[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

Well, what about the compromise idea discussed earlier of allowing socialists in who hold personal religious beliefs  but not those who belong to organised religions?

That approach would admit William Blake, or a Southern Baptist who doesn’t go to church. The problem isn’t just organised religion, disorganised religion is a problem as well.I think a far simpler dividing line is we accept conscious materialists, who don’t think the party is doing Bob’s work, nor that socialism is divinely ordained or part of Bob’s plan.

 OK,  this is an alternative compromise suggestion that you are putting forward here. 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. Fair enough.  As a compromise suggestion,  its got something to recommend itself .  It is certainly a vast improvement on the dire situation that exists today. For myself, I am quite persuaded by Richard’s argument that “gut socialists” aren’t and  don’t need to particularly au fait with historical materialism  and that while HM is fascinating as a rather abstruse  intellectual theory, I don’t know how relevant, if at all,  it is to the actual  political movement for socialism which is or should be a movement of gut socialism  and  thus should include all those who want and understand socialism irrespective of whether or not they are religious.  If they want and understand socialism they are socialists. Period. Richard may or may not think this – I dont know –  but I certainly do.I think if the SPGB were to adopt this compromise suggestion it might prove a turning point.  Who knows – you might even have a few ex members returning to the fold. 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Ex-comrade Robbo is missing the point. It is a question of which group of people we should direct our appeal to: the New Agers or the Rationalists? We can’t appeal to both as we are likely to upset the other. For historical as well as intellectual reasons, we are in the latter camp and get some respect from them for this.In any event, we are scientific materialists rather than atheists as such, even if some members, as a result of what religion did to them, are god-killers and priest-eaters

.This precisely demonstrates the confused and illogical thinking on religion that goes on in the minds of people like ALB:  “We can’t appeal to both as we are likely to upset the other”.  Stop for a moment and think what is implied by this statement.  It implies a specific tailored appeal to certain groups of people on the basis of  certain specific views they hold.  Fuck me, and there I was thinking that the SPGB was a revolutionary Socialist Party  whose only appeal was to the working class as a whole to cooperate and establish socialism.   Apparently not ,  according to  Mr Buick.  Now , it seems the SPGB is into niche marketing with separate appeals for separate groups of workers.  I never imagined that things had got so bad in the SPGB that it now has to resort to such opportunistic tactics as this. And, no,  I don’t think the SPGB is a scientific materialist organisation . Far from it.  It may say it is but it is not. “Scientific materialism” is something that it only pays lip service.  It should apply a scientific materialist analysis to itself for a change  and try to understand why it is that as an organisation it is now drifting along  going nowhere and, in fact , in  steady decline.  You cant argue with the facts.  The  Party is half the size it was when I was a member and as this rate it will go the way of the near moribund Socialist Studies group into oblivion. It might be able to pad it out for a few more years with a transfusion of legacy money. But thats about it.  At this rate it will die, certainly not with a bang, but the faintest of whimpersThe root of the problem, Im afraid,  is the endemic dogmatism and chronic conservatism – the total unwillingness to think afresh and to see that same old formulas just ain’t working .  We’ve seen this time and time again on this thread:   “Oh you cant change things, ya know,. better to stick with the old ways,”  they moan and whine like that pair of “old gits” on the Harry Enfield show . For fucks sake  – spare us this complacent drivel.   If the SPGB is going to even survive as revolutionary organization it is going to have to grab this bull by the horns and radically overhaul everything. Its ironic that this thread is about religion because, I am sorry to say that, far from being a scientific materialist organization it exhibits certain traits that unmistakably resemble those of a fundamenlialist religion.  I remember  many years ago reading a critique of the SPGB in some journal by a political scientist that made just this point  I scoffed at  it at the time but, by god, was he spot on.   

ALB wrote:

 So ex-comrade Robbo would exclude those who go to church! His crackpot idea of trying to make a distinction between those who are part of an organised religion and those who merely have personal religious views would turn the Membership Dept into the Spanish Inquisition he has denounced it as being. It would have to go into detail about a person’s religious views and ask such questions as: do you go to church? do you eat pork? why are you wearing a turban? etc.

