robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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.
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
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
There is plenty of evidence of individuals with religious views being initially attracted to the Party, discovering its policy on barring individuals with any sort of religious views whatsoever and being put off by it. I too was a member of the SPGB for a long time and all I can say is my experience was totally different from Dave’s. There was even a member of my branch who, I recall, developed religious ideas and despite my best efforts to persuade him not to leave, he disappeared into the ether never to be heard again. Over on SPOPEN I see an ex member of the Membership Committee revealed that he had to ” reject a large number of people of different religions who accepted the core meaningful points of our case for a socialist society (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spopen/message/15142). This would only be the tip of an iceberg. Many more people, learning about the Party ‘s anti-religious attitude simply do not bother even to apply to join and the great bulk of those, in my experience, just drift away. One or two may stick around but is there not something a little hypocritical or condescending about the Party’s attitude towards such individuals, some of whom are more active , as Dave admits, than many members? .”You can help the Party but you cannot join us because you are not socialists” seems to be the line of argument here. If you really believed these individuals were not socialists then it would be more honest to refuse their offer help – just as you do when you urge people not to vote for the SPGB if they are not convinced socialists. But all that is somewhat besides the main point – which is the utter irrationality of the SPGB’s stand on the question of religious applicants. This is richly ironic because, as we have already seen in this thread, the grounds on which religious applicants are rejected are precisely that they are supposed to hold “irrational” views. What is it with this fetishisation of “rationality” in the SPGB, anyway? Frankly it makes my toes curl with embarrassment every time I head this mindlessly simplistic dyad being solemnly intoned : socialist = rational, religious = irrational. This comes across as so cringingly old fashined . The human personality -if I can put it like that – is inevitably an admixture of both irrational and irrational impulses whether you are a socialist or a religious believer or none of the above.. There is no such thing as a socialist without irrational impluses any more than there is a religious believer without rational impulses. We are all without exception a bit of both – unless you’re a computerised automaton with chip, not so much on your shoulder, but inside that cavity between your ears where your thinking feeling brain used to reside. In fact, some religious type arguyments that have been presented in the past – like the argument from design – have been extremely “rational” and sophisticated in their structure and presentation. Read, for example the case put forward by William Paley. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/paley.shtml). The argument might be false but it is not necessarily irrational and a notable feature of some contemporary religioinists. like Peter Russell , himself a physicist and mathematician , is that there is no incompatibility between religion and science at all. Quantum physics, the Unpredictability principle and all that jazz has certainly done much to change our perception of the nature of physical reality and this is what the modern religionists are tapping into – not some arcane argument about how many angels you can fit onto a pinhead. In short, its not the metaphysics of religion that is the problem – it is the reactionary social policies of certain religions that is the problem and it is this alone that is relevant to socialist critique. The point is this – what is a socialist? A socialist is someone who wants and understands socialism. Period. Is Dave seriously trying to suggest here that the Catholic sympathiser who attends his branch meetings is not a socialist? If so, perhaps he ought to try telling this person and see what kind of response that will provoke. My bet is that such an individual would not then be returning to branch meetings any time too soon and the branch would be the poorer for that – just as the Party is vastly poorer for having excluded all those religious socialists down the years. Dave knows as well as I do that he won’t be telling this Cayholic sympathiser that he or she is not a socialist becuase he knows in his heart of hearts that that is not true. But in knowing that he must also know that he is being fundamentally inconsistent and irrational There is absolutely no reason why someone with religious views cannot be a socialist in the sense Ive spelt out above and I defy anyone to prove otherwise. The plain fact of the matter is that there is more than enough safeguards to ensure that only genuine socialists can get into the SPGB. The anti-religious clause is totally redundant and, more than that, it is serious impediment to Party growth though some members continue to think – irrationally – that it serves some kind of useful purpose in assisting the movement towards socialism
