robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
MPs getting a taste of their own medicine
The word itself, Religion, is not synonymous with belief, or faith. To the Romans and the Hindus it is closer to social behaviour. Rites are its centre, not belief. Even Judaism, the first of the three great monotheistic religions, was and is about social norms and behaviour, not faith. In fact, only Christianity, and especially the rite-denying evangelical variety, holds faith as religion’s definition.
It is interesting that the word “religion” derives from the latin word re-ligare meaning to re-bind or re-connect (like the “ligament” which joins the muscle to the bone). The great 19th century sociologist, Emile Durkheim, looked on religion from this perspective. He argued that society was essentially a moral order and religion traditionally served as the “vehicle” par excellence for diffusing a sense of moral solidarity among individuals, thus facilitating the functional well-being of society as a whole.
This original meaning of the term perhaps helps to explain the occasional characterisation one comes across of the state-sanctioned atheism of some countries, like North Korea, as constituting the “official religion” of the country in question. In this sense the term is stripped of any supernatural connotations, such as belief in a God or an afterlife, and is rendered virtually synonymous with the concept of social solidarity.
In his analysis of the religious rituals of the Australian aborigines which, he argued, were based on a simple kind of religion called “totemism”, Durkheim attempted to show that the real purpose of such rituals was to revitalise and reinforce the collective consciousness of the participants. In short, to dramatise and strengthen the moral bonds between them in order to create a more cohesive social unity and counteract the effects of dispersal and isolation arising from a hunter-gatherer way of life.
Traditional religion, argued Durkheim, played an essentially symbolic role as the “concentrated expression of the whole collective life”. Behind the ritualistic facade, it was actually society that was the real object of religious devotion. By prostrating themselves before a deity in the act of worship, individuals unwittingly or inadvertently betrayed their sense of absolute dependence on society itself.
And just as religion was intrinsically social so, conversely, was society also in a sense a religious phenomenon insofar as it was predicated upon the collective conscience. The transcendent all-encompassing nature of this consciousness was precisely what vested it with sacred qualities, that necessarily separated it from the profane world of routine daily life and commanded a sense of reverential awe. Of course, in societies undergoing modernisation (and along with that, secularisation) the influence of traditional religion has tended to decline. However, this did not necessarily herald the break up of society as such in Durkheim‘s view; what was required was the development of “rational substitutes” for traditional religious ideas which would nevertheless serve as functional equivalents of the latter by illuminating the direct dependence of individuals on society hitherto mediated by religious representations.
Thus did he carve out an important role for the discipline of sociology in the development of modern society, no doubt earning the gratitude of Sociology Departments everywhere ever since!
BD
Googling this geezer you mentioned – Jorge Mario Bergoglio – I was astonished to discover the following:
Pope Francis did spend a short time working outside of the church, including as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer. However, the seminary was ultimately his calling. He became ordained in 1969.
While working in the church can be a path to wealth, most consider Pope Francis a modest man. He is far less extravagant than some previous popes, so his net worth may be lower than his predecessors.
However, Pope Francis’ net worth is still substantial. Some estimate his personal net worth to be near $25 to $28 million. However, some believe that number is much smaller or even substantially larger. Pope Francis does have control over certain Vatican assets, though these do not apply to his net worth.
Might need it in case the two individuals start to bully someone else.
That’s out of order. Try be a bit more impartial and look at some of the numerous appalling comments made by the person who was supposedly “bullied” and who was simply being criticised for making those comments. No one pushed him – or wanted to push him – out the forum; he jumped
I do not think you have understood what I have said. I was not referring to the SPGB, the SPGB is not the movement, is the whole working-class movement and all the organizations involved in this type movement
You could have fooled me. In the context of what you wrote coupled with your constant niggling insinuations about TM it was perfectly reasonable to infer you were talking about the SPGB. Read again what you wrote and see for yourself
I take care of mine, you even brought shit about me in this forum in regard to the WSPUS that is not your fucking business either
When people start the WSPUS a bunch of Stalinists then, sorry, but I will make it my business to call them out on that, whether you like it or not. I dont take kindly to my American comrades being smeared like that. In the same way I called you out for the undemocratic manner in which you moderated the WSM forum by banning certain people like the anarcho-capitalist McDonagh from what was supposed to be an open public forum. If you find it embarrassing to be reminded of that then – tough! From the way you go on about yourself as if you are some sort uber class warrior to which the rest of us should look up to, you need to be taken down a peg or two tbh
“Infiltration”, “agents” …You cannot infiltrate a party which is not secretive, but open and honest. This is Stalinist talk. Everything about Marcos makes me think of Bolshevism.
