[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

But that’s not ‘shopping’, is it? ‘Selecting off a shelf’, I mean? ‘As opposed to some other item’. Why not both?What I said was:

LBird wrote:

The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism…

‘Shopping’ is the antithesis of ‘selecting off a shelf’. You try walking into Asda or Tesco and ‘selecting off a shelf’ as much as you deem necessary for your needs, and then walking off back to your car.The small matters of the amount of money in one’s wallet, payment at the till and security guards will intervene to ensure that you don’t ‘select off a shelf’ whatever you need. ‘Shopping’ is not ‘selecting’. ‘Shopping’ is being forced not to select what one wants. One must ‘weigh up’ the contradiction between one’s wants and one’s lack of resources.As other comrades have said, the organisation of this ‘selecting from a shelf’ requires, not ‘empirical individual’ decisions, but ‘democratic collective’ decisions, about production, distribution and consumption.

This is why I said " I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here".  You have now indicated that what you have in mind is that there will be no quid pro quo exchange intervening between you and the appropriation of the product you select off the shelf in a socialist society.  I wouldn't wish to argue against that; thats quite correctHowever,  you then go on to say the "organisation of this ‘selecting from a shelf’ requires, not ‘empirical individual’ decisions, but ‘democratic collective’ decisions, about production, distribution and consumption". With respect, this is quite confusing  "Selecting from the shelf" does indeed  presupposes the organisation of production and distribution, but the act of "selecting " itself – which is what we are talking about –  is self evidently a matter of exercising one's individual consumer preferences, is it not? In that sense it is the individual that is the proximate decision maker here.  It is the individual who is deciding to take that can of baked beans off the shelf – not her peers or society in general – on account of the fact that she has a craving for baked beans and indeed knows this better than anyone else. She may be influenced by her peers or society in a background sort of way, of course, but it is she herself who is making the decision 

LBird wrote:

…I’m not sure why you consider ‘society wide central planning’ to be a ‘crackpot idea’. Clearly, some decisions at least will require ‘society wide central planning’ because of the nature of our world society. As long as any ‘central planning’ is under the democratic control of all of us on this planet, then it sounds to me to be entirely sensible.

 From this it is clear to me  that you don't really understand what "society wide central planning" means. I don't know quite what you have in mind but society wide planning in its classic sense means one single giant apriori plan that seeks to plan the total pattern of production by setting out in advance the production targets of millions of interdependent inputs and outputs that a comprise any kind of  modern production system.  Its not just about "some decisions" requiring society wide  central planning; it is about ALL decisions about what needs to be produced being integrated into a single worldwide plan. If  it were only about SOME decisions then by definition that would not be society wide.I think the expression you are searching for is  "centralised planning" or maybe even "global planning".  Yes, of course there will be a need for some global planning bodies – for example in respect of the coordination of global air traffic or maritime traffic of emergency relief and aid.  But none of  this is remotely "society wide" in the sense of what is meant by society wide planning; each such body would be concerned with only a tiny sliver of the activity that goes on in the larger society, not the totality of such activity 

LBird wrote:

You might now say, ‘Ahh, I see, no money, democratic controls, the same freedoms for all to select from shelves… why didn’t you say so?’, and we’d be in agreement.But, given that fact that we’re on a Communist site, why the emphasis on ‘empirical individuals’ and the insinuation that ‘society planning’ is tantamount to a ‘crackpot idea’?To me, ‘empirical individuals’ smacks of ‘greedy graspers’ who will satisfy their own desires, outside of any social considerations. And calling ‘social planning’ a ‘crackpot idea’ sounds like propaganda from the Adam Smith Institute! We will be social individuals, who will recognise the need for prior theoretical consideration ahead of our ‘selecting from a shelf’.

I don't quite see how talking of "empirical individuals" smacks of "greedy graspers". You me and everyone else frequenting this site are empirical individuals. Are we all greedy graspers?  Nor do I see any contradiction between the fact that we are empirical individuals and the fact that we are socially constituted.  To say that there are no such thing as an empirical individual strikes me as being about as daft as Mrs Thatcher saying  that there is no such thing as society.  Without individuals there is no society and without society there are no individuals  

LBird wrote:

From the content of the rest of your post, I’m know you don’t mean this, robbo, but I often get the strange feeling from some comrades that they regard ‘socialism’ as the realisation of the bourgeois wet dream of everyone becoming like ‘a billionaire going shopping’, and no-one being able to say ‘No’ to them about any item that takes their fancy. I definitely got this impression from some contributors on LibCom.

