helpful link between the two developments and I think your soft and passive adherence to anti-racism is little more than left-wing fetishism.  You haven't really thought-through these issues.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As a socialist it is my desire to see humans freed from the constraints of capitalism. If that ever happens then it will be up to the people to decide how they wish to live. In fact I can perceive the flourishing of cultural identities, that are now in danger of disappearing because of the pressures of capitalism. Perhaps then we would discover if people really want to mix only with others of similar skin colour.

In that case, we are in agreement on a large number of points.  The differences between us are that:-(i). I see racism/tribalism/nationalism [whatever terminology you care for] as a positive good that is worth preserving.  You dismiss these points as an irrelevancy for now, but you think social identities may arise again in some form in the future.  That's a little incoherent on your part.  These identities are either valid or not.  (ii). I believe any attempt to suppress tribal impulses is inherently undemocratic and repressive and cannot work.  I am not clear what you think about this, but my impression is that you think the repression is fine as long as it's European identity that is being suppressed.  If it's some non-white aboriginal identity, then I suspect you'd become quite righteous about the matter, without recognising your own inconsistency (i.e. hypocrisy).  Of course, you won't admit that on here, but we both know this kind of hypocrisy exists in abundance and it's surely not unreasonable for me to ascribe it to you and your colleagues.(iii). I believe that race is more than skin colour.  This is the most important difference between us.  Your (and the SPGB's position) is pseudo-scientific and would be laughed-at by most scientists.  Race is not simply a matter of skin colour.  That is just false.  My position is closer to the scientific mainstream, but not quite the same.  The mainstream position is that evidence for rigid racial types is conflicting, but evidence does exist in the form of racial patterning in the genome, and racial analysis is of some limited value and has practical applications.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As for me not wanting to debate, that was not my goal here. We obviously disagree on a number of things and may never reach a common ground. I could dig out counter research and you could do likewise and on and on etc. My goal was to see if you would be willing to explain your insulting statement.But you decline, fair enough.

I have now answered that twice, above and in a previous post.Regarding your point on the value of 'debate', the interesting thing is that if we both started a new thread on here and went over to JSTOR and what have you and dug out the research, you'd probably win the debate.  In fact, I'm sure you'd 'win' (if that's the right way to see a 'debate').  That's because the body of research on this subject is directed in a certain way that is socially-informed.  This assumes of course that you have some understanding of the science and that you are willing to make the necessary concession that racial types exist genomically.  However, even as the 'victor', you'd still have to acknowledge that what you're not able to do is contradict my core claims that: (a). race exists as a genomic and social reality; and, (b). despite the best efforts of capitalism, most people still align according to socio-racial categories.  These points are near-irrefutable and their significance defies anything else of substance you might throw at me (though I admit there is substance against aspects of my position).

SocialistPunk wrote:

As for the "silly" game, of matching the faces to racial groups. It is simply an exercise to show how outward appearance tells us little of who a person is.

Well, first I disagree that outward appearance tells us little of who a person is.  Outward appearance tells those who bother to look a great deal about us.  Of course: (i). it doesn't tell us everything; and (ii). we shouldn't be too hasty in our assumptions; and (iii). our observations may only yield information of a provisional nature.  But to say that outward appearance tells us "little" is as silly as the suggestion it tells us everything.  A moment's thought and a little human observation teaches us the value of outward judgements.  Much of human life is based on it and the world would – and will – be a poorer place if we stop judging each other in this way.  We will lose an important element of human communication and mutual understanding.  This is yet one more reason why race-mixing is a bad thing.  It leads to unpleasant societies in which groups become isolated and individuated and it undermines togetherness and understanding between people.

SocialistPunk wrote:

To know what "race" a person may belong to before we decide to engage with them would require showing one another a genetic passport, listing all physical characteristics. But some already do base such decisions on outward physical appearance that is so often flawed. The test/game demonstrates this in a simple way. But you seem to have missed the point. Again that is your choice.

