[Richard]

Dear Comrades,I admit my guilt before the Party. I admit that I have waged a struggle against the Party, against Socialism and against the proletariat.  I have used every weapon known to me: open discussion, free thought, the introduction of new ideas and many other reprehensible activities.I admit that I am guilty of sins against the Party, of being an organizer of anti-Party thought and of being a traitor to the Proletariat. My political outlook was tainted by bourgeois ideology and I have failed the Party in every way imaginable.The Party's generosity is not unlimited. There are no arguments which I can use in my defence. I cannot atone for my monstrous crimes, for my failure in my struggle to obey Party doctrine.Sincerely,Comrade Richard

[Richard]

Far be it from me to flog a dead horse so this will be my last post on this thread (cue the bugle).My point was just that we, socialists all, have to deal with the situation as it is, not as we'd like it to be. I see this as being realistic not reactive.No, I'm not a member because I've never been very good with rules, never been one to toe the party line. I'm a socialist and I don't consider the conversations I have with people, the comments I post on social media, to be futile. There's more than one way to skin a cat.Thanks for the word "spelk", it's a new word for me! Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it. So, I'm off to get a mirror and some tweezers to pluck the spelks from my oh-so-otiose arse!

[Richard]

steve colborn wrote:

As part of The Socialist Party case, it is getting folk to understand that Socialism/Communism have never been tried and why!As a member in the 80's, I remember we had the same discussion, not using the terms Socialism, Comrade, Communism, ETC ETC because of their tainted misinterpretation, by our fellow workers.If we cannot even get across  to our fellow workers, that these terms have been misused, what chance of getting them to understand and agree with, the need for a differntly orientated Social System?I'll stick with the original terms for now, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Fair enough! Just remember that words carry historical baggage; words are not neutral. The people socialists are trying to reach, are trying to convince, have been through Rex's school of propaganda and they get turned off by words like comrade, communism and even socialism. Socialism shouldn't be a dirty word to anyone but reality is different and it's reality that we're dealing with – capitalist reality.

[Richard]

I think it's a very good video. I'll pass it along, post it on news media sites, maybe even start some people thinking if they can pull themselves away from their consumer toys long enough.I'm chuckling to myself as I try to imagine this being shown on TV. Rex owns the media along with everything else.If I could make one suggestion about the video: don't use the word socialism in the video. We've had centuries of propaganda against anything remotely opposed to capitalism. Socialism has become a dirty word to most people. I know this won't be a very popular idea on this forum but we really are dealing with people who are so propagandized that it might be better to leave out that loaded word socialism. Just get people thinking, that's the key.Well, since everything has a price, this has been my 2¢ worth of thought.

[Richard]

DJP wrote:

To get to the beginnings of socialist thought you have to go to the beginnings of capitalism, and that is found in the 100 or so years leading up to the civil war in England. Writers like Winstanley are important historically,…

On this note I can recommend Christopher Hill's "The World Turned Upside Down". Availiable as a PDF file at: https://libcom.org/files/%5BChristopher_Hill%5D_The_World_Turned_Upside_Down_R%28Bookos.org%29.pdfThere's also another book which I haven't read yet: "The Digger Movement in the Days of the Commonwealth" by Lewis H. Berens. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17480/17480-h/17480-h.htmThere's also a movie about Winstanley and the True Levellers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW12-yt2o6A Christopher Hill was consulted in the making of this movie so hopefully it's fairly accurate historically.

[Richard]

Meel,Yes, I am Canadian. Canadians tend to be very quiet about religion while our cousins down south tend to wear their religion on their sleeve. I spent two years (2000-2002) living and working in North Carolina which is in the Bible belt and it was…interesting! LOL I bought a car while I was down there and one time I pulled into a gas station. After filling up I went in to pay and there was a line of about six people at the cash, so I just joined the line. The guy in front of me turned to me and we had a conversation that went roughly as follows:Other guy: "Is that your car out there?"Me: "Yes, it is."Other guy: "Well that's a mighty fine thing to have. You should thank Jesus Christ for that!"Me: "Why? Is Jesus making the monthly payments?"I didn't make a friend that day.It is expected that the US president will end every speech with the words "God bless America". Unfortunately our current PM ends his speeches with "God bless Canada", but then Stephen Harper is more American than Canadian. God bless the federal election coming up this October! I think it's fair to state that industrialized societies in North America and Europe have been shaped by Protestant values. So perhaps we don't need to be overtly religious because we've internalized those religious values over the last 350 or so years. Are our societes becoming less religious? If so, maybe it's because organized religion has served its purpose. Just some food for thought.I have no right to tell anyone that they cannot be religious nor can they tell me that I have to be religious. On that point I think you and I agree. We are individuals and some people are religious for whatever reason and some aren't. As I stated above, I think that religion has done more harm than good. This does not mean that religion is a completely negative thing. Your example of your coworker's elderly mother getting assistance from her church is an example of something positive coming from religion.But I tend to look at the long term effects of religion and I think that the role of the Puritan work ethic in the rise of capitalism is a good example of a ruling class using religion to shape the socio-economic environment to their benefit.I disagree with you on the origins of religion. Religion had its origins in magic; religion is a type of magic. People in early civilizations didn't understand thunderstorms, disease or crop failures. They felt helpless and so they developed a security blanket in the form of gods and goddesses. The more science advanced the more vague religion became and the less tangible the gods became; this process continues. That's just how I see it.The bottom line for me is that the world is not black and white and I realise that within those shades of grey there is room for compromise and understanding. So, yes, you and I might as well just agree to disagree.P.S. If there were such a place as hell Rupert Murdoch would definitely end up there!

