robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Yes,I will read through what you've written on Piketty. I'll email you as I'm doing a talk on him this Sunday.
Didnt get the email unfortunately. If you give me your addy, Ill send the stuff over . Cheers R
ALB wrote:Yes,I will read through what you've written on Piketty. I'll email you as I'm doing a talk on him this Sunday.Thanks Adam. Its only a rough draft but it would be very helpful to have your thoughts on the matter so I can tighten up the argument here and there. Much appreciated, Robin
robbo203 wrote:Hello folks, This might sound like a bit of a strange request to make but bear with me and I will explain. The thing is this. For some time now Ive been engaged in writing what will turn out to be quite a lengthy book. Most of it has been written but at the moment I am going through the stuff I have written to tighten up the arguments here and there and to gather my thoughts, so to speak, for the home stretch. To cut to the chase, the book consists of 9 parts and I am currently revising Part 2 – "The Capitalist Dynamic" – and in particular, the final chapter of Part 2 which is entitled "Secular Trends and Crystal Balls". This chapter substantially addresses the arguments presented by Thomas Picketty in his book Capital in the 21st Century about the growth of inequality in capitalism (though it also addresses a number of other phenomena such as the growth of unproductive labour and its repercussions for the rate of profit etc). Hence my mentioning this in the context of this thread which I have dipped into now and then and found most interesting and thought provoking. Now I have to confess I have not read the book and, to be frank, dont really want to wade through something as long as Picketty's book is when a) I dont really have the time (and I'm a lazy sod anyway!) and b) it is not exactly central to the main thrust of my book. I have read parts of Picketty's book available online (in particular, the Introduction), Branko Milanovic's very detailed exposition of the logic of the book, and numerous reviews. I think all this has given me a reasonably clear picture about what Picketty's book is about. However, I am not entirely sure that I might not inadvertently be doing him a disservice by possibly misrepresenting his views in some way. For that reason it occured to me that it might be an idea to ask people here who have read the book or know what it is about, to scrutinise this chapter (a copy of which I will send to them privately) and check it for accuracy. In any event , I would certain welcome the feedback and critical commentary. You do kind of lose your bearings, I find, slogging away at the coal face, all on your own. If anyone who is interested in reading the stuff can either message me or email me (robbo203@yahoo.co.uk) I would be very grateful indeed for their input Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer…. Cheers, RobinNo takers, then?
Hello folks, This might sound like a bit of a strange request to make but bear with me and I will explain. The thing is this. For some time now Ive been engaged in writing what will turn out to be quite a lengthy book. Most of it has been written but at the moment I am going through the stuff I have written to tighten up the arguments here and there and to gather my thoughts, so to speak, for the home stretch. To cut to the chase, the book consists of 9 parts and I am currently revising Part 2 – "The Capitalist Dynamic" – and in particular, the final chapter of Part 2 which is entitled "Secular Trends and Crystal Balls". This chapter substantially addresses the arguments presented by Thomas Picketty in his book Capital in the 21st Century about the growth of inequality in capitalism (though it also addresses a number of other phenomena such as the growth of unproductive labour and its repercussions for the rate of profit etc). Hence my mentioning this in the context of this thread which I have dipped into now and then and found most interesting and thought provoking. Now I have to confess I have not read the book and, to be frank, dont really want to wade through something as long as Picketty's book is when a) I dont really have the time (and I'm a lazy sod anyway!) and b) it is not exactly central to the main thrust of my book. I have read parts of Picketty's book available online (in particular, the Introduction), Branko Milanovic's very detailed exposition of the logic of the book, and numerous reviews. I think all this has given me a reasonably clear picture about what Picketty's book is about. However, I am not entirely sure that I might not inadvertently be doing him a disservice by possibly misrepresenting his views in some way. For that reason it occured to me that it might be an idea to ask people here who have read the book or know what it is about, to scrutinise this chapter (a copy of which I will send to them privately) and check it for accuracy. In any event , I would certain welcome the feedback and critical commentary. You do kind of lose your bearings, I find, slogging away at the coal face, all on your own. If anyone who is interested in reading the stuff can either message me or email me (robbo203@yahoo.co.uk) I would be very grateful indeed for their input Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer…. Cheers, Robin