I think you are failing to understand a fundamental point.  I am not suggesting that we should all go round checking what race everybody else is just in case they might have a 'black' great-grandfather.  I am not a purist on the point in any case (though I accept some people who are, roughly-speaking, on my side of this are much more purist) .  Frankly, I could not care if you have a distant non-white relative because I accept that, putting aside the scientific debate, as a superstructural category race is a construct.  What I am talking about is the kind of society we want to live in.  I think it is self-evident that most people want to live among their own kind.  Can you refute that assertion?  I doubt it, and I think you'd be a fool to try. And just going back to the 'test – it's flawed and silly because it is structured to reinforce the programmer's own a priori conclusions.  If you want me to explain that in more detail with worked examples, I will, but this is Sixth Form-level stuff.  The point is obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the landing page for the test.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As for your distortion about Tom Rogers just being shouted at. If you read TWC's last post on that thread, you will see that TWC made quite an effort to methodically unravel Tom's position. TWC did not shout or swear, yet Tom did not reply. Perhaps he did not like having his views scrutinised in such depth.

I'm not distorting things, but look, it's 10 against 1 here so there's no point in going backwards and forwards.  It's obvious that just because someone switches-off their computer, that doesn't mean they have 'lost' a debate.  TWC's points are incomprehensible and he was asked by Tom Rogers for clarification, which was never produced.

SocialistPunk wrote:

I ask once more, will you explain what is so amusing about people choosing to "mix with Africans and Asians"?

See above and previous post.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

We are not 'white' underneath, either, by the same logic. We're all the same human species.As for me 'not really knowing what I'm talking about', then we could be twins! Snap, comrade!

But that's ridiculous.  The lack of logic here is found in your reasoning, which, just to paraphrase you, is as follows:-Because some hominids probably originated in the geographic area now known as Africa that must mean we are all black underneath because, afterall, most people in today's Africa are black.  That's the infantile level on which you conduct this debate.  In fact, to call this 'reasoning' is an insult to the common toad.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

Notice the quick slippage into ad hominen for want of any meaningful response or rebuttal.Notice also the nasty reference to disabilities and the belief that this is humorous.What are you underneath?

Black! Just like you.It's not a 'skin colour', after all, is it, my confused friend!

We are not 'black' underneath, but I imply from this you think that because, in all probability, modern humans are descendent from humans who were in what is now called 'Africa' that this means we are all 'black' or 'African' in origin.  It doesn't.  It's just that you don't really know what you're talking about. 

[Hrothgar]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I think you owe this site an explanation as to what is so funny about people of different skin colour choosing to mix it up sexually.

I owe this site nothing.  I owe you nothing.  I have looked at your posts and your specialism is distorting other people's positions and winding people up.  You also like to throw in some foul language now and again.  Presumably you think it makes you look 'edgy'.  

SocialistPunk wrote:

All the genetic science in the world does not support the ideology of racism, I'm sure most genetic scientists would be appalled that their their work is used to justify segregation.

You are absolutely right.  Genetic science does not support racism.  All you need to do now is go back and find somewhere in this thread where I suggested it does.  Can you?  No, you can't, because I've not suggested that, either explicitly or implicitly.  What I have suggested is that genetic science may support the existence of races among human beings.  I think you'll find there is qualified support for that type of assertion among genetic scientists.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As I mentioned on the other thread, my partners best friend married a British guy of Afro-Caribbean descent, and they have a child. Is that funny? Is their wonderful son a biological corruption, to be laughed at?