Well I don't really get that impression that all.  On the contrary, the usual argument employed is that given an abundance of goods individuals  will have no inclination to take more than they need: greed is by-product of contrived scarcity. Additionally, under free access communism there is nothing to be gained in terms of the conspicuous consumption and display of wealth by way of status. On the contrary, status acquisition, if anything, will turn on what you put into society rather than what you take out of it 

LBird wrote:

It's a subject worth discussing, I think, especially with regard to Parecon and the others in that tradition, of some sort of 'market socialism' which stresses 'individual consumer choices' which take place at the end of a unconscious process, as opposed to 'collective production decisions' which take place at the start of a conscious process.

I think what will be "unconscious" or spontaneous, if you like, is the way in which the numerous plans in a communist society will mutually adjust to each other.   Your conscious decision to take several cans of baked beans off the shelf  will automatically  trigger a signal to the production unit producing baked beans to produce more baked beans.  Point is that that production unit does not know at the time about your decision or the decisions of millions of other "consumers"  or indeed other production units connected to it along the supply chain.  To a degree, production in any large scale complex modern society unavoidably entails a large degree of anonymity – or to paraphrase your expression "unconsciousness".  In that respect and only in that respect the AnCaps have a point.   I don't see how you can get around that but this does not in any way necessitate some kind of market or quasi-market  as Pareconists and others mistakenly think. Actually,  it is the market that apes a self regulating spontaneous process that is essential to modern society – not the other way roundThe Left, it seems to me, is very fond of a kind of totalistic and totalising notion of "consciousness" (as in "conscious planning") as though it were , or would like to be,  privy to a sort of "gods eye view" of what goes on society.  You cannot really  be conscious of what I'm thinking – though I can attempt to communicate my thoughts to you which will be at best a partial attempt – anymore than I  can be conscious of what your are thinking  –  your needs, your desires and your hopes.  Similarly one community really cannot know the needs of another in a communist society and the further apart they are spatially, the less likely are they to know. When you throw into the equation the dynamic factor- the fact that needs change over time – then the matter becomes more complicated than ever.Instead of focusing on "consciousness" per se in some totalistic fashion, we should be looking at the processes that link different consciousnesses  if I can put it like that,  in a manner that allows for their spontaneous and mutual adjustment to the benefit of all

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 The notion of the 'isolated individual' making decisions about 'shopping' (that is, being forced to choose one item over another, having to weigh up one's personal preferences) will be considered as laughable in socialism, as would 'a single hunter-gatherer heading off alone to hunt a dangerous prey' would be to a tribal group of hunters. Just as 'hunting' was a social activity, with far more cultural significance than just 'filling one man's belly', which required co-ordination and co-operation, and respect for the hunted animal, so 'bourgeois consumption' will appear unfeasably individualist, selfish and archaic to our a future society.

 Im not quite sure what you have in mind here. In practical terms, how would a can of baked beans, say, find its way off the shelf of a distribution centre and into the stomach of the empirical individual in a socialist  society without that involving an actual decision by that individual to select such an item off the shelf, as opposed to some other item? You surely cannot be  suggesting that everything that individuals qua individuals consume  will be decided "socially"? If so, that seems to me to be venturing perilously close to the crackpot idea of "society wide central planning" in which the entire pattern of inputs and outputs are configured apriori within some stupendously vast Leontief-type matrix.  Necessarily , that would indeed entail the rigid allocation of consumer goods to individuals – absolutist rationing down to the tiniest detail  –  by some central planning authority, representing "society". I agree that consumption is "social" in a sense, and subject to social influences, but you have to distinguish between that and the actual decisionmaking process bearing on the distribution and supply of consumer goods in a socialist society. For the most part,  I would argue, the agents of such decisionmaking  will be empirical individuals making consumer  decisions that reflect their own preferences – even if their "own preferences" reflect, or are conditioned by, the wider social environment.  The emerging  pattern of demand will be monitored and automatically acted upon via a self regulating system of stock control  which will guide the producers – who, as you say, are also consumers – as to what needs to be produced.  Of course , there is also a class of final goods – public goods – which are not individual, or destined for consumption by individuals, but social or community-based.  It is with respect to the latter that we can indeed anticipate a high degee of democratic involvement. But it would be utterly ridiculous to posit the need for a democractic decision to be made to determine with you or I should be permitted to consume a can of baked beans!

