[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For those who are anti-black racistsCheddar Man, the first modern Briton had “dark to black” skin, blue eyes and dark, curly hair.Although previous populations had settled in Britain long before his arrival, they were wiped out before him and he marked the start of continuous habitation on the island.Genetically, he belonged to a group of people known as the “Western Hunter-Gatherers”, Mesolithic-era individuals from Spain, Hungary and Luxembourg. His ancestors migrated to Europe from the Middle East after the Ice Age. Britain has been inhabited ever since and today about 10 per cent of White British people are descended from the group.“People define themselves by which country they’re from, and they assume that their ancestors were just like them. And then suddenly new research shows that we used to be a totally different people with a different genetic makeup.“People will be surprised, and maybe it will make immigrants feel a bit more involved in the story. And maybe it gets rid of the idea that you have to look a certain way to be from somewhere. We are all immigrants.”http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/cheddar-man-face-first-modern-briton-revealed-pioneering-research-natural-history-museum-alfons-a8198066.html

This announcement is just another example of the way that science – at least its public face – can be politicised and used by capitalism and other forces to influence and manipulate public opinion in support of mass immigration and imposed diversity.Actually, the finding dates back many years, and he was previously thought to have had "white" skin.  Now, apparently, he had "dark to black" skin, whatever that's supposed to mean.  What I am unclear about is why Alan Johstone thinks this makes us all immigrants.  First, if you accept the tenets of evolutionary theory (and by the way, I believe evolutionary theory to be fact), then even if primeval Britons were as black as coal that would prove nothing politically.  I surely need not elaborate as to why.  Second, there is an important difference between immigration and settlement.  Britain is not an immigrant society.  Viking settlors, for instance, who formed communities in what is now northern England, weren't checking-in at passport control and applying for visas.  They were not immigrants.  They were in any case white Europeans and closely-related to indigenous Britons.  This is quite different to the imposition of diversity in this country from the late 20th. century onwards, which has happened without the consent of workers.  I would also argue that it has happened without the consent of the migrants themselves and that by supporting mass immigration, Alan Johnstone supports a post-modern iteration of slavery that harms the working class and sows the seeds of class division.  The reason you don't see this is because your Marxian education has left you with a mental fixation on economism and hyper-mechanism.  Culture is a factor in human relations and cannot be ignored.I will offer a repetition of what I said previously.  Imposed systemisation never works.  Capitalism is not a system invented by sub-Saharan Africans and cannot work well for them.  Socialism, likewise, is a European system and can be seen as a condescension to peoples who, in my view, should simply be left alone to develop separately according to their own traits and characteristics.  The point here is that Alan Johnstone and the SPGB support mass immigration and imposed diversity, when it is a liberal capitalist agenda that destroys working class communities and harms the very people whose interests they claim to defend – not just sympathetic people in Third World countries, but people here in Britain who, when asked, state very frankly and forcefully that they don't want it.Why do you think you know what's best for everybody else?

[Ike Pettigrew]

If socialism can work – i.e. the democratic communalisation of resources resolves economic scarcity – then why would a socialist society need to engage in economic calculation at all?  

[Ike Pettigrew]

Thank you for the link.  I enjoyed reading that article.  Very interesting.

[Ike Pettigrew]

