[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?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

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.

 I would be very wary of citing post war economic conditions as a reason for the decline  in the SPGB´s membership from a  four figure number  to the few hundred it is today.  It is a standard position on the Left that a revolutionary surge is predicated on the occurrence of a capitalist crisis.  Marx and Engels at one time or another both argued that capitalist crises would get worse and worse and this was the underlying dynamic  that would lead to socialist revolution.  But the argument is wrong.  Crises don't necessarily get  worse and worse – the Great Depression in the early 30s was far worse than the 2008 crisis  – and if anything crisis generate reactionary tendencies among workers e.g. the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.  There is certainly a lot of evidence to suggest that economic downturn tends to make workers more conservative-minded and compliant  in order to cling on to their jobs. I can cite research done in this area As far as the SPGB is concerned, if you are going to rely on an economic downturn for workers to become more militant and receptive to socialist ideas then the implication of such thinking is that you must brace yourself for a loss of membership when material conditions improve which is what you seem to be saying,  Adam.  How do you reconcile that with Marx´s view that there are no permanent crises, that every crisis is followed by an economic upturn leading to boom?  The implications of what you are suggesting is that the SPGB will never be able to break out this parlous state of being a pitifully small party.  Just as soon as its starts growing, an economic boom will come along and  prune back all that growth it made under conditions of material austerity. I think such thinking is reductionist and there are numerous other factors involved that influence  the growth of the Party. I still maintain that the small party syndrome is the primary or governing factor through which many other factors are refracted. The small party syndrome is a psychological factor that asserts that you lack credibility because you are small and because you lack credibility this keeps you small. It is only when you reach a critical threshold in terms of numbers that this factor begins to abate.  Which is why every new member counts for far more now while the SPGB is well below this critical threshold than afterwards, when it has breached that threshold. I also still maintain that one of those factors that impedes the growth of the party, the effect of which is refracted through the small party syndrome , is the SPGB´s absurd policy on refusing membership to socialists who happen to hold religious views,  irrespective of the form of these religious views.  Comrades in the SPGB persistently misunderstand the argument that is presented here.  Yesterday I stumbled across, for the first time,   a YouTube talk given by Howard Moss back in 2008 on "Is Socialism a Faith". Howard´s talk was a very good one – a good example of the kind of nuanced approach to the question of religion that the Party ought to be evolving towards but I was less impressed with some of the comments from the audience.  It is not the case that some ex-members of the Party are arguing that there are hundreds or thousands of potential recruits to the party out there just champing at the bit waiting to join but being unable to join  because they hold certain  religious views.  What is being argued is quite different  – that the accumulative or incremental effect of the policy on religion as refracted through the small party syndrome is that the Party is much smaller now than it might have  been but for this policy on religion.  The policy is absurd because it is totally unnecessary or redundant. If holding religious led one to support vanguardism,  for example , then it is quite easy to expel a member advocating undemocratic vanguardist views for holding such views without reference to his or her religious views.  The unwarranted assumption being made is that holding religious views necessarily leads to all sorts of anti socialist postions but that is bunkum . There is no necessity about it and, as so called "scientific socialists" , the SPGB should be more open to the emprical evidence that might contradict such dogmatic apriori assertions.  Holding religious view does not necessarily conflict with being a socialist at all or indeed embracing a materialist conception of history.  Nor does it necessarily take power away from human beings as agents of change and place it in the hands of some godlike entity.  All that is sociological bunkum and the truth of the matter is that the Party has a very poor grasp of the sociology of religion.  Its sweeping claims are based on a  very particular narrow model of religion which is theistic and organisation or church-based and above all, Christian. Denying membership to socialists with religious views is as dumb as denying membership to socialists who hold atheist views just because the vast majority of atheists currently support capitalism. Its a pseudo-empiricist position But anyway enough about religion  and my hobby horse about the Party´s policy on the matter!  The point I'm making, really, is that there are numerous factors that influence the growth of a revolutionary socialist party.  Some of these are internal , some external.  Never mind the economic boom that supposedly decimated the ranks of the SPGB in the post war era – what about the devastating effect of the whole example of the Soviet Union on the socialist cause?  Cumulatively, I would have thought that that was far more important as a factor.  Also, of course,  there was the experience of the "socialist" Atlee government as well.  Workers  having had a taste of "socialism" in action  would probably have had good reason to turn away from any organisation that advocated "socialism".  But thats "just my opinion", as the bloke from  the Russia Today TV programme keeps saying