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Yes,I will read through what you've written on Piketty.  I'll email you as I'm doing a talk on him this Sunday.

 Didnt get the email unfortunately. If you give me your addy, Ill send the stuff over . Cheers R

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Yes,I will read through what you've written on Piketty.  I'll email you as I'm doing a talk on him this Sunday.

 Thanks Adam.  Its only a rough draft but it would be very helpful to have your thoughts on the matter so I can tighten up the argument here and there.  Much appreciated,  Robin

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Hello folks, This might sound like a bit of a strange request to make but bear with me and I will explain. The thing is this. For some time now  Ive been engaged in writing what will turn out to be quite a lengthy book.  Most of it has been written  but at the moment I am going through  the stuff I have written to tighten up the arguments here and there and to gather my thoughts, so to speak, for the home stretch. To cut to the chase, the book consists of 9 parts and I am currently revising Part 2 –  "The Capitalist Dynamic" – and in particular, the final chapter of Part 2 which is entitled  "Secular Trends and Crystal Balls".  This chapter substantially addresses the arguments presented by Thomas Picketty in his book Capital in the 21st Century  about the growth of inequality in capitalism (though it also addresses a number of other phenomena such as the growth of unproductive labour and its repercussions for the rate of profit etc). Hence my mentioning this in the context of this thread which  I have dipped into now and then and found most interesting and thought provoking. Now I have to confess I have not read the book and, to be frank,  dont really want to wade through something as long as Picketty's book is when a) I dont really have the time (and I'm a lazy sod anyway!) and b) it is not exactly central to the main thrust of my book.   I have read parts of Picketty's book available online (in particular,  the Introduction), Branko Milanovic's very detailed exposition of the logic of the book, and numerous reviews.  I think all this has given me a reasonably clear  picture about what Picketty's book is about.  However, I am not entirely sure that I might not inadvertently be doing him a disservice by possibly misrepresenting his views in some way. For that reason it occured to me that it might be an idea  to ask people here who have read the book or  know what it is about, to scrutinise this chapter (a copy of which I will send to them privately) and check it for accuracy.  In any event , I would certain welcome the feedback and critical commentary.  You do kind of lose your bearings,  I find, slogging away at the coal face, all on your own. If anyone who is interested in reading the stuff can either message me or email me (robbo203@yahoo.co.uk) I would be very grateful indeed for their input Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer…. Cheers,  Robin

 No takers, then? 

[robbo203]

Hello folks, This might sound like a bit of a strange request to make but bear with me and I will explain. The thing is this. For some time now  Ive been engaged in writing what will turn out to be quite a lengthy book.  Most of it has been written  but at the moment I am going through  the stuff I have written to tighten up the arguments here and there and to gather my thoughts, so to speak, for the home stretch. To cut to the chase, the book consists of 9 parts and I am currently revising Part 2 –  "The Capitalist Dynamic" – and in particular, the final chapter of Part 2 which is entitled  "Secular Trends and Crystal Balls".  This chapter substantially addresses the arguments presented by Thomas Picketty in his book Capital in the 21st Century  about the growth of inequality in capitalism (though it also addresses a number of other phenomena such as the growth of unproductive labour and its repercussions for the rate of profit etc). Hence my mentioning this in the context of this thread which  I have dipped into now and then and found most interesting and thought provoking. Now I have to confess I have not read the book and, to be frank,  dont really want to wade through something as long as Picketty's book is when a) I dont really have the time (and I'm a lazy sod anyway!) and b) it is not exactly central to the main thrust of my book.   I have read parts of Picketty's book available online (in particular,  the Introduction), Branko Milanovic's very detailed exposition of the logic of the book, and numerous reviews.  I think all this has given me a reasonably clear  picture about what Picketty's book is about.  However, I am not entirely sure that I might not inadvertently be doing him a disservice by possibly misrepresenting his views in some way. For that reason it occured to me that it might be an idea  to ask people here who have read the book or  know what it is about, to scrutinise this chapter (a copy of which I will send to them privately) and check it for accuracy.  In any event , I would certain welcome the feedback and critical commentary.  You do kind of lose your bearings,  I find, slogging away at the coal face, all on your own. If anyone who is interested in reading the stuff can either message me or email me (robbo203@yahoo.co.uk) I would be very grateful indeed for their input Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer…. Cheers,  Robin