 Don’t be ridiculous ALB . You arguments get more and more bizarre , offbeam and wacky as times goes by.  Personally speaking. if it was up to me,  I would advocate the complete abandonment of anti-religion policy altogether on the grounds that it is totally redundant – there are more than enough safeguards built into the membership application procedure to ensure that only genuine socialists join The suggestion I put forward that individuals belonging to organized religions should be barred entry into the SPGB for the time being  was a simply  a compromise solution – not one I’m particularly comfortable with  – but knowing the endemic conservatism of  the SPGB,   I guess compromises is what you have to make. At any rate,  the idea is that  applicants will be asked upfront if  they belong to an organised religion  and a simple YES/NO answer will suffice . You don’t need to go into details of whether they go to church etc – even some Atheists I know of  go to church for purely aesthetic reasons. Exactly the same arguments you raise would, incientally,  apply to voting for reformist parties Membership requires you not the vote for reformist parties but we both know very well that SPGB members have voted for reformist parties in the past  for tactical purposes The only reason why  I suggested membership of organized religion be the deciding factor is because  apart from the metaphysical  assumptions underlying such religions there are also the institutionalised social policies that tend to go with such religions, policies that are often anti-socialist in content.  The idea is that by allowing people to join only if their religious beliefs are personal and they do not belong to an organised religion , you would thereby encourage individuals to abandon such organised religions in order to join the SPGB and thus actively contribute to the decline of such anti socialist organisations. I think it is quite a good idea on some ways – certainly far better than the status quo  which can do absolutely nothing constructive about mitigating the pernicious influence or organised religion. Still,   I, not rigidly attached to the idea and am open to suggestions. So if you have a better idea lets hear it

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

 I don’t know why Robbo thinks that people who believe in the paranormal or who have New Age spiritual views are more likely to be receptive to the socialist case than humanists and secularists. But he seems to, obsessively so.

 I failed to spot  this – another piece of tripe from ALB.  How on earth did he arrive at this dotty conclusion? I dont think anything of the sort.  To me, whether one holds religious views or whether one is an atheist has litle if any relevance to the question of one’s receptivility to socialist ideas.99% of atheists are non -socialists and some atheists are avidly pro-capitalist.  If the Party were consistent in its logic, it should ban atheists from joining as well!  LOL

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Why not? Already today there are billions of people who are practical “atheists” in the sense that they live their life without taking any account of some superbeing that can intervene in their life. They don’t participate in religious rites. They don’t pray.  They don’t blame a god if things go wrong. Ok, if questioned, they might say they believe in god, but that’s just a social convention reflecting what they think they are expected to say (after all, they are not socialists). But in practice they already lead a godless life (which religious leaders are always complaining about). When they become socialists there willl be no reason to respect this social convention. They can come out.

 These are precisely the kind of people Im talking about  who the Party keep out with its ridiculous rule on religion. They believe in a god but effectively live godless lives

[robbo203]

HollyHead wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Besides, as I say, there is a simple solution to all these hypothetical situations  which is to simply ensure that the Party remains strictly secular.  Ban the expression of religious views in Party propaganda but don’t ban religious socialists from joining the Party.  End of problem

 How? Are you suggesting that we add a censorship clause to the D of P perhaps? Would we really remain a revolutionary organisation were we to allow reformists to join providing they agreed not to advocate reforms? Some people with religious views may well understand the case for socialism but cannot be said, in my opinion, to have socialist understanding.

 No, I’m not advocating censorship at all – simply that as a condition of membership, they do not propagate their  religious ideas in the context of Party work. In other words, we are talking about a kind of contractual understanding here.  There is nothing to prevent you from expressing religious ideas in context of Party work but the price of that is that you forfeit membership status i.e. you are expelled.  You join the Party on the understanding that this is what will happen  What you do in your private life is quite another matter –  otherwise the SPGB would surely ban capitalists from joining the Party (and there have been one or two of them in the Party over the years, haven’t there?) There is no comparison whatsoever between  opposition to reformism  and opposition to religious beliefs.  There is an organic connection or antagonism between reformism and the Party’s espousal of socialist revolution that simply does not apply in the case of religious beliefs.  You cannot logically seek to both mend capitalism and end capitalism. It has to be one or the other. . This does not apply in the case of religious belief.  It is fully possible for a religious individual to both want and understand socialism and oppose reformism which only prolongs capitalism. There are a few such individuals who hang around the fringes of the Party but are not currently permitted to join for some arcane nonsensical reason. Which brings me to the final point and to echo what has already been said –  what on earth do you mean that a religious person might understand  the case for socialism but not have socialist understanding. Gnome has said his branch includes a long-time religious supporter of the SPGB who is more active than most members. Would you regard this person as a socialist (who undoubtedly knows the case for socialism inside out by now)?  If YES  – why is such a socialist being prevented from joining?If  NO –  why then  is the SPGB doing soliciting the support of non socialists?I would dearly love to know how members are going to rationalise their way out of that one!