No, I don't.  Now, I've answered your question, I'd like someone to explain why it is seen as OK for me to be insulted on here, and why it is OK for people on here to joke about disabilities.  Can you?Unlike people such as you, I don't personalise these issues and I don't ridicule and insult others just because I disagree with them.  I'll leave those tactics to you and your friends on here.  There are quite a few of you on here aren't there, by the way?  About eight of you on my case now.  Gosh, does it really take that many?What I do find laughable is the abandonment of a genetic line and a racial identity that, for the most part, has existed for thousands of years, as if it just amounts to nothing.  It isn't just 'nothing'.  But mine is a hollow laugh, because in truth it's deeply disturbing how people devalue indigenous identities.  What I also find disturbing is the idea that we should ignore evidence that suggests that other cultures are civilisationally inferior and begin race-mixing, thus reducing the quality of our gene pool – in short, a programme of dysgenics – in the name of some specious interpretation of 'equality'.  What I further find disturbing is that we should be encouraged to abandon these identities and become a mixed-racial mass of consumers or workers.  That is not a future I want.  I think we should be allowed to live in societies that have real solidarity and in which individuals are entitled to make more informed decisions about who they mix with.  You characterise this as 'racism', using the term as a pejorative.  I characterise this as self-determination.  If people want to move outside the group and mix with other racial groups, that's one thing, but I oppose the idea that mixing should be propagandised and promoted as a good in itself.  I think there are good social reasons why human beings are tribal.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As it stands now Hrothgar, you come across as a racial supremacist. That may not be the actual truth, I'm hopeful you are not, but the above quote of yours is a very crude departure from your use of science to justify segregation and is essentially the heart of the matter with racial supremacists. Socially driven fear and dislike of others who outwardly appear different.

You make use of dysphemisms to characterise my position.  I could just as easily say that I am a 'racial sovereigntist', in that I believe all of humanity's cultural groups should enjoy self-determination.  Is that a nicer word for you?  In any case, I am not, politically-speaking, a supremacist but you're using 'supremacism' as a dirty word when in fact all living creatures are supremacist.  Really, all you're doing is throwing slogans at me.  I could combat it by using 'nicer' words and try to finesse you, but what would be the point?  Your insertion of the word 'supremacist', just like the use of the word 'racist', is designed to distract attention.  Specifically, you don't want people to see that you don't have an argument.  That doesn't mean I am right or correct.  The absence of a coherent and informed argument from your side does not prove I am right.  I could still be wrong and you could still be right.  Or, we could both be wrong.  Or we could both be right in some way.  Or, any combination of these, but the root of the matter is that history shows human beings are tribal and there is scientific support for the existence of racial types among human beings.  You and your friends have done nothing to disprove this.  There is also a political case for racial determination due to the benefits of homogenous cultures.  That is a political position arguable either way.  

SocialistPunk wrote:

As to the idea that Tom Rogers rang rings around us on a previous thread, he failed to answer the invitation to do the test that Ed provided and TWC unraveled his science very effectively, so effectively he failed to reply.

This is not true.  I think you are more occupied with trying to insult and 'shout' at others and declare yourself the 'victor' in online altercations than in actually understanding other people's positions.  If you wish to impoverish yourself that way, that's your choice.  Looking at this from the sidelines, it seems to me that Tom Rogers was perfectly civil and replied to all of the points put to him.  If he departed the discussion, that is not an acknowledgement of the strength of any argument put to him.  He may just have been sick of your hysterical and insultive manner.  I am growing reluctant myself to return to this thread, as it's becoming unpleasant.  I hoped for a grown-up discussion with intelligent people, but instead I have encountered a foul-mouthed rabble of closed-minded people.

SocialistPunk wrote:

I do not have the energy at the moment to get bogged down with a debate that will ultimately just go back and forth, with nothing to be gained by anyone, but I do think we may get somewhere if you could explain your above comment and maybe try the test: let us know your result.

You must realise that's a silly comment.  If you don't want to debate, then why are you posting here?  You're just acting like a five year old.  Wouldn't it be easier on you and everyone else if you just ignore this thread?  And I've already explained why the 'test' is silly.

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

having reviewed the thread you've linked to, it looks to me like he was running rings round you

If you think he ran rings about us, I challenge you do to the same test we asked him to do but which he ran away from:

Ed wrote:

`Hi Tom would you be willing to try out this quick game it's designed to help people see the ridiculousness of race.Downloadable version (better)http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/guess-my-race/Online versionhttp://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_01-sort.htm

Let us know how you got on.