[robbo203]

The thing is, Brian, if you fail to think big you will fail to get anywhere and you will have failed to capitalise on the achevements of this  first real  attempt to think big in the shape of these recent euroelections.  Much of what you have achieved will be lost by reverting to thinking small and cautiously. I say this as a sympathetic outsider and, of course, you are liberty to disregard completely what I say but it seems to me that taking a "gentle trot" rather than engaging in a full throttle  gallop does not exactly project a sense of urgency about achieving socialism and so does not exactly ooze much in the wqay of  confidence and self belief.  One might understand the need to take a gentle trot if you lacked the necessary resources to commit yourself to a gallop but in this instance, this is not the case. Im not too sure what Rule 27 is but I suppose it requires that individuals contesting elections in the name of the SPGB have to pass the speakers test.  If that is the case why be hidebound by a pettifogging rule of this nature – scrap it or least make it something non-obligatory and purely advisory.  No doubt there are good reasons for ensuring members standing as SPGB candidates should pass the speakers test and, in an ideal world,  every candidate would have passed the speakers test but we dont live in an ideal world and it seems absurd to bureaucratically restrict your options in this way. If you are not going to splash out in a big way particularly when you have more than ample financiual resources to do that  then you might as well not contest any elections at all.  There is little, if any, point in contesting just one or two seats.  Its  just a waste of time andf effort and the consequence will inevitably be disheartening There are big benefits that come with thinking big.  Firstly, here I might be talking out of turn as I am not intimately acquainted with the ins and outs of parliamentary elections – so correct me if I am wrong – but is it not the case that if you contest a seat your electoral literature is distributed free to every houswehold in the constituency in question. Thats being so the post office will be foing the work that members themselves would have to do so freeing up the the latter to focus on other things.  While ideally there should be an active nucleaus of members in each constituency, even without any members actually resident in a constituency at all you are still casting a huge net over an entire area which is very likely to catch  at least a few fish if you follow my drift Secondly you need  to contest a mimunum of  50 seats – do you not? – in order to be entitled to make a party election broadcast,  Such a broadcast will give you direct access to many more people who do not happen to live in within the 50 constituencies you contest.  Thats is an additional bonus to think of.   Not only that , it makes for a reinforcing effect which is extremely importan if you want to get noticed . Effective campaigning requires joined-up thinking on every front And thirdly, as we have seen with euroelections, going out of your way to make a big splash gets you noticed in the media and gets people talking about you. – and indeed to you.  That further reinforces your own efforts to get yourself noticed.. It seems to me that ther SPGB now has a unqiue oppruntiy to make a breakthorugh of some sort in terms of its impact in promoting a genuine socialist alternative,, It would be a great pity to squander such an opportunity. Now should be the time when you guys should be actvely thinking about this and planning for it by removing any  and all pettifogging obstacles  that get in the way and by carefully selecting which of the 50 or so seats you might wish to context.  Dont be so conservative and cautious.  Be bold and daring  and you never know –  this  might just be the break your are looking for

[robbo203]

I would suggest that if you want to build on the achievements of the Euroelections (which do seem to have raised the profile of the SPGB quite a bit), you seriously need to consider  fielding at least 50 candidates at the next General Election.  That will enable you to have another Party political broadcast  on national TV (the Euroelection broadcast was good but could be improved on).  It will also mean mass distribution of election material on a much  wider basis.. Maybe you should aim for several millions leaflets this time. And I imagine it would provide a substantial morale booster for members and sympathisers too….Yes, it will cost an arm and a leg – £25,000 alone in the (inevitable)  lost deposts – but if you dont capitalise on the achievements of the Euroelections and build on the momentum, you will have wasted a lot of your time and resources.  For the first time , if Im not mistaken, the SPGB got some small amount of national and regional TV coverage. More people in the media industry now know  about the SPGBIts not as if the party does not have the funds.  Youve got   – what ? – £300k+ in your bank account or whatever as a result of legacies and the like. You can afford to live a little dangerously .  I would throw caution to the winds and go for it.  Life is too short, dammit.Start planning now and even if you splash out 50K on the next  General Elections you will still have more than enough in reserve for the future. 

