The Socialist Studies may well advocate socialism but their undemocratic practices proves they are not. And that in itself is surely relevant. As for the SLP they represent the Undertakers.
No its not relevant. Its the
goal that we are talking about. The goal in the case of SS is precisely the same as that of the SPGB. The SLP of the De Leonist variety also basically advocated socialism in the SPGB sense though with a somewhat different perspective on how it might be organised. The SLP was likewise part of the "impossibilist" tradition and in the
Socialist Standard was once referred to as "our political cousins"
Nobody is disagreeing with this. But according to your opinion there are any number of workers who hold religious beliefs and want to join the SPGB. Because the door was firmly closed you and others set up WiC to provide an outlet for these workers with religious beliefs. This unspecified number now have had an opportunity to become a reality. So how many members of WiC have religious beliefs?
Wrong GD. World in Common was not primarily set up to "provide an outlet for these workers with religious beliefs". I was there at the time. I know what I am talking about. You dont. You are confusing my particular criticisms of the SPGB (which were not confined to its policy on religion), with the formation of WiC which was founded by several individuals some of whom were not even members of the SPGB. The question of religion simply did not loom as large as you imagine.
There are one or two members of WiC who have religious beliefs as far as I know. Its just not an issue. It doesnt interfere with their political beliefs which are fiercely socialist. If they started expressing capitalist sentiments they would be expelled as has happened to one individual. I really recommend the same approach to the SPGB. It works! Whats more. It
will mean an influx of new members for the SPGB, rather more than you think. I know this for a fact.
Now your logic (just like your assumptions and conclusions) are faulty here. For on the one hand you are saying open the door to those with religious beliefs for if they came into conflict with socialist convictions it would show itself in other ways. This assumes there is no conflict to start with when clearly there is. I need not remind you that the SPGB has no time for leaders in any shape or form yet all religions bend the knee to the Great Man in the sky. Indeed it begs the question is their priority to some cosmic being or socialist principles. Do me a favour ...
Er ..no. This is not quite correct. I am not assuming anything. It is you who is assuming an inevitable conflict between socialist convictions and religous beliefs such that the latter will inevitably override and undermine the former. I say thats bollocks. There is nothing inevitable about it. I know socialists who have been socialists for years and have held religious beliefs. They are as much socialists as you and I. You are taking an a priori abstract view of this issue, I am taking a pragmatic view. I am saying to you why not suck it and see. It
may be in some cases that an individuals religious beliefs induce them to move away from socialism. OK, in
that case if they start believing in the leadership principle or if they start thinking that employers have a divine right to exploit their workers
then by all means expel them. But in my experience most socialists with religious convictions are steadfastly socialist in their outlook just like you and I
I would finally say that your view of religion is a very narrow one. The concept of some "Great Man in the Sky" is peculiar to only certain religions, not all. Animistic religions or pantheism are just a few examples here. Also, the logic of what you suggesting is that before we can have socialism everyone has to be converted to atheism. Afterall, if people are still religious in socialism this will undermine a socialist society according to you. But the idea is just ludicrous (and it makes socialism appear utterly impossible). Ideas, including religious ideas, adapt to the kind of society we live in. This is the historical materialist perspective, after all. Historical materialism is relevant to the socialist movement, philosophical materialism is not. The latter should be strictly confined to philosophy study circles in my opinion, it has no place in a serious political movement
I did say I didn't want to dig over old ground and you have done just that and consequently made the hole bigger. When you fall in don't call us to help you back out.
.
You said you didnt want to dig over old ground and then promptly did just that! Dont be suprised if I then robustly defend myself against the charges you make. Whether I have fallen into a hole of my own making I will leave to others to decide for themselves though I have a sneaky feeling that its the other way round.
Look, when all is said and done, GD I entered this thread with a view to actually supporting the SPGB in its debate with the Left reformists. In fairness, I said I had a few criticims of the SPGB but fundamentally I think the SPGB is still far and away the best political party around in terms of its ideas and arguments. People who scoff at it are mostly misinfomed and failing to see and appreciate the wealth of insightful analysis that the SPGB has to offer. You infortunately decided to latch on to my few criticisms of the Party and make a big deal of it. I didnt want that. You talked about how the application of the hostility clause in the SPGB has changed in recent years and that the SPGB now engages in forums rather than debates with individuals on the same wavelength. Well, I am on the same wavelength as the SPGB. I too am a revolutionary socialist. Yet what kind of response do I get from you.? Frankly, nothing that convinces me that there has been a "quiet revolution" in the way that the hostility clause is applied. Why GD? I think on sober reflection you might see that I am not being unreasonable here.