The thing is, Brian, if you fail to think big you will fail to get anywhere and you will have failed to capitalise on the achevements of this first real attempt to think big in the shape of these recent euroelections. Much of what you have achieved will be lost by reverting to thinking small and cautiously. I say this as a sympathetic outsider and, of course, you are liberty to disregard completely what I say but it seems to me that taking a "gentle trot" rather than engaging in a full throttle gallop does not exactly project a sense of urgency about achieving socialism and so does not exactly ooze much in the wqay of confidence and self belief. One might understand the need to take a gentle trot if you lacked the necessary resources to commit yourself to a gallop but in this instance, this is not the case. Im not too sure what Rule 27 is but I suppose it requires that individuals contesting elections in the name of the SPGB have to pass the speakers test. If that is the case why be hidebound by a pettifogging rule of this nature – scrap it or least make it something non-obligatory and purely advisory. No doubt there are good reasons for ensuring members standing as SPGB candidates should pass the speakers test and, in an ideal world, every candidate would have passed the speakers test but we dont live in an ideal world and it seems absurd to bureaucratically restrict your options in this way. If you are not going to splash out in a big way particularly when you have more than ample financiual resources to do that then you might as well not contest any elections at all. There is little, if any, point in contesting just one or two seats. Its just a waste of time andf effort and the consequence will inevitably be disheartening There are big benefits that come with thinking big. Firstly, here I might be talking out of turn as I am not intimately acquainted with the ins and outs of parliamentary elections – so correct me if I am wrong – but is it not the case that if you contest a seat your electoral literature is distributed free to every houswehold in the constituency in question. Thats being so the post office will be foing the work that members themselves would have to do so freeing up the the latter to focus on other things. While ideally there should be an active nucleaus of members in each constituency, even without any members actually resident in a constituency at all you are still casting a huge net over an entire area which is very likely to catch at least a few fish if you follow my drift Secondly you need to contest a mimunum of 50 seats – do you not? – in order to be entitled to make a party election broadcast, Such a broadcast will give you direct access to many more people who do not happen to live in within the 50 constituencies you contest. Thats is an additional bonus to think of. Not only that , it makes for a reinforcing effect which is extremely importan if you want to get noticed . Effective campaigning requires joined-up thinking on every front And thirdly, as we have seen with euroelections, going out of your way to make a big splash gets you noticed in the media and gets people talking about you. – and indeed to you. That further reinforces your own efforts to get yourself noticed.. It seems to me that ther SPGB now has a unqiue oppruntiy to make a breakthorugh of some sort in terms of its impact in promoting a genuine socialist alternative,, It would be a great pity to squander such an opportunity. Now should be the time when you guys should be actvely thinking about this and planning for it by removing any and all pettifogging obstacles that get in the way and by carefully selecting which of the 50 or so seats you might wish to context. Dont be so conservative and cautious. Be bold and daring and you never know – this might just be the break your are looking for
I would suggest that if you want to build on the achievements of the Euroelections (which do seem to have raised the profile of the SPGB quite a bit), you seriously need to consider fielding at least 50 candidates at the next General Election. That will enable you to have another Party political broadcast on national TV (the Euroelection broadcast was good but could be improved on). It will also mean mass distribution of election material on a much wider basis.. Maybe you should aim for several millions leaflets this time. And I imagine it would provide a substantial morale booster for members and sympathisers too….Yes, it will cost an arm and a leg – £25,000 alone in the (inevitable) lost deposts – but if you dont capitalise on the achievements of the Euroelections and build on the momentum, you will have wasted a lot of your time and resources. For the first time , if Im not mistaken, the SPGB got some small amount of national and regional TV coverage. More people in the media industry now know about the SPGBIts not as if the party does not have the funds. Youve got – what ? – £300k+ in your bank account or whatever as a result of legacies and the like. You can afford to live a little dangerously . I would throw caution to the winds and go for it. Life is too short, dammit.Start planning now and even if you splash out 50K on the next General Elections you will still have more than enough in reserve for the future.
gnome wrote:pfbcarlisle wrote:gnome wrote:No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it. It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.No need whatsoever to abandon 'evidence-based thinking'! (Robbo has already mentioned that religious people can and do adopt evidence-based thinking; e.g whenever they cross the road).
