[Ike Pettigrew]

As I think I have said, we are arguing from different axioms.  For that reason, I think any further discussion is unlikely to be productive for either of us.  Your fundamental principles conflict with mine.  Neither of us has a monopoly on wisdom, and you may be right about some things, just as I may turn out to be right about things.  For now, we are at deadlock.  And I am busy.

[Ike Pettigrew]

robbo203 wrote:

What "territorial instinct"?

Why does your neighbour have a wall or fence round his property?  Maybe he doesn't, but all mine do.  Why?  You will attribute this to capitalism.  Well let's assume this is correct, we then have to ask, where did capitalism come from?  The regression leads us back to human nature: the collection of qualities that are essential to the human being. The basic point is that you begin from a different axiom, in which either human nature and its various moral endowments are denied, or these essential facets are acknowledged but it is asserted that they can be re-engineered in some Promethean manner.  I disagree with this.  My axiom is not the improvement of Man, but the improvement of men – it is this fundamental disagreement that separates us.

robbo203 wrote:

For the great bulk of our time on this planet, we human beings lived in a small immediate-return hunter-gatherer band societies whose outstanding characteristic was that they were nomadic and lacked any sense of teriitory. 

Being nomadic does not mean a lack of a sense of territory.  Lions are nomadic and also territorial.  Lots of animals that do not have or possess any apparent fixed territory are nevertheless territorial.  You may also want to consider the possibility that territorialism and its various manifestations like farms, tribes and nations are meta-phenomena that arise from deeper insincts: such as protection of family, etc.

robbo203 wrote:

That sense of territory came with the domestication of plants and animals – a comparatively recent development.  So too is the development of tribes.  Band societies are quite different in structure and organisation to tribal societies and if we are genetically programmed to live in any kind of society it would probably be the former since we lived so much longer in that kind of society.

These are just shifts in material conditions (i.e. realities).  As explained above, I refer to human nature, not as a purely naturalistic explanation or lazy catch-all premise, but as the result of evolution and changes in the environment.  

robbo203 wrote:

But even assuming a fixed romantic attachment to some place – e.g. my home town – I dont see how this is incompatible with socialism. Do you? Nationalism is a different though since nationalism is essentially a product of capitalism and nationalist mythology literally had to be invented to bind together the "imagined community" that is the nation state.  Read Benedict Anderson on this

Nationalism is incompatible with socialism as you would have it, and surely that is your own position anyway.  A synergy of the two positions is possible and I suspect that if socialism ever did come about in practice, it would work along ethnic/tribal lines and there would probably be national/cultural borders of some sort.  The difficulty here is that our vobaculary might not be able to articulate how such arrangements could work, as we tend to verbally pigeon-hole certain concepts, especially when the relevant word is emotionally triggering.  For instance, mention of 'borders' is anathema to you and sends you into apoplexy, but you forget that all sorts of invisible borders exist in everyday life – between individuals, between families, between groups of people.  Is this not human nature?  I understand the SPGB's case for socialism, but I wonder if you have stopped to consider that you might not be understanding mine?  Have you really thought about this beyond your autoscripting posts in which you parrot various received ideas?

[Ike Pettigrew]

Regarding tribal/non-tribal, I would argue that all human beings have an innate need to want to be part of an in-group.  [An academic ethologist would put it less clumsily than that, but it should be more or less clear what I mean].The in-group could be the local chess club, a political party, a philosophical allegiance, an industrial association, a consumer group, an ethnic group or a nation, or whatever.I would say that the Tribal Imperative (if we can call it that) acknowledges that human societies are in fact multi-dimensional communities of over-lapping self-interested groups.An anti-tribal position would deny this in all or part and assert either that no self-interested groups exist in the first place, or if they do exist, they are relatively unimportant to human behaviour (or a related position might be taken that even if they are important, human societies can still exist without some or all of them).According to this definition, most people (including yourself and most other people on here) would accept the Tribal Imperative to some degree while borrowing some of the anti-tribal position as caveats.  Only a modern type of classical liberal or free market anarchist or other kind of extreme individualist might perhaps deny the Tribal Imperative altogether and adopt a purely anti-tribal point-of-view.Tribal-ism (and in an agglomerated form, nationalism) would be the position that affirms the Tribal Imperative and regards it as a good thing and sets out to base a society on it to the fullest extent.  In doing so, nationalism identifies and prioritises a particular sub-set of tribalism: allegiance to a nation.  This is because the nation is thought to be the most adaptive form of social organisation: it embraces people of all types within a given ethnic group, and ethnic homogeneity allows personal freedom to be maximised.