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

There is already an organised group of supporters of the SPGB who admit religious people, its called World in Common and I think it is smaller than the SPGB.

 Actually,  I think you will find World in Common is not  an “organised group of supporters of the SPGB” and though it does include some SPGBers in it , most have no connection with the SPGB, nor have they ever been members of it.  WiC is simply an umbrella  organisation for the non-market anti-statist political sector and inclues people from a variety of different tendencies amnd traditions  within that sector.  It is not a political party as such so you are not really comparing like with like.  Maybe,  if  WiC had the money that the SPGB has -(whats it now? Several hundred thousand quid in the bank?)  and nearly 110 years of hstory behind  it might perhaps be a different story altogether

[robbo203]

You are making yourself look ridiculous ALB and also attempting to derail this thread into a discussion of paranormal experiences. Presumably  that is because your have no answer to the questions that have been asked so your next best bet  is to try  to make the questioner appear foolish.  There is more than a hint of desperation about this rather pathetic and transperant  ploy I’ve stated my position clearly: I don’t have any rational  naturalistic explanation for the events for that occurred but I do not say there is not one.  I was not even suggesting that the events in question were “paranormal” You contend:”Comrades offered rational explanations, but Robbo dismissed them all as the explanations of “shit-hot metaphysical materialists”. This is deceitful. I did not  dismiss them because they were rational explanations. Precisely those self same explanation occurred to me as well, after all.  I dismissed them – I had no option but to dismiss – because they did not accord with the material facts.  There  is was no possibility for example of the girls coming in and causing havoc because they were outside waiting  and  we (my ex-partner and I ) were the last to leave the cottage and firmly looked the door behind us. No one else had  a  key and there was no sign of a break in . And  I can assure you that whatever happened , happened after we left for the supermarket and not before so you tell me why you think what happened, happened , Mr Clever Clogs.   Personally I haven’t a clue  and that is all I  can say Though you seem to lack the wit to grasp the point.  the purpose of my  reporting this little experience of mine, Mr Buick    – though  I should have known better than to do so before an audience of skeptical bigots – was NOT to plead a case for paranormal explanation- but rather  to demonstrate just how unscientific and irrational people can be when they try to arrogantly wish away the events in question from a completely prejudiced perspective.  That means you ALB.    Rather than keep an open mind and simply say “I don’t know”. they insist on saying they DO know ands that  that it is all perfectly explicable in terms if material facts even if they cannot show what these material facts are.  So  ALB insists that the most likely explanation is that the girls did it .  But that is NOT a satisfactory  explanation  at all because it was materially not possible for the girls to do that  –  unless, of course,  ALB  believes in  some wacky  paranormal theory that you can instantly relocate from a carpark to inside of a cottage  in a jiffy , do what you need to,  and relocate back to the carpack  all in the few seconds between me locking the door and arriving at the car.  In fact if anything it is ALB who perhaps ought to be accused of belief in the paranormal and suitably disciplined before the Spanish inquisition – oops Membership Committee! What is most ironic of all is this little gem from our “shit-hot  metaphysical materialist”That those who take a scientific materialist approach to the so-called paranormal have a “closed mind” is of course the standard criticism of those who believe in all sorts of irrational things.Automatically it is assumed  by ALB1) that he is the one who is  taking a “scientific materialist  approach” when the whole point is that is NOT taking  such an approach . His approach is actually unscientific and unmaterialist    because he is simply ignoring the material facts in this case simply because they don’t sit comfortably with his completely prejudiced view on the matter.  T S Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” has much to say about the way in which scientists,  despite professing to be scientific, will often attempt to twist the facts to fit their preconceived ideas and shore up their own models of reality against the threat of a paradigm shift.  In that respects scientists are just as prone to irrational impulses as the rest of us including ALB  even if he imagines he is somehow  above the rest of us in being able to disentangle  himself from such fragile and all too human impulses2) that by criticising ALB   – who presumably considers himself to  be the standard bearer of a “scientific materialistic approach ” – of being closed-minded .  I  must ipso facto  ” believe in  in all sorts of irrational thing”.  This demonstrates a basic confusion.  Rationality has to do with explanation. I  repeat once more for the benefit of ALB who obviously seems to be a bit slow on the uptake:  I DONT HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHAT HAPPENED,  LET ALONE A “PARANORMAL” EXPLANATION .  How many times do I have to repeat myself  before the penny drops?   The purposes of my mentioning my little expereience was not to prove the existence of the paranormal but to highlight the inadequancy of an approach that simply assumes away the material facts from a preconceived model of reality.  Im saying that we need to be a little more humble  and circumspect about acknowleging the limits of our knowlege but none of this seems to have sunk into the tunnel vision consciousness that seems to emanate from ALB . It  is not me who is presenting an ” explanation” of what happened  but him  – and this despite the fact that his explanation is one that simply does not accord with the material facts and must therefore, by his own standard,  be judged ” irrational.  There may very well be a perfectly  natural explanation for what happened  but that has yet to be presented him and his fellow bigots But enough of this. This is really pissing me off, big time.   It is absolutely clear that what ALB is doing here is pathetically engaging in a diversionary tactic to trying to derail this thread by delving into the murky world of the paranormal – fascinating though it is – when the real issue to be discussed  here is the question of the SPGB policy on barring individuals who hold religious beliefs.  Can  ALB come up with something constructive that could contribute to this debate? So far it appears not.  And that in itself speaks volumes I would have thought