Not a particularly good analogy; crossing a road safely has more to do with learned behaviour and an instinct for survival rather than to any conscious "evidence-based thinking" process.
robbo203 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, Dave , but does not your branch have a regular supporter who holds religious views. Apart from the fact that she holds religious views, is there anything about what she says that contradicts the basics of the Party's outlook?Not obviously or directly but when a practicing Catholic makes statements such as "the Party is doing God's work" it makes me (and others) feel distinctly and, perhaps irrationally, uneasy. She understands and appreciates the dichotomy but nevertheless remains keen and willing to assist, as a supporter, in any way she can. But then she would, wouldn't she, given her opinion on the subject?
On the question of "evidence-based thinking", I am sympathetic to the point L Bird is making – that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’, that there is an element of selection of the evidence to fit the theory which in turn is inevitably conditioned by our values. There is no such thing as a "value-free science" and particularly so in the case of the social sciences where the problem of reflexivity is all too apparent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29). But setting that caveat aside for the moment (since it is not really what this thread is about), I would question whether religious folk are less inclined to "evidence-based thinking" than "scientific socialists" or, indeed, that the latter are any less prone to irrational thinking than the former. We are all human beings, whether we are religious-minded or atheists and, as such, are subject to both rational and irrational patterns of thinking. Crossing the road safely may not be a particularly good example of evidence-based thinking but there are plenty of other examples one could draw upon. There are, for instance, numerous scientists who routinely resort to evidence based thinking but are religious in outlook. Some even use science to justify their religious beliefs.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Russell_%28author%29) On the question of the Party sympathiser in Dave's branch who happens to be a practising catholic and believes "the Party is doing Gods work", well, at the end of the day, does it really matter if she believes this? Seriously. So long as she agrees with the basic principles of the Party, that really is all that should mattter. It's so easy to slip into a mode of thinking that is more appropriate to a philosphical debating club than a practical revolutionary socialist organisation concerned with bringing about socialism. Thats all that should matter. The business of the Party should not be about promoting an atheistic worldview but about establishing socialism and the sooner the better. The Party's policy on not admitting socialists with religious beliefs is, as I have repeatedly said, completely redundant and serves no purpose except to restrict the growth of the Party itself However, Im a realist and I know many SPGBers are unlikely to change their minds on the matter all too soon. Which is why a compromise position might be appropriate. That is to say, to make a distinction between individuals belonging to organised religions and individuals merely holding personal religious beliefs. and allow the latter to join. What do comrades in the SPGB think of that.? I for one (and I am certain there are others ) would be interested to know….
Hi AlanYes Podemos has been in all the news here. Their electoral success – 1.245.948 votos, 8% of the vote, and 5 MEPS after having only been formed 3 months ago – has left the PP and PSOE fuming and spitting bile. Pablo Iglesias, the public face of Podemos has been compared to Lenin, Chavaz and Castro as the smear machine gets into operation. My Spanish partner , Ana, voted for them in Granada, a PP dominated city, and found the people in the polling station to be most unhelpful when she enquired about the whereabouts of Podemos literature which was supposed to be on display along with the lealflets of the other parties. One assistant offered to put her voting slip in the box for her, an offer she politely turned down.I dont know an awful lot about Podemos . It seems to be a radical reform party along the lines of Alexis Tsipras’s anti-austerity Syriza party in Greece, which did extremely well in the euroelections. Both are critical of the dominance of Germany and the prospect of Spain and Greece becoming deeply indebted semi-colonies of Germany. There is a strong streak of egalitarian thinking running through Podemos. Their MEPs will not take the full pay they are entitled to – only what is necessary to live on – with the surplus going to party funds. At least thats what Ana told me and she is an avid follower of the excellent TV programme in Spain called El Intermedio on channel 6 where she gets a lot of her info fromAnd, yes, Podemos does seem to be an outgrowth from the Indignados and M15 protests. I recall reporting here that at a big outdoor meeting I attended in Granada at the town hall plaza, subsequently the site of a tent encampment , all sorts of ideas were being aired – including the idea of abolishing money! There is a long tradition of radicalism in Spain. Here's one example but there are many others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain
gnome wrote:pfbcarlisle wrote:And certainly no one is suggesting that religious fundamentalists be allowed in – why on earth would such people ever consider joining?!How do you suggest we distinguish between those with differing religious outlooks?No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it. It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.
