Social Identity

[red eck]

I wish to discuss the significance of identity in the sociological sense. For socialists this is of great importance as we see ourselves as being members of a social identity called 'socialist'. Although this identity is somewhat fragmented with various different sub-groups within each country, nevertheless there remains the nebulous traces of a social identity. A wikipedia page on Identity can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(social_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28social_science))

One can make reasonable assertions of a group of people once the identity of that group is recognised. For example, a lot of Christians feel that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is an attack on their identity as Christians. Therefore Christians attempt to refute Darwin's theory. One can now assert the following:

'Christians are antagonistic towards Darwin's theory of Natural Selection'
Plenty of evidence can be mustered to support this assertion. There are lots of books written by Christians that attempt to refute Darwin's theory and there are even campaigns by Christians groups to have 'Intelligent Design' taught in schools.

Socialists are concerned with class identity. Class identities are different from other types of identities such as cultural/gender/religious/national in that it has a distinctive material/economic dimension to it . That is not to say that the other identities have no material dimension, but a class identity is wholly material, nobody can arbitrarily decide what class they want to be. And class identities play a major part in history (for us Marxists anyway).

I think a consideration of identities can be useful when we have a little introspection. I do not consider 'Socialist' to be synonymous with 'Working class'. My experience of the far-left suggests otherwise. That doesn't stop anyone from being a Socialist, I like and admire Socialists from all classes as I am one myself from the Working Class. Being a Socialist does imply certain conditions, especially if your not from the working class. Socialists can never disregard the interests of the subordinated classes, in fact, a Socialist seeks to abolish class. And here we find a convergence with another identity: Utilitarianism – the axiom of Utilitarianism is the consideration of all interests equally (including animals). Can we therefore conclude that to be a Socialist is to be a Utilitarian by default?

Some might not agree with the suggestion that Socialism implies Utilitarianism. But for the purpose of defining a Socialist identity, there needs to be consistency. It may turn out that the Socialist identity can never exist as its participants are too inconsistent and the only identity that can hold all the disparate views is the broad group referred to as the 'left'. But the 'left' will include a lot of identities within it such as Marxists/Environmentalists/Feminists etc. The 'left' identity is actually just a concatenation of identities and assertions of it can only be made with respect to each of the identities contained within it.

So hopefully I've managed to highlight the importance of 'identity' and I would like a further discussion on the usefulness of considering identities.

[apathy maybe]

I'm too tired to really read your post just now, just one thing, you can't say

'Christians are antagonistic towards Darwin's theory of Natural Selection'
You should, instead, say "Some 'Christians' are antagonistic towards Darwin's theory of Natural Selection". That is to say, some people who identify as Christians (but may not be classified as such by other people) etc.

Yeah, the rest of your post looks interesting though, I'll try and read it properly when I'm less tired.

[casper]

identity can be usefull. but sometimes it simply holds us back. they often seem so arbitrary. after all, there really is no "it", unless we say there is.
we shouldn't identify ourselves into a prison
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/18.php

[MarxSchmarx]

There is definitely value in clarifying what we believe in as socialists qua socialists.

Still, we need to proceed with caution. "Identity" can get stuck with labeling, which has lead to an endless vicious cycle of name-calling and bickering within the left.


Socialists can never disregard the interests of the subordinated classes, in fact, a Socialist seeks to abolish class. And here we find a convergence with another identity: Utilitarianism – the axiom of Utilitarianism is the consideration of all interests equally (including animals). Can we therefore conclude that to be a Socialist is to be a Utilitarian by default?I think there is a joke somewhere about a utilitarian wanting to activate some pleasure machine for a thousand rabbits than save a drowning child.

[red eck]

I would like to challenge the objection that all members of an identity cannot be assumed to share all their beliefs. This to me begs the question slightly. An identity is a group who have shared beliefs. Therefore one is entitled to make assumptions that apply to that entire identity.


There may be Christians who do not object to Darwin’s theory. But as long as they maintain their identity as Christians, then they must accept the assertion that Christians are antagonistic towards the theory of Natural Selection. Identities have conditions, and there is plenty of evidence of Christians in general demanding challenges to Natural Selection. I’ve even come across Christians who claim they are not anti-science, but then proceed to elucidate a rejection of the evidence that supports Natural Selection. So even if some claim not to oppose Natural Selection, do they really accept it?