I think some of you – maybe all of you – are misunderstanding this type of objection to the socialist case.  Maybe that observation is unfair, as I appreciate this is a methodological discussion and for that purpose, you do have to take comments from the public at face value, but I think you may not be giving the ordinary public enough credit.Within socialism, I would have thought that "incentives" are utterly irrelevant.  Incentivisation reflects capitalistic thinking.  If we accept that the socialist argument is correct (or at least that socialism is possible), then in socialism there would be no need for incentives.  People in a socialist system would live within an entirely different framework of values, even a different cognitive linguistic framework, and though socialism would not be alien to us (and I do not mean to suggest it would be), people within socialism would think about these matters in a fundamentally different way. True, a socialist system is supposed to be entirely voluntary, and if a person does not wish to work, then there would be nobody to compel him, but that observation only scratches the surface.  We have to think hermeneutically about terms like 'voluntary', 'democracy' and 'compulsion'.  They would have a totally different meaning in a socialist or socialist-type society.  The obvious question from the ordinary person unaquainted with the socialist case is: "How will society function, if nobody wishes to work?" or "How will society function if nobody wishes to perform certain types of work?", etc., etc.The question is premised on what I would agree is an erroneous assumption about human nature: that people are inherently lazy, greedy, etc.  I agree that this does not hold.  I do think there is such a thing as human nature – this is one of the important points in which I differ from socialists – and I think human nature will make socialism difficult, but you are right on the point of immediate relevance: it is wrong to say that human nature is "lazy" or "greedy", since those things are clearly attributes that arise under specific social conditions, and the genetic attributes that cause these behaviours would be expressed differently in a different type of social system.  That's obvious.But what is really behind questions of this type is a scepticism based on the glibness of the case being put.  'Voluntary' in a socialist system would not have the meaning that it does under capitalism.  I believe in fact that the meanings of a lot of socio-political terminology would be inverted by socialism.  The word 'democracy' would come to bear a meaning that we might today associate with 'tyranny'.  Most people in socialism would not wish to participate in 'democracy'.  When ordinary people hear that socialism would be based on voluntary labour, this conjures up notions that are antithetical to work under capitalism, but employment under capitalism is voluntary, whereas 'voluntary' would either not exist in socialism because the underlying hermeneutic would be redundant, or it might exist to represent a rejection of socialism's totality in favour of a restoration of capitalist social relations.In short, making the socialist case means arguing outside the ken of most people and requires an entirely new language – in my opinion.

[Ike Pettigrew]

robbo203 wrote:

The party also  needs a  pamphlet directly dealing with the human nature argument because it is consistently the number 1 objection to socialism.  The "Are we prisoners of our genes" pamphlet  is good but does not deal with the argument directly in my view which break down into 3 basic assertions: –  human beings are inherently lazy-  human beings are inherently greedy-  human beings are inherently warlike and aggressive We need to deal with each of these claims once and for all – systematically and comprehensively – within a single publication And Vin, in answer to your tweeter, you could point out  that most work even under capitalism is UNPAID and the so called grey (non-monetary) economy is larger than the official white and unofficial black money economies combined in terms of hours worked 

No doubt you would accept that people can be lazy, greedy and warlike/aggressive; are you suggesting that these attributes – which you assume to be negative – are the result of capitalism alone?

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ alanjjohnstoneAs I understand it, the logic of the neo-Marxist methodology is that worker action through the industrial system – taking ownership, etc. – will lead to class action.  This of course bears strong similarities to anarchism.  I imagine they look on the SPGB's approach as quite naive, at best, and at worst, sterile and outdated – even 'reactionary', as the term would be used in this context.  Not that I agree with them, but I can understand why they might think that.  You, of course, would view them as reactionary. This is difficult for me, because I have to 'switch heads' to engage in a discussion about the internal politics of socialism and pseudo-socialism.  I agree that neo-Marxists are pseudo-socialists, but I can also see why they think you have misunderstood Marx.  Actually I think they are 'correct', within the framework of Marxian praxeology, to the extent that they believe in a methodology rooted in a telos of human social development, whereas the SPGB seems to have uprooted historical materialism somewhat by sustaining a purist methodology that might have merely arisen out of particular historical circumstances in the 'struggle'.Which is not to say you are 'wrong' or incorrect.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Bijou Drains wrote:

Ike What you seem to be saying is that under a Socialist Society there will be an organised form for the "Administration of things", Yes I think that all in the SPGB would agree with that.You also seem to be saying that in a Socialist Society there will not be "perfect harmony" on all issues and that human beings will have strong disagreements with each other. Yup, I think that's likely to happen, believe it or not it even happens within the hallowed ranks of the SPGB, we sometimes disagree with each other about issues as important as trellises.As a result of the above, you state that it is likely that some people who lose out on the democratic process will be disappointed and may have to go along with the majority decisions. Again can't see that anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this, some members of the Party had trellis related disappointments, such is life.Leading on from this, you are concerned that in a Socialist Society we will have to make some uncomfortable decision, for example ensuring that people with paranoid schizophrenia receive help and support in a way that keeps them and others safe, even if they don't want that help. Again, as long as there is democratic oversight of this, I have no concern, as long as the decision making system is open to question and the people that make these decisions are accountable.This seems to lead you to the conclusion that Socialism is not feasible because it will not create a paradise on earth where we all agree on absolutely everything and there is no conflict.