The 'game' or 'test' is ridiculous and thoroughly disingenuous.  It does not present racial categories and is deliberately designed to confuse people and, in doing so, undermine any sense of racial identity in the minds of the suggestible.  How did I get on?  The game is as feeble and childish as your 'arguments'.

[Hrothgar]

gnome wrote:

We've been here before, fairly recently in fact.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/race-gender-and-classHrothgar sounds suspiciously like Tom Rogers…  

Who?  I don't know anyone by that name, but having reviewed the thread you've linked to, it looks to me like he was running rings round you and you had to resort to insulting him, as you do here with me.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'll leave Hrothgar to comrades, like you, who have more patience. Might be worth persevering with, y'never know!

Hrothgar wrote:

But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians. Please proceed. Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter].

ALB wrote:

You're a nasty shit underneath, aren't you?

LOL!!! Looks like I got you wrong, ALB!Look, it's clear that Hrothgar has 'issues', which is why I've left them to it.You, though, are going to have to display the characteristics of a 'special needs' teacher, if you're going to continue engaging with Hroth. I don't envy your job, ALB!Patience and understanding, comrade.

Notice the quick slippage into ad hominen for want of any meaningful response or rebuttal.Notice also the nasty reference to disabilities and the belief that this is humorous.What are you underneath?

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians.  Please proceed.  Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter]. 

You're a nasty shit underneath, aren't you? What's laughable about somebody wanting to mix with whoever they choose?

Insults are of course the highest form of argument.  I suggest you continue with the ad hominen tactics.  It suits you, and it helps others of a more objective frame of mind understand the depth of your understanding.What I'm getting at with the above comment is that I realise and understand the white European race is finished.  The way forward isn't 'cattle trucks' and 'gas chambers' and it never was, and I would never condone such atrocities.  The answer is the formation of autonomous communities.People are welcome to mix with whoever they choose.  That's not laughable, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[Hrothgar]

Some of this is just emotional ranting, but you've gone to the trouble of posting, so I'll give you a response.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

My unusual lack of tolerance and expressed ire is that I find it tiresome to argue with a "scientific" racism. As I indicated earlier i have engaged in pointless debates with some who camouflage their bigotry and prejudice under the cloak of libertarianism.

Perhaps I ought to say here that I am not a libertarian.  I also deny that I am trying to camouflage my bigotry and prejudice.  I admit I am a bigot and prejudiced.  I am not trying to hide it.  It needn't follow that I am unintelligent or unenlightened or that my arguments are lacking in validity or potency.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Without disparaging my comrades, I no longer have the patience to indulge your charade of objectivity and your ever so reasonableness replies. I see through your act.

I think you are just making yourself look pompous and rather silly.  First, I am entitled to my views.  If you don't like them, you needn't respond.  It's your choice.  There's no need to turn this into some kind of melodrama.  Second, there is no charade here.  I have opinions on this subject and I do not claim objectivity.  The same applies to you.  My 'reasonableness' is an elementary courtesy I extend to yourself and others, since you have taken the trouble to reply to my comments.  Besides, nothing is to be gained by abuse and 'shouting'.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If people do want to cite genetic differences, they need to explain why genetic differences seem to be larger within races rather than between races.  