I think the point is, Dave, that the need for evidence based thinking should really apply to those in the Party who think that, just because one holds a particular religious view, this makes one liable to depart from socialist principles. I have always maintained that the Party's policy on religious applicants is completely redundant or surplus to requirements. If someone is going to depart from socialist principles this would manifest itself in a variety of ways that would be no different than if an atheist were to depart from socialist principles – such as the advocacy of reformism or leadership-based politics or whatever.That is the evidence you ought to be focusing on – do individuals subscribe to the fundamental principles of the Party – and not whether of not they happen to hold religious views which really does not matter. The argument that Paddy raised – about it not being worth the effort to distinguish between different religions and therefore the Party should maintain its existing policy – is weak and unconvincing and ironically shifts the onus of evidence based thinking onto those who want to change the present policy while absolving those who want to maintain that policy from the need for such thinking. Really, it should be the other way round. Where is the evidence that religious minded socialists will stray from socialist principles anymore than a socialist who holds no religious views? If you refuse to provide such evidence than that in itself is a renunciation of evidence based thinking.Correct me if I am wrong, Dave , but does not your branch have a regular supporter who holds religious views. Apart from the fact that she holds religious views, is there anything about what she says that contradicts the basics of the Party's outlook?On the question of scrapping the Party's policy on not admitting socialists with religious convictions there are several alternatives. I mention the two most obvious ones: 1) Complete removal of the bar on religious-minded members. Providing they subscribe to the basics of the socialist case this should present no problem. It is most unlikely that individuals who belong to official religions that have a notably socially reactionary outlook would want to join the Party anyway but they might very well be prompted to leave such a religion on contact with the Party case2) Partial removal of bar on religious-minded members by admitting to the Party only individuals who did not belong to any organised religion but hold only private or personal religious beliefs. This too would aid the shift away from organised religion which in my view is the real problem – not religion per se I favour the second approach at lkeast for the time being while the Party is still a fairly small organisation. To reassure members who might be worried by one or other of these suggestions, It could be made absolutely explicit that the active promotion of religious ideas within the Party would not be tolerated and would be deemed grounds for expulsion. There should be no proselytising, in other words, which would not only be divisive but distracting- religious beliefs should be strictly a private matter in much the same way as sexual orientation or whatever, would be I really cannot see how members could possibly object to this . It covers all the bases and addresses all the concerns that lie at the heart of their objection to allowing religious socialists into the Party
steve colborn wrote:"But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not?" Indeed they are Robbo but the question is why? The answer! they, as do followers of other reigions use the corporeal existence, to ensure an eternity of "spiritual existence". Or do you deny this. This being the case, why would they enthuse over the short term when, in the end, this, as far as they are concerned, is merely transcient?This doesnt quite square with you what you said earlier, though, Steve.You said:For Robbo to say, "The fact of the matter is that holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not", is to miss the crux of the matter, that just as the Jihadist Islamists believe that dying for "the cause", will get them into paradise, why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence, when the "promised land" of heaven, lasting as the religious tell us, forever, will be the reward for believing in "Christ"? The clear implication of this is that Christians are not bothered about corporeal existence – that is they are essentially other worldly. You now say they merely want to use the corporeal existence, to ensure an eternity of "spiritual existence". Or do you deny this.. Yes I do deny this Steve!. I seriously think you have a totally unrealistic perception of religious individuals if you think they go about thinking of nothing else but what lies ahead of them in the afterlife . Christ, Ive just done a landscaping job for two born again Christians – nice couple though – and all they go on about is the price of this or the price of that and how they could with a nice break from the stress of running a business. Much like anyone else frankly…
steve colborn wrote:As for atheism being a requirement for membership, no it's not. There is merely a requirement that prospective members believe that "our" destiny, as humans, is in our own hands and does not succeed or fail at the behest of a God figure. That a non belief in a GOD figure is the accepted criteria, is fine by me.I don t think what you say is correct but suppose you are correct in saying that atheism is not a requirement for membership and that all that is required is that we should not believe our destiny is in the hands of some god. Suppose then that someone came along and said they did not believe in a theistic god but did believe in Deism – the idea of a non intervening god. What would the Party say to this person? Also, what if that person simply said I believe there is an afterlife of some sort but I do not believe that our destiny lies in the hands of a theistic god. And what if someone came along advocating pantheism – the idea that god is everywhere and in anything. What would the Party say to such a person?Unless I am seriously mistaken I think the Party at the moment would not allow them to join. In de facto terms that makes the Party an atheistic organisation.