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Thanks Adam, was looking forward to your analysis. What your conclusion should have said, though, is something like this: "given that LU has been going for barely a year, it had made remarkable progress, polling the same vote as longer established left parties where it has stood, and in one place doing rather better, beating the Tory candidate. Left Unity has also had a remarkably successful press operation, and its success, as well as the good work of people like Owen Jones and Caroline Lucas, had made the overall climate more open to left ideas generally. We in the SPGB have benefited from this too, so we offer our thanks to our left comrades and congratulate LU on its rapid progress."

 Hmm.  I dunno, Stuart, but I think there is something amiss with your analysis. As things stand at present any party advocating a "minimum" programme (which lets face it the LU is doing) ought to be inherently better positioned to garner more votes than a party relying solely on a maximum or revolutionary  programme to attract votes. That is because the general population or the working class as a whole is still currently thinking overwhelmingly  in a reformist mode.  That factor alone should more than wipe out any advantage the SPGB enjoys in terms of the longevity factor – i.e. the fact that the LU ought by rights to attract far more voters than the SPGB at the moment because of the predominance of reformist thinking within the working class to which LU essentially appeals despite its lip service to socialism. You know, Ive heard this argument before about how the "climate of opinion" is rendered  more "receptive" to socialist ideas by campagining reformist political parties and groups making political inroads. Its what they said about the Labour government in the immediate post war years.  That was a time when the membership of the SPGB was at its highest – in four figures.  The facile inference that might be drawn is that by voting for or supporting the Labour party the prospects of the SPGB making advances would improve.  But it doesnt work out that way. Quite the opposite .  The SPGB would sign its own death warrent if it tied its fortunes to that of the Labour Pasrty even if it were apparently true that the SPGB does better under a Labour government than a Tory governement. I refer you again to my analogy of the plate of soup and the ingredients it contains.  As individuals we all make an influence. We all add to the overall flavour of the soup,  however microscopic our contribition is to the overall climate of opinion.  The members of the SPGB are not making any  less of an influence because they happen to be members of the SPGB and not members of the Labour party, if you see what I mean.  So even if the hypothesis that "Labour governments are better for the SPGB than Tory governments" were true,  that is not an argument for supporting a labour government. The main problem with the SPGB and what holds it back is what I call the "small party syndrome".  Its a self perpetuating condition that affects all small parties . Smallness tends to reproduce smallness.  Small parties lack credibility simply by virtue of being small and therefore fail to attract people that would make them bigger. So they remain small.  It is only once they start to reach a certain critical threshold in terms of numbers that they can begin to overcome this factor.  Then when they pass that threshold we find the opposite factor coming into play. Increasing size attracts more support and makes for more credibility  so that  the organisation becomes even bigger and more and more quickly.  That is why it is reasonable to assume that the growth of a revolutionary socialist political party will take an exponential form beyond a certain point What the small party  syndrome does is to enormously magnify the effect of any obstable to party growth  in  the meantime.  For example, I consider, as some  people here know, that the SPGB's policy on refusing to admit individuals with religious views is totally absurd amnd represenmts a serious (and unnecessary) obstacle to its growth .  Religious minded socialists who totally agree with everything the SPGB  stands for except for the fact that they happen to hold some religious view , pose absolutely no threat to the socialist intergity of the SPGB. After all, the purpose of the SPGB is not to advance atheistic ideas but to help establish socialism. 99% of atheists are pro capitalist but I would consider it equally absurd to ban atheiosts from joining the SPGB because of that. If they or their religious counterparts did  in any way pose a threat to the socialist integrity of the SPGB there are more than adequate mechanisms already  in place to deal with this. In other towards the religious ban is totally redundant or superfluous.  Yet it holds back party growth The point that I'm making is that, at this stage of the game,  the significance of gaining every new member to the party is vastly greater than when the party has overcome the small party syndrome and is growing exponentially. That is, when it has past that critical threshold.   I venture the opinion that had the SPGB right back in 1904 when it kicked off, took Marx's advice to the IWA and decided not to rule out religious applicants  from membership, we would probably by now be talking of the SPGB being a party of several thousands of members if  you take into account the cumulative or incremental effect over such a long period of time. Most people who learn about the party's position on religion dont bother to apply  so it only appears that this is only a small problem but I suggest it is much bigger than people think.  Put in a historical or cumulative context of 110 years of negligible growth it could be a positively enormous Its a great pity that the SPGB does seem so set in its ways on this subject and I hope one day it will change its mind and at least soften its entry requirement as far as religion is concerned, perhaps only banning applicants who fromally belong to some religious organisation. Thats a good compromise position since it undermines organised religion and the reactionary policies endorsed by many organised religions which is the real problem as far as socialists are concerned – not some abstract metaphysical  concept of whether or not there is a god or an afterlife which is a totally irrelevant debate for socialists to be engaging in On other aspects, however,  I think the formula the SPGB has adopted of admitting only confirmed socialists is broadly correct and the problem with LU, as I see it,  is that it has bought into the same basic reformist paradigm that is shared by supporters of the Labour party.  If you go along with that paradigm then it doesnt really make much sense to join LU. Far better to join Labour and work from within that party precisely because the later at least stands a realistic chance of becoming a government whereas  with all due respect, Stuart, LU stands no chance at all. The niche has already been filled