What is interesting though, is the fact that a person’s identity indicates their beliefs and more importantly: their behaviour. That is why recognising identities is important. During arguments between groups, positions are commonly taken that are simply partisan. The reason for the taking up of these positions has nothing to do with rational argument, but purely down to partisanship induced by an identity and that identity’s conditions. This gives rise to questions regarding the Socialist identity: What are the conditions of a Socialist Identity? Do we hold positions that are simply partisan? Can we defend those conditions? This is where Christians lose out big-time. Christians challenge Natural Selection on the basis of their scriptures and theology. That is why they try and shoe-in Intelligent Design. It is perfectly reasonable to challenge Natural Selection, but why on earth promote Intelligent Design? ID is a Christian concept. Their attack on Natural Selection is purely partisan and is a response to what they see as an attack on their identity.


With regards to Utilitarianism, Preference Utilitarianism gives consideration to preferences. A sentient creature such as a rabbit or farm animal will not have the same temporal interests as a conscious person. Therefore a rabbit or a farm animal may not anticipate its own death and providing that the animal is slaughtered without distress, it can then be argued that the sentient animal’s interests were not neglected. So the crude characterisation of saving 1000 rabbits instead of a drowning child is somewhat impertinent. I recommend Peter Singer’s book Practical Ethics.

[apathy maybe]

Regarding Christians (and again, it's late, and I'm tired, and I will try tomorrow to respond properly to your first post), almost all Catholics (who all identify as Christian), don't have a problem with evolution.

Maybe in the USA the predominate type of "Christian" has a problem with evolution, but not in the rest of the world.

(I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist, but I was raised Catholic.)

[davidasearles]

I would like to challenge the objection that all members of an identity cannot be assumed to share all their beliefs. This to me begs the question slightly. An identity is a group who have shared beliefs. Therefore one is entitled to make assumptions that apply to that entire identity.

I have no idea what you are referring to: "shared beliefs" and identity.

Here is an identity: 1 = 1

Here is an identity: The person named David A. Searles, residing at 229 Travis Terr. Center Rutland, Vermont.

Here is a belief that I beieve I "share" with a lot of people. I believe that 1 of one kind of thing plus another one 1 of the same kind of thing equals two of the same kind of thing.

People have ideas about themselves as to who they are, what their relationship to other people, other things, the rest of society, is or ought to be. These sometimes get referred to as identities. I don't know why we don't simply call them what they are - generalizations about one's self or someone else.

[red eck]

The Christians I've encountered with regards to Evolution in the UK are Baptists and Anglicans. So it is not just a US thing, it's a Christian thing. Check this link out for Northern Ireland:

http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/jocko-homo-sighted-in-north-antrim/

[kiki75]

Why does there need to be consistency w/in the Socialist identity? I mean, more consistency than other groups.

Getting away from religion (altho the above disagreeing posts also prove my point)- I could identify as a Dominican. I could be very happy and proud to be a Dominican. That doesn't mean that I expect every Dominican I meet to share all my same ideals and beliefs or live their lives the way I live mine.

Within claims of identity, we must make room for the variety of individuals or the identity will become meaningless. If what one wants is for everyone to shun their humanity for the sake of an idea (and all identities are ideas), one will be hard-pressed to find satisfaction.

[red eck]

A big advantage of having an identity is that people know what you stand for. Nationalist identities don't mean much: only a limited amount can be inferred from saying 'I am British'. Saying 'I am a Environmentalist' straight away says much more. There are all sorts of identities.


we must make room for the variety of individuals or the identity will become meaninglessActually the converse is true, too many disparate views will render a identity meaningless. And this is what I think is one of the problems with the Socialist identity. Can you imagine a environmentalist who did not believe in man made global warming? or a Christian who didn't follow the Gospels?

[kiki75]

Can you imagine a environmentalist who did not believe in man made global warming? or a Christian who didn't follow the Gospels?
Yes, I can. I've met some. And read about them on the internet. lol


An identity is a group who have shared beliefs. Therefore one is entitled to make assumptions that apply to that entire identity.
They have shared beliefs. Some. Not necessarily all. And, one isn't entitled to anything, but if one wants to feel one is, one can have at it. Assumptions? People still make those?


During arguments between groups, positions are commonly taken that are simply partisan. The reason for the taking up of these positions has nothing to do with rational argument, but purely down to partisanship induced by an identity and that identity’s conditions. This gives rise to questions regarding the Socialist identity: What are the conditions of a Socialist Identity? Do we hold positions that are simply partisan? Can we defend those conditions?
I find it interesting that you would say all that and then conclude that socialists should all believe the same things. If people who identify a certain way don't all believe the exact same things, doesn't that decrease the likelihood that they'd take up positions simply because of the identity?