steve colborn wrote:Finally, the incongruity of pushing a "materialist" objective, whilst continuing to believe in the "spiritual", should not be lost on anyone. They are antithetical, one to the other. That, my friend, is the crux of the debate!!!No, its not the crux of the debate at all, Steve , becuase you are making a quite false assumption. You are confusing metaphysical materialism with historical materialism. It is totally possible to be a metaphysical spiritualist and a historical materialist ( though I agree it is not possible to be a metaphysical materialist and a metaphysical spritualist). This is what the Party cannot get its head around and this frankly is the root of the whole problem. It needs to understand that metaphysical materialism, however sound it may be as a worldview, . has no relevance to the question of whether one is, or can be, a socialist or not which is a question that relates strictly to this world and not sone otherworldly existence. And despite what you say , Steve , the vast majority of religious folk do live in this world in every sense of the word – just like us!
steve colborn wrote:What is getting ridiculous, are those who believe in a life hereafter, that they would even give a toss about this ephemeral, tiny lifespan, compared with "eternity" in "Heaven". People, workers, need to understand that our lifespan, here on good old planet earth, is all we've got. Get over yourselves. Don't wait for pie in the sky when you die!Sorry, Steve, but that is absurd. Step back a bit and look at what you have just written. Are you seriously trying to say here that religious people "don't give a toss" about life on this earth? That's nonsense. If only it were true because, if it were, you wouldn't have certain organised religions sanctioning and upholding the status quo. Why bother upholding the status quo which after all pertains precisely to this "ephemeral, tiny lifespan". That is what the real problem is with religion – or rather with certain organised religions – and it is only to that extent that the religious question is relevant to the socialist case, surely? Belief in some metaphysical abstraction which may very well be ridiculous in itself is not relevant at all. Besides, if you want to be a "scientific socialist" about this , Steve , you should examine the evidence scientifically and systematically. Can religious people be sympathetic to socialism and even actively work for socialism? Of course they can!. The evidence is right under your nose. The SPGB itself has religious sympathisers, has it not? They are clearly not waiting for pie in the sky when they die. They are doing something now about getting socialism. So why in god's name – to coin a phrase – is the Party not welcoming them in with open arms? That is what is truly ridiculous. If perchance such individuals departed from the Party position on some other matter then by all means expel them. But the dogma that just because they are religious they are somehow not socialists or will veer away from socialism is itself unscientific and religious
steve colborn wrote:For Robbo to say, "The fact of the matter is that holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not", is to miss the crux of the matter, that just as the Jihadist Islamists believe that dying for "the cause", will get them into paradise, why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence, when the "promised land" of heaven, lasting as the religious tell us, forever, will be the reward for believing in "Christ"? Give your head a serious shake! A religious belief is, a serious impediment to being a "Socialist". Moreover, if one understands the arguments, an insurmountable one.How so? You don't explain. You only assert. And how would you reconcile this claim of yours with the FACT that there are religious people who support the Party, some of whom, I understand, do more work for the SPGB than many of its members? I think the Party – or should I say some in it – has a very poor grasp of the sociology of religion altogether and this shows up again and again. I saw that in the Youtube video of the Party meeting which I mentioned above. Although Howard Moss himself gave what I thought was a very considered and nuanced account of the subject , some of the comments from some in the audience were embarrassingly naive, frankly. I mean, jesus christ ., Steve, what are you saying here – "why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence. But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not? There is a whole damn elaborate theory formulated by Max Weber on the subject of the "protestant work ethic" which tries to account for the rise of capitalism in terms of an ascetic mode of thinking encouraged by certain forms of Protestantism – particularly, Calvinism. Its a questionable theory but nevertheless it is an undeniable fact that some religions today do seem to want to justify the wealth of the wealthy in religious terms – visit the Bible Belt of the USA – whereas others equally clearly attack it. Sheesh, Steve you really should widen your reading list, mate.
