robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
twc wrote:Incidentally, this is very late news for the rest of us, who’ve apparently been, until now, only groping blindly for a working-class emancipation that will involve “the emancipation of all mankind, independent of race or sex” [DOP 4].
In case you hadn't cottoned on, TWC, the emancipation of all mankind etc is something that is supposed to only materialise after the socialist revolution not before it. Before the revolution, the working class continues to exist and with it the need for – nay, the inescapability of – a working class ethics . Unless, of course, you no longer see the working class as the primary agent of socialist revolution but then again trying to decipher what you are trying to say – most of which, incidentally, as far as the above post is concerned, seems to consist in a quite outlandish attempt, to the point of sheer gibberish, to attribute to me views I dont even hold anyway – is, as per usual, no easy task so I wont even attempt it. Much of the time I havent the foggiest notion what you are warbling on about and I strongly suspect Im not alone in thinking that.My position is much more straightforward then you seem to want to portray it. A working class that does not consider it to be morally reprehensible to cross a picket line or inform on "cheating" benefit claimants to the authorities or to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc is quite frankly, a working class that is a million miles away from effecting a socialist revolution. And you think ethics makes for "social impotence", huh?. You should descend from the clouds, TWC. The view may be inspiring but you need to plant your feet on the ground sometimes
twc wrote:.But to argue against ethics myself. Ethics are the soporific of capitalism. They are its essential sham veneer. That’s the only ethical case we have under capitalism.For the rest, capitalism’s ethics are appropriate to and perfectly adequate to capitalism, and there’s little we can do about it that our capitalist politicians can’t, and they have the virtue of being in a position to legislate those necessary legal aspects that changing capitalism demands.For our part, ethics is a distraction. More important than ethics is moral integrity.Integrity is the fount of the Socialist Party’s survival in the face of the enormous odds stacked against it. The integrity of our rational case for socialism is our only rock-solid foundation. Integrity, if one were needed, is our moral trump card. Not insipid ethics.I now find it hard to see what specifically socialist essence remains in your Socialism of “anger, emotion, ethics, etc.” that distances it from any other political movement, since they all rely on it, and play this card like professional experts.Sorry TWC but this is a very weak argument. Others may well rely on "anger, emotion ethics" but your suggestion that we should not do so ourselves, since that will mean we will be unable to differentiate ourselves, or our "socialist essence", from them, is frankly ridiculous. The anger of the nationalist is directed against other nations or ethnic minorities that he or she perceives as diluting the purity of the nation. Our anger by complete constrast is directed against the capitalist system and what it gives rise to. I dont think there is any danger of people not seeing the difference, do you?Actually, it is absurd to even talk of "anger, emotion, ethics" in such voluntaristic terms as though these things are something one chooses to employ as a matter of deliberate strategy. Rather, you become a socialist precisely because you are angered by what you see around you, by what you consider to be morally offensive about capitalism. You dont just coolly and intellectually consider the case for socialism, and in a detached manner, decide that it makes "good rational sense" and then opt to become a socialist, having beeen swayed by the labour theory of value or Marx's prognistications on the falling rate of profit. These two things – emotion and reason- go inextricably hand in hand . One without the other, as I said, is utterly uselessYou say:The Socialist Party will soon enough find more than enough “anger, emotion, etc.” in its support, involuntarily out of the nature of capitalism. It has no need to foment it in order to create socialists."Foment" means to instigate or stir up. Foment is, I think, the wrong word because it implies that the anger is not there to begin with but has to be artifically induced by socialist propagandists which, of course, is nonsense. "Express" would be a more appropriate. We should be tapping into the anger both we and our fellow workers feel. If socialist propganda means any thing it means helping to sharpen the focus of workers' anger and directing it against the system itself rather than against immigrants or politicians or other nations or whatever. It certainly does not mean disassociating ourselves from such anger in order to sustain the illusion that we are somehow objective, value-free "scientific" socialists. Cue for L Bird methinks You also say: The integrity of our rational case for socialism is our only rock-solid foundation. Integrity, if one were needed, is our moral trump card. Not insipid ethics.I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. How does sticking to our "rational case for socialism" constitute a "moral trump card"? Morality, if it means anything at all, is based on an altruistic concern for the wellbeing of others; it is essentially other-oriented. Nor am i clear about what lies behind your implied distinction between morality (which you seem to endorse) and ethics (which you find "insipid"). I suppose you have in mind the notion that ethics is about the theory whereas morality is about the practice, yes? In any event, I endorse and enthusiastically recommend to you, the notion of a "proletarian ethics" which is a form of "ethical particularism" (as opposed to the "ethical universalism" of philosophers like Kant). I don't really see how the socialist case cannot but embrace a proletarian ethics; it is implied in the very appeal to working class unity. The argument that the case for socialism is based on nothing more than "self interest" strikes me as absolutely ridiculous. That is not an argument for socialism at all but, in the final analysis, for the amoralism of a completely atomised market economy in which each pursue their own separate and selfish interests. It thus reinforces "actually existing capitalism" Self interest has a place in the case for socialism but alongside, and not at the expense of, our socialist and moral concern for the wellbeing of our fellow workers. If the only thing that concerns you is what is in your own self interest then why bother trying to achieve a socialist society? It would be preferable from your point of view to divert all your energies into enriching yourself at the expense of everyone else in the here and now, quite frankly
twc wrote:No, that was not the peeved miserable point Alan was making.He knows precisely what I mean, even if you don’t.In that case, would you care to outline what that "peeved" and "miserable" point was that Alan was supposedly making. It seems to me that the point he was making was a pretty reasonable one and your reaction to it was both overly cantankerous and irrational
Having attacked Alan for being "cantankerous " and "irrational" – the words "pot" and kettle" spring to mind – note the "passion, anger, righteous outrage" with which TWC himself seeks to condemn precisely these qualities that Alan (correctly) sees as being integral to a socialist outlook. Nope, I fully and wholeheartedly side with Alan in this dispute. Of course a clearly thought out rational argument is essential to the struggle to establish socialism. But so too is a burning sense of outrage at what capitalism does to us. One without the other is useless Everyone here – barring TWC it would seem – would, I imagine, understand that this was the point that Alan was really making. Sorry TWC but your post is way way over the top and you should know it.
LBird wrote:The problem originated with Engels, and was carried forward by the Second International, and Lenin.L Bird,How would this quote support your thesis? Correct me if Im wrong but Engel's repudiation of a contrast between mind and matter sounds a bit like your idealism-materialism, no?Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature — but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly…. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will humanity not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, humanity and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity (Frederick Engels 1876 The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man)
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
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!
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
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 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, RobinNo takers, then?
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
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
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.
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….
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
