[robbo203]

ALB I dont have to accept Castoriadis’s political ideas  – some of which I think were bollocks   –   in order to recognise that History as Creation is a brilliant demolition job – say what you like  – of  the crude  reductionism  and determinism of some  people who call themselves “scientific materialists” which even you must recognise is the case and indeed seem to implicitly acceptStop being so hyper-sensitive about things.  You suggested I come over to this thread . Well,  here I am

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

 If matter is deterministic and the mind is matter then we cannot have free will since the mind must also run on deterministic methods.

 Can you please explain  how “the mind is matter”?  How is the thought that I am thinking right now that I fancy a cold beer and a pizza , “material”?  For sure it might be influenced by  material considerations – I am hungry , I am thirsty,  the weather is hot etc etc  – but does that make my thought , “matter” as such? What, for that matter,  is “matter”?   Surely, even being hungry and thirsty does not necessarily have to result in  me  desiring a pizza and a cold beer? .  Or does it in your view?  Do you consider that I have no choice but to desire this and  not , say,  a plate of ravioli  and a glass of red wine and that everything has been “predetemined” beforehand?BTW Any observations on Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle ( http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm)  It might be relevant to this debate  but Im not exactly certain

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

If you can get hold of a copy of Vin Marattys dissertation “Is Marxism a determinist ideology” do so. Its a good read.

 Is there a link to this Steve? I would be interested in reading this.  Who is Vin Marratty BTW?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

PS.

robbo203 wrote:

The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book “From  Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”.

Just looked up who this Peter Russell is and see that he is a mystic and believer in a god. So maybe this discussion does belong here after all!From here:  http://www.peterrussell.com/SG/index.php

Quote:

From Science to God is the story of Peter Russell’s lifelong exploration into the nature of consciousness. Blending physics, psychology, and philosophy, he leads us to a new worldview in which consciousness is a fundamental quality of creation. He shows how all the ingredients for this worldview are in place; nothing new needs to be discovered. We have only to put the pieces together and explore the new picture of reality that emerges.Integrating a deep knowledge of science with his own experiences of meditation, Russell arrives at a universe similar to that described by many mystics — one in which science and spirit no longer conflict. The bridge between them, he shows, is light. From Science to God invites us to cross that bridge to a radically different, and ultimately healing, view of ourselves and the universe — one in which God takes on new meaning, and spiritual practice a deeper significance.

I haven’t read the book myself, but what is the “new meaning” he says “God takes on”? Is he a pantheist or what?

 Well, bearing in mind my  previous comments about the  “observer effect”   (see this link for further info:  http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com/the-most-beautiful-experiment/ ) and how the mere fact of observing can have a measurable, if infintesemal effect, on a  beam of electrons, Russell deduces from this, if I remember correctly that the universe  in a certain sense , is conscious or sentiient  inasmuch as its “responds”  to the mere fact that we obserrve it.  Or to put it differently, we are part of the very thing we observe and if that is so then the fact that we are conscious means it too  is “conscious.” at least in this special sense .  There is more to Russell’s argument than this and he goes into some detail about the significance of light in Physics and how this relates to his  argument about religion .  My  take on him is that he is some sort of neoplatonist – or “panpsychist” – with a kind of religious materialist  -or materialistic religious – perspective,  if I can put it like that. Its a while since I read the book so I cannot remember all the details but I have it in  front of me  and here is a rather relevant passage from the book  (p.34) “The underlying assumption of the current  metaparadigm is that matter is insentient. The alternative is that the faculty of consciousness is a fundamental quality of nature.  Conscousness does not arise from some particular arrangement  of nerve cells or processes going on between them, , or from any other physical feautures, it is always presentIf the faculty of consciousness is always present , then the relationship between consciousness  and nervous systems needs to be rethought. Rather than creating consciousness. nervous system  may be amplifiers  of consciousness, increasing the richness and quality of  experience. In the analogy of a film projector , having a nervous system is like having  a lens in the projector.  Without the lens  there is still light on the screen , but the images are much less sharp” Russell goes on to talk about the fruitless attempt to try to link mind states to brain states – that is, to trace thoughts to the biochemistry of the brain  – and as someone who supports “emergence theory”  or “non-reductive physicalism” I have some sympathy for this part of his extended argument.  There is now a huge amount of evidence that in my view flatly contradicts the old fashioned crude materialism that went under the name of so called “identity theory” – identifying mind states with brain states. However, I dont know if I would go along with the rest of what Russell is talking about  but whatever else one might think of this point oif view, one thing is certain –  I dont think you can can reasonably come away from it with the dismissive  notion that this is just  some sort of irrational mubo jumbo. It is a highly thoughtful attempt to make sense of reality whether in the end  you agree with it or not.  Which kind of illustrates my basic point   – to dismiss religious people or bar them entry to the SPGB on the grounds that they are ” irrational”  is a gross caricature. We are all both irrational and rational  whether we are religious or not.

