[ALB]

The only extant species capable of abstract thinking, i.e of thinking about something in the absence of the thing thought about, is homo sapiens. Humans do this by means of symbols (words). Thinking with abstract symbols is what was once called "reason". To claim that this does not make us "special" is a silly example of "speciousism".The fact remains that this means that we are the only animal species capable of establishment socialism (George Orwell's Animal Farm is good, very good, but should not be taken literally) and so of improving the lot of other animals. Like it or not, they do depend on us for this.What I've been trying to do, incidentally, is to find a theory for not being cruel to other animals that does not involve "anti-speciesism", vegetarianism or utilitarianism. In practice, though, I think most people accept this without the need to theorise about it.

[ALB]

John Oswald wrote:

ALB, how does one isolate a quote here from a longer piece to reply to?

This is really one for Admin but what you do is you open the passage you want to isolate with quote in square brackets [quo..] and close it with /quote in square brackets [/quo…]. You can also check whether you've done it right by clicking "Preview".Thanks for the book. It's going into the Party's lending library at Clapham High Street.I'm replying separately about whether or not other animals than humans have "reason" (I don't think they do, at least not in the same sense as humans do).

[ALB]

That's a different point. Not sure I agree with what you propose. Might be better to let the central government do its own dirty work. And don't forget that in Britain local councillors are essentially elected civil servants of the central government. Anyway, under our rulebook, a socialist councillor and so council would be under the instructions of their local branch. I know which way I'd vote if this matter came up.

[ALB]

I think 1875 and Robbo are right: that if the socialist movement has majority support in one state and is in a position to win control of political power there they should, if only for the reason 1875 gives of taking control of the armed forces out  of the hands of the capitalist class. Also to use the TV and radio possibilities this would give. The danger of being isolated for any length of time in that one state won't be very high as it is likely (given the way that ideas spread) that the socialist movement will be in a strong position in many other states. In fact, the decision as to what to do would probably be up to the socialist "international".Our objection is to socialists (if they are socialists) taking power in one country where they don't have majority support for socialism but only for reforms or for something else  less than socialism, i.e have no "mandate" for socialism, as was the case of the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 and as will be the case of Syriza if they win the Greek elections next Sunday (I'm assuming that some of them and of the Bolsheviks did want socialism in our sense).

[ALB]

Yes, we were beginning to forget his megalomaniac claim to be his god's high representative on Earth.

[ALB]

You could be right, Steve, but all the other sources, including what we reported in the Socialist Standard at the time, say 503. It's possible that all are just repeating an original mistake, but what is your source? The only definite one will be that declared and signed by the Returning Officer but I can't find a copy of this on the internet. Have you got one?

[ALB]

Socialism and Ecology wrote:

As the only consciously-acting life-form within the biosphere, humans ought to act as the biosphere's "brain", consciously regulating its functioning in the interest of present and future generations.

You've misunderstood the meaning of the word "consciousness" in this context. But to be fair you'd have to go back to an earlier passage where "consciously-acting" is defined:

Quote:

Other animals too can be said to engage in production in some sense. Birds change nature to satisfy their need for shelter when they build nests, and beavers change nature when they construct dams, as do bees with their hives and ants with their ant-hills. But nevertheless production remains an overwhelmingly human activity. It is not, as it is for other animals, an inherited instinctive behaviour pattern but results from conscious, premeditated decisions. This in fact is the only way that humans can react to their environment. All their actions (except for certain basic bodily functions and reflexes) pass first through the mind and thus are both conscious and deliberate. Humans are "consciously-acting animals" and this includes when they intervene in the rest of nature to provide for their needs.

Maybe a better term to avoid the sort of misunderstanding you've made (since lots of other animals are conscious) would be "purposefully-acting". Humans can delay their reaction to outside stimuli and "consciously" decide how to react. Humans are capable of abstract thought. No other animals are.I don't see why it is arrogant to claim that humans are like the "brain" of the biosphere. Anyway, it's only a claim about life on Earth. Of course we're only specks as far as the whole universe is concerned. And of course the human species will die out at some stage along with the Earth and all the animals on it.The idea actually comes from Murray Bookchin in one of his long, rambling (because nobody dared edit them) books about ecology and ethics. His point was that the only species capable of doing anything about the pollution and the environment of the Earth's biosphere are humans (even if much of it is due to their actions). Only they can intervene, purposefully, to put things right. No other animal can. In fact the only species that can save some other animals from extinction is the human species. This doesn't give the human species the "right" to dominate and be cruel to other animals. On the contrary, and this is the point I was trying to make, it means that they have the "duty" not to.