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Early on in the election we were asked by the Powys County Times, published in Welshpool, Mid-Wales, to submit three 250-word statements for publication, with those of the other lists, in their issues of 2 May, 9 May and 16 May. We have managed to obtain copies of the paper for these three dates. Here is what they published on 9 May (based on the script of our election broadcast).

I know this might sound a little pedantic but I slightly winced at the sentence in the statement as follows"By producing what's needed and wanted, not just what can be sold"That seems to imply that production for sale will continue in socialism and will operate alongside production for what's needed and wanted,  does it not?

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Like all moral precepts, yours is pre-designed to paper over conflict.  To avoid it at all costs.

 Bollocks. Though I have no truck with Trotsky politically, I think the title of his 1938 work puts it rather well  -Their Morals and Ours  (www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm) Proletarian morality or bourgeois morality without the silly pretence that struggle for socialism can be shorn of any sense of moral outrage at what capitalism does to us

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Robbostill don't know what you mean by 'morality' . What is it?  When did it develope? Who decides its content?Is it not enough to say that we – like many other animals – have genetic traits of sociability, caring and empathy?  Such traits have been found in other animals. Or is it because with the rejection of 'creation' you still refuse to accept that we are animals that evolved from the animal world and developed an intelligence.Our predisposition to caring, sociability and empathy have been twisted by propertied society and its morality. We don't need another morality to twist our natural inclinations.  I have to say that the idea of a 'proletarian science' and a 'proletarian morality' sends shivers down my spine.2+2=5  is wrong but cannot be described as immoral. 