Indeed TM
I would love to know what lies behind this piece of fantasy paranoia:
I was a member of a companion party. I do not want to give too many explanations because I have seen too many agents infiltrated in this movement, those are as dangerous as any member of the capitalist class
Will all those comrades working as covert agents for the capitalist state please raise your hand NOW! The notion that a tiny organisation of socialist revolutionaries which, moreover, is as transparent as glass as far as its inner workings are concerned , poses such a mortal threat to global capitalism at this point in time such that the capitalist state feels the need to despatch not just one but “many” agents to work secretively within this movement – though in a sense enormously flattering – is, sadly, ludicrously out of touch with reality
On the contrary, Wood (and Brenner originally) argue that ‘capitalist’ social relations emerged in the English countryside, amongst very large landowners and tenant farmers (because of very specific, long term, political and socio-historical reasons, dating back to the pre-Norman period, and developed by the Normans, and exacerbated by the Black Death). That is, the ‘commercial bourgeoisie’ were not the source of ‘capitalism’.
Yes I for one would go along with this. Ellen Meiksins Wood & Brenner’s “agrarian-origins-of -capitalism” seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for the rise of capitalism
The big question, however is why did this process first make itself felt in England? Alan MacFarlane provides us with some useful clues by flagging up those basic preconditions that would need to be met in order to effect a transition from feudalism to capitalism.
Firstly , citing Maine’s view that Feudalism “mixed up or confounded property and sovereignty“, he notes that in classical feudalism “Political power and economic power were both delegated down the same chain” and were embodied in the person of the feudal lord vis-a-vis his subjects. However, for capitalism to emerge, a first precondition that needs to be met is that the economy needed to be granted significant autonomy from the political sphere. As MacFarlane puts it: “It must be set free. If economic relations are merely a sub-aspect of devolved power, capitalism cannot emerge” (Alan Macfarlane, <u>Europe and the Rise of Capitalism</u>).
A second precondition for capitalism to emerge is that the political system has to be reasonably integrated and centralised – though this may well offend the sensibilities of market libertarians who dogmatically insist on counter-posing markets to states. The modern centralised state, contends MacFarlane “is a necessary concomitant to capitalism” (op cit) in the sense that it was only through the actions of such a state that the necessary structural changes could be pushed through to bring about, or expedite, the emergence of capitalism.
As many commentators have noted, England was significantly more centralised and uniformly administered than any of its continental counterparts at this time – a legacy, no doubt, of the Norman Conquest. Thus, Marc Bloch notes: ‘England was a truly unified state much earlier than any continental kingdom’ (Bloch, M. 1965: <u>Feudal Society</u>, 2nd edn). By contrast, France, for instance, around this same time, was still comparatively variegated and regionalised in its form of administration.
According to Brenner, it is this significant difference in ruling class organisation between England and the rest of Europe that proved decisive and allows us to see why capitalism first took root in the former. It was precisely because there was a relatively centralised state in England, to begin with, that the English Lords, paradoxically were able to “take their surplus individually, in a decentralised manner, from the peasantry in a highly effective way, where, by contrast, in both western and eastern Europe, lords, politically organised on only a local basis, remained weak and vulnerable” (<u>http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/2006/xx/wbrenner.htm</u>). Meaning the English Lords enjoyed the support of the central state in taking the course of action they took.
This helps to explain the differential outcome of the “Feudal crisis” of the 14th century following the Black Death which decimated the labour force throughout Europe:
The response in most of western Europe was to strengthen embryonic absolutist states, which integrated an ever greater part of the ruling class into highly organised systems of centralised taxation and officeholding. The response in eastern Europe, over a long period, was to reorganise what had been exceedingly loosely organised feudal classes into provincial and national estates. These provided the intra-lordly cohesion to make it possible for eastern European lords to impose a new tighter serfdom on their peasants. So in both western and eastern Europe, due to earlier developments in each region, the lordly response to feudal crisis was to restructure so as restrengthen surplus extraction by extra economic means, in England lords did not have that option. They could, however, secure their positions if they could take over the land of their now free tenants – and this is what they did. (Brenner, op cit).
To put it differently, the English lords were driven by circumstances to respond to the feudal crisis in a manner quite different to their continental counterparts (and were enabled to do so by their relationship with the central state) by taking the initiative in introducing new kinds of enforceable contractual relationships with the peasants which were more purely economic in form. In this they had the support of the central state that stood to benefit from such move.
The agrarian-origins-of-capitalism school has often been contrasted with the trade-based or “commercialisation” school represented by the likes of Paul Sweezy, James Blaut and others who focus on such things as the huge profits derived from slave trade some of which went to finance early industrial development and also conspicuous consumption in the form of stately homes etc. I dont think this latter school of thought provides a sufficiently convincing explanation as to how capitalism got off the ground but I wouldn’t dismiss altogether what it has to say on the matter.