“That this conference endorses the editorial Committee’s reply to a correspondent’s letter in the May 2002 Socialist Standard and holds that it is a good brief summing up of the party’s position. ‘The Socialist Party takes a non-theistic, materialist approach to things, in particular to society and social change. Religious people believe in the existence of at least one supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs. Socialists hold that we only live once. Religious people believe in some afterlife. Clearly the two are incompatible'”. A classic example of redefining the terms of the debate to invest your argument with an aura of spurious authority: “Socialists hold that we only live once. Religious people believe in some afterlife”. If you believe that then, of course, the two are going to be “incompatible”. But if you said SOME socialists hold that we only live once then you are into a whole different ball game The only relevant form of materialism to a revolutionary and practically -minded socialist party is historical materialism – NOT metaphysical materialism. Discussing the ultimate nature of reality, while no doubt fascinating, has got sod all to do with changing society But for this dumbass policy of the SPGB (which I believe it shares with Anarchist Federation), the organisation would probably now be many times larger than it is today – considering the thousands of people who have come into its orbit but have been disillusioned by its dogmatic stance on religion. There are more than enough safeguards built into the membership procedure to ensure that only genuine socialists join the organisation, whether they be atheists or not. I just shake my head in disbelief every time this subject is brought up. It just goes to show that so called “scientific” socialists can be just as irrational , pig-headed and dogmatic as the rest when it comes down to it. Such a pity. What is more important – changing society or shooting yourself in the foot, every time you turn away good socialists on the spurious and specious grounds that belief in an afterlife or some god is going to act as in impediment to that end
I see absolutely no good reason why you should not join the SPGB in that case. It is irrational and absurd to put completely unnecessary obstacles in the way of you doing that.
I completely agree with MichaeI Wayne’s commentI do know that getting to the ‘majority’ on a global scale is not an easy task, nor can socialism be ‘enacted pure and simple’. Reconstructing an entire global political economy on the basis of use value rather than exchange – that is not going to be simple.This, I presume, was in response to the passage from the book review as follows@In fact, once we have a majority who understand that capitalism has outlived its usefulness, the change from capitalism to socialism will be enacted, pure and simple. You just cannot have the co-existence of socialist and capitalist relations of production in the world for any significant period of time, and certainly not for generations. This should be clear to Wayne and his readers from every observation throughout the rest of his book about the all-encompassing global nature of capitalism and, by extension, of the very different system which must replace it.What the reviewer misunderstands is that there is a difference between abstractly talking about socialism as a socio-economic system as a whole and talking about “socialist relations of production” in particular.. Socialism as an economic system cannot co-exist with capitalism but socialist relations of production most certainly can – at the sub-systemic level. Engels, for example, long ago pointed to the existence of communistic utopian communities in North America as evidence of the feasibility of communist (socialist) principles of production and distribution inside capitalism. . In fact, if socialist – or perhaps one should say, socialistic – relations of production as they might be called in the sense that they entail work that is unpaid and voluntarily undertaken outside of the market, then something over half all productive work undertaken today can be deemed socialistic, according to United Nations statistics. Wage Labour, in other words, constitutes less than half the work we do today and it is wage labour that is the defining characteristic of capitalism.There is a further point to bear in mind. Granted that the movement to establish socialism will tend to grow in a more or less balanced or even fashion across the world, there is still likely to be a period of time between when a socialist majority first captures power and when the last remaining residual capitalist state succumbs to this democratic socialist takeover. The idea of a simultaneous majoritarian socialist revolution happening everywhere literally at the same time is inconceivable and absurd.This intervening period interests me for several reasons but I don’t think the SPGB has ever really properly theorised this period – or, if it has, I haven’t seen any real evidence of this and, in which case, a link would be appreciated.If the SPGB rightly rejects the whole dictatorship of the proletariat nonsense which I assume it does since it can only imply the continuation of capitalism, then what happens after the first capitalist state has succumbed to a majoritarian socialist takeover and capitalism along with the state is eliminated? How does this incipient socialist area organise its practical economic relationships with the surrounding residual capitalists states?I would contend that insofar as it cannot produce everything it needs, the only realistic candidate on offer is some kind of barter arrangement for the time being. . Nevertheless , this does go to show that the issue is far more complex than might originally be thought . Michael Wayne is quite right to suggest that it is not quite as simple as some in the SPGB think it might be.