[ALB]

Depends how you define "speciesism". If it's the view that humans are "the lords of creation" and can do what they like to other animals, then it's something to be criticised. If "anti-speciesism" means that members of the human species are not entitled to eat other animals and that people who say that we can are "speciesists" then it's a load of nonsense, more properly called as you suggest "speciousism" if only because it doesn't challenge the "right" of other species of animal to eat other animals. The worse thing about Peter Singer is not so much his specious philosophising on this point but the fact that he claims to be a Marxist. Marx must be choking on his frankfurters.

[ALB]

But nobody here is in favour of bull fighting or animal cruelty (the member who defended bull-fighting on the WSM Forum is now an ex-member and has joined Left Unity though he does appear here from time to time).You are right "Animal rights" and "anti-speciesism" have nothing to do with vegetarianism. You don't have to be a vegetarian to espouse these, though that animals have "rights" is a dubious concept. It's more that humans have a "duty" not to be cruel to them. As we say in the concluding paragraph of our Ecology and Socialism pamphlet:

Quote:

As the only consciously-acting life-form within the biosphere, humans ought to act as the biosphere's "brain", consciously regulating its functioning in the interest of present and future generations. But before humans can hope to play this role we must first integrate our own activities into a sustainable natural cycle on a planetary scale. This we can only do within the framework of a world socialist society in which the Earth and its natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity.

[ALB]

John Oswald wrote:

I remember my dad teaching me about socialism and Shelley, saying, "We agree with what Shelley says, but not his vegetarianism, so ignore his pieces about that"

I see your dad understood the Party case.

[ALB]

Now the Church of England gets in on the act (well, actually, they were there before the pope):http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/15/uk-economy-tale-two-cities-archbishopsSome extracts:

Quote:

The book of essays, to be published next week, is edited by the archbishop of York, John Sentamu. On Rock or Sand? has unmistakable echoes of Faith in the City, the Church of England report published 30 years ago that infuriated the Conservatives, who denounced it as “pure Marxist theology”. (….)The book advocates a new redistribution of wealth, quoting the slogan popularised by Karl Marx: “From each according to his resources, to each according to his need.” (…)“If it is the survival of the fittest, that’s what I call living in the jungle and I don’t want to live in the jungle – this is supposed to be a civilised society. It is nothing to do with being socialist or whatever. What it has got to do with is, is this how God created us? Has he created us to be people who go to Black Friday to fight with each other because they want the biggest bargain? No, that’s the rule of the jungle, we left that behind.”

Looks as if the churches have taken up the leftwing reformist banner abandoned by the Labour Party (because it didn't work). But the Archbishop is right: it doesn't have anything to do with being socialist.

[ALB]

There's some silly arguments there, Alan, but there's no real need to have a grand philosophical debate about this. As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to make a lifestyle choice of being a vegetarian, fair enough, go ahead, but leave the rest of us to get on with our wider eating habits. To be honest this is what most vegetarians do. The trouble is that some are over-zealous and criticise the rest of us, so provoking arguments. They think they've got the moral high ground but just come across as smug. And of course those who associate vegetarianism with socialism have to be refuted. Actually, we can turn the tables on them here by pointing out that only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice.

[ALB]

Thanks. Until I re-read that letter from Richard Condon I had forgotten how abysmally low was the theoretical understanding of the rank and file members of the "International Socialism" Group at the time. Some of the others were able to put up more of a fight:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-791-july-1970/debate-%E2%80%9Cinternational-socialists%E2%80%9DAnyway, we've asked for a review copy of the book. Don't know if we'll get one though.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

But no more SPGB candidates will be announced right?

I can't see any more branches coming forward to contest the parliamentary elections, but there are local elections the same day in two of the seats we've chosen: Brighton Kemptown and Folkestone & Hythe. There are elections to Lewes District Council (and East Sussex County Council) in the former and to Shepway District Council in the latter. Personally, I'd be in favour of contesting a council seat in each, so as to raise further our profile and also provide a focus for leafletting. Candidates would have to live in the council area but we have members, even parliamentary candidates, living in both.

[ALB]

Yes, scroll down to Elections in 2010s:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easington_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29Scroll down even further to Elections in the 1990s and see how we did in 1997.I see no one wants to stand there as a Tory or LibDem. Can't say I blame them.

[Author]

Posts