steve colborn wrote:By the same token no, we cannot believe that "atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood and an ethic of selflessness"! Without an understanding of the world, based on a class perspective, of our interests as individuals and as a "collection" of human beings, with a shared interest in getting a society run in the interests of "all" humanity, atheism is as big an irrelevance as religion and will be as redundant, in a sane society. It is "class consciousness" that is the deciding factorExactly! So why then insist on atheism as a requirement for membership??? And lets not be mealy mouthed here – that's exactly what the Party does. The idea is that religious belief in itself leads one to somehow stray from the socialist path – irrespective of the form of that belief. It is simply not sustainable as an idea and conflicts with the empirical evidence in the form of religious socialists themselves. What the Party has is this rather old fashioned and very narrow model of religion in mind which it attacks. What it is actually attacking – quite rightly in my opinion – is the socially reactionary nature of the religions in question. But then it generalises and widens its attack to include in its target any form of religious belief whatsoever and to move away from the realm of sociological reasoning into pure metaphysics. Now there may very well be sound metaphysical reasons for rejecting all religion but it is not the business of a socialist political organisation to engage in such arguments . That only distract from the socialist cause and hinders the growth of the socialist movement itself Marx himself though hostile to religion did not recommend the exclusion of religious minded workers from the International Workingmans Association and it is a great pity that the SPGB did not heed his advice from the word go I hope one day that the SPGB will soften its approach on the religious question which it certainly can do without in any way jeopardising its socialist integrity. Some sort of compromise on the subject is possible which focuses exclusively on the socially reactionary nature of forms of religion rather than on the metaphysics of religious belief. A change of heart of some sort cannot come too soon in my opinion as in every other respect the SPGB stands head and shoulders above every other organisation claiming to be socialist…
ALB wrote:We've just received an application to join from someone who saw Danny Lambert on the BBC2 Daily Politics Show last Monday. Here's their answer to the last question:Quote:What are your views on religion and its relation to the Party’s case for socialism?:Religion is the greatest enemy of reason, peace, and brotherhood. It takes children and teaches them hate. It teaches them superstition. It divides them. It pays lip-service to contentment but sanctions selfishness. It talks about peace, but ends in war. It promises enlightenment but offers only wanton ignorance.Bit of a sweeping statement statement that. Would someone like Gerrard Winstanley (1649) of the Levellers – a devout and militant protestant who argued passionately for common ownership of the earth be really considered an enemy of reason, peace and brotherhood etc etc?. Would religious sympathisers of the SPGB be considered likewise? I mean c'mon – this is getting a little ridiculous, isnt it?Conversely are we to believe that atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood and an ethic of selflessness? Tell that to the subjects-cum-victims of such despicable regimes as North Korea with its officially sanctioned state atheism. Most atheists in my view are pretty much pro capitalistThe fact of the matter is that holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not. Far more relevant is the particular type or form of religion and especially the social policies associated with it. For instance, I cannot believe someone who really goes along with all the teachings of the Catholic Church could truly be a socialist. But then as I say most atheists support some pretty reactionary social views as well
ALB wrote:Sorry, Robbo, you got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't saying that slump conditions are best for us. In fact I hold the opposite view (more workers turn to nasty nationalism as in the 30s and again now). What I was saying is that at the time many members did think this and dropped out when capitalism proved able to improve working class conditions, including their own, compared to the 30s.Fair enough, If thats your view, then I wouldnt disagree with you. I just thought you were taking the opposite view when in answer to SP question as to why the party membership slumped in the post war years you said: "There was no post-war slump and with more or less full employment in the 50s working class conditions improved compared with pre-war days, with workers acquiring household goods and even cars." Still , as I am discovering through my various interventions on sites like Revleft that the catastrophist view of socialist revolution is still widely endorsed – that it is going to take a really catastrophic crisis to shake workers out of their apparent slumber. Like you I take the view that that is, if anything, likely to make matters worse for the socialist movement, not better. Why did so many SPGBers back then think otherwise, I wonder?