The people I've met who truly have an issue with identity non-conformity don't label themselves. It's generally understood that just b/c people share some beliefs doesn't mean they'll share all beliefs.

[Tzonteyotl]

Not to sound lost but, what is the point of this inquiry?

Also, in searching for this unified identity as socialists, how does that relate to other "identities" people might have? Would identifying oneself as socialist override one's other views ("identities") of his or her self? For example, I'm Native American and Mexican. Yet I'm also atheist. So, for someone in a similar situation who is a socialist, how exactly should one "identify" his/herself? This, I think, leads back to my first question.

[ckaihatsu]

Socialists are concerned with class identity. Class identities are different from other types of identities such as cultural/gender/religious/national in that it has a distinctive material/economic dimension to it . That is not to say that the other identities have no material dimension, but a class identity is wholly material, nobody can arbitrarily decide what class they want to be.


There was a similar thread recently -- this is an excerpt from my post:





- Our *objective* interests correspond to our *objective* relationship to the means of mass production (which is the most broad-based, cutting-edge, and influential technology that society has ever developed).

- Our *subjective* attitude towards this fact determines our sociopolitical views.

One could be born into a wealthy family, acknowledge it, and yet decide to subjectively identify with the class struggle. Or, one could be working class and deny it and subjectively identify your politics in relation to the bullshit propaganda coming out of mainstream channels, thus making you a Green, a liberal, or a radical. If you're basically anti-capitalist but too locale-oriented then you're an anarchist.

Anyone still reading this please go and see Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution".


For this discussion I'd like to refine what I wrote and note that the overall worldview we adopt as our own determines the degree of societal progress that we identify with, whether we're aware of it or not. You could call this something like "subjective determinism", to indicate this following chain of ideological determinism at the individual level:


One's take on objective social reality >>> Worldview >>> Degree of societal progress accepted as valid >>> Ideology >>> Level of macro, or broadness of objective factors, accepted as validly deterministic


This chain of subjective causality can be summarized as the degree to which we recognize that objective societal factors shape the world, rather than thinking that *we*, as the average / regular / typical person, shape the world according to *our* beliefs, desires, and inclinations.

On a gradient of increasing historical progress we can say, objectively, that increasing degrees of leftism correspond to identifying with increasing degrees of societal progress.

A quick example or two: If one identifies *solely* with one's family, kin, or clan, to the exclusion of all subsequent forms of social organization, then one is as backwards as one can be. Society has progressed far past that point in complexity and in providing material options to the individual.

If the social extent to which one identifies is one's * religion *, then that is also very backward, since one "hits the ceiling" at the idea that an invisible, unknowable deity (or deities) serves as the supreme authority over the doings of people.

Also, the degree of societal progress that one accepts as valid will *directly correspond* to the degree of acceptance that * objective * factors shape the world. For example, non-revolutionary leftists will "top-out" at looking to influence the *economic* workings of society, instead of going further to address the upper-most factor, which is the class struggle.

So -- revolutionary Marxism / communism is * objectively * >>> the most progressive <<< position one can possibly have, because it * anticipates * the next most-progressive, plausible step that societal organization could take, given the presence of certain objective factors, particularly the balance of class forces and the mode of productivity available as a result.

I made two diagrams with elements that fit together in order to be done with this (seeming) messiness concerning social identity. The overall idea came from the running-together of different strands of leftism that I experienced when I first came around (revolutionary) politics. I didn't get a chance to do the diagrams till years later -- fairly recently -- but they should be beneficial now that they're available.


Ideologies & Operations

http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9


History, Macro-Micro

http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr



And class identities play a major part in history (for us Marxists anyway).


If you don't mind my nit-picking here, I'd just like to point out that even if we weren't Marxists, or even before anyone may have thought of the concept of class identity, * class * played a major part -- * the * * most * * major *, or _macro_, part in history that could possibly exist. The convenient way of thinking of this is that * everything changes * when the ruling class is overthrown and a new ruling class takes the helm to dominate and preside over the new mode of production that goes with it.

Social identity * does imply * a set of generalizations, thereby giving it its definition, and allowing us to use whatever group label with a consistent set of understandings *about* that definition. So, when we discuss particular *members* of a given social identity, we can talk about them >>> in relation to <<< the group social identity, or worldview / belief / identity / core positions. Set theory (Venn diagrams) is a very handy tool for sifting through these sorts of dynamics....

