[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

[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

[Author]

Posts