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perhaps not in liquidity cash nor in gold has Bezos $90 billion.

Some people on here don't appear to understand the difference and think that valuations printed in the media are statements of fact and reflect the cash position.  It's not quite like that.

[Ike Pettigrew]

We can argue over the semantics of what is an 'idealistic social model' and what isn't, but it's probably better if I clarify more fully what I meant by the phrase. I start with a basic dichotomy (which I accept is a simplification) between, on the one hand, a society that develops organically and consensually, and in which changes are mostly bottom-up, and on the other hand, a society that develops non-organically and in which changes are mostly top-down and are imposed whether the population likes it or not. I believe the former is good and healthy and reflects natural circumstances, while the latter does not.  I accept that capitalism will tend to favour the latter, while a socialist society (or something broadly similar, like a distributist society) would favour more organic arrangements.  An organic society, as I would have it, could take on various forms and could include hierarchy and still be 'bottom-up' in nature: indeed, a hierarchy might help conserve certain traditions that hold society together.The changes imposed in a top-down society are often rationalised idealistically, whereas in a bottom-up society there is no need for idealistic rationalisation, instead change happens that reflects human needs and that is all the excuse needed.If the Japanese government has traditionally tended to discourage non-Japanese ethnic migrants from settling in that archipalego, that is not something that is being 'imposed' on the Japanese, it simply allows the status quo to evolve at its own pace and it reflects what the ethnic Japanese want.  If that weren't the case, then the Japanese government has plenty of reasons to allow all-comers into that country, but that hasn't happened.  Naturally, the Japanese wish to retain those cultures and identities that we call 'Japanese' and that would be threatened by the import of workers who do not share this meta-ethnicity.  However, I am sure if the Japanese government decided to fall in line with other neo-liberal Western governments and allow mass immigration, then support for mass immigration and its consequences would grow among the Japanese people.  But then, all that demonstrates is a mass psychological phenomenon with which we are well-familiar.  One need only consult reports of the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Asch Experiment for an explanation of why Japanese people would fall into line, just like your Scots miners fell into line and accepted the Lithuanians, and for the same reason your work colleagues say nothing about what most of them are probably really thinking.  No doubt the probability that you would scream 'racist' at even the mildest utterance of non-obedience also helps dissuade them from letting out their likely true feelings.  Such is "democracy".Of course, you may disagree with my axioms and instead hold that human beings are non-tribal.  You are entitled to your view, and as such, I accept that that would lead you to quite different conclusions.

[Ike Pettigrew]

The Guardian article is imprecise in that it lumps together different ethnic groups under 'Anglo-Saxon'.  What the researchers will have meant by 'Anglo-Saxon' are all northern European settlors and their genetic descendants during the Iron Age and Middles Ages, which covers not just those migrating from what is now northern Germany, Holland and Denmark, but also non-Danish Scandinavians.  Maybe part of the misunderstanding or confusion comes from the fact that the early Britons used to call the sea raiders 'Danes' without reference to their precise origins.  There's also the fact that in modern life, reference to 'Viking' is used in the vernacular to refer not just to Vikings proper but Scandinavian settlors too ('Viking communities'), and of course in that regard, the terms 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Viking' are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.In reality, probably the "Anglo-Saxon" origins of Yorkshire people are in fact a generic mixture of northern European ethnicities, which could be broken down into Danes (or sea-Danes, what we think of as Vikings in the Hollywood film sense), "Viking communities" (basically Scandinavians), and Angles (especially in what is now the East Riding), and the rest of the admixture will be Celtic and early Britons (especially in what is now West Yorkshire, which was the centre of an ancient Celtic kingdom).  The indigenous Celts and Britons will have come to regard themselves as part of the Anglo-Saxon communities and indistinguishable.I actually doubt that the genetic origins of Yorkshire people vary much from other white Britons, despite what everybody says.  My own ethnic origins are a mixture of British and Irish, and I believe that is typical.  Yorkies do not have a discrete ethno-genetic identity.  Devolution for Yorkshire only became a serious proposition about 20 years ago, at the beginning of the Blair government, and is about governance/democracy, not political nationalism.  When a Yorkshireman calls for independence for the ceremonial county, it is almost-always tongue-in-cheek, or where it is meant seriously, it is a reference to the reorganisation of local government in the North in a way that formalises historic Yorkshire.An interesting contrast can be made with Cornwall, which historically has always been regarded paradoxically as both a nation in its own right and an English county – a sort of Celtish tribe within England, with its own language and unique identity.  Yorkshire does not compare in this respect.  Some of the more rural areas – I'm thinking here of parts of North Yorkshire and the East Riding – are quite parochial and even retain a distinct Norse-like dialect, but they are idiosyncracies.I do agree that we may see a reboot of ancient ethnic identities – a sort of Balkanisation – in Western countries, but I see it as a defensive phenomenon in response to enforced/imposed multi-racial multi-culturalism.  My personal view is that the best societies are those that avoid diversity.  An optimal society is one that is highly-homogeneous ethnically, which does not mean that we all take DNA tests and move to where one of our ancestors came from, but does mean that we respect organic identities and don't try to impose idealistic social models on each other.