 VinI have defined what I mean by "morality" several times. It means a sense of obligation or concern with respect to the welfare and wellbeing of others.  It means treating others as having value in  themselves, not as a means to your own personal ends.  Morality is "other-oriented".  It is the social cement that holds togther any conceivable kind of society or, indeed, any kind of social movement that seeks to alter the structure of existing society.  It is a social fact which cannot be wished away however much you might want to. The fact of human morality cannot be wished away but the contents – or form – of human morality can  alter from one society to the next, from one group to another.  The great error that lies behind the arguments of those who assume morality has no place in the struggle to achieve socialism is that they think morality is some kind of standardised or universal set of rules that different societies or movements can tap into in order to present themselves as being more "moral" than others. This is not at all what the argument is about.  Morality is a "group" thing;  The form of a given morality is closely bound up with the particular group that is the object of one's moral identification.  So a nationalist morally idenitifes with the nation state and the cirizens that supposedly comprise the nation as opposed to foreigners.  As socialists we dont share that sense of a moral identification becuase we see the nation state as being fundamentally an institution that arises out of, or reinforces, capitalism.  We have an altogther different  morality…. You say the idea of a proletarian morality sends shivers down your spine.  But why? Do you not morally identify with your fellow workers? Do you not feel concern for their interests , quite apart from your own  (and I have no problem with self interest being a motivating factor alongside a concern with the interests of others)? Do you not consider that your fellow workers have value in themselves and should not be used simply as  a means to your own private ends? If so , then by definition you exhibit a proletarian morality, like it or not. Make no mistake about it.  Rejecting a place for morality in the struggle to achieve socialism is tantamount to saying that the only thing that motivates socialists is, should be,  their own private self interests and that the interests of others are,or  should be  of no concern to them.  The usual counter to this argument is that socialism is about "enlightened self interest" (instrumentalism) rather than atomistic go-it-alone self interest.  But I would argue that so called  enlightened self interest is a fundamally unstable compound.  It will tend to break down and evolve in the direction of atomistic self interest or in the opposite direction,  towards altruism. Being instrumentalist in stance, it entails having to constantly renegotiate the terms and purpose of one's ( ultimately) self interested cooperation with others. This is  unsustainable. And it does not get round the simple stark  fact that if self interest was really your sole and only concern – what motivates you –  then you would be much better advised to strive to become a capitalist in a capitalist world and stab your fellow workers in the back in your bid to become one, than advocate socialism The Communist Manifesto,  in a particularly striking passage, evocatively talks of how the bourgeosie have left "no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation".    I would argue that those who subscribe to the absurd notion that socialism is a matter of "self interest" and self interest alone are in fact reinforcing bourgeois ideology. They are exhibiting an essentially bourgeois outlook and a bourgeois set of values  not the values of revolutionary socialism.  You might protest that this is unfair and that you are not suggesting that socialism should be only be about "naked self interest".  But if you say that then logically what you are saying is that the interests of other workers in a matter of concern to you, not just your own interests.  That ipso facto is taking up a moral position! Finally , yes other animals exhibit traits such as caring , socialibility and even empathy  But how do you deduce from that  thatOur predisposition to caring, sociability and empathy have been twisted by propertied society and its morality. We don't need another morality to twist our natural inclinations.It is those very "natural inclinations" that make the question of morality unavoidable. We are intrinsically moral animals because we are naturally  social aninimals . It IS  our natural inclination to be moral animals.  It is simply impossible to dispense with morality because the very fact  that we live in a society requires it.  All we can do is change the form of morality we espouse or endorse.  When socialists purportedly reject morality what they are really rejecting is what I call "moralising" – which is the explicit and strident appeal to some particular moral code usually associated with some particular religion like Christianity.  But that is not a rejection of morality per se.  You cannot reject what is part of your very nature as a social animal. Even if you are not prone to moralising you are still a moral animal And as for the other animals –  well,  you will be aware of the work of people like Frans de Waal who argue strongly that the building blocks of morality – a kind of proto morality – is to be found in other animals particularly the higher apes.  Our kinship with other animals which the theory of evolution , even before Darwin, increasingly brought to light, ironically prompted a reaction in the religious minded in the opposite direction in order to retain intact the notion of a human soul. The differences with animals and the uniquenss of human beings was emphasised by them whereas in the old Medieval concept (going back to the Ancient Greeks in fact) of a Great Chain of  Being, human were placed in a continuum or gradation from lowly inorganic matter right up to purely spiritual beings – the angels.  Thats is why in the 19th century, the Great Chain of being was abandoned – because with the input of evolutionary ideas it threatened certain fundamental  religious beliefs  about the nature of human souls and so on.  The only people who continued to subscribe to the basic outline of the Great Chain were, oddly enough, the racists who converted the Great Chain concept into a kind of racial hierarchy.  That fitted in very nicely with an expanding imperialism that sought to justify foreign conquest and the supposed superiority of the white man etc but that is another story…