I'll be very glad to.  What you are repeating here is true, but the interpretation is fallacious.  It's what genome researchers call 'Lewontin's fallacy'.  The term arises from the flawed pseudo-scientific work of a Harvard biologist, Richard Lewontin, who argued that human racial classification has no genomic or taxonomic significance due to the incidence of percentage-based genetic diversity across different racial populations, as per your comment above.  Part of the fallacy with this has already been explained.  In genomic research, tiny percentage differences have opened the way for unscientific or inexact rhetoric about 'sameness' across different special or sub-special categories, but that is just a social or political position.  In scientific terms, the tiny differences can add up to a great deal.  The reason for this is that comparative commonalities in the base structures of DNA do not necessarily translate into the gene product.  Much depends on how the DNA sequences are distributed into the genome, and this in turn means that huge differentiation is ascribable to tiny percentage differences in sequential comparators.  So the point is that "percentage difference" is not a relevant comparison, in either direction: whether in reference to similarity or dissimilarity, convergence or variation.  As an example, the difference between male and female is, at present, believed to be down to just one gene, yet the percentage differences among females or among males is very signficant, yet no-one argues, in either direction, that the sexes exist as an essential biological reality.  Any argument that uses percentage differences (in either direction) as its crux should be seen as highly-suspect and is a non sequitur. It is, likewise, true that there is significant percentage-based genetic diversity within the white population, but the mistake that Lewontin made was in relying, simplistically, on percentage convergence/divergence without taking into account how genetic diversity is distributed within populations and the patterns that develop, especially the way that genetic information clusters in each population, which creates a firm predictability.  In other words, there is a discernible racial patterning in the genetic information between different racial populations.All of which is quite apart from a central problem with Lewontin's work, which is how he ever managed to perform his analysis without identifying (and thus tacitly acknowledging) the existence of discrete racial groups in the first place.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We are all one species. We are all humans. We have all been evolving for the same length of time. We are all one species, Homo sapiens, with one shared genome. A species can be defined as a group of organisms that are biologically similar enough to breed and generate viable progeny. Humans of every "race", nationality, ethnicity, religion, skin pigmentation, hair style, diet preference, etc., can, and do!, successfully interbreed and generate viable progeny.  Thus, barriers that distinguish human groups—whether we rightly or wrongly refer to such groupings in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, political party, etc.—are unquestionably socially-significant, however they are biologically insignificant

Whether racial differences are "biologically insignificant" is a political decision, but in using this phraseology, you imply that there are biological differences between different human groups.  You just think we should ignore these differences and all live together.  The question is what degree of significance does society attach to group differences.  If group 'A' is significantly less intelligent on average than group 'B', should the members of  'B' breed with members of 'A' in order to integrate so that we can all be "Jock Tamson's children"?   Or should we acknowledge that there are differences and allow each group its separate development, perhaps with some inter-breeding at the margins?  Actually, I am inclined to accept the main thrust of your logic here, but none of it means that we should all be forced to live together or that mixing is a good thing.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"Scientific" racism is anything but scientific. It is bias dressed up.

All science is biased to an extent, especially at its theoretical margins.  The Big Bang theory is really just the Creation Myth tarted-up with scientific jargon.  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You claim tribalism (read racism) is hardwired into us by genetics. But the tribalism of catholic and protestant in Northern Ireland or parts of Scotland (intermarriage etc) cannot be put down to a religious DNA.

This is incoherent.  One of my central points is that human beings have tribal impulses.  Almost everything you have said in this thread so far has lent support to that assertion, including the above paragraph.  But I am not saying there is a 'religious DNA'.  It is very possible that religious faith, especially of the fanatical kind, is an evolutionary response, but that point isn't germane to this discussion.  History shows that human beings are tribal.  You've just provided us with another example.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Species that are genetically uniform are more likely to be plagued by parasites that need to evolve only a single strategy to capitalize on their host’s genetically-unvarying vulnerabilities. Species with wider variation in their gene pools present multiple challenges to parasites, bacteria and viruses. Indeed, it is possible that it was only due to crucial variations in the human gene pool that Homo sapiens avoided extinction at the hands of the Black Death or other near-extinction crises.

Now you're clutching at straws.  Is there significant genetic variation within racial groups or not?  Earlier you were reminding us how such variation is greater within than across different racial groups.  I agree this is the case, and the white race in particular has huge genetic variation, which rather defeats your point.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You won't be impressed by such arguments, you will side step them, and you will continue to seek justifications for your pre-judged attiitudes when it comes to the colour . pigment, shade of someones skin. For you,  it is Blood and Honour.

Not at all.  As you can see, I am taking a great deal of trouble here to answer all of your points.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the claims,  of any pseudo-scientist, we find correct statements jumbled up with half-truths and total inaccuracies, and we are never able tell which is which; once a pseudo-scientist gets the bit between his teeth everything is interpreted in a single-minded and simple-minded fashion and what doesn't fit gets swept away out of sight.