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi Robin and everyoneHistorical materialism is just as antithetical to the concept of god as metaphysical materialism.  If all human ideas emerge from material conditions, then that is where the idea of god originated too. But aren’t there two prior questions? 1. Should we assume that all party members believe in socialism for rational reasons, and 2. does someone have to subscribe to the materialist conception of history to be a socialist?  Frankly, I think the answer is no on both counts.    I’ve known people within the party say, for example, oh I can’t be bothered with all that intellectual stuff, I’m just a gut socialist.  We are perfectly willing to accept gut socialists into the party so long as they give give the right answers to the basic questions.  And so we damn well should!  But heaven knows (!) gut socialism is no more rational than a belief in the creator.   Then, I have a strong suspicion that a lot of members come to hold certain beliefs because when they enter the party, that’s what the party orthodoxy says.  They take them on trust and assert them but if asked to defend them, wouldn’t be able to.  I know that to be true of some ideas for some people, including, if I’m honest, me (though I’m gradually working on that.  LOL).  How many people within the party who say they subscribe to the Labour Theory of Value would be able to defend it rationally, for instance, against its many objectors? It’s a complicated argument.  How many members would even know what it was?  It is open to a multitide of interpretations. How many members who cheefully claim that currency crank theories of money are nonsense and talk demeaningly about those who defend them would be able to give a detailed and rational analysis to support their view? There are loads of areas where members clearly take certain views on trust or have only a hazy understanding of them. And how many irrational beliefs do many of us hold in our daily life anyway.  Probably far more than we would be prepared to acknowledge. I think we kid ourselves a lot of the time that we are these perfectly rational beings.  Why would we be?.  We don’t, after all, have a god’s eye view of reality and we have to deal with a complicated world.  We don’t have time to have detailed, reasoned, empirically supported views on everything we need to make decisions on.  Life is too short and far too occupied with wage-slavery.  I would object to giving membership to anyone who was a member of a religious organisation or subscribed to the beliefs of a religious organisation.  That’s simple, there would be a direct or potential conflict of values there.   But I’m not sufficiently purist to believe that someone who simply has a belief in a creator could never be a conscious socialist.  That’s because I don’t believe that a carefully reasoned belief system is what defines a conscious socialist.  A conscious socialist, in my book, is someone who identifies with working-class class interests and works for the introduction of a common ownership, post-capitalist society.   If anyone believes that religion and belief in a creator are going to disappear at all soon among the working class, then, personally, I think they are going to be disappointed.  If a socialist movement ever does get off the ground then we are going to have to work with socialists who believe in a creator or even have religious views. That’s something we will have to face. We constantly side-step this issue.  How rational is that? Whether we should accept people as members who believe in god but don’t subscribe to any religion – well, I struggle with that.  On balance I think I’m against it – very reluctantly. I’m really quite sympathetic to many of Robin’s arguments on this.  He makes some very good points.  Yet, still I think it would cause us big problems.  But one thing I feel certain about.  I don’t think we should be denying them membership for purely philosophical reasons.  That really would turn us into something of an elitist cult.  But to admit people with a belief in a creator, all kinds of practical questions and problems would arise.  If we did, then there would be no question of this being ‘a private matter’.  Being a socialist is above all a social act and that would have to take precedence over everything else.  Would we demand to know what conclusions they drew from their belief or what were their associated idea?  Would we be able to preserve a purely atheistical stance in our propaganda? Would we want to?   If so, would we, then, have to ask members who believed in god not to promote that idea when speaking on behalf of the party?  How many would want to join under those circumstances.   I think it could get very, very complicated.We have someone on the forum here who is a committed socialist but also believes in a creator.  Can we not ask him to engage open-mindedly and honestly in this debate without defensively attacking his views?  I think it is an important one for us all.   