[Richard]

robbo, my point is that the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and North Korea all based their systems of state beliefs on the template provided by the Abrahamic religions.- a core set of beliefs and rituals as well as public rallies to reinforce compliance- an omnipotent leader (possibly even omniscient in North Korea's case), this leader is also the source of law and morality; the Leader may even be seen to have divine insight or characteristics- a written source of undisputed knowledge (the complete works of Marx or Lenin, Mein Kampf, etc)- a better world to come through sacrifice in the here and nowI'm not saying that socialists should oppose religion, it's an individual choice. I'm aware that many socialists have been religious (from Gerrard Winstanley to Tommy Douglas). I'm simply stating my opinion on religion, my own individual opposition to religion. I believe that religion has done more harm than good and I'm very suspicious of it since it has often been used as a means of social control. The earliest capitalists were Christians or at any rate used Christianity to support the promotion of private property, the enclosure of common land, etc.I find the definition of religion and the role played by traditional religion in the development of capitalism an interesting topic, but let's leave it for another time. The goal is, as you say, socialism.

[Richard]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

This short video (with no commentary) brings home the industrialisation of the meat business. http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/without_saying_a_word_this_6_minute_short_film_will_make_you_speechless/

That's really sad, especially the part at the beginning with the chickens. I've watched videos on YouTube about industrial farming and that's the main reason why I hardly eat meat anymore. Humans are not the only animals that have nervous systems and feel pain. There has to be a better way of killing chickens, pigs, cows, etc. for food.Here are two videos which show that industrial farming of chickens is bad for the birds and bad for the consumer:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9l94b3x9Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD4kpLiA2Qo

[Richard]

robbo203 wrote:

What, for example, is the extent of socialist consciousness in formally secular or atheistic states?

robbo, could you please give me an example of a secular or atheistic state, past or present? The USSR? The Bolsheviks repressed Christianity and replaced it with "socialism". Work hard, comrades, and your children will live in a communist heaven! Comrade Stalin has spoken! Sounds like the same old story with new characters. Nazi Germany? The Nazis created their own religion based on racial purity, Christianity was seen as "incorrect" in National Socialist circles. Hitler wrote some nasty things about Christianity in "Mein Kampf" (which was kinda like a Nazi bible when you think about it). The Khmer Rouge? They tried to wipe out established religions in their attempt to return Cambodia to "Year Zero". I suspect Pol Pot saw Buddhism and Islam as dangerous competitors in his bid for social control of the people. North Korea? They have the state ideology of Juche and the people worship the Kim family (of course in the West we worship the Kardashian family, but that's another matter). There has never been a secular or atheistic state. You need to widen your definition of "religion".

[Richard]

I agree with you, Meel, that religion is obviously more than Protestantism. I also agree with you that if someone wants to worship an invisible man in the sky then that's their business. I do have a problem when they bring their ludicrous fairy tales into the public domain and try to shape society using their twisted religious values.Puritanism seems to have been partly shaped by capitalism and also to have been part of the social ethos that shaped capitalism. The 17th-century Puritans placed great emphasis on hard work (there's nothing wrong with that except their version of hard work meant unremitting hard work), profit to prove that "God" is rewarding your hard work, and an acceptance that poverty is proof of a moral/religious deficiency. These values are still very much alive even if fewer and fewer people go to church. Capitalism has become the secular version of the Puritan religion; the two have morphed into modern capitalism with its obsession with profit, time, and more and more work (work for the bottom 90%, that is).Religion as a means of social control goes far beyond a particular work ethic. Religion can and has been used to control the private lives of individuals even in something as intensely personal as sexual relations.I don't know much about Hindu beliefs but I do know that they have a practice called sati in which the widow is "encouraged" to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre. This still happens today even though it's illegal (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-406471/Brothers-arrested-throwing-95-year-old-mother-funeral-pyre.html). Sati may have started off as more of a cultural thing than a religious requirement but it's interesting that it seems to be only the Hindus who practice it. Why do religions always seem misogynistic? I don't know enough about Celtic or Norse religions to say whether they were used for social control but I wouldn't be surprised if they did fulfill that function.I don't care if someone believes that their pet three-toed sloth created the Universe and they want to worship said three-toed sloth as a deity. Kinda silly, but none of my business. The problem with religion is that it stops people from thinking critically (all you need is belief!) and they knock on my door asking me to worship their three-toed sloth too. Then they want me to behave as they claim their three-toed sloth has told them to behave. Get enough people following the Church of the Sacred Three-Toed Sloth and you have a religious mob and that's always dangerous.Sorry if this is rambling on a bit and thanks if you read to the end! LOL