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

But to talk of morality under capitalism is to talk of an evanescent or vulgarized thing, that is almost always a ploy, or bond of emotional selfishness, in a world where the sole nexus between man and his fellow is naked cash payment.  It is to abuse the word, because the action it connotes has become debased by the society wherein it can only be acted out.  That is an awful situation, but don’t shoot the messenger for alerting you to the reality.Every social movement lays claim to morality above all else.  You get upset when I refuse to go down that disreputable path.  Well you’ll just have to live with it.  I refuse to play the soppy game when all sides play the morality card, and you simply play the “more morality than thou” joker.Either discuss morality theoretically, or not at all.  By the way, I assume that you are aware of Trivers’s 1970s biological “altruism” that, of course, has scant relation to human altruism, but can only be negated theoretically, and not emotionally.

 You still dont get it – do you? – after its been repeatedly pointed out to you.  Its not a question  of playing the “more morality than thou” joker.  Thats a naff, one-dimensional criticism that presupposes some kind of timeless universal and standardised notion of morality which individuals or social movements can tap into – some more effectively than others, so permitting themselves to pass themselves as more moral or "holier" than others. Nobody is making this argument  As usual you are barking up the wrong tree completely.  As Ive said several times now the relevant criterion  has to do with whom one morally identifies.  A proletarian morality implies a proletariat as the object of one's moral identification. Just as a nationalist morality presupposes "the nation" as the object of moral identification.  What makes you think you are so special as to be above  and superiour to the rest of us in not having  to adopt a moral position  (which you do anyway though you refuse to acknowlege it)?I note you have evaded the completely the thoroughly bourgeois implications of the argument that socialism is purely a matter of what is in our "self interests".  Yes I am aware of Robert Trivers' work on reciporcal altruism – what of it?

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

On the contrary, overt morality is essential to a conniving society like capitalism.  Overt, and ostentatious, morality, of your obvious kind, is inextricably built into capitalism.  It drips from the capitalist air you breathe, because it is indispensable to the functioning of class oppression.  That’s where you pick it up your overt, ostentatious, morality from; unlike Marx who saw through capitalist appearance and exposed its rotten core.I’m sorry, but you and robbo are falling for the veneer of capitalism, even while convincing yourself you aren’t by giving lip service to its rotten core.[