[Ike Pettigrew]

robbo203 wrote:

Dont be surprised then if the Westminster parliament implement their version of Spain's article 155. 

If that happens, the least I will expect is to see SPGB members on the barricades to defend the Yorkshire Working Class Socialist National Democratic Independence Revolution, and not to side with that other treasonous lot in the Yorkshire Democratic Independent Social Workers Rebellion.

[Ike Pettigrew]

He doesn't have $90 billion or even a fraction of that.  The valuation, in so far as it's valid at all, is of his stock and assets in whatever businesses and companies he owns or has shares in.

[Ike Pettigrew]

As a Yorkshireman myself, I fully support this proposal.  Independence for Yorkshire! I will leave you with the Yorkshire National Anthem, which your Yorkshire branches had better learn if The World's Greatest County is finally to achieve independence… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUsQ9Qs2DQo

[Ike Pettigrew]

I mentioned Dawkinian atheists, not Dawkins, and it was as an analogy.  I was not suggesting that socialists agree with him.  That's clear to anybody who reads my comment.  I also did not mention social engineering.  I referred specifically to cognitive re-engineering, which is how I view what would be required to make people socialists.  Since socialism is contrary to human nature. you would have to change not so much the way people think and what they think, but override their thinking with the concepts, assumptions and mental frameworks that align with your ideas.  In other words, basically brainwash people and turn them into autoscripted zombies – which, not coincidentally, rather reflects the cultish way many SPGB members engage with others.I am not in a state of denial about my views.  The only reason for separating 'racism' and 'racialism', other than that they are two different words with separate meanings, is that 'racism' and any mention of race is, for people like you, a powerful trigger that puts you under a sort of weird hypnosis in which your thinking parts go to sleep, rational discussion becomes impossible and you turn into an online version of the real ale character in Viz, presumably with a Scotch beret and kilt on.

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What i have learned is to always treat people with civility. On this forum, i sometimes think lack courtesy to those who hold different opinions to ourselves.

Ahem…cough….you're not wrong….Your lack of courtesy includes:- spamming threads with information dumps when your opponent is winning the argument, in order to hide the embarrassing fact that you can't defeat a "racist";- throwing hissy fits, and insulting and libelling your opponent;- putting words in his mouth and twisting and misrepresenting his argument;…it's a long list, and I was on the receiving end of it all.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We (perhaps rightly) hold one another to high standards but should we expect others to match our understanding. Should we not be prepared to lower the bar on occasions?I find we are very prone at high-lighting differences rather than pointing them out and trying to reach some sort of agreement and then discuss where we diverge.

I accept that most non-socialists who come on here appear not to understand socialism.  I think it's also the case that most self-declared socialists do not understand socialism.  Five minutes talking to any "socialist", or a few minutes spent browsing web forums like Urban75, will confirm that.  But you also have to accept that some people, like myself, do understand your case and simply disagree with you.The root of my disagreement with socialism is that it does not take account of all general factors in human nature: most especially, the pre-rational tribal instinct and the territorial instinct that human beings have.  You will say that human beings have no such instincts (or there is insufficient evidence for the notion) or that even if they do, they are unimportant.  I think differently.  Thus we are at deadlock.  You have your opinion, which is that human beings can be 'educated' (i.e. cognitively re-engineered in a Promethean manner); I have mine, which is that human nature is immutable (and even if not, in my view it would not be desirable to change our essential nature). Since you hold a cemented position on the matter, any further discussion would be of little benefit to either of us.  You would just become angrier than you already are because you hold to a 'total' system as the answer to all humanity's ills, and my views are well outside your ken and may even appear 'stupid' to you, much like a militant Dawkian atheist may smugly think evangelical Christians are stupid without perhaps understanding much about Christianity.  Analogously, the Dawkian atheist just regards Christianity as a set of superstitions; you regard my 'nationalism' as a set of irrational bigotries.  In both cases, there is a kernel of truth in the criticism, but what you and the militant atheist have not considered is how and why superstition and bigotry might be defensible, even essential.