I think you are bending the stick too far the other way, Robbo. Of course you don’t have to have read Marx to join the Party but you do have to have read Party pamphlets and other literature and these do reflect the labour theory of value, the materialist conception of history and that socialism will come about as a result of the class struggle of the working class.
Again, this is news to me that to ” join the Party …you do have to have read Party pamphlets and other literature”. When was this stipulation introduced? One might say it advisable to have read this literature but it is not a requirement
Once in, members are entitled to express what views they like
Exactly! Although I would qualify that by saying within broad limits established by the minimal criteria for membership . I am getting sick and tired of hearing snidey comments implying to the effect that if you express certain views you must be a “right wing reactionary” infiltrating the Party or if you think the class composition of late feudal society or early capitalism was more complex than the Marxian two class model this means you must somehow be “rejecting the class struggle”.
This sort of talk needs to stop
I did not say to agree with everything, but the SPGB is based on the three basic conceptions of Marx, otherwise, they should be eliminated from the application such as the class struggle, the labour law of value and the materialist conception of history, and I answered those question myself, therefore I wasted my time answering them
Its news to me that to join the Party you have to accept Marx’s labour theory of Value. I do accept it but my joining the party was not dependent on my accepting it. The only question in the membership questionnaire that might be remotely relevant is “Do you consider that the working class is exploited? If so, then briefly explain how this takes place.” But, of course , it is quite possible to believe the working class is exploited without subscribing to the Marxian labour theory of value. Thus, analytical Marxists like G A Cohen have argued that the “relationship between the labour theory of value and the concept of exploitation is one of mutual irrelevance”.
In an event this rather arcane and academic discussion about how and when capitalism replaced feudalism has got sod all to do with membership of the SPGB and I wish people would stop making silly claims along the lines of “if you dont agree with my theory of feudalism then I cannot possibly see how you managed to join the SPGB”.
The SPGB has never been a monolith and hell will freeze over before that happens. Comrades are fully entitled to hold divergent views on a whole range of subjects. We are not Leninists and we dont do “democratic centralism”
You have that mistaken opinion of Marx and supposedly you are a member of a Marxist organization, something is strange. I do not know how you answered the question for potential members of the Socialist Party, there must be an ideological decline. I have heard the same things from a bunch of stinky right-wingers, even more, I have not heard the same thing from Bakunians
I wouldn’t describe the WSM/SPGB as a “Marxist” organisation. Influenced by Marx certainly but not a “Marxist organisation” as such. We stand on our own two feet and are not dependent on Marx. There are many points on which we strongly disagree with Marx such as his concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat or his support for certain nationalist movements. I agree with Thomas that some of Marx’s comments on pre-capitalist societies were decidedly questionable although, to be fair, he did change his attitude somewhat in later life. See this https://kevin-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-article-marx-late-writings.pdf
It is NOT a requirement that applicants to membership of the SPGB should agree with everything Marx wrote or indeed should even have read Marx, so I am not quite sure what you are going on about , I think it is unhealthy to put Marx on pedestal as if he was beyond reproach. Socialists are not supposed to go along with the Great Man theory of History and that applies to Marx as well
You should tell him that when I was a member of the WSM I was a full-time worker for the organization and that I was one of the members who spread in Latin America the whole socialist case, and that the WSM was unknown before that, even more. there is a member in the same country where you are living now that I called him on several occasions to encourage him to continue because he was very lonely. His son is living in England and I called him too. The Socialist Party/WSM was also known by members of the Socialist Party of Venezuela, and the Communist Party of Cuba who participated in the discussion forums and they had literature from the WSM, Anarchists, Trotskyists, and Stalinists also received literatures
All commendable work, I agree. Pity you go and spoil it all by your attitude towards comrades in the WSM which is decidedly less than commendable. I still haven’t forgotten your outrageous comments about SPGB comrades who supported the Lancaster branch resolution. Its those sort of tactless comments that drive people away from, rather than attract them to, the Party. And now you are doing it again. You are not going to “win friends and influence people” this way…
Thanks Robbo. And he calls me arrogant! Fortunately, ours is not a Bolshevik party, and I don’t have to please any tribunal of commissars. That is not the answer we expect!
Marcos is not a member of the WSM so you have no need to worry about appearing before a tribunal of commissars LOL
“I am certainly going to copy and paste in order to give sources, rather than drag my pain-wracked self into my library in order to leaf through numerous tomes. I have already admitted that I accepted the standard view of Ch’ing feudalism all my life but am not now insisting on it.
I am offended by your assumption that I, unlike you, am not a reader and thinker. Might I also suggest that you not limit yourself to Marx and Engels – important as they are – nor dismiss all other historians as “bourgeois” liars. It seems you regard Marx and Engels as Holy Scripture, as infallible experts on everything.”
Hear! Hear! Thomas
I
Trump’s got the ‘rona. Apparently he forgot to put on his mask.