[robbo203]

I suggest people here read Cornelius  Castoriadis’ brilliant demolition job  on the crude reductionist materialism of some Marxists  in his short work History as Creation.  Its enough to give our so called “scientific materialists” pause to hopefully rethink …. Check it out here (it comes in 3 parts)http://eagainst.com/articles/cornelius-castoriadis-history-as-creation-part-i/ Ive got the original pamphlet  but the translation above is a bit iffy  so make allowances for that

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

No, but that’s not what I said. I said have a rational approach to things, ie history, society, solving problems, etc. You’re just making a cheap debating point by playing on words. .

 No, you don’t get it at all. Everybody has a “rational approach to things” but equally everybody  is subject to irrational impulses – you , me, members of the SPGB and religious applicants to the SPGB.  Your whole argument is based on a completely false premiss.  You don’t – you can’t!!!  – ensure that people have only  a “rational approach ” to things in the Party by blocking entry to  supposedly irrational  religious applicants.  This kind of “trojan horse” argument against the case for reforming the entry requirements is manifestly false because1) you cannot say a religious person is not “rational”. Period2) you cannot say that you and other members of the SPGB are not “irrational”. PeriodI repeat – – we are all an admixture of both these things You emphasise the need for a “rational approach” to things like  history, society , solving problems etc.  But how we view history, for example,  is very much bound up with our value system.  What we call history is not some kind of objective process which simply goes on “out there” to which we supposedly relate as “objective”observers.  It necessarily involves a process of subjective interpretation – for example in the very selection of the historical facts that we deem significant.  We select these facts in accordance with our values and preconceptions which – inevitably –  we mostly take for granted and in doing so behave “irrationally”Its one reason why I am very ambivalent about the use of the term “scientific materialism” because it is potentially highly misleading.  It  ignores what is called the problem of “reflexivity “in sociology/ anthropology.  We are part of the very thing that we are supposedly “observing” – society.  Its not comparable to a situation where we have group of white coated scientists hanging around monitoring some laboratory experiment.Actually, as a matter of fact, the Observer Effect  is  even evident in the realm of the natural sciences.  Perhaps you with your obsession with paranormal phenomena might want to explain something even  wackier  which developments in quantum physics have brought to light.  See for example this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm.  To me as a non-physicist this is just simply bizarre beyond words and yet one must trust the scientists that such a thing actually happens. There – another example of me being  irrational perhaps!  But in that case so is everybody else  

ALB wrote:

. But what is religion without the idea of a god that intervenes in the lives of human beings? The Epicureans didn’t contest that the gods existed somewhere in the ether but denied that they had any influence on human affairs and so didn’t need worshipping or placating. Were they religious?

 Yes of course they were religious.  The fact that you don’t  have the gods intervening does not mean they are not accorded a supernatural existence.  There is also the troubling phenomenon of pantheism too  in which the idea of intervention does not really make much sense since it implies a separation of god and his/her/its creation in the first place.  The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book “From  Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”.  The fact that a beam of electrons is actually affected by. or seems to respond to,  the mere act of observing it , would seem to imply a very crude kind of sentience of some sort.  How else do you explain it? .  For myself, I couldn’t begin to comment because I am  simply not familiar with   the detailed arguments but it does suggest the world may be a far more weird and wacky place  than your old-fashioned pre-Einsteinian “scientific materialists” could ever have imagined. Hence the need to keep an open mind –  always  

ALB wrote:

 I don’t think a Conference resolution would be required to admit Lucretius to the party.  His reputation as a metaphysical materialist precedes him.

 This is not really the point is it.  You said Northern Light was twice welcomed to apply for membership of the Party. You said this knowing full well that Northern light had expressed a belief in the idea of a creator.  So unless you are playing some kind of cynical game  here,  this can only mean that you think belief in a creator is compatible with membership of the SPGB.  I am asking you  -is it ? If it is not  why then did you suggest Northern Light apply for membership  when that would require a conference resolution to change the entry requirements to the Party?