 This is rubbish.  Your are confusing morality with "moralising" or what you call "overt morality".  You dont seem to understand what morality is. Morality is inextricacbly linked with notions such as altruism and empathy. It is inherently other-oriented, regards others as having value in themselves and not merely a means to your own ends (instrumentalism) and is based on a fundamental concern for the welfare and wellbeing of those others, whoever they may be. Some people get very confused about this, mistaking form for substance. Since capitalism (like any other conceivable form of human society) relies in some measure on morality, the inference is made that we must therefore reject "morality".  This is illogical and unwarranted.  What we need to reject is not morality but, specifically,  capitalist morality. I refer you once again to Engels statement in Anti Duhring: We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination, and the future interests of the oppressedWe have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life A really human morality.  That is what socialism is about!  What in anthropological terms is called a moral economy is predicated on a sense of reciprocal obligations to one another as human beings.  This is one of the strongest arguments against the "human nature" brigade who assert that socialism could never work because humans are inherently self-interested greedy and lazy yet, incredibly, some socialists seem unwittingly intent on endorsing such a view with their rejection of what they  call "morality ". They cede ground to the bourgeois apologists for the atomistic idea of the purely "self interested individual".  Its Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market all over again except the resulting social order that is meant to transpire from this mechanical application of the principle of "self interest" will be socialism and not  a "free" market.  As if. I find it absolutely astonishing that any socialist could reject the notion of morality.  The class solidarity and unity that we seek in order to overthrow capitalism precisely consists in a proletarian morality. How could it not?   The idea that socialism is nothing more than an objective that is in our "self  interest" to pursue is,  by contrast, a thoroughly bourgeois way of looking at things. It reeks of bourgeois individualism and bourgeois hypocrisy.  Of course socialism will be in our own self interest but it will be much much more than just our own self interests that will be involved ; it will also necessarily  involve the interests of fellow workers around us.  And since we cannot achieve socialism without the involvement  of our fellow workers necessarily that entails a vital  role for morality in the class struggle. If all you are really concerned with as an individual is your own private "self interests" well then you might as well strive to become a capitalist in capitalist society  and stab every other worker you encounter on the way, in the back, as you slither up the greasy capitalist pole of "self interested" material advancement. Socialism would definitely not be your cup of tea.  

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 Before jumping to such rash conclusions that our “levels of reality” are absolutely autonomous,

 One further thought – this claim makes no sense because it is central to Emergence Theory that a higher level of reality supervenes on a lower level and therefore cannot possibly be "absolutely autonomous".  In the cognitive sciences, Emergence Theory does not disavow physicalism or the fact that the mind depends on the brain.  It merely denies that brain states are identifical to mental states – a fact proven by the phenomenon of "neural plasticity" inter alia.  There is a process of interaction going on in other words, involving also downward causation, within a framework in which mental states supervene on brain states That is why the emergence parardigm in the cognitiuve sciences is called non-reductive physicalism.  Note the word "physicalism"

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Before jumping to such rash conclusions that our “levels of reality” are absolutely autonomous, and not partly relative to the necessary human practice of “divide and conquer”, and contrary assertion is absolutely incompatible with socialist thinking, you might first acknowledge that “levels of reality” are abstractions from experience…..In other words, your assertion is not proved by our necessary mode of explanation.  It can only be proved in practice, and we already know that Marx was able to bridge the greatest chasm of them all by reducing human consciousness to our hungry belly and our compulsion to labour. 

 I didnt say different levels of reality are absolutely autonomous with respect to each other. I was attacking the concept of "greedy reductionism", a term coined by Dennett himself.If you are going to be a full blooded reductionist why not go the whole hog and reduce human consciousness to an even more basic level of reality – like say, the sub atomic level, as I suggested – thus eliminating hunger as a superogatory explanation as to why people think what they think. As to your ridiculous claim that "Marx was able to bridge the greatest chasm of them all by reducing human consciousness to our hungry belly and our compulsion to labour", it will suffice to draw your attention to the quote from Engels  in a letter to a young student which appears in the SPGB pamphlet  "Historical Materialism":"According to the materialist conception of history, the factor which is in the last instance decisive in history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More than this neither Marx nor myself ever claimed. If now someone has distorted the meaning in such a way that the economic factor is the only decisive one, this man has changed the above pro-position into an abstract, absurd phrase which says nothing. The economic situation is the base, but the different parts of the structure – the political forms of the class struggle and its results, the constitutions established by the victorious class after the battle is won, forms of law and even the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political theories, juridical, philosophical, religious opinions, and their further development into dogmatic systems, all this exercises also its influence on the development of the historical struggles and in cases determines their form.". In other words Engels is making a case for downward causation which flatly contradicts "greedy reductionism"

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

Sorry Robbo I still think you're off key here. Isn't he taking about supervience and not "emergence" here?Saying consciousness is an "emergent" property just doesn't explain anything at all. http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/I don't profess to be a expert on Dennett, though I have just spent the last 2 weeks writting an undergraduate essay on Dennetts rejection of  "real seemings" and the "Cartesian theatre"EDIT: I've just re-read that Dennett quote. I don't see even anything in that quote that is even an argument for non-reductive explanation of consciousness, after all it only those that subscribe to the "hard problem" that would claim that a reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible. Dennett's "theory of consciousness" is physicalist and reductionist, it's people like Chalmers that say the opposite.

