[ALB]

We've got an obituary for Castro on the stocks. It looks as if we should be preparing one for Chavez too. As they both claim to be socialists, and have considerable influence on critics of capitalist society in Latin America and elsewhere, we have some interesting things to say on both.

[ALB]

Tom Rogers wrote:

In practice, the evidence from multi-cultural societies is that one racial group tends to dominate another.  Of course, because you do not recognise 'race' as a valid term at all, to you multi-culturalism is simply the co-existence of different cultural groups, whereas to my mind, multi-culturalism is simply a code word for race-mixing.  You then state, ""Multiculturalism" is the government policy of encouraging historically-evolvd cultural groups to identify with that group and to construct and teach them a concocted history to that end." It follows from what I have just stated that this is also wrong in that multiculturalism is not just 'multi-cultural', it is also multi-racial, with different racial groups existing within the same geo-political space.  All the evidence from where this is tried is that one racial group tends to dominate over the other – South Africa is one example.

This confirms what I suspected — that what you object to is "multiracialism" rather than "multiculturalism"., i.e to "race-mixing", just like the erstwhile rulers of the Old South in the US and of South Africa under apartheid.South Africa is not a good example for you. For a start, the "blank majority" does not dominate over the others. The vast majority of "blacks" in South Africa are dominated by an elite drawn from all the groups you consider to be "races". And the "blacks" do not compose a homogenuous bloc, but are divided into cultural groups with which they identify with more than with the rest of their "race". Finally, what "race" do you place the "Coloureds" in? Or do you think they are a separate "race".Assuming that you still consider yourself to be socialist (perhaps you no longer do; it doesn't sound like it) how do you reconcile your views on "race-mixing" with the fact that socialism will be, in your terms, a "multi-racial" society, probably more so than today? If, as you claim, "races" have difficulty in getting on with each other how will socialism deal with this "problem" supposed by you?

[ALB]

This article has been translated into French and is online here:http://www.critique-sociale.info/704/eric-hobsbawm-historien-et-leniniste/

[ALB]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

I cannot see why this resolution should not apply to party forums.

Well, yes, of course it does and, also of course, there are procedures for doing so which members need to follow.Sorry, Moderator, for veering off topic but I wanted to reassure JonD that members are entitled to criticise and work to amend or rescind any Conference Resolution and more. What they are not entitled to do is to not abide by it in the meantime.

[ALB]

Of course the Party must act in accordance with Conference resolutions, but here it's a question of what a Conference Resolution means (and has been interpreted over the years as meaning).I don't know, JonD, where you got the idea from the members can't argue against a Conference resolution with a view to getting it reversed or changed. This goes on all the time. There's even this Conference Resolution from 1973 (I hope it doesn't set the cat amongst the pigeons):

Quote:

This Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Party Rules should be understood as to prevent any member or members from expressing criticism of the Party verbally or in writing.

[ALB]

Thanks. I see I did remember it more or less accurately, though I forgot how embedded in Class War's analysis is their three-class view of society. It was the conclusion that was good:

Quote:

Multiculturalism claims to be the solution to the oppression and discrimination within capitalist society. In reality it is a deeply conservative elitist ideology concerned above all with dividing our class against itself in order to best ensure the ruling classes continued domination.

Ironically, Class War's distinction between a "middle class" and a "working class" also "divides our class against itself".

[ALB]

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".

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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".

[ALB]

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" …

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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".

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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

[ALB]

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

[Author]

Posts