This is of course true of any fraudulent and flawed form of scientific inquiry.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

No, you haven’t understood: that’s precisely the point I’m making. ‘Race’ is not ‘a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute’, it’s an entirely ideological and historical social construct.

Wait a minute, hold on – you're now jumping from one point to another.  You clearly think that race is just a matter of skin colour and that, in part, is the basis for your dismissal of race as a concept of signficance.  You then use this as a basis for holding that race is entirely a social construct.  That's a view to which you are entitled, but you can't jump from one point to the other without accepting that I will want to examine the basis of your thinking.  Race is not just a matter of skin colour – this is demonstrated scientifically – and that being the case, the notion that it is merely a social construct is not valid.

LBird wrote:

You’re getting with the program, now, mate! It’s ‘ideological’, as you admit.

No, I admit that racism (or racialism) is ideological.  You're just not reading my statement, or to be more precise, you're reading into what I say what you want to read.

LBird wrote:

Ahh, you’ve reverted again, Hrothgar! ‘Validity’ is part of ideology, not an ‘objective’ or ahistoric concept. ‘Racial ideology’ determines ‘racial validity’. So, holding this ideology, as you accept that you do, is a ‘commentary on its validity’.

There is only one truth.  There may be different ways of interpreting or assessing the truth, but the fact remains there is one truth and one truth only.  'Validity' in any perspective depends on its proximity to the truth.  The more objective we approach an incident or problem, the more truthful our analysis or conclusions are likely to be, and thus the more valid.  Objectivity cannot be decoupled from social values, admittedly, but we can achieve a large degree of objectivity using the right methods.  I accept that racism is a biased and ideological position, but whether I favour racial diversity is of no consequence to whether there are races.  The former is an entirely normative position; the latter is a matter for objective inquiry.

LBird wrote:

Now, you can see that only from a racialist perspective can it be seen as ‘no commentary on its validity’. From a Communist ideological perspective, what it’s used for is entirely relevant to deciding upon its ‘validity’. So, for workers, ‘racialism’ is ‘invalid’.

Not really.  See my comments above.

LBird wrote:

Well, this illuminates your ideological preferences, Hrothgar!Since you’re not a proletarian, you’ll clearly see the world from the viewpoint of an ‘individual’ who can ‘freely choose’ their ideological beliefs. You just happen to choose racialism, don’t you?In fact, you can’t see the social structures, especially those involving exploitation, because the socio-economic position of a ‘self-employed professional’ blinds you to social realities.

This is a bit patronising, isn't it?  You are making lots of assumptions about me which you cannot possibly know to be true.  I have been a worker and I am the son of blue collar manual workers.  I have studied the SPGB's version of socialism and I largely agree with it.  I certainly do see the social structures.

LBird wrote:

Of course it does, mate! The employers’ act of dividing workers is what maintains the possibility of your individual productive reality: without that, you’d be with us, all working together to achieve common goals. You wouldn’t be ‘self-employed’, you’d be ‘socially active’, like the rest of us.Being thoughtful, you can see the reality of ‘capitalist class discrimination’, but you haven’t linked that into how it affects all of us, including you. The difference to us is that, in some sense, you benefit indirectly from that discrimination which divides workers, so it makes ‘rational sense’ from your socio-economic position to support an ideology that divides workers. If we unite and triumph, your ‘self-employed professional’ role will be obsolete within social production.

I am not arguing for the continuation of capitalism.  In fact, I am an anti-capitalist.

LBird wrote:

This is obviously untrue, to anyone with eyes, in the modern world. ‘Racial groups’, as you define them, live intertwined everywhere on this planet.You’re allowing your ideological blinkers to ‘blind’ you now, Hrothgar, into making rash statements which can’t be supported!

Again, the observational evidence is clear.  I live in society, just like you do.  I can see the truth about human behaviour with my own eyes.