DJP wrote:robbo203 wrote:It is difficult to deny that David Graeber does make a valid point. I refer to this comment of his”The whole idea of “merchant capitalism” which is supposed to characterize the period from roughly 1500 to 1750 (or even 1800 in most of Europe) has always been a puzzle.Graeber and anyone else interested would do well to read Ellen Meiskins Wood “The Origins of Capitalism”The genesis of capitalism is not in merchants capital but in property relations in the English countryside.Seems to me Graeber is just another sloppy reader of ‘Capital’….
This might be a little too black-or-white. Merchant capital certainly did play a role in the genesis of capitalism. Marx made the point that primitive accumulation, the slave trade and so on provided much the funds which large landowners ploughed into their estates. A good deal of the infrastructure upon which the industrial revolution depended such as the canals and railroads came from this source. And the early small time proto-capitalists as I said were often funded by “country banks” into which wealthy individuals who had made their money abroad through the trade deposited some of their ill gotten gains in the expectation of a reyrnThe issue is not whether merchant capital played a role in the genesis of capitalism but rather whether there was such a thing as mercantile capitalism. I think Graeber is right to question this…
It is difficult to deny that David Graeber does make a valid point. I refer to this comment of his “The whole idea of “merchant capitalism” which is supposed to characterize the period from roughly 1500 to 1750 (or even 1800 in most of Europe) has always been a puzzle. If capitalism is a system based on wage labor, then it wasn’t capitalism at all. But if so most bourgeois revolutions happened before capitalism had even appeared! If merchant capitalism is capitalism, then capitalism does not have to be based on wage labor, and certainly not free wage labor, at all. Claiming that merchant capitalism was capitalism because European elites were somehow trying to create a system that didn’t exist and there is no evidence they were even capable of imagining, seems absurd.”It seems to me that the obvious way round this problem is to reject the whole idea of merchant or mercantile capitalism. There was merchant capital before capitalism just as there was wage labour before capitalism but neither of these things in and of themselves imply the existence of capitalism as a mode of production. Thus wage labour needs to be generalised before we can usefully talk of a capitalist mode of production Where did the idea of “mercantile capitalism” come from, I wonder? Marx himself seems to analytically separate the notion of “merchants capital” from capitalism as a mode of production. I cant seem to find any reference by him to mercantile capitalism. Incidentally, the Oxford English Dictionary attributes the first use of the English word “capitalism”, surprisingly enough not to Marx (who preferred to use the expression “capitalist production”), but William Makepeace Thackeray in his novel The Newcomes (1855, vol. 2: p. 45), However Makepeace seemed to have meant by this the money-making activities of financiers rather than an economic system as such. That may or may not be signficantIn Capital Vol. III Part IV, Marx says this:”The less developed the production, the more wealth in money is concentrated in the hands of merchants or appears in the specific form of merchants’ wealth.Within the capitalist mode of production — i.e., as soon as capital has established its sway over production and imparted to it a wholly changed and specific form — merchant’s capital appears merely as a capital with a specific function. In all previous modes of production, and all the more, wherever production ministers to the immediate wants of the producer, merchant’s capital appears to perform the function par excellence of capital.There is, therefore, not the least difficulty in understanding why merchant’s capital appears as the historical form of capital long before capital established its own domination over production. Its existence and development to a certain level are in themselves historical premises for the development of capitalist production 1) as premises for the concentration of money wealth, and 2) because the capitalist mode of production presupposes production for trade, selling on a large scale, and not to the individual customer, hence also a merchant who does not buy to satisfy his personal wants but concentrates the purchases of many buyers in his one purchase. On the other hand, all development of merchant’s capital tends to give production more and more the character of production for exchange-value and to turn products more and more into commodities. Yet its development, as we shall presently see, is incapable by itself of promoting and explaining the transition from one mode of production to another.Within capitalist production merchant’s capital is reduced from its former independent existence to a special phase in the investment of capital, and the levelling of profits reduces its rate of profit to the general