ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Tom Rogers wrote:Can I take it, then, that you do not consider race to be a social construct afterall? Otherwise, I think your position is self-contradictory.
No you can't. That's why I put the word "race", "racial" (but not racist) in inverted commas.
Quote:I agree that the evidence for miscegenation is all around us, but this does not help you establish that race is only a social construct, it just indicates that some people will breed outside their own wider kin group under the influence of propaganda and a particular consciousness that is accepting and encouraging of race-mixing.and
Tom Rogers wrote:The truth is that multiculturalism is simply part of the ideological justification for capitalism. Societies of mixed race suit those who have rootless utilitarian attitudes. I would say that the working population in Britain is politically-weaker than ever today and this is partly (though not wholly) due to multiculturalism (i.e. the acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous).What is this? A party political broadcast on behalf of the BNP?I'm against "multiculturalism" too, but for the opposite reason to you. But, first, multiculturalism is not to be equated with ""acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous". Nor is it to be equated with the simple existence of different cultures and cultural traditions, which anyone (whatever the "race" you would put them in) can share. Different food, different music, etc. That's a good thing which I'm sure will still exist and flourish in a socialist society. I imagine you don't eat in Indian restaurants or listen to reggae music."Multiculturalism" is the government policy of encouraging historically-evolved cultural groups to identify with that group and to construct and teach them a concocted history to that end. I'm opposed to it on the ground that it encourages identity politics instead of class politics. As was well explained in an article from Class War in 2007 which can be found by typing "cowley club" + "class war" + "multiculturalism" into a search engine (perhaps someone can find an easier way of accessing it. It's from the Summer 2007 and entitled "Multiculturalism — The Newspeak of the Left Cop".)You appear to share the concern of some pro-capitalist apologists that multiculturalism is proving couter-productive from their own point of view in that it encourages members of cultural groups to identify with their group rather than with "the nation" or "the country" and are beginning to think that the French government's policy of assimilation would be better. But that might not be good enough for you as it still accepts that the population of Britain would still be what you call "racially-homogenous" and would not discourage "race-mixing".
I already explained that this resolution refers to election material we produce ourselves. It arose from a case where a branch put the candidate's photo on the election manifesto. The 1989 resolution repudiated and banned this. Photos have been supplied to local newspapers both before and after this 1989 resolution.For what it would have looked like if we hadn't provided a photo, see here:http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/index/lgcl_council_government_and_democracy/lgcl_elections/nonlgcl_election_results/lgcl_districtparish2011_results_district-2.htm
Tom Rogers wrote:You refer to "millions of people" who don't form relationships on the basis of what I define (roughly-speaking) as kin instincts: it would be good to see evidence for this. While I don't necessarily doubt that is true, I would suggest that such people are overriding an instinct to procreate within their own racial or ethnic group. In your view, that is a good thing. In my view, it might not necessarily always be a good thing, but no matter how you define the terminology,I would have thought that the evidence is all around you, in the street, on the TV, in the sports stadiums, etc where people said to be of "mixed race" are numerous.Here's the figures from the 2011 UK Census:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/2011-census-mixed-race-jessica-1484384and from the 2010 US Census:http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/27/census-more-people-identify-as-mixed-race/You say that such "race-mixing" might "not necessarily always be a good thing" ? Can you give any examples of it being a "bad thing".
It's up. The face that is:http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/DemocracyElections/ElectionsVoting/StatementOfPersonsNominatedBrixtonHill.htmI know we say and mean "it's the case not the face" but surely "the face is better than the empty space" …
Tom Rogers wrote:I see, as a last resort, you are bringing social etiquette into the equation. Please explain how it is insulting to argue that human beings might instinctively wish to associate with kin groups? Please enumerate for us the ways in which one might find this insulting.My reference was to people who consciously decide to marry/have children with someone they considered to be of the same "racial group" as them. You are talking of people who might "instinctively" do this. I doubt that this is a human "instinct" if only because of people of the millions of people who don't do this (the reason why me and others described your claim about this to be nonsense) but also because one of the features of the human species is to have very little instinctual behaviour.
Tom Rogers wrote:You then go on to dispense an insult yourself, by suggesting that those who sexually select based on race are "racist". It is of course fine for you to insult whoever you like, and at will, but please define racist and explain why people should be castigated (and presumably, in your view, locked-up) for this attribute?A racist is someone who wants to discriminate between what they consider to be "races". So, yes, someone who consciously sexually selects on "racial grounds" would be racist. I'm not sure, though, that there are many people who do do this as all sorts of other social factors enter into this selection. And I don't accept that people do sexually select "instinctively" (but agree that if they did they could not be criticised), but I do think that those who consciously sexually select on "race" grounds do should be criticised. Of course I don't think they should be punished or even prevented from doing this. To encroach on another current thread, I don't even think they should be prevented from expressing their point of view. We, the Socialist Party, have always opposed the policy of "No Platform for Fascists".