ALB wrote:There was no post-war slump and with more or less full employment in the 50s working class conditions improved compared with pre-war days, with workers acquiring household goods and even cars.I would be very wary of citing post war economic conditions as a reason for the decline in the SPGB´s membership from a four figure number to the few hundred it is today. It is a standard position on the Left that a revolutionary surge is predicated on the occurrence of a capitalist crisis. Marx and Engels at one time or another both argued that capitalist crises would get worse and worse and this was the underlying dynamic that would lead to socialist revolution. But the argument is wrong. Crises don't necessarily get worse and worse – the Great Depression in the early 30s was far worse than the 2008 crisis – and if anything crisis generate reactionary tendencies among workers e.g. the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. There is certainly a lot of evidence to suggest that economic downturn tends to make workers more conservative-minded and compliant in order to cling on to their jobs. I can cite research done in this area As far as the SPGB is concerned, if you are going to rely on an economic downturn for workers to become more militant and receptive to socialist ideas then the implication of such thinking is that you must brace yourself for a loss of membership when material conditions improve which is what you seem to be saying, Adam. How do you reconcile that with Marx´s view that there are no permanent crises, that every crisis is followed by an economic upturn leading to boom? The implications of what you are suggesting is that the SPGB will never be able to break out this parlous state of being a pitifully small party. Just as soon as its starts growing, an economic boom will come along and prune back all that growth it made under conditions of material austerity. I think such thinking is reductionist and there are numerous other factors involved that influence the growth of the Party. I still maintain that the small party syndrome is the primary or governing factor through which many other factors are refracted. The small party syndrome is a psychological factor that asserts that you lack credibility because you are small and because you lack credibility this keeps you small. It is only when you reach a critical threshold in terms of numbers that this factor begins to abate. Which is why every new member counts for far more now while the SPGB is well below this critical threshold than afterwards, when it has breached that threshold. I also still maintain that one of those factors that impedes the growth of the party, the effect of which is refracted through the small party syndrome , is the SPGB´s absurd policy on refusing membership to socialists who happen to hold religious views, irrespective of the form of these religious views. Comrades in the SPGB persistently misunderstand the argument that is presented here. Yesterday I stumbled across, for the first time, a YouTube talk given by Howard Moss back in 2008 on "Is Socialism a Faith". Howard´s talk was a very good one – a good example of the kind of nuanced approach to the question of religion that the Party ought to be evolving towards but I was less impressed with some of the comments from the audience. It is not the case that some ex-members of the Party are arguing that there are hundreds or thousands of potential recruits to the party out there just champing at the bit waiting to join but being unable to join because they hold certain religious views. What is being argued is quite different – that the accumulative or incremental effect of the policy on religion as refracted through the small party syndrome is that the Party is much smaller now than it might have been but for this policy on religion. The policy is absurd because it is totally unnecessary or redundant. If holding religious led one to support vanguardism, for example , then it is quite easy to expel a member advocating undemocratic vanguardist views for holding such views without reference to his or her religious views. The unwarranted assumption being made is that holding religious views necessarily leads to all sorts of anti socialist postions but that is bunkum . There is no necessity about it and, as so called "scientific socialists" , the SPGB should be more open to the emprical evidence that might contradict such dogmatic apriori assertions. Holding religious view does not necessarily conflict with being a socialist at all or indeed embracing a materialist conception of history. Nor does it necessarily take power away from human beings as agents of change and place it in the hands of some godlike entity. All that is sociological bunkum and the truth of the matter is that the Party has a very poor grasp of the sociology of religion. Its sweeping claims are based on a very particular narrow model of religion which is theistic and organisation or church-based and above all, Christian. Denying membership to socialists with religious views is as dumb as denying membership to socialists who hold atheist views just because the vast majority of atheists currently support capitalism. Its a pseudo-empiricist position But anyway enough about religion and my hobby horse about the Party´s policy on the matter! The point I'm making, really, is that there are numerous factors that influence the growth of a revolutionary socialist party. Some of these are internal , some external. Never mind the economic boom that supposedly decimated the ranks of the SPGB in the post war era – what about the devastating effect of the whole example of the Soviet Union on the socialist cause? Cumulatively, I would have thought that that was far more important as a factor. Also, of course, there was the experience of the "socialist" Atlee government as well. Workers having had a taste of "socialism" in action would probably have had good reason to turn away from any organisation that advocated "socialism". But thats "just my opinion", as the bloke from the Russia Today TV programme keeps saying