And, as I outlined above, social identity is *objectively* defined by one's take on objective social reality, and so on....

The funny thing about sociology -- which was noted by a professor when I was in school -- is that, as much as sociology explains, it doesn't *automatically* explain *anything*. It's akin to the measuring of time, or anything else -- we can come up with all sorts of ways of explaining time, or defining it, but that doesn't tell you jack-shit about this-or-that -- you still have to take up the mantle of the scientist or artist and actually develop conclusions, using sociology as a tool.

So we could generalize about a lot of stuff, and it could be absolutely valid, but when the very next thing comes along, all of the sociology we've learned may not necessarily apply to this next thing, or, if it *does* apply, it may not be able to tell us *much* about *this* *particular* thing, because it's an *individual* thing, and sociology deals with *generalities*. Another way of putting this is that you don't want to *stereotype* or *pigeon-hole* anyone based on their outward appearance, or on a few things that you may know about them.

Ultimately it's much better to be a revolutionary Marxist because this approach to examining society puts the whole sociological framework into a definite bent, or orientation, which also happens to be objectively correct. By acknowledging and placing the class division as the foremost division in society every other material position and dynamic in society can be identified correctly and situated in relation to everything else, *without* excluding other sociological factors like nationality, ethnicity, and so on.


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[red eck]

In reply to kiki75


Someone may object to being labelled, but it might just be that person objecting to an identity being imposed on them - they may be of another identity.


But then there are identities and social identities. We should differentiate between the two. 'I am British' can just be an identity (perhaps we should call them labels?) as in 'I live in Britain and speak English' - nothing more. A nationalist would seek to make 'I am British' into a social identity, in that they use it as a term of affiliation with other 'British'.


So maybe we should differentiate between 'labels' - [no implied affiliations] and 'identity' - [social]. A person can be a vegetarian [label] but one cannot infer any sort of social affiliations from it. Whereas one would expect a Christian [identity] to have social affiliations. I would also like to add that 'Socialist' is an identity as social affiliations are expected of it.


Thinking about it, labels are just descriptive: tall, vegetarian, engineer, British, woman etc. I'm interested in social identities, the labels that people gather around to form affiliations.


Individual eccentrics you come across on the internet do not count as identities as they usually are the only person with those views. Any range of ideas that are supposed to bring people together would need a certain number of participants before it can be considered an identity.


I'll comment on the new posts later.

[Tzonteyotl]

In reply to kiki75
Thinking about it, labels are just descriptive: tall, vegetarian, engineer, British, woman etc. I'm interested in social identities, the labels that people gather around to form affiliations.

I think this is too great a simplification. How can you say "woman" is just a label, just descriptive? The same goes for British. I mean, as a Mexican, there's quite a lot of cultural heritage associated with that, as there is with my Native American background. Would those not have "social affiliations" attached/expected of them? I think some clarification needs to given on exactly what you mean by "social affiliations" that go with these identities you're looking for.

[Rawthentic]

david:

I really hope you aren't stupid enough put your real address here.

If it was, it needs to be deleted immediately.

[red eck]

Why bother with identity?

During a discussion, debate or an analysis, when it becomes apparent that someone has no firm reasoning, all they resort to is identity. I think in this regard Marxists are analogous to Christians.

Check out this paragraph from one of the UK's most read far-left bloggers:


"Secondly, some of those who opposed the strikes are those who have a poorly understood understanding of national consciousness - for example believing that national consciousness directly competes or crowds out class consciousness."

As there is no universally agreed definition of 'national consciousness', the debate that extract was from will quickly diminish into partisanship.

[black magick hustla]

I think this is too great a simplification. How can you say "woman" is just a label, just descriptive? The same goes for British. I mean, as a Mexican, there's quite a lot of cultural heritage associated with that, as there is with my Native American background. Would those not have "social affiliations" attached/expected of them? I think some clarification needs to given on exactly what you mean by "social affiliations" that go with these identities you're looking for.

i am also a "mexican", and i also "identify" with a lot of mexican things. i used to be part of a mexican folk music group. however, my mind is clear on the question of identity politics. any group that uses cultural identity as a political platform is reactionary and becomes the mouthpiece of the ruling class. i want to destroy not only the american state, but also the mexican, and create a world centralized socialist state. anything that caters a little bit to nationalist politics is a retreat and i wish nothing but the destruction of all borders. that is why mixing identity and politics is not a communist viewpoint-