LBird wrote:

Well, let’s see if you’re ‘rational’ then. Racialism is irrational, by any reasoned judgement, as we’ve shown on this thread. Do you have an ‘open mind’, or are you a pre-existing ‘racialist’?We’re ‘close minded Communists’, by the way, Hrothgar! We don’t pretend to be ‘free-thinking’ individuals. We situate our ideas in an historical, socio-economic and political context.

Nobody's demonstrated anything of the kind in this thread.  These are just empty assertions of yours.

LBird wrote:

I won’t continue with the rest of your quote from (a) to (i), Hrothgar, to spare you your blushes!

Then we can conclude that you don't have a response.  If you did, then I doubt you would 'spare my blushes'.

LBird wrote:

It’s an entirely ahistorical and apolitical list, which ignores economic production and its material, cultural and ideological attributes.

No it isn't.  You're just using the words 'ahistorical' and 'apolitical' because you think it makes you look clever or superior.  You don't actually know what the words mean and you don't realise how silly and inarticulate it makes you look to use such sweeping terms about someone else's arguments.  None of my argument is either 'ahistorical' or 'apolitical'.  It's literal nonsense to say it is, since each point is drawn from historical or political observation.  What you're really trying to say here is that my points don't agree with your analysis.  That's fine, but it's not an argument.  I understand and largely agree with historical materialism, but there is more than one mode of analysis open to us.  It's possible to look at historical events in different and complementary ways.

LBird wrote:

For example, after WW2, the ‘Black Caribbean’ workers who came to Britain shared a common language, religion, history, political tradition and, indeed, Queen! By any ‘cultural’ measure, they were identical to ‘white British’ workers. But ‘racialists’ seems to prefer to welcome ‘white’ eastern Europeans, like Ukrainians, for example, who just happened to be ‘white’, but were from an entirely different culture. Also, the SS membership of some was often overlooked, even though ‘we’ had just fought a war against ‘them’. So much for ‘tribes’, ‘genes’ and ‘kinship’, eh?.

This is entirely a matter of perspective.  Black Caribbeans are of a different racial identity.  The elements of 'culture' that they share with us are superficial and civic in nature and largely imposed on them, just as they were imposed on us.

LBird wrote:

No, it’s all about the class ideology of ‘racialism’.We’re workers here, Hrothgar, and we don’t share your ideological beliefs.And as we look around our society, it seems not many others do, either, whether they’re class conscious Communists or common-or-garden ‘British’. In fact, ‘Britishness’ now means a ‘multi-racial’ identity, to all intents and purposes.Are you ‘anti-British’, Hrothgar?Perhaps I should say ‘anti-21st-century-British’, because the ‘racialist’ ideology you espouse belongs in the long dead past.Let’s hope ‘rational arguments’ have some affect on you, now.

I certainly am anti-British as I do not regard it as a racial identity.  But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians.  Please proceed.  Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter].  I do agree with you that my views are an ever-diminishing minority.  That, however, speaks nothing as to the general truth of my views, just as the fact you are a tiny grouplet says nothing about the correctness of your analysis of capitalism.

[Hrothgar]

jondwhite wrote:

So basically Strasserite?

No.

[Hrothgar]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

What are your views then. You don't support Hitler do you?If you do support Hitler then you are a state capitalist as Hitler had vast amounts more material wealth then the overwhelming majority of the german population.Sorry I hope this is not an intimidating question, just interested in what exactly your views are.