ALB wrote:

That’s what they say, but “scientism” is a perjorative term which nobody would claim for themselves. Looking it up I see it’s said to reject all “metaphysical” claims. You can’t have it both ways: we can’t be metaphysical materialists and scientists. And, since we’re having a pub debate (at the moment still inside it), what other sources of knowledge do you think there is apart from empirically-based science? Religion perhaps?

 No this is sheer bunkum .  “Scientism” might be loosely described as the over-reliance or  overemphasis on science and the scientific method  as a means to knowledge.  Where did you get the idea  that  this is “said to reject all metaphysical claims”  (a link would be appreciated). Metaphysics is conventionally defined as that branch of philosophy to do with the ultimate nature of reality.  Everyone has a metaphysical standpoint  – a taken for granted framework within which they view the world around them . Metaphysical materialism is one such kind of framework, dualism is another and philosophical idealism is yet another. You cannot avoid having a metaphysical point of view and in that sense it is  fully compatible with scientism

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Even on a single thread on religion over the past week on this forum  you lot  have managed to disillusion one or two potential members and one or two existing members.

I always assumed that this was your intention in continually stirring up such debates.

 Yeah , go on,  deflect the blame on poor  Robocox (LOL) as you and Mr Copy-n-Paste Gnome have been doing all along.  Its not me who has been the cause of their disillusionment.. My motives  have been obvious from the start: I would love nothing more than for the SPGB to flourish and grow but it aint gonna happen unless it gets off  its complacent arse and makes some pretty radical changes..  Thats what I and others who have left the Party would hope for  but perhaps I am more naive  than them  in thinking such change is possible in the face of the such entrenched conservatism as we have seen here.  Those who defend the organisation, come hell or high water,  will do everything possible to avert their eyes from the pretty obvious shortcomings of the organisation rather than face up to the plain truth.  Why the SPGB is in steady decline had got nothing to do with the SPGB, in their view ;  its all the fault of troublemakers outside or whatever.  As if But quite seriously – why do you think the SPGB is an organisation in decline?  I know it is about half the size it was when I was a member (and, no, I’m  not imputing any causal connection between these two things  – LOL).  I would love to hear a genuine up front explanation from a die-hard member.   I don’t think, for example, pointing to the general malaise on the Left is an adequate answer since you would have thought this would have been excellent opportunity to recruit from the Left.  Yet  go the Revleft  where,  irony of ironies, I have have often been stoutly defending the  SPGB against Leftist criticism while people like ALB and Gnome whinge pathetically about bad boy Robocox but couldn’t be arsed to participate in the debates in  Revleft themselves, and you wont find much sympathy for the SPGB.   I wonder why?

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

 Northern Light has admitted that she has no intention of joining the party and lied about her views in order to test our reaction. She then goes on to criticise us for not campaigning for reforms. I think that closes the case on whether a form A is required.

 You are jumping to conclusions. All Northern Light said was and I quoteThese are a sample of issues in the public domain, and the Working Class, is looking for answers, and not finding them in main-stream politics.You cannot infer from this that he or she is “campaigning for reforms”.  It would be more prudent to withhold judgement until Northen Light clarifies the situation, I suggest.  It is also pretty much below the belt to claim s/he lied about her/.his  views “in order to test our reaction”.  “Lied” is a strong word.  It is complertely out of order in my view and really warrants  an apology from you. 

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

 I realise now it was a waste of time because other members were busy humiliating them. 

You’re being ridiculous OGW; some of us have has long reasoned discussions with people like Nick Tapping and others but they didn’t like the arguments.  And talking of PR exercises, here’s one such response Mr know-it-all Cox gave to the same Nick Tapping back on the good ole WSM Forum when the “Strike for a Moneyless World” was first getting under way.”If it is a literal attempt to implement a moneyless alternative to capitalism in 2012, then forget about it. It simply aint gonna happen that way and to even attempt it as this point would rebound disastrously on the movement for a moneyless world and discredit it. It would only serve to convey the message that trying to get rid of money is futile. “Keep it real” like Ali G sez.”Leaving aside the woolley-headed notion that it could ever have been successful it seems that the underlying assumption shared by critics like Robocox and yourself is that as the SPGB has not been successful after 108 years and doesn’t have more members, then that must be because it is doing something wrong or failing to do something right.  In my opinion that is a totally fallacious and unhelpful outlook.  There is. I regret to say, no shortcut to Socialism.

