rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In the editors’ reply to Stephen Murphy’s letter about religion, they comment that ‘religion – of whatever sort – is a matter of personal faith’. But on the WSM website, in the section ‘How the WSM is Different from Other Groups’, we say ‘religion is a social, not personal, matter’.
So how do we square the two statements?
Monbiot on why the setting of targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a nonsense:
Among other things, he says:
“The 2015 Infrastructure Act introduced a legal duty to “maximise the economic recovery” of petroleum in the UK. If drilling companies fail to maximise their extraction of fossil fuel from an oilfield, they will be forced to surrender their licence to operate. In other words, while the government observes a legal minimum (the CCC’s target) for reducing greenhouse gases, it observes a legal maximum for increasing them.”
But then he weakly concludes:
“The CCC’s board should be disbanded and replaced by people whose mandate is rigorously to explore every economic sector in search of the maximum possible cuts in greenhouse gases, and the maximum possible drawdown.”
Oh dear, oh dear. Unsurprisingly, no mention of capitalism itself needing to go.
robbo’s post seems to indicate that the WSM is an ageing organisation with not enough young members who are au fait with social media. Is this true?
Nevertheless I think Ray Carr has a point. I think we should try and use terms like limited democracy in describing what we have under capitalism. As we usually do, of course.
I wasn’t intending the letter to Attenborough to look kindly on him. Usually I want to scream at the telly when he’s on, for not getting the point. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he’s an overpopulationist – all the more reason to try and put him right.
“I do think there is a debate to be had in this area as formal religious belief makes way for vague notions of afterlife and spirituality.”
If there is a debate to be had, maybe as well as god, the afterlife and an all-pervading otherness, we should push the boat out and include ghosts, clairvoyance, angels, reincarnation and astrology. Not to mention belief in the connection between unrelated events, e.g. eating a curry -> Newcastle United winning.
Mr Murphy says he is a Christian but then also implies that he doesn’t believe in some of the traditional teachings of the faith, such as hell, heaven and virgin births. In other words, religious beliefs change with the times, which suggests strongly that they are all a product of their surrounding culture.
Christianity may well preach love, peace, goodwill, equality and brotherhood, but these have nothing intrinsically to do with the metaphysical beliefs it also likes to profess.
Anyone, including socialists, can have a sense of wonder and fascination with the world. But this does not mean that therefore there must be some underlying ‘otherness’ which is referred to variously as God, the Spirit or the life force. One can speculate on such matters, but as Christopher Hitchens (I think) said, belief without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Mr. Murphy also asks about the possible suppression of religion in a socialist ‘state’. A world socialist society would be stateless, not some monolithic, coercive structure, and those who chose to continue their religious worship would no doubt be left to it.
I daresay just about anything can be given a medical condition.
But there is a difference between being a radical extremist and being imbued with capitalist ideology. Probably most of us in the WSM were at one time imbued with capitalist ideology but we managed to see through it.
I think most people have a fear of anything that might impinge too much on their everyday lives. However much they might want to be ‘free’ – of their jobs or whatever rut they are in – many will react vehemently against ideas that make them feel insecure. Which is probably what our ideas do. But the more we can repeat them, the more they are likely to catch hold.
I wonder if they’re going to include the ‘brown assets’ of the armed forces in their stress testing?
Should have said – I’ll be happy to draft a letter, though I think it should be sent by the Party. I sent something similar via email to wildlife photographer and presenter Charlie Hamilton James a few years back (last post in this thread: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/charlie-hamilton-james-and-the-peruvian-rainforest/). Never got a reply, of course.
There are other possible candidates for an open letter, such as Chris Packham and the other Winterwatch/Autumnwatch/Springwatch presenters, who more or less cover the same ground as Attenborough, know that the climate/land exploitation problem is urgent but convey the same limited messages and can’t see the wood for the trees. At least as far as we know.
Even Jeremy Clarkson is apparently now convinced that climate change is happening…but I think a letter to him is likely to go straight in the bin (or maybe now the recycling box).
Meanwhile, wildlife presenters like Attenborough continue to miss the point. In his latest series, ‘Seven Worlds, One Planet’, he has raised climate change in each episode, almost like a sermon, hand in hand with the devastation caused by over-exploitation of land. While laudably raising the issue (and being allowed to), he claims that it’s ‘humans’ who are responsible. By compensation he usually, rather forlornly, mentions some positive point, e.g. a local group who are succeeding in preserving a particular species from extinction. He obviously realises that such efforts go nowhere near to solving the problem.
In his next series, what a change it would be if he said that capitalism is the problem, not humans per se, and that to ‘do our bit’, the best we could do is to campaign to put an end to the system. But even if he thought that, I doubt he’d be allowed to say it.
Should we write him an open letter?