[Richard]

Religion (organised religion) is a method of social control; always has been, always will be. To ignore religion is to hand a victory to the bourgeoisie and their Puritan values of endless work in honour of "God". Yes, we're still living in the Puritans' world! The Puritan world is one in which idleness is a sin (idle hands are the devil's tools!) and we must not waste a second of time since time really belongs to "God" and he/she/it has given us some time that must never be wasted. The Puritan world is one of toil, accumulation of money and property (as a sign of "success"), and slavery to clocks (since clocks now embody time itself). If you feel like you're a hamster running on a wheel then you feel the cold hand of the Puritans reaching across the centuries.Are we becoming more secular just because fewer people go to church? I'd like to think so but I don't think that's the case. We've simply internalized those wonderful Puritan values and no longer need to attend religious services; we obey like our ancestors did and we do it because our ancestors were the victims of Puritan propaganda. Religion is a method of social control. We are the product of that religious social control. Now get back to work!

[Richard]

Religion may not be dead yet but I'm more than willing to pull the plug. Religion is a millstone around the neck of Humanity. Let it wither on the vine, I suppose…I just wish it would hurry up!That survey that Alan started this thread with mentions that young people are often the most religious. I find that confusing. Maybe it's the result of economic uncertainty, maybe young people look at consumerism and see nothing, as they should!

[Richard]

robbo203 wrote:

 If you can get hold of a book called "Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism" by Abercrombie et al it is worth a read.  The authors make a distinction between individuality and individualism – the latter being an essentially outer-oriented socio-economic concept whereas the former has to do with one's inner subjective life, one's apprehension of oneself as a distinct thinking feeling being

I will definitely beg, borrow or steal this book! It sounds very interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

robbo203 wrote:

 There has always been individuality in this sense but the social emphasis placed on it has varied historically .

Bingo! Give that man a cigar! That's what I've been trying to say all along! Different societies have placed different emphases on individuality but it was always there. We are individuals; to deny this is to deny our basic Humanity.

robbo203 wrote:

The medieval organic society you refer to was a rigidly hierarchical one in which individuals were expected to know their "place".  But even back in the 12th century or even earlier there were cultural  inklings of developments that were to come like the practice of taking private confessions in church which was symbolically quite an important shift

Carrying that a step further, couldn't you say that the rise of Protestant sects and the concomitant internalization of sin played a role in bringing individualism to the forefront? People stopped going to priests for forgiveness, instead they developed an internal dialogue with "God", the hierarchical structure based on the Catholic Church became far less important in countries such as England and the Netherlands where capitalism found the most fertile soil. God helps those who help themselves! Ironically enough, out of this same soil grew the ideas of people like Gerrard Winstanley, the Levellers, the True Levellers, the quakers, the ranters and the rest of the revolutionaries of the poor who briefly flourished during the Civil Wars.

robbo203 wrote:

…you cannot begin to understand the whole backlash of the Romantic movement against a "soulless" industrial capitalism without recognising this  difference. It is absolutely key to everything about that movement

That's something else I'll have to read about and ponder.

robbo203 wrote:

What we oppose is individualism which is predicated on the idea of  the self-interested atomised individuals competing with his or her fellows.

You should read Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society", I think you might find it interesting. I have to admit that I haven't read much of Marx which is probably not the right thing to say on this site but it is the truth. Having admitted that I haven't read the guy, I'm still not surprised to hear that he was concerned with the dehumanization that came with capitalism. What little I do know of Marx leads me to believe that he was a Humanist above all else!I'm always amazed that we have a society of individual mass men (and women, of course). We're a society that emphasizes individualism while at the same time requiring conformity and group effort; no wonder people today feel confused and alienated!

[Richard]

To be honest, I personally don't see any way out. How's that for pessimism! Most people are so caught up in the consumerist "lifestyle" that they can't even think of getting off the merry-go-round let alone walking away to another ride. Round and round they go and every now and then some of them are flung off into homelessness or suicide. It doesn't matter to the people running the show because there are always more suckers lined up with tickets in hand for a ride on the Great Middle Class Ride! Just enough bread, just enough circuses and they'll keep quiet.I've never read Julien Benda, it's probably about time that I did!As far as the intellectuals are concerned, we might as well forget about most of them. Universities have become diploma mills, journalists don't ask the awkward questions that they should and most intellectuals are obedient to the powers that be because they want their slice of the pie and to hell with the truth! The majority of intellectuals seem terrified that they might say or write "the wrong thing" and lose their access to the centres of power and wealth. A vanguard of slobbering boot-lickers leading us down the proverbial garden path with occasional pauses for lectures about how wonderful the aristocracy really is.

[Richard]

This is the link to all eight episodes: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=1250The link to the above link was on the side of the video player under the title "Multipart Episodes".

[Author]

Posts