That is not how I reached my conclusion.  You are dishonestly characterising my tentative conclusions and the process by which I arrived at those conclusions; and, you are characterising my objections in childish terms, a classic dishonest debate tactic, in which you substitute your wording/verbalisation for what I actually have said.  Your verbalisation of my objections makes it seem like I am some sort of bright-eyed child who doesn't understand how the world works.  For instance, you say that I think socialism will not happen because it will not be a paradise on Earth, but I already know it will not be a paradise on Earth in the very best of circumstances and that was not how I phrased my objection and it is not the basis of my objection, as anybody who reads my posts can see.

Bijou Drains wrote:

Socialists do not propose a paradise on earth,

I have NEVER at any point said, implied, suggested, or inferred that socialists do propose a paradise on Earth.  I already know the socialist case. You have simply not read my posts!  You are arrogantly pretending to know what my objections are without actually taking the trouble to understand my objections.  Your actions are dehumanising and an attack on my dignity as a person.  You are showing that you have no respect for workers, you are in fact contemptuous of workers.  Instead, you just want to spout your programmed dogma, like a robot.  I have a right to assert my dignity and autonomy as an individual of conscience and intellect, to hold my own views, and to question your dogma and politely put forward objections, ideas, issues and problems.  

Bijou Drains wrote:

but a democratic system of common ownership of the means of production, which will overcome many of the difficulties created by capitalism. Could it be perfect? No. could it be better than the present shambolic, destructive, divisive system of society, I'm bloody sure it could

But my point (among others) is that these are just fine words, empty words.  My interest is in how things work in practice.You refer to a democratic system.  A demoratic system is not necessarily actually democratic in reality, and I would argue that yours will not be democratic at all.  In very basic terms, let's say hypothetically we have a society of three people.  If two of these people decide to outvote the other, that's not democracy as I would have it.  You think taking a vote is democracy.  That tells me you prioritise form over substance: you want the plastic badge that says 'Democracy' and that's enough.  But I would argue that to be truly democratic, a society must have strong minority protections.  Private property ownership exists partly to provide this protection.  As a minority of one, I can turn round and say: "Well it's my land, you can vote how you like, but you won't be crossing that fence and anybody who does will be shot."  That is an important element of what I consider democracy.

Bijou Drains wrote:

You also seem to think that for what I can only assume are genetic reasons that black people are incapable of creating a society based on private ownership, let alone common ownership,

What I have ACTUALLY said, if that is of any interest to you, is that there are different types of people in the world and that these different types of people should be allowed to run their own societies according to their own preferences.  I object to the imposition of systems on groups of people, be it capitalism or socialism or something else.  I also raised the possibility that both capitalism and socialism might not be suitable for black Africans, that they may be able to develop their own social systems or anti-systems, as the case may be.

Bijou Drains wrote:

from what I can gather this is based on the question of levels of IQ. Would you be willing to illucidate your thoughts on this, as I for one am a little confused on how you came to this conclusion.

I don't recall mentioning IQ in the relevant posts, but anyway, while we're on the subject, and since 'hard evidence' seems to be needed round here, could you provide me with some evidence for your Party's assertion that average IQ levels are the same for all geographic human groups?  Also, would you accept that if it could be proved that there are significant differences in average IQ levels, this might be relevant to the practicability of socialism, in the same way that it is relevant to the practicality of capitalism today?

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Note to moderator: It seems that Ike is a hypocrite as well as a racist. 

I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

'Commercial' and 'ideological' interests only apply to capitalism – can you give an example of such interests in the absence of capitalism?

Note to Moderator: I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  It's a point of principle. 

From someone who asserts that people with dark skins are biologically and intellectually inferior to Ike Pettigrew, I will wear that as a badge of honour.

I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  It's a point of principle. 

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

J Surman wrote:

Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

 I'm not a climate scientist, so I base my view on commentary I have read that says that the global warming thesis is wrong or exaggerated. 

So in other words you don't have a clue?