 I have no problem with the idea of robustly and honestly critiquing Worldstrike 2012.  It clearly was not going to suceed and it is perfectly legitimate to say that.  But that was not the point, was it? .  The point was about the ridiculing of individuals involved .  THAT is where you need to brush up on your PR skills. Even on a single thread on religion over the past week on this forum  you lot  have managed to disillusion one or two potential members and one or two existing members.  But you never learn,  do you? You just cannot afford to behave in this arrogantly dismissive manner that you do and you still dont seem to realise this. Then there’s this priceless little gem from the Gnome: if “the SPGB has not been successful after 108 years and doesn’t have more members, then that must be because it is doing something wrong or failing to do something right”  Er… yes… and why not?  It must  share at least  part of the blame for its very conspicuous non-success Or do you seriously think the SPGB has done absolutely nothing wrong at all and everything it has done to date  has been perfectly right.?   In which case – why has it got only 332  members (and steadly falling ) after 108 years and despite the generous transfusions of  legacy money  to keep it going?  Now where have I heard that expression before – ” its all the fault of everyone else, its got nuffin to do with me, guv”

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

This thread was started by someone who wants to join the Party

Yes, but he’s been invited twice to apply to join. So, once again, Northern Light, go on, do it, either to the North East branch or to the famous Membership Committee.

 What is the point in asking Northern Light to join when we all know that, as the rules stand, you cannot believe in the idea of  a creator and  be a party member. This is just a cynical attempt to save face –  “Oooo  look how tolerant and liberal-minded we are”  – when, in effect, the decision  has already been in advance: rejection. If the Party really wants to invite people like Northern Light  to join – and it would be dammed stupid if it did not ! – then it needs to rescind its crackpot policy on religion or at least relax it in a way that would allow this to happen by means of some compromise or half-way-house solution .   And it needs to do this explicitly and above board,  by means of a clearly worded conference resolution or party poll

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What you are saying, in other words, is  that only individuals who entertain a theistic conception of god/Bob as something that intervenes actively in human affairs in contradiction to a historical materialist approach (“human beings make their own history” blah blah) should be barred membership of the SPGB .   Yes?What that means, if I read you correctly,  is that , according to you,  people who hold a deistic notion of god ( a non interventionist freemarket kinda god)  or who hold pantheistic or Buddhist  views  or who believe in  an afterlife or even so called  paranormal events (which our Mr Buick seems to be so obsessed with)  should be allowed entry. 

No, I’m saying conscious materialists should be allowed entry.  People who might believe in a creator that buggered off (and had no pre-ordained plan for its creation, no established set of values embued in its creation) and has no practical effect or value are practical materialists.  Buddhists believe in reincarnation and a value laden universe.  They also believe in a pre-ordained order.  As I’ve said, the religious often self exclude themselves because they are unwilling to sign up to materialism.

 Well then what you are saying is not quite what I thought it was.  Still,  it seems you think that people who hold deistic religious beliefs and maybe also those who believe in afterlife  should  be allowed in because they are,  to all intents and purposes,  “practical materialists”.  I would say though this applies in practice to most religious individuals – even theists  and even  though  they might belong to organised religions that in theory uphold the idea of  an intervening god.  which the main thing that seems to worry you since it calls into question, historical materialism.If the religious” often self  exclude themselves”, as you put it ,  this is because the “materialism”  they are asked to sign up to is not just the materialist conception of history but, crucially,  the metaphysical materialism to which the Party adheres.  And it is the latter  that is precisely the problem we are talking about. It is a totally unnecessary requirement for Party membership though it might come in handy for a philosophical debating society

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

You could have fooled me! But I see you’ve calmed down a bit. Good. Actually, we take a more relaxed attitude to religion than you think. When someone applies to join we ask them about capitalism, socialism, war, reforms, elections, other parties, etc and then, almost as an overthought, ask “you’re not religious, are you?” If they answer “no”, that’s it.The purpose of asking this is not so much to exclude religious people as to ensure that those who join have a rational approach to things and think that humans can control their own destiny (after all, we are against all leaders, including gods). We’ve actually discussed many times how to rephrase the question to bring this out, but have not been able to find the right formulation. It would have to be something along the lines of “do you think that the evolution of nature and society has taken place without the intervention of some spiritual being?” or “do you think some spiritual being intervenes in our lives or that humans control their lives and can change society without the intervention of such a being”.  Neither very satisfactory.