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

pfbcarlisle wrote:

gnome wrote:

No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it.  It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.

No need whatsoever to abandon 'evidence-based thinking'! (Robbo has already mentioned that religious people can and do adopt evidence-based thinking; e.g whenever they cross the road).

Not a particularly good analogy; crossing a road safely has more to do with learned behaviour and an instinct for survival rather than to any conscious "evidence-based thinking" process.

robbo203 wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, Dave , but does not your branch have a regular supporter who holds religious views.  Apart from the fact that she holds religious views, is there anything about what she says that contradicts the basics of the Party's outlook?

Not obviously or directly but when a practicing Catholic makes statements such as "the Party is doing God's work" it makes me (and others) feel distinctly and, perhaps irrationally, uneasy.  She understands and appreciates the dichotomy but nevertheless remains keen and willing to assist, as a supporter, in any way she can.  But then she would, wouldn't she, given her opinion on the subject?

 On the question of "evidence-based thinking", I am sympathetic to the point L Bird is making – that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’, that there is an element of selection of the evidence to fit the theory which in turn is inevitably conditioned by our values.  There is no such thing as a "value-free science" and  particularly so in the case of the social sciences where the problem of reflexivity is all too apparent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29). But setting that caveat aside for the moment (since it is not really what this thread is about), I would question whether religious folk are less inclined to "evidence-based thinking" than "scientific socialists"  or, indeed, that the latter are any less prone to irrational thinking than the former. We are all human beings, whether we are religious-minded or atheists and, as such,  are subject to both rational and irrational patterns of thinking.  Crossing the road safely may not be a particularly good example of evidence-based thinking but there are plenty of other examples one could draw upon.  There are, for instance, numerous scientists who routinely resort to evidence based thinking but are religious in outlook. Some even use science to justify their religious beliefs.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Russell_%28author%29) On the question of the Party sympathiser in Dave's branch who happens to be a practising catholic and believes "the Party is doing Gods work", well, at the end of the day, does it really matter if she believes this?  Seriously. So long as she agrees with the basic principles of the Party,  that really is all that should mattter. It's so easy to slip into a mode of thinking that is more appropriate to a philosphical debating club than a practical revolutionary socialist organisation concerned  with bringing about socialism.  Thats all that should matter.  The business of the Party should not be about promoting an atheistic worldview but about establishing socialism and the sooner the better.  The Party's policy on not admitting socialists  with religious beliefs is,  as I have repeatedly said, completely redundant  and serves no purpose except to restrict the growth of the Party itself However, Im a realist and I know many SPGBers are unlikely  to change their minds on the matter all too soon.  Which is why a compromise position might be appropriate.  That is to say, to make a distinction between individuals belonging to organised religions and individuals merely holding personal religious beliefs. and allow the latter to join. What do comrades in the SPGB think of that.? I for one  (and  I am  certain there are others ) would be interested to know….

[robbo203]

Hi AlanYes Podemos has been in all the news here.  Their electoral success  – 1.245.948 votos, 8% of the vote, and 5 MEPS after having only been formed 3 months ago  – has left the PP and PSOE fuming and spitting bile.  Pablo Iglesias, the public  face of Podemos has been compared to Lenin, Chavaz and Castro as the smear machine gets into operation.  My Spanish partner , Ana, voted for them in Granada, a PP dominated city, and found the people in the polling station to be most unhelpful when she enquired about the whereabouts of Podemos literature which was supposed to be on display along with the lealflets of the other parties.  One assistant offered to put her voting slip in the box for her, an offer she politely turned down.I dont know an awful lot about Podemos .  It seems to be a radical reform  party along the lines of  Alexis Tsipras’s anti-austerity Syriza party in Greece, which did extremely well in the euroelections.  Both are critical of the dominance of Germany and the prospect of Spain and Greece becoming deeply indebted semi-colonies of Germany.  There is a strong streak of egalitarian thinking running through Podemos.  Their MEPs will not take the full pay they are entitled to – only what is necessary to live on – with the surplus going to party funds.  At least thats what  Ana told me and she is an avid follower of the excellent TV programme in Spain called El Intermedio on channel 6 where she gets a lot of her info fromAnd, yes, Podemos does seem to be an outgrowth from the Indignados and M15 protests.  I recall reporting here that at a  big outdoor meeting I attended in Granada at the town hall plaza, subsequently the site of a tent encampment , all sorts of ideas were being aired – including the idea of abolishing money! There is a long tradition of radicalism in Spain. Here's one example but there are many others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain 

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

pfbcarlisle wrote:

And certainly no one is suggesting that religious fundamentalists be allowed in – why on earth would such people ever consider joining?! 