average. It functions only as an agent of productive capital. The special social conditions that take shape with the development of merchant’s capital, are here no longer paramount. On the contrary, wherever merchant’s capital still predominates we find backward conditions. This is true even within one and the same country, in which, for instance, the specifically merchant towns present far more striking analogies with past conditions than industrial town”In the same chapter Marx points outThe extent to which products enter trade and go through the merchants’ hands depends on the mode of production, and reaches its maximum in the ultimate development of capitalist production, where the product is produced solely as a commodity, and not as a direct means of subsistence. What this seems be saying is that for the mode of production to be called “capitalist” presupposes the cessation of direct production for use and the transformatioin of the products into commodities. In other words, the end of the traditional system of usufract rights and compulsory in-kind labour services performed by serfs under a system of feudalism and its replacement by money rents and the employment of wage labour by tenant farmers. In short what Marx ironically called free wage labour. It is when capital is invested in production that the system becomes “capitalist “and this is what to an increasing extent happened with merchant capital. It was transformed into industrial or “productive”capital and the banking system of “country banks” in England in the 18th century arose precisely to allow this to happen and to finance yer early proto-capitalists Prior to that you could not usefully talk about there being “capitalism”. There was merchants capital yes but as Marx suggest the extent of merchant capital and its social significance in society was limited by the extent to which direct production for use prevailed . It required the separation of the producers from the means of production, to which they had access, for trade to take off in a big way i.e. with the development of a working class dependent on wage labour.and this in itself calls into question the usefulness iof the term mercantile capitalism. Almost as a matter of logical deduction, trade is rendered not particularly or primarily important if producers still can directly produce for themselves (not to mention for the lord of the manor). Therefore the very term “mercantile capitalism” can hardly be said to capture the essence of the prevailing system. It is a contradiction in terms, if you see what I mean The period under discussion might be called a transitional period between feudalism and capitalism in which, for example, the power of monarchy expanded greatly by comparison with the traditional powers enjoyed by the aristocracy under feudalism and so paved the way to the more centralised burueaucratic structures that capitalism would come to depend upon as well as the growth of the nation state. You could not exactly say in this period that capitalist relations of production were dominant although they were certainly beginning to become more pronounced particularly in England and as evinced by the growth of wage labour in both the towns and the countryside. However while merchants capital played an increasing role in this period “mercantile capitalism” is a myth. There never was such a thing for the simple reason that there never could be such a thing….
ALB wrote:jondwhite wrote:Couldn’t we leaflet their conference in Cardiff National Museum from 8 – 10 June – detailed below?http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/172?page=1Good idea. Maybe Robin could pester them too to admit people with religious hang-ups.
There is a difference , as I am sure you realise, between an organisation whose purpose is specifically to combat religious ideas and a political party whose purpose is to help transform society . If you are expecting the latter to depend on a majority becoming convinced atheists you will be waiting forever
robbo203 wrote:Sorry to sound dumb but there is no edit facility at the bottom of my post! I have had repeated problems registering and made use of the temporary registration facility. Could that be the reason?Correction. There is an edit facility below this post but not below the previous post I posted and not the opening post either
Sorry to sound dumb but there is no edit facility at the bottom of my post! I have had repeated problems registering and made use of the temporary registration facility. Could that be the reason?
Quick question of a technical nature. Just noticed after I posted the above that I had forgetten to finish editing for spelliing mistakes etc etc. For future reference, how does one edit something that has already been posted? This forum does not seem to have such a facility unlike, say, Revleft…. Cheers Robin
There is also of course Bob Black’s essay “The Abolition of Work” (http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm). I have problems with the term “work” in this context, however. Why is it assumed to be synonymous with waged employment and, if it is, what else might we call it?