stuartw2112 wrote:Thanks Adam, was looking forward to your analysis. What your conclusion should have said, though, is something like this: "given that LU has been going for barely a year, it had made remarkable progress, polling the same vote as longer established left parties where it has stood, and in one place doing rather better, beating the Tory candidate. Left Unity has also had a remarkably successful press operation, and its success, as well as the good work of people like Owen Jones and Caroline Lucas, had made the overall climate more open to left ideas generally. We in the SPGB have benefited from this too, so we offer our thanks to our left comrades and congratulate LU on its rapid progress."Hmm. I dunno, Stuart, but I think there is something amiss with your analysis. As things stand at present any party advocating a "minimum" programme (which lets face it the LU is doing) ought to be inherently better positioned to garner more votes than a party relying solely on a maximum or revolutionary programme to attract votes. That is because the general population or the working class as a whole is still currently thinking overwhelmingly in a reformist mode. That factor alone should more than wipe out any advantage the SPGB enjoys in terms of the longevity factor – i.e. the fact that the LU ought by rights to attract far more voters than the SPGB at the moment because of the predominance of reformist thinking within the working class to which LU essentially appeals despite its lip service to socialism. You know, Ive heard this argument before about how the "climate of opinion" is rendered more "receptive" to socialist ideas by campagining reformist political parties and groups making political inroads. Its what they said about the Labour government in the immediate post war years. That was a time when the membership of the SPGB was at its highest – in four figures. The facile inference that might be drawn is that by voting for or supporting the Labour party the prospects of the SPGB making advances would improve. But it doesnt work out that way. Quite the opposite . The SPGB would sign its own death warrent if it tied its fortunes to that of the Labour Pasrty even if it were apparently true that the SPGB does better under a Labour government than a Tory governement. I refer you again to my analogy of the plate of soup and the ingredients it contains. As individuals we all make an influence. We all add to the overall flavour of the soup, however microscopic our contribition is to the overall climate of opinion. The members of the SPGB are not making any less of an influence because they happen to be members of the SPGB and not members of the Labour party, if you see what I mean. So even if the hypothesis that "Labour governments are better for the SPGB than Tory governments" were true, that is not an argument for supporting a labour government. The main problem with the SPGB and what holds it back is what I call the "small party syndrome". Its a self perpetuating condition that affects all small parties . Smallness tends to reproduce smallness. Small parties lack credibility simply by virtue of being small and therefore fail to attract people that would make them bigger. So they remain small. It is only once they start to reach a certain critical threshold in terms of numbers that they can begin to overcome this factor. Then when they pass that threshold we find the opposite factor coming into play. Increasing size attracts more support and makes for more credibility so that the organisation becomes even bigger and more and more quickly. That is why it is reasonable to assume that the growth of a revolutionary socialist political party will take an exponential form beyond a certain point What the small party syndrome does is to enormously magnify the effect of any obstable to party growth in the meantime. For example, I consider, as some people here know, that the SPGB's policy on refusing to admit individuals with religious views is totally absurd amnd represenmts a serious (and unnecessary) obstacle to its growth . Religious minded socialists who totally agree with everything the SPGB stands for except for the fact that they happen to hold some religious view , pose absolutely no threat to the socialist intergity of the SPGB. After all, the purpose of the SPGB is not to advance atheistic ideas but to help establish socialism. 99% of atheists are pro capitalist but I would consider it equally absurd to ban atheiosts from joining the SPGB because of that. If they or their religious counterparts did in any way pose a threat to the socialist integrity of the SPGB there are more than adequate mechanisms already in place to deal with this. In other towards the religious ban is totally redundant or superfluous. Yet it holds back party growth The point that I'm making is that, at this stage of the game, the significance of gaining every new member to the party is vastly greater than when the party has overcome the small party syndrome and is growing exponentially. That is, when it has past that critical threshold. I venture the opinion that had the SPGB right back in 1904 when it kicked off, took Marx's advice to the IWA and decided not to rule out religious applicants from membership, we would probably by now be talking of the SPGB being a party of several thousands of members if you take into account the cumulative or incremental effect over such a long period of time. Most people who learn about the party's position on religion dont bother to apply so it only appears that this is only a small problem but I suggest it is much bigger than people think. Put in a historical or cumulative context of 110 years of negligible growth it could be a positively enormous Its a great pity that the SPGB does seem so set in its ways on this subject and I hope one day it will change its mind and at least soften its entry requirement as far as religion is concerned, perhaps only banning applicants who fromally belong to some religious organisation. Thats a good compromise position since it undermines organised religion and the reactionary policies endorsed by many organised religions which is the real problem as far as socialists are concerned – not some abstract metaphysical concept of whether or not there is a god or an afterlife which is a totally irrelevant debate for socialists to be engaging in On other aspects, however, I think the formula the SPGB has adopted of admitting only confirmed socialists is broadly correct and the problem with LU, as I see it, is that it has bought into the same basic reformist paradigm that is shared by supporters of the Labour party. If you go along with that paradigm then it doesnt really make much sense to join LU. Far better to join Labour and work from within that party precisely because the later at least stands a realistic chance of becoming a government whereas with all due respect, Stuart, LU stands no chance at all. The niche has already been filled
