[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi TomI think DJP has summed it up nicely. Time and time again I am reading on the net that "race" is now considered to have no biological basis.If we look at the taxonomists of the 17th and 18th centuries they used very simple methods to classify humans, skin colour being the most common. From them we are left with a legacy of four "races". They were very often prejudiced in their thinking, classifying the "races" with behavioural traits the most favoured belonging to, shock horror, white Europeans.Is it any wonder "race science" really took off during the colonial years. Looking down upon whole groups of people as inferior no doubt made it easier to justify the subjugation of native people and the plundering of their homelands.Think about it this way. If "race" had not been invented before now and scientists wished to classify humans, do you think they would be so obsessed with skin colour or hair type?Do you not think that our science would be better equipped to handle the complex job with more accurate scientific objectivity?Yet in the 21st century some people still feel the need to cling to such an outdated, limited vision of humanity.Why?What use is "race" anyway?

OK, but for some reason very many people do still feel the need to "cling" to race as a form of identity and as a delimiter.  Why?  Is it, as you might put it, 'false consciousness', or does race have a deeper significance?  Race is more than skin colour or hair type.  Though those attributes are important, they form part of a more general picture of what race means and is, and I have to confess, I am finding it difficult to accept race as an entirely invented characteristic.  Yes, you could say that words such as 'white' and 'British' are entirely made-up and the various historic and present-day artefacts of the Occident – i.e. of 'whiteness', 'Westernness' and 'Britishness', and so on – are invented, and that would be true, but they reflect certain primordial and ancient ties of blood, language and geography, do they not?Interestingly, you conclude by asking: What use is "race" anyway?  Actually, I think the utilitarian position underlying that question is the more rational and defensible.  I think any fair and sensible observation betrays that race does exist – the real question is whether it is a delimitation we should continue to rely on in our social world.  And my response to that challenge would begin with a few simple truths.  Fecundity is the basis of humanity, and even under conditions of social co-operation, human beings will inevitably exhibit a profound feeling of closeness, loyalty, warmth and kinship toward their extended family.  This excluding attribute among human beings is part of what it is to be human.  We feel closer to those who generally look like us, and who share close linguistic and blood ties with us, and we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.  Of course, it may be that some people do not feel these instincts so keenly, or choose to deny them, but should those who dissent from this 'multi-culturalism' – in that they see such things as race and kin as a basic aspect of humanness – be denied their instincts?

[Tom Rogers]

DJP wrote:

As far as I know it's pretty much the consensus these days that "race" has no solid basis in biology or DNA terms, so it's more meaningful to talk of "ethnicity" or "culture".Science has proved that there's only one race, the human race.http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/what_our_genes_tell_us_about_racehttp://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/why_race_pseudoscience-92948

Thanks.  You state [as far you know] that race has no solid basis in biology or DNA terms, but I do not see how that assertion can hold.  I am white and it seems apparent to me that there are both particular and average group differences between, on the one hand, myself and other whites, and on the other hand, people of other races: for instance, people of African origin.  Apart from anything else, it just seems empirically self-evident that there are differences and it seems to me quite odd  to deny this.I don't have an axe to grind here really, and I don't want to get into a heated row over this.  I'm just curious.  I agree that race could be seen as a social construct in the way that it is often dispensed in argument, but the notion that race is merely and only a social construct seems to me a little simplistic – and wrong on the observable facts.Also, you suggest it is more "meaningful" to talk of ethnicity and culture, but aren't both those concepts a consequence, even a product, of racial identity, both self-perceived and externally-ascribed?