[Ike Pettigrew]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have had personal experience of witnessing many foreign migrant workers standing together in support of fellow-workers during an unofficial strike which did not directly affect them and would not directly benefit them and had many of them risking dismissal. But there was no scabbing and the handful of workers that did strike-break proved to be indigenous. It is a shame that some folk seek to divide and accomplish a self-fulfilling prediction by sowing dissent and discord, rather than foster solidarity and unity. I recall one of the most effective ads produced by the independence campaign in the 2014 referendum was one where they presented non-Scottish-born pledging to vote Yes. And by all accounts, a majority did support an independent Scotland, and again it seems Scottish independence (and i think Catalonian too) does not threaten ethnic minorities or newcomers. Unlike the pro-nationalist vote of Brexit.  

Your bland response, crafted in social work lingo, contradicts your original post, but is very telling – particularly the part I have emboldened above.Anything that goes against your narrow views is a "self-fulfilling prediction" and designed to sow "dissent and discord".  Anything that accords with your views is DoublePlusGood as it is intended to "foster solidarity and unity".You think we can "foster solidarity and unity" among people from completely different cultures, who will all happily live together in harmony in a Rainbow society.  There will be no more Rotherhams, no more Colognes – which in any case didn't happen, I assume? Or is it OK because it only happened to white working class slags and who cares about them anyway?  They're not from swanky London or trendy Glasgow or Manchester and they haven't read The Poverty of Philosophy or attended university seminars on topics like: Critical Gender Theory in Post-industrial Societies.  So who cares about them?The open borders policy you want for capitalism now, will have no effect on the living conditions of the working class.  Of course!  It was obvious.  I'm so thick!  There are plenty of jobs available, the workers just need to get on their bikes and look for work, yes?  Mass immigration has not had any effect on wages or housing!  That's just our imagination.  We just all need to get together and join hands.  In truth, you're the extremist, and I have doubts you're even a socialist.  It seems to me that the SPGB, in common with its leftist counterparts, has been taken over by metropolitan liberal-leftists.  Your worldview is entirely totalitarian (in the true, uncolloquial meaning of that term).  There is no room for any consideration of the thoughts, views and feelings of people who disagree with you, as they are just common people who haven't read any books.Besides, we mustn't have "dissent and discord", by which you mean we mustn't have anybody with different views to yours.  Arguments, shouting, disagreement and other masculine stuff is embarrassing.  We all need to agree all the time about everything.  In other words, we mustn't let normal people take part in debate.  Only commissars, freaks and fanatics are entitled to have an opinion, as they have read all the right pamphlets and Think The Right Thoughts.  Those provincial heretics who think that to "foster solidarity and unity" we also need to have a shared culture and identity are "racist" or "fascist" or "ahistorical" or "haters", or imbued with "false consciousness" – fancy ways of saying that their views are to marginalised as they don't fit easily or at all into your totalitarian vision, which just amounts to liberal fetishism.

[Ike Pettigrew]

The irony of your post has not escaped me.Do you think that the mass immigration that you and your capitalist enemies support might also have "…weakened the workers and their organisations…" and impeded their ability to "…stand together so as to be more effective in the class struggle"?Do tell.

[Ike Pettigrew]

As a courtesy to people who have replied, I am away working at the moment and don't know when I will get back to comment.  Might be tomorrow, could be further in the future.  I will reply to all comments, though. 

[Ike Pettigrew]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi Ike,Good to see a new face willing to get involved with discussion.I'm curious as to the quote by you I highlight in bold below. Are you referring to "racial" groups as a whole, or pockets of "racial" groups within specific environmental, economic, cultural situations?

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

the cultural differences that exist between human societies are down to the fact that different people have evolved in different places and have become identifiable as discrete and distinct racial groups, with some groups more intellectually capable than others.

I'm referring to both.  My starting point is that intelligence is too complex, subjective and multi-faceted to measure with fine precision and is in any case largely the result of genes interacting with environment.I can't take IQ fully seriously.  For me, the only serious measure of human group intelligence differences is what we see with our own eyes.  It's apparent that many non-white societies are not technical cultures and are essentialy stuck in the Bronze Age.  Others have bolted-on European systems and institutions (in effect, capitalism) to their societies, but are dysfunctional.  Lots of other comparative observations can be made.  So I do think it is possible to compare whole racial groups, yes.However, I think the most useful comparisons are smaller and I would suggest two models as a starting point:(i). Comparing different racial groups under the same environmental conditions.  A good example of this is European Americans and African-Americans.(ii). Comparing sub-groups of the same racial group in different environments.  A good example of this is African-Americans and black British. I hope I have answered your question.  I was very tired when I typed this.

[Author]

Posts