 Sorry but I overlooked this thought-provoking post in my haste to deal with certain other posts.  It makes a such a refreshing contrast in both tone and substance to the latter posts. Certain members of the SPGB would do well to take heed should they want to brush up on the PR skills. The salient thing to note about this post is the open acknowledgement of that  which many members of the SPGB  are seemingly in  complete denial over – namely the socialists are just us prone to irrational impulses as anyone else.  This should NOT be taken to be some regrettable defect – it is part of what makes human beings, human beings and not automatons.  Inevitably, we are all an admixtrue of rational and irrational impluses.  What is regrettable, perhaps,  is when  one gets out of balance in relation to the other The inference to be drawn from this is that rationale for excluding religious socialist from membership of the SPGB on the grounds that “religion is irrational”  is wholly inadmissible.  Irrationality is not something that risks being imported into the SPGB in Trojan horse fashion were the Party to relax it anti–religious policy on membership entry.  I think we have already seen more than enough evidence that it is already deeply embedded -. and flourishing – within the outlook of the SPGB itself and not just for the reasons Richard cites.  That apart,  there is no reason to suppose that  such a  relaxation in the entry requirements would in any way induce the membership to move away from the socialist objective and orientation of the SPGB ,.  Afterall, there is a whole battery of other  policy positions with which a potential applicant must  agree before being allowed membership  and these would still remain in force  should the party decide to relax or revoke its entry requirement on the subject of religionRichard does however say this:  Whether we should accept people as members who believe in god but don’t subscribe to any religion – well, I struggle with that.  On balance I think I’m against it – very reluctantly.  I’m not quite sure of the grounds upon which he arrives at this reluctant conclusion. It seems to me that he is worried that religious socialists might perhaps take advantage of this relaxation to propagate religious ideas in the name of the Party and in the context of party activity.  I consider that to be most unlikely but,  in any case,  easily preventable by  clearly stipulating that the Party should remain a strictly secular organisation and that the propagation of religious ideas within it should be deemed action detrimental.  This wold allow religious socialists to enter the Party and ensure that religion would become no part of the Party’s case I would also add that I think there is a case to be made for discriminating between different kinds of religion and I get the feeling that this is the position some members are moving towards. For example a distinction be made between personal religious beliefs and organized religions. A compromise arrangement might thus be to ban membership of organised religion but to permit personal religious beliefs – thus encouraging a movement from the former to the latter. In effect you would be applying  a kind of carrot stick approach here which would do much more  than the current practice  or banning religious outright,  to reduce the power of organised religions and their reactionary social policies which, I consider,  is the real problem with religion , not the metaphysical assumptions upon which religions are based.  For many people,  asking them to forsake their cherished metaphysical beliefs may  be asking just too much of them and it is far more likely they  will forsake the socialist cause if that is a requirement they have to undertake to join.  Asking  them to forsake a particular organised religion, on the other hand,  is much more easily done and will much more likely be done in the case of potential party applicants if it means that they don’t have to give up their religious views to join the party

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

 I’m not closed to the idea of relaxing the rules and based on what I’ve read in this thread I hope the OP could be accepted. But I’m yet to hear anything like a decent proposal for where the line could be drawn. So I have to conclude that the safest place for the line to be is where it is at the moment. That is to say a complete ban.

Well, what about the compromise idea discussed earlier of allowing socialists in who hold personal religious beliefs  but not those who belong to organised religions?  This has several advantages, as I see it: 1) it allows a clear dividing line to be drawn2) it highlights the fact that its is the reactionary social policies of organised religions that is at the core of the problem not the metaphysical premises of religious belief per se which is no barrier in practice to individuals thinking in historical materialist terms3)  it aids the movement away from organised religion by giving religious socialists a clear  incentive, as it were,   to do so – namely to be able to join the SPGB.  This “carrot and stick” approach is far more effective in combating the pernicious effect of organised  religion than just slamming all religious beliefs regardless. I repeat also that any supposed hypothetical problems that might arise, once religious socialists are allowed  to join, can be easily prevented by simply insisting on the fact that the Party is a strictly secular organisation and that religious ideas shall not figure anywhere in party propaganda. Furthermore,  I would add that I consider that religious socialists – like the OP  – who hold strictly personal religious beliefs  are most unlikely to want to proselytize on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Someone  belonging to an organised religion, on the other hand,  might in theory  have more reason to want to do this though, even in this case, I consider this unlikely and as I say, easily preventable anyway, by deeming this “action detrimental” ….