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi jondwhiteActually "race" is not a material reality. Racism is the actual reality you mention. But just because small minded poorly educated people will direct hatred towards someone because of skin colour, does not give the idea of "race" any concrete scientific validity."Race" is essentially a social construct, a tool to divide humans on the dubious basis of fairly obvious physical traits. The reality of "race" is it masks very real economic  divisions in capitalist society.It is a very useful tool, that is allowed to flourish when a distraction is needed to keep us peasants occupied instead of directing our anger and energy into changing society in our favour.I don't have a lot of time to go into this at the moment, but it is an important subject. I did a bit of research into it earlier in the year as a result of debating the issue with a friend. I'll share my findings later.For now here is a link to an interesting article from the Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/race-is-a-myth-deborah-orr

I'm curious about this notion that race is a social construct – or, as you put it, "essentially a social construct" and "a tool to divide humans on the dubious basis of fairly obvious physical traits".  Just to clarify, are you merely referring to the way that race is constructed within academic disciplines as a concept and then used in discourse on various subjects in wider society or are you actually saying there is no such thing as 'race' as a physically-verifiable fact?

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

At the risk of re-igniting this boring subject that's been flogged to death, I can't help recording the views expressed in a speech on Wednesday by the new Archbishop of Canterbury (as reported in the Times yesterday);

Quote:

Religion has moved from being regarded as a matter of truth and authority to being seen as a "leisure activity" with grave possible consequences for society, the future Archbishop of Canterbury said last night …. he said that the change from "religion as truth" to "religion as lifestyle" was well documented…. Recalling his previous career with an oil company, Bishop Welby said: "One of my better memories of the oil industry was my boss saying at one point, when he asked what I was doing one weekend and I said I was going on a church weekend, 'Ah, fascinating, the different hobbies people have in this company.'"

I would say this is a good development that Archbishop Canute won't be able to turn back. In other words, the battle against "religion as truth" has been won.

I recall Christopher Hitchens coined the term 'belief in belief' which sort of covers the "religion as leisure" idea.  But I think it's pretty widespread that people will adhere to, accept or co-opt beliefs they know not to be true for social or cultural reasons.  Although Archbishop Welby uses the term 'leisure', a word that has maybe slightly different connotations, I suspect that's what he really means.  In a slightly different germane, even Dawkins – a firm non-believer – has claimed to be a 'cultural Anglican'.Christopher Hitchens' brother, Peter Hitchens, is a very cogent apologist, but when you strip down his polemic it really boils down to an assertion that everyone else should participate in the Church (or some similar religion), not so much because its belief system is true (though Hitchens himself professes faith), but because it's a good thing for society.  In fact, if I've got this right, he once wrote words to the effect that people who do not believe in it should pretend to do so for entirely utilitarian reasons.Whether this is cause for optimism among socialists, I'm unsure.  I must admit, I am a bit of a 'cultural Anglican' myself in the sense that, while I am and always have been a strong atheist, I am also quite wedded to some of the civic, social and moral ideas of Christianity and I am enchanted by old churches.  Whenever I hear or read of some old church being converted into a block of apartments or a mosque, a part of me dies inside.  That doesn't prevent me recognising the backwardness of belief in the supernatural.  Is that a contradiction?  I wouldn't say so, but it is an inconsistency.

[Tom Rogers]

I am not a member of the SPGB (left for reasons unrelated to the subject-matter of this thread) and I have not read through the full thread.  Subject to those caveats, my comment would be that the SPGB has adopted what, in my view, is a perfectly reasonable position that since: (i). there probably is no god; and, (ii). a belief in religion is in any case not only inconsistent but wholly contradictory to a belief in socialism as enunciated in the Aims & Objectives, it is better not to let religious people join.It is not the only position that could be adopted.  You can be a socialist and at the same time believe in God, it's just that you wouldn't be a very consistent socialist, that's all.  So, religious people could be permitted to join, and in truth if the SPGB decided to drop the 'religion question' from the Form 'A' questionnaire, most likely it would make little practical difference.  Even Marx didn't place as high an importance on religion as the SPGB does.  What we are discussing here is a point of principle that is applied for better or worse, but in my view, for the better. 