How do you suggest we distinguish between those with differing religious outlooks?No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it.  It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.

 I think the point is, Dave,  that the need for evidence based thinking should really apply to those in the Party who think that, just because one holds a particular religious view, this makes one liable to depart from socialist principles.  I have always maintained that the Party's policy on religious applicants is completely redundant or surplus to requirements. If someone is going to depart from socialist principles this would manifest itself in a variety of ways that would be no different than if an atheist were to depart from socialist principles – such as the advocacy of reformism or leadership-based politics or whatever.That is the evidence you ought to be focusing on – do individuals subscribe to the fundamental principles of the Party – and  not whether of not they happen to hold religious views which really does not matter.  The argument that Paddy raised – about it not being  worth the effort to distinguish between different religions  and therefore the Party should maintain its existing policy – is weak and unconvincing  and ironically shifts the onus of evidence based thinking onto those who want to change the present policy while absolving those who want to maintain that policy from the need for such thinking.  Really, it should be the other way round. Where is the evidence that religious minded socialists will stray from socialist principles anymore than a socialist who holds no religious views?  If you refuse to provide such evidence than that in itself is a renunciation of evidence based thinking.Correct me if I am wrong, Dave , but does not your branch have a regular supporter who holds religious views.  Apart from the fact that she holds religious views, is there anything about what she says that contradicts the basics of the Party's outlook?On the question of scrapping the Party's policy on not admitting socialists with religious convictions there are several alternatives.  I mention the two most obvious ones: 1) Complete removal of the bar on religious-minded members. Providing they subscribe to the basics of the socialist case this should present no problem.  It is most unlikely that individuals who belong to official religions that have a notably socially reactionary outlook would want to join the Party anyway but they might very well be prompted to leave such a religion on contact with the Party case2) Partial removal of bar on religious-minded members by admitting to the  Party only individuals who did not belong to any organised religion but hold only private or personal religious beliefs.  This too would aid the shift away from organised religion which in my view is the real problem – not religion per se I favour the second approach at lkeast for the time being while the Party is still a fairly small organisation.  To reassure members who might be worried  by one or other of these suggestions, It could be made absolutely explicit that the active promotion of religious ideas within the Party would not be tolerated and would be deemed grounds for expulsion.  There should be no proselytising, in other words, which would not only be divisive but distracting- religious beliefs should be strictly a private matter in much the same way as sexual orientation or whatever, would be I really cannot see how members could possibly object to this . It covers all the bases and addresses all the concerns that lie at the heart of their objection to allowing religious socialists into the Party    

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

"But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not?" Indeed they are Robbo but the question is why? The answer! they, as do followers of other reigions use the corporeal existence, to ensure an eternity of "spiritual existence". Or do you deny this. This being the case, why would they enthuse over the short term when, in the end, this, as far as they are concerned, is merely transcient?

 This doesnt quite square with you what you said earlier, though,  Steve.You said:For Robbo to say, "The fact of the matter is that  holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not", is to miss the crux of the matter, that just as the Jihadist Islamists believe that dying for "the cause", will get them into paradise, why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence, when the "promised land" of heaven, lasting as the religious tell us, forever, will be the reward for believing in "Christ"? The clear implication of this is that Christians are not bothered about corporeal existence – that is they are essentially other worldly.  You now say they merely want  to use the corporeal existence, to ensure an eternity of "spiritual existence". Or do you deny this..  Yes I do deny this Steve!.  I seriously think you have a totally unrealistic perception of religious individuals if you think they go about thinking of nothing else but what lies ahead of them in the afterlife . Christ,  Ive just done a landscaping job for two born again Christians – nice couple though – and all they go on about is the price of this or the price of that and how they could with a nice break from the stress of running a business.  Much like anyone else frankly… 

steve colborn wrote:

As for atheism being a requirement for membership, no it's not. There is merely a requirement that prospective members believe that "our" destiny, as humans, is in our own hands and does not succeed or fail at the behest of a God figure. That a non belief in a GOD figure is the accepted criteria, is fine by me.