I could have fooled you?  Surely you jest?  Its quite the other way round,  actually.  It almost laughable what you are attempting to do here.  The purpose of asking  people whether they are religious – “almost as an afterthought”  –  is not  so much to “exclude religious  people”  but to ensure that those who join are ..ahem…”rational”.  Why don’t you just come straight out with it instead of employing weasel  words?  Its not an afterthought at all and the question of religion is explicitly raised in the membership questionnaire precisely becuase it is so central to the SPGB position And the reason for doing so according to you?  To ensure that those who join are  “!rational” .  Give us a break.  Are you 100% rational?   Is anyone 100% rational?.  What is rationality.?  Some relgious views are ingeniously “rational” but that doesnt makle them sound. There is no such thing as a person who is completely irrational or completely rational .  There is no such thing as an institution that is completely rational or irrational. We are all a mixture of both and that includes the SPGB .  Try to understand this point- the very idea that you can somehow exorcise irrationality from the outlook of an organisation like the SPGB or any other organisation is itself a fruitless and irrational hope. The very process of scientific discovery by which you set so much store is shaped and conditioned not just by rational but also by irrational impulses.  Read Kuhn on the process by which “paradigm shifts” occur You say something needs to be asked along the lines of whether an applicant believes in some spiritual  being intervening in the lives of human beings.  From this I gather that your particular gripe with religion is not with religion per se but with a  particular kind of religion called theism.  A few posts ago I ,mentioned something about this in relation to Bill’s post.  I suggested that what Bill was putting forward was a compromise proposal that would allow people into the party who held religious views  but did not believe in a god that intervened in human affairs. Do I take it then that you accept this suggestion  and we can reasonably expect your branch to put forward a conference resolution to that effect?  If that were to happen  I would be the first to acknowledge that this would be a real breakthrough in Party thinking 

ALB wrote:

I’m not quite sure what you are attacking here. Is it what you call “metaphysical materialism” as such or is it a socialist political party adopting this? I take it that you yourself think that the only world that exists is what we can experience through our senses and that knowledge can only be derived through a rational analysis of empirical evidence, even if you are not prepared to call yourself a “materialist”.  That would be understandable to some extent in view of what the word “materialist” can mean. And of course there are materialisms and materialisms.You accuse us of “metaphysical materialism”. That’s not a term we use, preferring “historical materialism” or “dialectical materialism” or “scientific materialism”.  If you don’t like the word “materialism” there are other words such as “empiricism”, “positivism”, “realism” or even “the scientific method” to convey the same approach.If your objection to materialism is not just a question of terminology, what is it? Or are you indifferent to the scientific method too?And why should a socialist political party not proclaim that it accepts the scientific method?

 Of course I’m not opposed to the scientific method but am opposed to what is called “scientism”. There a big difference, you know You might not called your position one of metaphysical materialism but thats is what it is.  Look up metaphysics  in a dictionary . Its about the ultimate nature of reality,  of being. Metaphysical materialism is monist in character:  reality consists only in matter.  Depending on how you want to define “matter”, this lends itself to varying interpretations.I am quite sympathetic to the point of view known  as  “emergence theory” which can be called “non reductive physicalism” and which made itself felt in the “cognitive revolution”of the 1960s in the field of neuroscience.  This overthrew the old paradigm of reductive physicalism which equate minds states with brain states – so called “identity theory” on the mind-brain relation.  Emergence theory holds that mind depends on physical matter but is not reducible to the latter – hence nonreductive physicalism.  Emergence theory as a model has potential applications elsewhere.  So for example society consists of empirical individuals but is not reducible to the latter. This is what Durkheim was getting at with his talk of “social facts” .  Social facts he contended, were sui generis, had a reality which was not explicable in terms of psychological facts My impression is that the materialism touted by the SPGB is still very much  trapped  within the old way of thinking represented by  identity theory in the cognitive sciences.  But all this is by-the-by.  The point is that whether or not metaphysical materialism is a valid proposition compared to, say, a dualistic metaphysic is utterly irrelevant as far as I am concerned ,  to the practical task of organising a socialist movement  to overthrow capitalism.  I’m not decrying the fact that people hold a materialist metaphysical viewpoint  – I hold that myself in the form of non reductive physicalism –  I am only asserting that it should,d be no part of the requirements for membership of the SPGB. We can have a philosophical discussion  in a pub about the merits of metaphysical materialism  but it has  got sod all to do with establishing socialism

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Is it really a surprise that our critic here and defender of the faiths hasn’t actually read the basic SPGB pamphlet on the subject he takes us to task on on every occasion that he can (this discussion has taken place regularly on the World Socialist Movement  forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/ and, each time, he has lost his rag and launched into a bitter attack on the SPGB as a dying organisation that deserves to die because it opposes religion).The Socialism or Religion pamphlet is a classic, not just within the SPGB, that was reprinted by others too.

