ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Do the SPGB members who are against any one with a spiritual belief joining the party, think that a socialist revolution will be made up entirely of atheists?
No, not entirely. I imagine that at that time it will be enough that those making the socialist revolution know that capitalism can’t work in their interest, that the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production is the way out, and that this can only be brought about democratically. I wouldn’t have thought either that those making the socialist revolution will all need to be members of the party, just of some democratically-organised working class organisation or other. No doubt some (a minority) may hold religious views. It’s that today, when we’re so small and essentially a propagandist group, we need to have a higher degree of understanding than will then be necessary, if only to retain our integrity as a socialist organisation.Incidentally, a “spiritual belief” is not necessarily a religious belief, so there are members who think that having a “spiritual” belief is not incompatible with membership but that having a religious belief is. We’ve just recently had a big debate, culminating in a Party referendum, as to whether or not socialism is a moral, ethical (as well as a class) issue.
Quote:Billions of atheists?Why not? Already today there are billions of people who are practical “atheists” in the sense that they live their life without taking any account of some superbeing that can intervene in their life. They don’t participate in religious rites. They don’t pray. They don’t blame a god if things go wrong. Ok, if questioned, they might say they believe in god, but that’s just a social convention reflecting what they think they are expected to say (after all, they are not socialists). But in practice they already lead a godless life (which religious leaders are always complaining about). When they become socialists there willl be no reason to respect this social convention. They can come out.
I’ve just realised that because, for some here, the link I gave to Robbo’s “paranormal experience” wasn’t highlighted they won’t have understood what this was. So here it is:
Quote:About three years ago I was involved in relationship with woman who lived in a cottage near the centre of a largish town in West Cornwall. The woman had 3 daughters between 11 and 14 and the cottage itself was, I would guess, probably 18th or early 19th century. Two of the daughters reported several times seeing poltergeist-type events (crockery apparently being thrown across the room) and also an elderly somewhat agitated woman on the landing upstairs in the late evening when going to the loo – which I naturally dismissed, being a good materialist, as a figment of their imagination. What happened on one particular saturday morning, however, was not a figment of my imagination or anyone else’s We had gone out shopping and the house was locked with a cat inside. When we came back it was immediately apparant that something had happened. Two china dolls that had been wedged up at the very top of a welsh dresser in the lounge – perhaps 7 feet up – had apparantly fallen to the floor but strangely had not been smashed. More weird still was what we found when we entered the main bedroom. A a tall tapering blue vase had been placed in the middle of the bed and a bowl of por-pourri had been scattered beside the bed. That vase had been in the very centre of a cluster of vases and bowls on a side cabinet by the bed. The bedroom door had been firmly closed and remained firmly closed when we arrived back from the shopping. The cottage had not in any way been broken into and in any case was too exposed to public view for anyone to consider breaking into it. Nothing was stolen from the house; nor was there any other distubance we could discover. It is just about conceivable that the cat had a spell of craziness and took it into it head to jump a height of 7ft onto the top of the welsh dresser but this would not explain the blue vaze or the pot pourri. Even if the cat had managed to get in the bedroom, opening the door and closing it after it had left, it is totally inconceivable that it could have managed to relocate a tall blue vase from the middle of a cluster or ornamants and place it on the middle or the bed without disturbing all the other ornaments around it which had been left totally undisturbed (barring the bowl of pot pourri) I have often wondered about this incident. There is no rational explanation for it I can think of. This was not like some ghostly apparation such as the two girls had reported. There has been an actual physical relocation of objects which all of us had apprehended. There is no way I can “prove” what I saw but I know for sure that this incident happened and the objects had not been where we subsequently found them, before we left. (groups.yahoo.com/group/spopen/message/753 )Comrades offered rational explanations, but Robbo dismissed them all as the explanations of “shit-hot metaphysical materialists”.Anyone who has read about “poltergeists” will recognise this as a classic case. Harry Edwards writes in his A Skeptic’s Guide to the New Age:
Quote:Poltergeists, or noisy spirits, are another phenomenon which, when investigated, usually turn out to have a more prosaic explanation.Invariably they take place in a household with a teenage member, a typical case being that of a fourteen year old girl by the name of Tina Resch, of Columbus, Ohio. Shortly after seeing the film Poltergeist, objects started to fly about in the Resch’s household. The “poltergeist” phenomenon was given wide coverage both on TV and in the press, and parapsychologist William Roll was called in to investigate.He concluded that “when he had Tina under close observation she demonstrated genuine recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis”, Roll’s term for the poltergeist phenomenon.Although nothing ever moved while Tina was being watched, as soon as the photographer looked away an object would fly across the room. One of the photographs taken and distributed by Associated Press as proof of the phenomenon when examined in detail strongly suggested that Tina was faking the occurrences. Examination and careful analysis of other photographs confirmed this and she was subsequently caught red-handed on video tape throwing objects. The records also show that Tina was hyperactive and emotionally disturbed. ( http://ed5015.tripod.com/SupernatGhostsApparitions97.htm )Even in the 18th century teenage girls were caught faking this. See this account of “the Cock Lane ghost” in which Samuel Johnson and the writer and poet Oliver Goldsmith were involved in exposing: http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-Cock-Lane-Ghost-Dr-Samuel-Johnson/345789So, the most likely explanation in the case Robbo brought up is that one of the girls did it, probably before they all left to go shopping. But in his crusade against “metaphysical materialism” he refused to accept this saying he wanted to keep an “open mind” on the matter, i.e. he wasn’t going to decide between this explanation and others such as “spontaneous psychokinesis” or that a ghost did it. That those who take a scientific materialist approach to the so-called paranormal have a “closed mind” is of course the standard criticism of those who believe in all sorts of irrational things.I don’t know why Robbo thinks that people who believe in the paranormal or who have New Age spiritual views are more likely to be receptive to the socialist case than humanists and secularists. But he seems to, obsessively so.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:This may be the article http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialismYes, it is. Not bad, is it?I thought that when we you used the link icon the text was highlighted. Apparently not, at least not for everyone. So I shan’t use it in the future. Here in case anyone missed it is the link to Einstein’s views on religion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_EinsteinI say a “pantheist” might be admitted. Young Master Smeet says a “deist” might be ok. That just leaves those who believe in a personal god that intervenes in nature and society (and/or who believe in an after life) as beyond the pale. Don’t ask me about those who believe in poltergeists.
northern light wrote:When in 1929 Edwin Hubble proved that the Universe was expanding, Albert Einstein acknowledged “the necessity for a begining and the presence of a superior reasoning power.” He believed ” that God was intelligent and creative, but not personal.”I’m not sure that this is a direct quote from Einstein. It sounds more like a description of his view by some American Creationist trying to appropriate him for their side. As far as I can work out, Einstein’s position was the Universe was “God” and that what physics was trying to do was to work out the logic behind how it worked. What Stephen Hawking once called “the mind of God” (not that he believes in a personal god either or in fact in any god). This is just a poetic way of expressing it.If your views on religion are the same as Einstein’s you should apply to join and see what happens. After all, Einstein once wrote a good article against capitalism and for socialism.
Ed wrote:What I find misleading is the communism part. Communalism maybe.If we don’t call it communism that would deprive the Hegelians in the party of their prime example of the negation of the negation.
northern light wrote:So now I would have been an atheist, if it was not for a couple of paranormal experiences I had, which led me to question spirituality, and ultimately, the existence of a CreatorIf it’s not an impertinent question, what were these “paranormal” experiences as there’s normally a scientific explanation for them? And not all believers in the paranormal (for all their irrationality) are religious. Robbo once said he’d had one too (a poltergeist) but that didn’t make him religious. It did provoke a lively discussion on our previous forum SPOPEN. Much more interesting than discussing religion.