 I don t think what you say is correct but suppose you are correct in saying that atheism is not a requirement for membership and that all that is required is that we should not believe our destiny is  in the hands of some god.  Suppose then that someone came along and said they did not believe in a theistic god  but did believe in Deism – the idea of a non intervening god.  What would the Party say to this person?  Also, what if that person simply said I believe there is an afterlife of some sort but I  do not believe that our destiny lies in the hands of a theistic god. And what if someone came along advocating  pantheism – the idea that god is everywhere and in anything. What would the Party say to such a person?Unless I  am seriously mistaken I think the Party at the moment would not allow them to join. In de facto terms that makes the Party an atheistic organisation.

steve colborn wrote:

Finally, the incongruity of pushing a "materialist" objective, whilst continuing to believe in the "spiritual", should not be lost on anyone. They are antithetical, one to the other. That, my friend, is the crux of the debate!!!

 No, its not the crux of the debate at all, Steve , becuase you are making a quite false assumption.  You are confusing metaphysical materialism with historical materialism.  It is totally possible to be a metaphysical spiritualist and a historical materialist ( though I agree it is not possible to be a metaphysical materialist and a metaphysical spritualist).  This is what the Party cannot get its head around and this frankly is the root of the whole problem. It needs to understand that metaphysical materialism,  however sound it may be as a worldview, .  has no relevance to the question of whether one is, or can be,  a socialist or not which is a question that relates strictly to this world and not sone otherworldly existence.  And despite what you say , Steve , the vast majority of religious folk do live in this world in every sense of the word – just  like us!

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

What is getting ridiculous, are those who believe in a life hereafter, that they would even give a toss about this ephemeral, tiny lifespan, compared with "eternity" in "Heaven". People, workers, need to understand that our lifespan, here on good old planet earth, is all we've got. Get over yourselves. Don't wait for pie in the sky when you die!

 Sorry, Steve, but that is absurd. Step back a bit and look at what you have just written.  Are you seriously trying to say here that religious people "don't give a toss" about life on this earth? That's nonsense. If only it were true because, if it were, you wouldn't have certain organised religions sanctioning and upholding the status quo. Why bother upholding the status quo which after all pertains precisely to  this "ephemeral, tiny lifespan". That is what the real problem is with religion – or rather with certain organised religions – and it is only to that extent that the religious question is relevant to the socialist case, surely? Belief in some metaphysical abstraction which may very well be ridiculous in itself is not relevant at all.  Besides, if you want to be a "scientific socialist" about this , Steve , you should examine the evidence scientifically and systematically. Can religious people be sympathetic to socialism and even actively work for socialism? Of course they can!.  The evidence is right under your nose. The SPGB itself has religious sympathisers, has it not? They are clearly not waiting for pie in the sky when they die. They are doing something now about getting socialism. So why in god's name – to coin a phrase – is the Party not  welcoming them in  with open arms? That is what is  truly ridiculous.  If perchance such individuals departed from the Party position on some other matter then by all means expel them.  But the dogma that just because they are religious they are somehow not socialists or will veer away from socialism is itself unscientific and religious

steve colborn wrote:

For Robbo to say, "The fact of the matter is that  holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not", is to miss the crux of the matter, that just as the Jihadist Islamists believe that dying for "the cause", will get them into paradise, why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence, when the "promised land" of heaven, lasting as the religious tell us, forever, will be the reward for believing in "Christ"? Give your head a serious shake! A religious belief is, a serious impediment to being a "Socialist". Moreover, if one understands the arguments, an insurmountable one.

 How so? You don't explain. You only assert. And how would you reconcile this claim of yours with the FACT that there are religious people who support the Party, some of whom, I understand, do more work for the SPGB than many of its members? I think the Party – or should I say some in it –  has a very poor grasp of the sociology of religion altogether and this shows up again and again. I saw that in the Youtube video of the Party meeting which I mentioned above. Although Howard Moss himself gave what I thought was a very considered and nuanced account of  the subject , some of the comments from some in the audience were embarrassingly naive, frankly.   I mean, jesus christ ., Steve, what are you saying here  – "why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence.  But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not?   There is a whole damn elaborate theory formulated by Max Weber on the subject of the "protestant work ethic" which tries to account for the rise of capitalism in terms of an ascetic mode of thinking encouraged  by certain forms of Protestantism – particularly, Calvinism.  Its a questionable theory  but nevertheless it is an undeniable fact that some  religions today do seem to want to justify the wealth of the wealthy in religious terms – visit the Bible Belt of the USA  – whereas others equally clearly attack it.  Sheesh, Steve you really should widen your reading list, mate.