[Tzonteyotl]

i am also a "mexican", and i also "identify" with a lot of mexican things. i used to be part of a mexican folk music group. however, my mind is clear on the question of identity politics. any group that uses cultural identity as a political platform is reactionary and becomes the mouthpiece of the ruling class. i want to destroy not only the american state, but also the mexican, and create a world centralized socialist state. anything that caters a little bit to nationalist politics is a retreat and i wish nothing but the destruction of all borders. that is why mixing identity and politics is not a communist viewpoint-

Oh definitely. I'm just trying to get some clarification from the original poster as I found it rather odd that he/she would say "Christian" is an identity, but "British" or "woman" are merely "labels." And while I draw various things from both my cultural backgrounds, I'm a human being and communist first.

[Tzonteyotl]

however, my mind is clear on the question of identity politics. any group that uses cultural identity as a political platform is reactionary and becomes the mouthpiece of the ruling class.

Are there exceptions to this though? For example, in cases of racism and fighting against the discrimination and stereotypes that result from it. Groups like the American Indian Movement, Brown Berets, etc. Cultural identity there was an important component of these political struggles as it was a fight against racism and an attempt to preserve cultural identities in face of strong forces moving to basically erase them. This still being an issue, as evident from the anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican/Latino sentiments and the pressure for new arrivals here or else where to assimilate mean people will still use their cultural identities in a political fashion as a means of preserving them.

Solidarity and a united effort, though, as an international working class is priority as that's the only way to defeat capitalism. Nonetheless, cultural identities are still relevant as political tools in the fight against racism (which is used to separate the working class).

[red eck]

I do not have a clear understanding of identities and their significance, that's why I started this thread. But I will expand on what I mean by 'social affiliation'. By this I refer to actual social networks, it could be a network of business tycoons of an industry or a group of environmentalists organising campaigns against CO2 emissions. A social affiliation is a networked group of people who communicate with one and other and are bound together because they share the same goals, values, principles, ideas etc. Such a set of conditions can be represented by an identity which is given out publicly.


...I found it rather odd that he/she would say "Christian" is an identity, but "British" or "woman" are merely "labels."

People here hold the principle of internationalism, so are weary of nationalist identities. But being 'British' does not necessarily imply that one holds it as a social affiliation. I am British, but it's not the basis of an identity, there can be no such things as British meetings and British networks and discussions of British interests. There are no principles of Britishness. Nationalists, on the other hand, do want to make 'British' an identity. But it would not possible for everyone to participate in Britishness. Because all that will happen is the strengthening of a state and thus an elite class. If nationalists ever get it their way, then the best they can achieve is a two-tier Britishness with an elite who's interests are given priority over a subordinate class and the reasons for the formation of that class society will be material. Nationalist ideology is superficial and it is the Capitalist structure underneath it that determines the reality.

I don't think all identities form classes like with nationalism. Nationalism just has principles that are not universal, or in Marxist terms: involve reification. This may be relevant to ckaihatsu's earlier post were he raised objectivity.

[red eck]

I may be having a conversation with myself, but the issue of identity has sprung up again during one of my encounters. I now wish to describe the thinking of someone who identifies as a Christian. That person believes that the state/local government are antagonistic to what's good in the world, or that they suppress 'common sense' in the belief it would accommodate minorities better. It would be too simplistic to say that our Christian is suffering from a case of 'PC gone mad' syndrome, as it presumes our Christian is a chauvinist. I would like to put forward the explanation that our subject in particular holds such views as result of indifference towards his identity.

What has provoked this feeling of antagonism from the state was the prohibition of former Christian practices in a state institution; the schools. In an earlier post I put forward the insight that individuals/groups support positions on purely partisan grounds, that they will defend against any arguments/ideas/ideals/theories anything abstract or otherwise that is seen to be an attack their social identity.

Back to our Christian, once the new rules were laid down against Christian prayer during assembly and the adoption of Sex Education with contraceptives in preference to the teaching of emphasising abstinence, the Christian sees this a losing battle. How does our Christian deal with this? He resorts to attacking a scapegoat, the Christian blames the State, but wrongly reasons that the State carries out such actions against the interest of the majority on the behest of an influential minority.