 ALB as usual has completely lost the plot. If I really thought the SPGB was an organisation that “deserves to die because it opposes religion”, believe me, I wouldn’t  be here arguing the case for a saner , more modern and more dynamic SPGB than the stuffy old , utterly complacent, utterly conservative organisation it has become.  There are good socialists in the SPGB but there are also blinkered bigots who are dragging the organisation down to its probable doom at this rate. If ALB cannot see where I am coming from then he is a complete fool. For  an intelligent bloke he comes out with some utterly stupid comments at times.  It actually pains me to see the SPGB go the way it is going .  It is out of a sense of  EXASPERATION above all that I criticise. If I really  wanted the SPGB to die,  I would simply sit back and do nothing. It is an organization that bears all the signs of terminal decline and still we have the complacent attitude among members that nothing really needs to be fundamentally changed It is because I recognise the revolutionary socialist potential of the SPGB  – more than any other political organisation  I know of  –  that I care what  happens  to it and If Mr  Buick cannot see that then he is an idiot As for the Socialism or Religion pamphlet, in fairness, I haven’t read it but  I would say simply on the basis of the two passages quoted by Gnome that it is a very poorly constructed argument against religion.  Which reminds me – no ALB, I  am not a “defender of the faiths”. The question of religion is a matter of indifference to me. It is the SPGB that is making such a big issue of it by insisting that applicants for membership should renounce all religious belief. It  is the SPGB that has made a rod for its own back by absurdly adopting a philosophical position of metaphysical materialism which is  utterly irrelevant to  the purpose of a practical revolutionary movement It is the SPGB  that  has forgotten Marx’s own aphorism – “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to CHANGE it”

[robbo203]

The SPGB should get a copy of “How to Make Friends and Influence People”.  Smugness does not become you and you are in no position to be smug about anything.    Worldstrike2012 may have been hopelessly foredoomed from the start but you dont rubbish individuals for wanting to have a go and who want something that  socialists wantBrush up on your PR skills for chrissakes

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

That the membership of the SPGB is smaller than when Mr know-it-all Cox was a member is by no means due to its policy on not admitting religious people to its ranks.  That has remained unchanged since the party’s inception in 1904.In 1910 the party issued a pamphlet entitled “Socialism and Religion” ; it can be seen here:-http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-and-religionHere are a couple of pertinent extracts:-“It must be either the Socialist or the religious principle that is supreme, for the attempt to couple them equally betrays charlatanism or lack of thought. There is, therefore, no need for a specifically anti-religious test. So surely does the acceptance of Socialism lead to the exclusion of the supernatural, that the Socialist has little need for such terms as atheist, Free-thinker, or even Materialist; for the word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who on all such questions takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation; Socialism being not merely a politico-economic creed, but also an integral part of a consistent world philosophy.”[….]”But it must never be forgotten that since religion is ever used as a weapon by, the ruling class against the wealth producers, no working man in the struggle for the emancipation of his class can honestly avoid the religious conflict. Our question is therefore answered. Socialism, both as a philosophy, and as a form of society, is the antithesis of religion.”

 I certainly don’t claim that the Party has declined in numbers simply because of its policy on not admitting religious people. That would be absurd.  After all as Gnome points out that policy has been in place since 1904 and there was a time – just after the war – when the party was much bigger than it is.The problem goes much deeper, as I’ve already suggested, than just that ridiculous policy – though it certainly manifests itself in the attitude of some members to the religion questionI haven’t read the 1910 pamphlet on religion but it doesn’t look like I’ve missed much . The passages quoted strike me as turgid, dire and uninformed  – a series of utterly unsubstantiated dogmatic assertions.  Apparently a religious individual cannot be a socialist because…er… the writer of the pamphlet asserts this to be the case.  Yeah, very  persuasive, very compelling…I’ve always suspected that the party harbours a kind of old fashioned mechanical materialism in the outlook of some of its members, which is essentially reductionist and deterministic .  There is a hint of this in one of the passages. To wit  –  the word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who on all such questions takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation.  Crass scientism if you ask me

[Author]

Posts