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

I don’t have strong feelings about this one way or the other, which is why I supported removing the ban. However after speaking to one of our religious supporters I changed my mind. I asked why they supported the party and the answer was “I believe that the party is doing God’s work”. Now that’s a very nice thing to say, but when it comes to voting on important party matters (like whether or not to buy comfy chairs or a new party sign) will they be voting on the merits of the evidence or what they perceive to be the will of God?Clearly that’s not the case in regards to the OP but where would you draw the line?

 Ed Lets get real here.  How likely is that religious believers would say they support the Party because they “believe that the party is doing God’s work”.  Most unlikely, I would suggest.  Most religious people keep their religious views to themselves and don’t let them intrude on the different roles they perform in public life.   Many scientists are religious but that doesn’t mean they let their  religious beliefs dictate their scientific work.  Millions of people  belong to political parties  and a  good many of these people are religious., In practice they don’t generally talk about the will of God but rather of what is good for the country and such like.  Your religious supporter seems to be an extreme exception or may be he or she is just taking the piss and you have overlooked that possibility In any case, what exactly does it mean to say “I believe that the party is doing God’s work”.  I would suggest it is little more than pretty harmless and  meaningless verbal formula to mean the Party is doing work that is good rather than literally, Gods work.  I presume  you don’t believe there is actually such a thing as the “will of God”.  So how exactly is this supposed will of God  going to manifest itself in relation to such  important party matters – LOL –  like whether or not to buy comfy chairs or a new party sign . Presumably,  even  religious people will take their cue not from the voice of God whispering in their earholes or even from the conference chairperson – whichever one happens to be the omnipotent one is this case  – but from such mundane  considerations as how long their bum can endure  the experience of an unforgivingly  hard chair Besides, as I say, there is a simple solution to all these hypothetical situations  which is to simply ensure that the Party remains strictly secular.  Ban the expression of religious views in Party propaganda but don’t ban religious socialists from joining the Party.  End of problem

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Oh good grief; you really do need to lighten up a bit, Robin.   The comment was an attempt to introduce a little irony into what has become a tedious and repetitive subject.  Clearly failed in your case :)D’ya know something though?  You remind me very much of the Vegan, who’s been telling the SPGB for the past 30 years where its going wrong and how its facing imminent oblivion.  Come to think of it, you’ve been saying much the same for much the same period, both when you were a member and now that you’re not.  Well, neither of you possess the silver bullet; the party’s still here and I suspect will be long after both of you, and I, have left this mortal coil, unless, of course, socialism is established before then.As a result of the OP making a connection between a paranormal experience and a creator, this thread has become derailed into discussing, yet again, why the party should accept people with religious views. 

 “Lighten up a bit”, my arse .  This seems to be your style , innit  Dave?   Get you snidey little insults in first and then when you get quite rightly and soundly  rapped over the knuckles  for doing so , you come over all mock-offended at the other person supposedly  taking umbrage unnecessarily. And “d’ya know something else”, Dave?  You really ought to do your homework before proffering your asinine comments.  My views on where the Party “goes wrong” are not at all the same as Bob Howe’s and in fact as he would attest, I have been one of his sternest critics.  But unlike you I make the effort  to try to analyse logically where i think his ideas go seriously wrong  – as opposed to just  wittering on tediously and repetitively about how tedious and repetitive those ideas are.  Everything seems to be “tedious and repetitive” with you – particularly when it comes to putting  in some effort into actually defending your ideas in a real substantive sense as  opposed to just ridiculing those – like poor old Bob, the butt of many a Dave Chesham tirade  – who attack them Oh,  and talking of not doing your homework this thread has not been derailed  by those who wish to discuss the question  of  why the party should accept people with religious views..  Go to the OP and read for yourself. Maybe its you who wants to derail what this thread is really about

[robbo203]