[Tom Rogers]

In my opinion (and I am not a Party member), the SPGB's case is all-but unanswerable, but no-one seems to be listening.  Why?  Maybe the message isn't sexy enough (c.f. Zeitgeist Movement).  Maybe people have difficulty understanding it (advanced education can act as a block; short attention spans; people read less nowadays and rely more on unmediated media such as TV, etc. and so on).  Then there are the political critics.  As I understand it, their arguments against the SPGB (and thus against socialism) can be summarised as follows:-From the radical Left: "The SPGB has theorised itself into inactivity and sterility.  What we need is revolutionary activity rooted in the working class and centred around transitional demands.  You SPGB'ers sneer and call us reformists, but we're not.  Our party will lead the working class to socialism by providing a bridge to class consciousness proper.  Relentless, day-to-day political campaigning activity is needed otherwise the working class has no hope of attaining consciousness and a revolution will never happen."From the Right: "Wherever socialism has been tried, it has failed [….blah, blah, blah…].  Anyway, even if the SPGB is right in its own ideas about socialism, why do we not have socialism already?  Is the continued existence of capitalism, in spite of 108 years of the SPGB, ample demonstration that socialism as conceived by the SPGB will never happen because the working class either do not need it or do not want it?  After all, if they did, then why have we not got it?"I think the criticism from the Right is fairly easy to dismiss so I won't bother discussing it further here.  The strongest criticism – in my view – comes from the radical Left.  Should we take any of it to heart?  Is there anything we can learn from our opponents' methods?  Are they right on some points?  Do they have a point at all?  I have to add that whenever I have enountered 'left-wing' criticism of the SPGB, it has nearly-always been based on some fundamental misapprehension, misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the SPGB's case, the latter often intentional.

[Tom Rogers]

Robinson is (still, I think) joint vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party.  The BFP also allows EDL members to stand as electoral candidates under the BFP franchise.  To put it simply, the BFP is a 'centrist' far-Right off-shoot of the British National Party.  The founders basically disagreed with the BNP's 'whites-only' membership policy and were expelled for this reason, ironically not too long before the Party's constitution was revised along the lines they wanted.  An interesting thing about the EDL (or at least, interesting to me) is that while they are certainly of the 'far Right' milieu, they cannot seriously be considered fascist or National Socialist.  I would even question whether they are racist.  To find the real ethno-Nationalist hardliners and National Socialists proper you really now have to be looking in the National Front.  Even the BNP has been pretty much purged of the ideological purists, right down to the grassroots level.So far as most on the far-Right are concerned, the National Front is where it's at now, but that's not saying much.  A debate with the National Front (someone like Richard Edmonds, say, or Kevin Bryan) would be interesting but not all that entertaining.  The National Front is alive but it's a dud: its leadership failed to capitalise on the capitulation and disintegration of the BNP.  The whole Nationalist movement isn't just fractured, it's shattered.  They missed some really big opportunities, and there is a lot of bitterness.  They seem to do more fighting among themselves than anything else (a little like the far-Left at times).  The EDL are generally seen as something of a joke among far-Right activists, and I don't see that they have much credibility in the far-Right 'community', but the dismissiveness is partly ideological, down to the fact that the EDL is moderate, multi-ethnic and pro-Israel (and thus 'pro-Jew').The idea of chairing a debate between the EDL and the MDI is a great one, though.  Go for it.  It would be especially interesting to see questions fired at them by SPGB members and very entertaining watching them squirm, as inevitably will happen when they face a rational and reasoning audience.  Definitely one for the archive, if someone can film it.

[Tom Rogers]

Is the EDL purely a street protest movement or do they officially engage in debate?  There doesn't appear to be anything on their website about it, at any rate, but I know that Tommy Robinson has debated with his Muslim opponents (for e.g.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hus7Ce89R0U).  I'm unclear whether this was on an official EDL platform or just in his personal capacity.  Something called the Muslim Debate Initiative ('MDI') challenged the EDL to a debate fairly recently (http://englishdefenceleague.org/edl-news- scroll down to relevant blog entry) and the EDL accepted the invitation.  The EDL now claim that the MDI cancelled at the last moment.  An explanation from the booked venue, Conway Hall, is here:http://conwayhall.org.uk/statement-regarding-muslim-debate-initiative-event  Security concerns.

[Author]

Posts