Tom Rogers wrote:You finish with another rhetorical flourish, asking me not to use the term 'we'. I am not sure why, but I have never asked the Socialist Party to refrain from using the term 'we' in its arguments for socialism. Why should I do so? Of course, I shouldn't. It's just another silly, disingenuous distraction from you.The "we" I wanted to be excluded from was the "we" in this claim of yours:
Quote:we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.You might want this, but I don't. I wouldn't have thought anyone else would either.
The point I was making was this: that of course there are genetically-based differences between humans but the ones that are selected to differentiate "races" are socially-determined (eg skin colour rather than hair colour). So that why's it fair to say that "race" is a social not a biological classification.I still say that it is nonsense to say:
Quote:we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.And insulting too to the millions who don't choose to marry/have children with somebody of the same "racial" group. In fact, I would say that someone who wanted to marry/have children with someone just because they resembled their "racial group" would be a racist.In any event please exlude me from your "we".
Tom Rogers wrote:we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.Socialist Punk has already pointed out that this is nonsense. Do redheads want to marry other redheads? If not, why not? Surely because skin colour is a "social construct" as a marker of "race" today while red-headedness isn't, though both have a genetic basis. And why, in this country, are so-called "mixed race" people regarded and sometimes regard themselves as "black" rather than "white" (which would be equally logical — or illogical, from a biological point of view). Surely, again, because "black" and "white" are "social constructs" not biological categories.
Ed wrote:We should do them for false advertising. It's an introduction to Leninism.Except of course that Luxemburg wasn't a Leninist, but I don't suppose these breakaway SWPers will mention that. See her devastating criticism of Lenin's What Is To Be Done? here:http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm
There also this from the Socialist Standard in 1971:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-807-november-1971/right-be-lazy
alanjjohnstone wrote:I also remember an ex RSM tell me that if the Russians had invaded all it would mean for the likes of him and i would be that our postman caps would have a red star instead of the crown on it.Yes, that's what socialists used to say about all that Irish "independence" would mean would be painting the pillar boxes green, though I think it also meant that retired Irish postmen had their pensions cut.
I couldn't find it from the link you gave but I did indirectly here: http://grantjkidney.com/peterjosephinterview/ This also gives the written version of what he said. It certainly shows an evolution of Peter Joseph's thought towards a better understanding of capitalism, the State and exploitation. eg.
Quote:For example, numerous studies on global poverty have shown that it has nothing to do with the technical capacity of food production or distribution. Rather, it has to do with the scarcity and profit “rules” inherent to the Monetary-Market Economy. The very idea of “equality” is anathema to the Market System. The class divisions we see are inherent and, simply put, the greater the equality, the less efficient the market.As an aside, James Madison, a huge influence on the creation of the US Constitution wrote, in effect, that democracy must be limited so the poor have less rights for, if they did have more say, they would naturally revise the economic laws to gain some of the immense “wealth of the nation” – the “wealth of the nation” which should “always be in control”, to paraphrase Madison.It is rather depressing how “patriotic” Americans in the lower classes, often touting their “freedom” and “anti-socialistic” paranoia, have no idea that the United States, the ostensible pinnacle of “democracy”, was actually built upon class elitism and oppression in many ways with the guiding philosophy being “economic” – not “democratic” or even “political” – when you really think about it.The grand illusion, of course, is that we can have “equality” in the citizenry on the political/democratic level in the wake of constant, inherent economic inequality and class warfare. Capitalism was realized as a system of social oppression to perpetuate a form of intuitive social darwinism that began during the age of Pharaohs… on to Kings and Feudalism, to Mercantilism, and then to its most sophisticated form of oppression – an oppression which gives the placating illusion of choice and freedom – the “free-enterprise” scam.As another aside, please note that these values of elitism are never thought about this way, however – the elites of history ALWAYS think the positions they hold and the state of class division is somewhat “divine” and that they are in the privileged position to take care of the rest. The intent is never truly malicious – it is always justified as an end-over-means process of rationalization and the very nature of modern economic thought, which rewards only a ruthless, narrow self-interest, serves this pattern wellIsn't this last point the Marxist theory of ideology!And:
Quote:People talk about “freedom” in the Western world as though they have any in real terms. The average person spends most of their life sleeping and working – the working part existing in a clearly fascist corporate structure. I don’t use the term fascist loosely. The entire idea of a business/corporation is as undemocratic and hierarchical as you could possibly get in its present form and it embodies class warfare and exploitation by it very design. This is freedom? (….)Then there is the inherent coercion of the financial and debt system to force people into submission by default. The old illusion that this system allows for “choice” as though it is really “voluntary” is absurd. It is, again, a post-modern slavery system cut and dry where only now the slaves are not housed by their owners – they are given subsistence to fend for themselves, under the guise, again, that they have a “choice”. Coupled with this pressure are many structural safe guards to ensure the poor/lower class have no chance for large scale influence…He even abandons the view that the system must first collapse economically, saying that it can be ended more or less peacefully by conscious majority action:
Quote:GJK: Would it take a total economic break down to facilitate the beginnings of what the Zeitgeist Movement envisions for the world?PJ: It could happen with a rational consensus of the majority of the population. This is the general goal of TZM… To educate while the periodic crises inherent to Capitalism continue which will reinforce the need to evolve. (…)However, nothing can stop the masses if they finally shake the delusions put forward by years of propaganda to support their own subjugation and the class superiority of the “elite”. It really could fall like a house of cards if enough people really want it. As distant as that may seem, the pressures emerging with climate/resource/debt/war/poverty and the like today seem to show that a larger tide is shifting…. and TZM is trying to harness that growing global unity for change to bring the elephant down in a peaceful way. Again, we are all just people. The real revolution is the revolution if values. So, while “collapse” is catalytic, (if it doesn’t go too far) it isn’t actually needed if we can educate.It just remains for him to recognise that "class warfare" is not just one of the evils of the system, but also the means to end it and he'll be a Marxist despite himself.Grant J. Kidney, on the other hand, appears from his site to be a nutter.
Jonny K. wrote:It's not necessarily the case that democratic forms are needed in our revolutionary organization if our postrevolutionary society is to be democratic (as it must be),.I know you're making a logical point here (and that there are organisations that want communism but are not organised democratically, "Left Communists" and the Zeitgeist Movement for instance) while agreeing that in practice a revolutionary organisation should be democratically-organised, but this assumes that there is/can be/should be a permanent distinction between the "revolutionary organisation" and the movement of the working class.OK, at the moment, when there are only a relative handful of revolutionaries, there is clearly a distinction, but as the revolutionary movement takes off surely the "revolutionary organisation" will become an increasing section of the working class organised for socialism/communism and, both in logic and in practice, the working class can only organise themselves for socialism/communism democratically without leaders (if they don't they won't end up with socialism)?
Since we've veered off topic and until called to order, here's something that the Socialist Labor Party of America said on the "right to bear arms" (see page
:http://www.slp.org/pdf/thepeople/mar02tpP.pdfIt seems sensible, i.e. that the right to bear arms against the threat of an oppressive regime has been replaced by the right to vote and the right to organise industrially, which could be far more effective weapons under present circumstancxes.On the other hand, Leninists and others who still believe that capitalism can only be overthrown by armed insurrection ought to be committed to defending/demanding the right to bear arms (and organising weapon training for their members) but only those who publish the Weekly Worker seem to take this seriously, incorporating it into their programme:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/654/workers-militia-and-burning-necessityWhich is one good reason for us, and the rest of the working class, not to take them seriously.Jonny K. wrote:it is perhaps incorrect to say the vanguardist position depends necessarily on a belief that the proletariat, special clever vanguardists aside, can't achieve the appropriate level of consciousness under capitalism..This is true. Leninism, and its derogatory view of the intellectual incapacity of the working class, isn't the only form of "vanguardism". There is a long anarchist tradition of "vanguardism", of justifying an "active minority" not being held back by the lower level of understanding of the rest of the working class but forcing the issue, e.g. in conflicts with employers, without the backing of a majority of the workers concerned.
Quote:It could be defended by arguing that in some situations. Let's say… A time-critical threat that the bourgeois state could develop authoritarian forms capable of protecting it dangerously robustly against proletarian revolution… And a majority of the proletariat is not yet won over to socialism… Perhaps then it would be correct, reluctantly and warily, to act as a vanguard, just because the proletariat hasn't yet, not because it cannot ever, achieve revolutionary class consciousness.You're talking about a future period when there will be a sizeable minority of socialists. Obviously that changes things as what the socialist minority decides to do will have an effect on the course of events. I'd have thought that, whatever they decide to do in any situation, they should still do so democratically and still seek to act democratically.
In a sense we could be said to be a "vanguard" but only in the sense that we have become socialists before the rest of the working class. But, words and their connotations apart, the question is what should socialists in this position do. How should they analyse their situation and what should they do?Should they seek to lead the rest of the working class judged incapable of understanding socialism by offering reforms or should they seek to spread socialist ideas amongs more of their fellow workers whose socialist understanding is considered an essential condition for the establishment of socialism (as a stateless, classless, moneyless, wageless society based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production)?The Leninist/Trotskyist "vanguardists" choose the first of these. We choose the second.