As a point of principle, I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  I would add that such people do nothing for the socialist case.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

J Surman wrote:

Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

 I'm not a climate scientist, so I base my view on commentary I have read that says that the global warming thesis is wrong or exaggerated.  I can certainly provide links to discussion of this, with further links and evidence: but surely you can use the search engines yourself.But my point was about the socialist case, not global warming specifically.  Even if I'm wrong and global warming is occurring as predicted in the climate change model, the concern still stands that your system entails no minority protection and therefore what you regard as democratic decisions aren't 'democratic' at all.

Let me add something to this, just for the abundance of clarity: I am not a climate scientist, and as far as I am aware, nobody else here is a professional climate scientist either.  If there is such a person among us, then please step forward and perhaps start a new thread on the topic, otherwise the point is that all of us are reliant on information we receive from others.  To ask me for hard evidence is a bit beside the point.  It's not as if I've just come back from an expedition to Antarctica and I can share with you my latest findings.  I'm not a practising scientist.  I can provide links to evidence that casts global warming and anthropogenic global warming into doubt, either on the basis that it is an exaggeration or that it isn't happening at all, but I assume you can all use search engines – and anyway, my point wasn't about global warming itself, that was just an example.

[Ike Pettigrew]

Vin wrote:

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

'Commercial' and 'ideological' interests only apply to capitalism – can you give an example of such interests in the absence of capitalism?

Note to Moderator: I will not engage in dialogue with bullies who repeatedly insult, belittle and abuse others.  It's a point of principle. 

[Ike Pettigrew]

J Surman wrote:

Could you please furnish us with hard evidence on this point?

 I'm not a climate scientist, so I base my view on commentary I have read that says that the global warming thesis is wrong or exaggerated.  I can certainly provide links to discussion of this, with further links and evidence: but surely you can use the search engines yourself.But my point was about the socialist case, not global warming specifically.  Even if I'm wrong and global warming is occurring as predicted in the climate change model, the concern still stands that your system entails no minority protection and therefore what you regard as democratic decisions aren't 'democratic' at all.

[Ike Pettigrew]

ALB wrote:

This article puts our position rather well:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawrence/one_world.htm

The link suggests an idealistic system in which it is assumed that different types of people will all work in harmony together for the common good of a construct known as 'humanity'.  I accept there are obvious situations where that should be expected to happen in reality: for instance, genuine planetary-wide threats.  But when it comes to more mundane matters (which will be 99.9% of the time), I am less convinced.  Dozens of questions come to mind: starting with, who defines what is the common good or the collective interest?  Or rather, how is that decided?  By votes, presumably – but then, doesn't that mean that the majority can outvote the minority?  Oh dear…On the subject of planetary-wide threats, until recently we were assured, verily I say with brass knobs on, that the planet was threatened by anthropogenic global warming and we should cut down on our carbon emissions, etc., and look sharp about it.  It now seems that there is no such threat, or at least, there is now serious doubt about the issue.  At the very least, the threat has been grossly exaggerated.  Of course, I appreciate that in socialism, the basis of this type of decision-making would be different – and probably better – but isn't the global warming fiasco an illustration of how scientific discussion can be corrupted not just by commercial interests, but also interests that are ideologically-driven?

[Ike Pettigrew]

@ Young Master SmeetYes, but this is just words on [virtual] paper.  My concern here is with what your ideas actually really mean and I think the point is conceded: in practice, socialism would be a statist society, albeit a soft state.  I realise that socialism is not a statist ideology, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise, and I also appreciate that the 'state' that would in reality exist in socialism may not be regarded as a state and it may not even be acknowledged as such, but that is what it would be.  Socialism may not be statist, but statism is the result of socialism when you think about it properly.  It's just of a soft state variety, comparable to what you would have under almost-all types of market-based anarchism.Of course, that in itself doesn't defeat your case, and if we accept your assumptions about human nature and behaviour, then it wouldn't be a significant issue.  Even somebody who loses the land that has been held in his family for decades or centuries probably won't care much, because in a system of common ownership he doesn't need to possess significant amounts of land, there's no economic benefit to him.But this, I repeat, rests on acceptance of your underlying assumptions about people.  I think these assumptions are wrong – the existence of capitalism is itself a clue to human nature – and I think in reality, socialism would either collapse or it would be reformed into something that is only a rough reflection of its pure form.  

[Author]

Posts