Hi Northern Light It may be that the experiences you underwent – like the experiences I underwent – have a perfectly natural explanation though, in my case, I don’t draw any religious implications from those experiences at all.  The more science advances the more does it overturns our taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of reality  and about what is normal and “paranormal”.  The proper scientific and rational response is not to scoff and dismiss such things apriori.and disrespect the individuals making such claims .  This is attitude of the religious bigot which the SPGB claims to oppose.  No, the proper scientific  and rational attitude is to keep an open mind  always and to work with, and through, the evidence presented regardless of where it leads you…. You know,  when I first encountered the SPGB what really impressed  me about the organisation was its willingness to fight it own corner with ruthless logic and fierce rationalism. Or so it seemed at  the time. The taken-for-granted assumptions that people had about capitalism,  about the nature of money  and all sorts of other social phenomena were subjected to the most penetrating analysis.  The SPGB stood out at the time as refreshingly different from any other organisation I had ever encountered.  Swept along by the sheer force of its arguments, I joined.  I guess since then my experience of the SPGB has been a gradual process of disillusionment . It is not at all the organisation I once thought it was.  I suppose a part of me still hopes that it might one day become that organisation otherwise I wouldn’t bother.  As an outsider now,   I can see both its potential and its crippling  and self-imposed limitations. Don’t get me wrong – there are many good comrades in the SPGB who are tolerant and open minded about criticism and willing to explore new ways of thinking and looking at things.  But there is something about the organisation itself , its fundamental orientation,  that somehow induces a kind of religious dogmatism,  a mind-numbingly mechanical knee-jerk response to criticism which in my naivete I once took for profundity.  Members may protest loudly that this is not the case at all, that there is a variety of opinion within the Party on all sorts of things but I would submit that this is skin deep as far as the organisation itself is concerned and they should try stepping back  and looking at the matter from an outsider’s perspective. We have seen this perfectly well  illustrated on this thread.  In the face of overwhelming  evidence that holding religious views in  itself  is absolutely  no barrier whatsoever to wanting and understanding socialism (i.e.. being a socialist) and that the bar on religious applicants is totally redundant from that point of view as well as being a significant barrier to Party growth, how have some of our SPGB stalwarts responded?   One confines his response to a disparaging and oh-so-profound  reference to the  “god bug” while patronizingly allowing that religious sympathisers can still “support” the Party – rather like the attitude of the racist  American Government towards black recruitment into the army during the First world war.   Another smirkingly posts a link to some exchanges on SPOPEN years ago with the obvious intention of trying to make the ex comrade involved in such exchanges come across as foolish. In other words an ad hominem attack.  What both these responses indicate to me is a complete unwillingness  to actually engage constructively in debate – in fact,  a wholesale retreat from the position so proudly trumpeted at the very foundation of the  SPGB all those years ago which invited the most rigorous criticism from all and sundry.   What we see  more and more these days is SPGBers running away from an argument  into the comfort zone that is called the “Party Principles”. I suppose that is why one or two pretty much ineffectual anarcho-capitalists were banned from the WSM froum – because of the inconvenience of  constant criticism emanating  from these political lightweights. Rather than use these interventions to constructively develop the  socialist argument against the free marketeers,   members whinged and  moaned on like a bunch of cissies about the repetitiousness of the criticism offered  – which is true enough but besides the point.  Far better, it seems,  to post reports of  some party meeting in some far flung corner of Her Majesty’s disunited kingdom attended by all of 9 individuals and someone’s proverbial dog,  to induce a glow of rosy optimism that what we are dealing with here is a serious political movement on the move and reshaping the face of British Politics, as we speak.  Never underestimate the power of delusion, my friend. I find this all very sad.  The SPGB is not at all the organisation I once took it to be . It has fallen considerably in my estimation  and in the estimation of others, I might add.  It is dying on its feet  and, year by year, gets smaller and smaller.  It is half the size it was when I was a member . In 20 or 30 years time I doubt if it will still exist  and yet the air of utter complacency and conservatism hangs about it like a bad smell.  Never mind the revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism. it is the SPGB that is in dire need of a revolution Nothing better illustrates the malaise at the heart of the organisation than its utterly irrational bar on religious socialists.   The metaphysics of religious belief  presents  absolutely no barrier to socialist conviction  – though the social policies of organised religions might very well do – yet absurdly the SPGB continues to repel many religious believers who earnestly support its object and  declaration of principles on the frankly  laughable grounds that to hold such religious beliefs is “irrational” and therefore antithetical to socialism.  As if there can ever be such a thing as a totally rational individual (maybe the problem here is that some SPGBers don’t understand what “rationality” means).   As if the SPGB is not  itself being totally irrational in thus seriously obstructing its own growth in this way .  Its not as if , for a dying organisation, it can afford to be so hyper-selective.  It seems to have forgotten the purpose for which it is supposed to exist which is to help  bring about a socialist society – not to cleanse the world of the godbug.  As any good historical materialist knows, the ” godbug” will mutate as it always has done,  into something more  amenable to the society in which it finds itself.and that includes a future socialist society as well.  But that requires that we change first the material conditions we encounter   today by means of a socialist revolution and there are plenty of religious socialists out there which the SPGB wilfully spurns who would only to willingly aid that revolution given half a chance

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

 And he’s been cracking on about the party opening up its ranks to religious people ever since this alleged paranormal experience over ten years ago.   Even left the party because it wouldn’t change its stance on not admitting those with the God bug.   Says it all really……..