steve colborn wrote:

By the same token no, we cannot believe that "atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood  and an ethic of selflessness"! Without an understanding of the world, based on a class perspective, of our interests as individuals and as a "collection" of human beings, with a shared interest in getting a society run in the interests of "all" humanity, atheism is as big an irrelevance as religion and will be as redundant, in a sane society. It is "class consciousness" that is the deciding factor

Exactly! So why then insist on atheism as  a requirement for membership???    And lets not be mealy mouthed  here  – that's exactly what the Party does.  The idea is that religious belief in itself leads one to somehow stray from the socialist path – irrespective of the form of that belief.  It is simply not sustainable as an idea and conflicts with the empirical evidence in the form of religious socialists themselves.  What the Party has is this rather old fashioned and very narrow model of religion in mind  which it attacks.  What it is actually attacking – quite rightly in my opinion –  is the socially reactionary nature of the religions in question.  But then it generalises and widens  its attack to include in its target any form of religious belief whatsoever  and to move away from the realm of sociological reasoning into pure metaphysics.  Now there may very well be sound metaphysical reasons for rejecting all religion but it is not the business of a socialist political organisation to engage  in such arguments . That only distract from the socialist cause and hinders the growth of the socialist movement itself  Marx himself though hostile to religion did not recommend the exclusion of religious minded workers from the International Workingmans Association and it is a great pity that the SPGB did not heed his advice from the word go I hope one day that the SPGB will soften its approach on the religious question which it certainly can do without in any way jeopardising its socialist integrity.  Some sort of compromise on the subject is possible which focuses exclusively on the socially reactionary nature of forms of religion rather than on the metaphysics of religious belief.  A change of heart of some sort cannot come too soon in my opinion as in every other respect the SPGB stands head and shoulders above every other organisation claiming to be socialist…

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

We've just received an application to join from someone who saw Danny Lambert on the BBC2 Daily Politics Show last Monday. Here's their answer to the last question:

Quote:

What are your views on religion and its relation to the Party’s case for socialism?:Religion is the greatest enemy of reason, peace, and brotherhood. It takes children and teaches them hate. It teaches them superstition. It divides them. It pays lip-service to contentment but sanctions selfishness. It talks about peace, but ends in war. It promises enlightenment but offers only wanton ignorance.

 Bit of a sweeping statement statement that.  Would someone like Gerrard Winstanley (1649) of the Levellers – a devout and militant protestant who argued passionately for common ownership of the earth be really considered an enemy of reason, peace and brotherhood etc etc?.    Would religious sympathisers of the SPGB be considered likewise?  I mean c'mon – this is getting a little ridiculous, isnt it?Conversely are we to believe that atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood  and an ethic of selflessness?  Tell that to the subjects-cum-victims  of such despicable regimes as North Korea with its officially sanctioned state atheism.  Most atheists in my view are pretty much pro capitalistThe fact of the matter is that  holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not.  Far more relevant is the particular type or form of religion and especially the social policies associated with it.  For instance, I cannot believe someone who really goes along with all the teachings of the Catholic  Church could truly be a socialist. But then as I say most atheists support some pretty reactionary social views as well

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Sorry, Robbo, you got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't saying that slump conditions are best for us. In fact I hold the opposite view (more workers turn to nasty nationalism as in the 30s and again now). What I was saying is that at the time many members did think this and dropped out when capitalism proved able to improve working class conditions, including their own, compared to the 30s.

 Fair enough, If thats your view, then I wouldnt disagree with you.  I just thought you were taking the opposite view when in answer to SP question as to why the party membership slumped in the post war years you said: "There was no post-war slump and with more or less full employment in the 50s working class conditions improved compared with pre-war days, with workers acquiring household goods and even cars." Still , as I am discovering through my various interventions on sites like Revleft  that the catastrophist view of socialist revolution is still widely endorsed – that it is going to take a really catastrophic crisis to shake workers out of their apparent slumber. Like you I take the view that that is, if anything, likely to make matters worse for the socialist movement, not better.  Why did so many SPGBers back then think otherwise, I wonder?

[Author]

Posts