It's interesting that you raise the topic of 'Hitler'.  It would be like me asking if you 'support Stalin'.  You would, understandably, think me clumsy as support for Stalin has little to do with support for socialism.More importantly, Hitler is dead, and given he is dead, it is rather difficult for me to 'support' him.  I cannot 'support' Hitler anymore than I can support Napoleon or Attila the Hun or Caesar or Alexander The Great.  Thus, and to give your question the fullest consideration, it follows that the cults of 'Hitlerism' and 'neo-Nazism' are ridiculous.You are right that Hitler was – essentially – a capitalist.  I am not sure if 'state capitalist' is an accurate term as he allowed private business and he was well-disposed to capitalism.  He promoted a distinction between what might be called 'Jewish international capitalism' and a more nationalist form of capitalism.  His brand of National Socialism was 'moderate', reformist, conservative and reactionary.  The term 'Socialism' was part-propaganda and also partly a reference to the Romanticist notion of symbiotic relations in society up and down the social order.My own position is syncretic.  There isn't really a proper term for it, but you could say I am a Revolutionary National Socialist.  I do not support the continuation of the existing nation-states in Europe.  I believe that racial communities can exist and prosper on autonomous lines.  I believe in a co-operative form of social and economic organisation.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

But, Hrothgar, ‘inheritable differences’ include all sorts of attributes, including ‘ear size’ and ‘uneven teeth’. Why select ‘skin colour’ for special consideration?

Race is not merely a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute, so your point here is a non-point.

LBird wrote:

No, this issue is nothing to do with ‘genes’ or biological traits of any sort.It’s simply an ideological issue.

Of course it's ideological.  Socialism is also an ideology.  Science, too, has ideological underpinnings, and to an extent, serves the political and social objects of the time.However, the ideological nature of an idea or perspective is not, in itself, any commentary on its validity.

LBird wrote:

To be a ‘racialist’ is to be burdened by an outdated ideology, which has no meaning other than as a political aim to separate workers from each other.The origins of this ‘racial ideology’ come from a class that has property and steals from those it employs to do the work, and wishes to ‘divide and rule’ those it exploits, so that they remain separated and thus weak.

This is all true.  Racialism has been and is used to divide workers, but again, that is no commentary on its validity.  It is still true that there are races and there are important differences between racial groups.

LBird wrote:

Are you an owner of a business, Hrothgar?If not, you don’t ‘hold a rational position’. You are an ‘irrational’ proletarian.If you do own a firm, and steal from your employees, then it’s also entirely ‘rational’ to point out to those workers that they have different sized ears, some have crooked teeth, and some are black and others white. Any 'division' will do.

I am neither.  I am a self-employed professional.I agree with the classical Marxist critique of capitalism (allowing for some inevitable archaisms in Marx and Engel's analysis given the era in which they wrote), and I also happen to agree with your comments here about how capitalists manipulate workers using 'identity politics' in the workplace: be it sexism or racism or whatever else.  However, if I were an employer, it is unlikely that I would seek to divide and rule in the workplace by subtlely infusing some National Socialist ideology into the induction procedure.  I think discrimination is used to serve the interests of the capitalist class and employers generally.  That has little or nothing to do with my beliefs.  People live in separate racial groups as a matter of course.  It doesn't follow that workers cannot and will not recognise common economic interests across national and cultural lines. I accept that national allegiance can act as an inhibitor, but much depends on the circumstances.  

LBird wrote:

'Rationality' is related to class position.

Only?  I would say that rationality is the state of mind of being open to reasoned argument.  A reasoned argument can be made as follows:-(a). history shows us that regardless of economic modalities, people will still divide along tribal lines in some way; (b). the most natural division among human beings (and many other mammals) is according to genetic closeness and kinship; (c). it follows that racial groupings evolve to reflect geographic proximity and sexual selection;(d). these racial groupings will develop their own 'culture', i.e. distinct laws, customs and traditions of social and political organisation, as a reflection of their shared consciousness;(e). most people will become attached socially, financially and emotionally to their kin groups, of which 'racial groups' are an extension;(f). the existence and preservation of these 'racial groups' (races) is positive and beneficial for humanity in that it promotes diversity;(g). to denounce those who believe in racial preservation as 'racist' or 'stupid', etc., is irrational as it ignores the reasoned basis for the existence and preservation of racial groups and that they exist for a purpose; (h). any attempt to eradicate distinctive racial groups is, by its very nature, oppressive and wrong – even dangerous;(i). but most of all, it is futile because history shows people will always seek to divide and sub-divide socially and distinctive racial groups will evolve again.

[Author]

Posts