 Nope. I’ve long felt uneasy about the SPGB’s dogmatic stance on religion, way before the supposed “paranormal experience” that was discussed on SPOPEN and  there is absolutely no connection between these two things.  It is typical,  though, of some SPGBers (and let me make it clear I do not tar all with the same brush) to run away from the argument  being presented by engaging in such diversionary tactics -presumably with the intent of making ex-Cde Cox look foolish.  Which is rather pathetic when you think about it….. As  far as I am concerned , I keep on open mind on much matters which, I suggest,  is the proper scientific attitude to take .  All I am saying is that I cannot account  for the events that occurred .  There may very well be a perfectly natural explanation for what happened and, of course, as a rationalist, I tried to look at these events  from every conceivable angle with a view to arriving at just such an explanation  but to date remain completely flummoxed by it all.  I don’t have an explanation so I guess I’m honour bound  to remain agnostic about it all .  Actually, the only ones who looked rather  foolish, in the end , were the sneerers  and the jeerers  who themselves could not come up with anything like a plausible explanation.  Not that they even showed any inclination to want to do so.    And these are the people who complain about the bigotry and closed-mindedness  of religious folk!  Not that I give a toss about their opinion, anyway..  I don’t  have to prove anything and I’m not trying to  persuade  anyone about the existence of the so called “paranormal”.  My only crime , I suppose, was one of naivete – expecting to have an open-minded and constructive discussion with individuals  who had not the slightest intention of engaging in such a discussion. And, boy does it show!   Here’s why Gnome considers religious socialists should be kept out of the SPGB:The truth is that the majority of religious people subscribe to an after-life of one sort or another and many regard their present existence as simply a lacrimarum valle and thus have no real incentive to improve their lot or that of others except to the extent that their ‘good works’ might guarantee safe passage to the hereafter For fucks sake!   I despair of the SPGB when I read utter dross like this.  Little wonder the Party seems hell-bent  on heading for oblivion.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Some people object to the term “primitive communism” because they object to the word “primitive” with its condescending and even derogatory connotations. But this is an old usage of the word which meant “original”. So maybe “original communism” would convey the meaning better. I prefer “tribal communism”.

 No, “tribal communism” would be inappropriate  precisely because the term primitive communism more appropriately applies to “simple HG societies”  based on nomadic bands rather than “complex HG societies” based on tribes

ALB wrote:

No, Robin, this is not a cue for you to say we should admit Anabaptists even if Gerrard Winstanley does have a place in the Socialist Pantheon !

 And why not? Seems to me the ultra-legalistic attitude of the SPGB has more in common with the Anglican Church and its 39 articles than a practically-minded , revolutionary socialist organisation intent upon achieving socialism.  All that should matter is that you should want and understand socialism (and how to get it).  Thats what defines a socialist,  not what kind of metaphysical assumptions one may or may not entertain about the ultimate nature of reality.  Thats interesting stuff , no doubt, but something best  confined to some philosophical debating club, not a serious political movement

[robbo203]

Jonathan Your post is somewhat offtopic, as Ed says, but interesting nevertheless.  What is the central claim of Robert Edgerton’s book “Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony” that you refer to?  Ive not read this book but if Edgerton is arguing along the same lines as that well known anti-socialist,  Mr Stephen Pinker, that hunter-gatherer societies were particularly prone to violence,  then it might interest you know that Pinkers thesis has been comprehensively debunked for the load of bollocks it is.  I have a ton of references that I could point you towards in that regard Obviously, we cannot exactly use primitive communism as a template for a future socialist society but I think there are aspects of the former which will figure in the latter, pretty prominently.  People sometimes do not fully appreciate that HG societies are of two basic kinds – simple band societies and tribal societies.  I would contend that the latter is  a  transitional form en route to class-based societies whereas the former is more properly what one might loosely associate with the term  “primitive communism”.  Considering that over 95% of our existence as a species on this planet has been in the form of simple  band societies it would be truly  remarkable if nothing of this were to be reflected in a future communist society. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the myth of the blank slate which is no more credible than the idea that we are simply the product of our genetic endowment

[Author]

Posts