 Hmmm. I dont think this is right although I could be wrong as I too am no expert on Dennett.  However, I have heard him described as an exponent of Emergence theory.  He is also known for his criticism of what he dubbed "greedy reductionism"  or strong reductionism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_reductionism) and in 1991 came out with his famous anti-reductionist statement in his essay "Real Patterns". He has also argued in favour of human consciousness being a cultural construction and considers that it is too recent an innovation to have been hardwired  innately Point is there is reductionism and there is reductionism.  The kind of reductionism that Dennett seems to be advocating – and here Im treading warily, conscious of the fact that Im not fully familiar with the subject –  is what is called "hierachical reductionism" which does not preclude emergentism or the appearance of properties at a higher order which are not apparent as a lower order upon which the former supervenes.  The quote from Dennett's book I gave you earlier is a good example of this.In an organism with genuine intentionality – such as yourself – there are, right now, many parts, and some of these parts exhibit a sort of semi-intentionality, or mere  'as if' intentionality, or pseudo-intentionality – call it what you like – and your genuine full- fledged intentionality is in fact the product (with no further miracle ingredients) of the activities of all the semi-minded and mindless bits that make you up….Thats is what a mind is – not a miracle machine, but a huge semi-designed, self-redesigning amalgam of smaller machines, each with its own design history, each playing its own role in the "economy of the soul"  (Daniel C Dennett, 1996,  Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life,  Allen Lane,  Penquin Press, p.206) Now you might say he is talking about supervention rather than emergence but is this a case of confusing form and substance? The capacity for human consciousness or fully fledged intentionality may be the product of activities of all the semi-minded and mindless bits that make you up  but what of  the stuff of that consciousness, the very thoughts we think.? The problem boils down to this.  Is the "whole" more than the sum of its parts (holism) or is it no more than the sum of its parts (atomism)?  In the former, the whole determines or  influences the parts through downward causation; in  the latter the part determines or explains the whole in a thoroughgoping reductionist sense. Because reductionisnm in this strong or  "greedy " sense, denies downward causation this means what happens at a higher level (eg a particular mental state) can be wholly explained by what what happens at a lower level – a particular brain state. In other wrods brains states and mental states are identiical . This is Identity theory or "reductionist physicalism" which is certainly not Dennett's view, as I understand it .  As I understand it, Identity Theory has been disproven by the direct evidence of neural plasticity  and by the evidence of downward causation itself (the placebo effect etc). But the main  problem with reductionism is that it collapses into a kind of absurdity.  If mental states are reducible to brain states then in principle  brain states must themsleves be reducible to something else?  What could that be?  The movement of atoms? And the movement of atoms would presumably have to be further reduced to the level of sub atomic particles? So how are we to explain the current crisis of capitalism?  Oh it must be a particularly quirkish alignment of sub atomic quarks that is creating the wrong energy vibes. It is is bad enough when bourgeois economists attempt to explain such crises in terms of entrepeneurial  misjudgements or the overzealousness and greed of individual capitalists (see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/disproportionality-theory-crises) but this is going way beyond that towards a kind of literal atomism  (or sub atomism). That different levels of reality require different orders or explanation to make any sense at all seems to be a very strong reason for repudiating reductionism or at least what Dennett calls greedy reductionism.  Indeed, would subscribing to such a form of reductionism even be compatble with socialist thinking? I dont think so – though it might be more in line  with Mrs Thatcher idea that there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families

[Author]

Posts