Ed wrote:But I was unaware of a strong party view on primitive communism.(….). The term is very misleading and in my opinion should be retired. Do you have any links to the party’s view on the subject? Perhaps the conversation on primitive societies warrants a thread of it’s own?Some people object to the term “primitive communism” because they object to the word “primitive” with its condescending and even derogatory connotations. But this is an old usage of the word which meant “original”. So maybe “original communism” would convey the meaning better. I prefer “tribal communism”.There was a controversy in the movement in 1969 following an article by John Crump on “Primitive Communism” in the international magazine World Socialism 69 (of which only one issue appeared) in which he challenged some of Lewis Henry Morgan’s assumptions about primitive society, inherited by the Socialist movement via Engels’s Origin of the Family. The WSP of the US sent in a blistering reply. Both must exist somewhere in the Party’s archives in Clapham.Incidentally, it is not only Marxists who are committed to the view that humans originally lived in communistic societies. It is also the Christian view that their god originally gave the Earth to all its inhabitants to enjoy in common. Which meant that later theologians had to adopt all sorts of contortions to justify the existence of private property. Thus, the 38th article of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church reads:
Quote:XXXVIII. Of Christian Men’s Goods, which are not common. The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast.Presumably this is the one article Marx said he imagined they would retain when he said they would give up 38 out their 39 Articles rather than 1/39th of their wealth. No, Robin, this is not a cue for you to say we should admit Anabaptists even if Gerrard Winstanley does have a place in the Socialist Pantheon !
Quote:That this conference endorses the editorial Committee’s reply to a correspondent’s letter in the May 2002 Socialist Standard and holds that it is a good brief summing up of the party’s position. ‘The Socialist Party takes a non-theistic, materialist approach to things, in particular to society and social change. Religious people believe in the existence of at least one supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs. Socialists hold that we only live once. Religious people believe in some afterlife. Clearly the two are incompatible’.Resolution passed by Conference 2003 by 90 votes to 15 (86% to 14%).
Yes, it was in 2004 by this Conference Resolution (note the original resolution was passed in 1984 not 1974):
Quote:That the 1984 Conference Resolution, ‘This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State’, be rescinded and replaced with: ‘That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use’Jonathan Chambers wrote:How many members are actually intending to go? And where are we meeting? I’m travelling down from Wales and it’d be nice not to be all on my own!!It’s a bit early yet to have fixed the exact details, but there will probably be 2 meeting points. One for those to cover the assembly point of the march at the Embankment from 11am and one at Hyde Park. Since the Embankment is on a direct tube line to Head Office it may be best for members wanting to cover the start to go there first to pick up leaflets. In the afternoon, from say 1.30-2.00 onwards we’ll have a literature stall in Hyde Park (Marble Arch).At the moment we’ve decided to order 15,000 leaflets. This may prove over-ambitious as it implies that, if only 15 members turn out, each will have to distribute an average of 1000 leaflets. But if members coming to London for the Autumn Delegate Meeting on the Sunday turn out too we should have more 20 members leafleting.If members think that this is too ambitious now is the time to say so as the order can be reduced.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Some members may be a little offended as the Communist Manifesto advocates reforms
Actually, strictly speaking, the 10 points in the Communist Manifesto were not reforms to be implemented within capitalism but measures to be adopted in what we can now see was the highly unlikely (not to say impossible) event of the Communist League of Germany winning political control there in 1848. The criticism that could be made of them (besides being based on an unrealistic, and unrealisable, assumption) was that they amounted to a programme for state capitalism even if under democratic control. Maybe that was all socialists could advocate as the way forward when conditions were not yet ripe for socialism. Fortunately we are now living in 2012 not 1848 and that dilemma has long ceased to exist.
Hud, here’s the argument you are wrestling with as presented by someone on another forum (Urban 75 discussing our debate with Positive Money on Wednesday):
Quote:But even more to the point, it is necessary to consider the banking system as a whole, because just as you might claim money created by private banks ‘leaves’ when it is drawn on to another bank, it arrives when the reverse happens. Suppose we have four major high st banks, each of them make a loan of £10,000 to one of their customers. Now suppose each of these customers draws their loan by paying someone at another bank, so each bank has given one loan and been paid by another. What is the overall position? None of the banks has any change in their position with the central bank. The banking system as a whole has created £40,000, out of thin air, by keystrokes on a computer.In this example the banking system has indeed made new loans totalling £40,000 but not “out on thin air”.The model this contributor is using of the way the modern banking system works assumes that at the end of each day payments out (which will include loans that are spent) are covered by payments in (electronic deposits of one kind or another). In his example the £10,000 each bank paid out to a borrower is compensated by payments in, the same day, of the same amount. (He assumes that they are compensated by payments in from the borrowers from one of the other banks, but they could come from anywhere.)The same model of the way the banking system works also assumes that, if at the end of the day, a bank ends up with payments out exceeding payments in, then it borrows the difference, either from the Bank of England or from other banks or from the money market. So once again any loans are covered by an equivalent amount.The only difference is that this model assumes that the money that covers the loan can be acquired after the loan has been made (even if only later the same day) rather than having to exist before the loan could be made. But it still assumes that all loans do have to be covered. So much for “thin air” (and bootstraps).
Hud955 wrote:In that respect, I think the Positive Money argument is stronger. That’s what’s giving me problems.I don’t think we should call the argument that a bank can make a loan without having the funds to cover it as long as it finds those funds by the end of the day “the Positive Money argument”. That is to give them too much credibility. They are basically currency cranks who have latched on to one side of an argument between economists about whether or not a central bank can control the level of bank lending and they propose a currency crank solution (basically the old Social Credit one that the government should organise lending).I think that the argument that is giving you problems is the one presented, for instance, in this article where the author argues that a bank does not necessarily have to have the funds available before it grants a loan, but that it does have to get them later. This is a rather different argument from currency cranks who argue loans don’t have to be counter-balanced by funds.The author argues that a bank making a loan without funds can get the money, via the clearing system run by the central bank. The central bank will grant it an overdraft but expect that to be paid off by the end of the day, so the bank has to borrow the money from other banks or the money market generally. He also argues that, as borrowing from the money market is more expensive than borrowing from outside depositors, banks have an incentive to seek deposits to lend from them rather than getting from the money market the money to cover loans:
Quote:Note underneath Bank A’s balance sheet I’ve shown the totals or net changes to its balance sheet overall, which is simply a loan created offset by borrowings in the money markets on the liability/equity side. So, the loan was made without Bank A ever needing to meet reserve requirements, without needing reserve balances before making the loan, and without needing any deposits. Can Bank A just continue to make loans forever this way without ever needing any of these? The key here is to understand the business model of banking—which is to earn more on assets than is paid on liabilities, and to hold as little capital (equity) as possible (since that’s generally more expensive than assets). The most profitable way to do this is to make loans (that are paid back, obviously, so credit analysis is an important part of this) that are offset by deposits, since deposits are the cheapest liability; borrowings in money markets would be more expensive, generally. So, Bank A, if it is not able to acquire deposits is not operationally constrained in making the loan, but it will find that this loan is less profitable than if it could acquire deposits to replace the borrowings.That doesn’t sound unreasonable and explains why banks seek deposit (something the currency cranks can’t explain). It brings profits into the picture and accepts that banks’ income comes from the difference on the interest they pay on their liabilities and the interest they get on their assets, i.e the difference between the rate they pay those who lend them money and the rate they charge lenders.Although we can object to some of the language employed, especially that banks can create loans “out of thin air” (a term that does occur in the article), I can’t see that this undermines our argument that loans do have to be covered by funds, i.e we don’t necessarily have to take the side of Krugman in this argument. In fact, of course, we don’t have to take either side. The currency cranks of course favour the anti-Krugman side for the reason that puts us off (the use of the term “out of thin air”), but the arguments of this side do not back up the basic currency crank argument that loans don’t have to be covered by funds or that banks make their money by making loans from nothing and charging intertest on this.