But when someone attempts to challenge such a view, they will be met with reality bending arguments. The main weaknesses with the view adopted is that a) the majority are not Christian; b) why should non-Christian have Christian practices imposed on them?; c) the influential minority are unspecified/don't exist. When challenged with these, the Christian attempts to deal with a) on the grounds of National Heritage/Culture. So that we must pray 'because this country always did so in the past; it's part of our heritage'. b) is dealt with by denying that abstinence is a Christian practice and is therefore universal 'common sense' and c) is always taken care of with anecdotal stories from the right-wing press.

From this, I conclude that our Christian is not acting from racial or bigoted motivations, as none of his arguments are racist and Christianity is a worldwide religion. But the Christian is a sectarian and will attempt to defend the Christian identity by shifting beliefs from Christian realm to the universal. And this is the significance of Social Identity, with identities around you can reasonably expect responses. I say such behaviour is provoked as a result of indifference towards the Christian Identity. When the State make changes to institutions with previous links to identities [Schools with Christianity], they must reassure that such changes are made to accommodate all interests, and that such changes are not attacks on others.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem with *any* sectarian worldview is that it *always* creates a whole region of contradictions, simply because it is out-of-step with the larger, mainstream societal worldview / reality. (And even the larger, mainstream will have *internal* contradictions of its own.)

*Every* sectarian worldview is a sub-set within the larger mainstream culture, and, as such, can, *at best* only be about *as good* -- but *not better* -- than the overarching mainstream culture that contains it. In other words, we're all in it together, because of the prevailing class system (the wages system), the (industrial) mode of production, private property ownership, economics, rule of law, the state's use of physical force, and so on.

Before I'd haul off and chastise a sectarian sub-group -- even if it's a rather large subculture, like Christians -- I'd *first* want to see what the *prevailing*, mainstream culture is like. We *have* to understand the overall main characteristics of the world we're living in, starting with the most *materially influential* features, listed in the previous paragraph. Just as you wouldn't start examining random stuff under a microscope -- you'd want to do research, know the context where it came from, etc. -- we can't examine sub-groups / subcultures without knowing the *main* society itself first.

That said, all sectarian subgroups are going to reflect the contradictions inherent in the larger, main society. Problems with private property / ownership? You'll see it everywhere. Problems with employment and wages? Same thing -- they're universal.

These *material* considerations overshadow all of the other, more-social issues that come up -- why? Because these top-level, overarching class problems are the *structural* framework of the society we live our lives in. We couldn't talk about the features of a building without discussing its underlying, steel structure, and the exact same thing goes for society.

Are people *stuck* together because of economic issues? Then *that's* the limiting material factor.

Do young people have ready access to contraceptives and information about sex that's as easy as turning on the tap for water? If not, then *that's* the limiting material factor, and all the rest is talk.

After putting the emphasis on boring, run-of-the-mill material concerns I hesitate to go further, to bring up more social-cultural aspects of a subgroup (like the Christian religious culture), because the material factors loom so large. But I could combine the two and just ask "What does a particular subculture *have to say* about these looming, material concerns?" *That approach itself* would reveal the rest, letting you know just how advanced or backward a particular worldview is in relation to mainstream practices and attitudes.

If a subgroup addressed the teen sex issue by raising funds to provide sex information and contraceptives to teens then that would say more than words ever could. Same thing if teen sex was ignored, or berated. The rest could be studied through surveys and statistics. And, of course, the teen sex issue doesn't stand alone -- it raises broader societal questions of how younger, newer generations are to be raised, by whom, in what groupings, with what funds, for how long, and so on.

Again, the overall ceiling for *everyone* will be set by the larger, mainstream culture -- this is because *no one*, no subgroup, has a "magic bullet", or some secret technology, that the larger society doesn't know about -- if something new is developed word gets around pretty quickly and then the mainstream becomes the decider in how well the new thing or idea is adopted and nurtured, or set aside, or even persecuted.

So various subcultures, like religious groups, will vary in *flavor* mostly, because it's a sociological fact that large cultural groups have *more in common* *with each other* than the *individual members* do *within each particular group* -- at larger scales things average out and we're almost back to looking at society as a whole at that point.

The *danger* is that *some* subgroups may be more *detached* from the mainstream -- though that's not nearly as much a concern these days, in contemporary times -- and will then be more *severely backward*, relative to the mainstream. Even if you're not a fan of the mainstream it represents the greatest extent of development that we have for the most numbers of people. It has the advantages of economies of scale, government, tax revenues, social services, and so on -- any subgroup that turns its back on these advantages is only going *backwards* in time, back to the forest, so to speak, which is *not* a good thing, especially for younger generations because they are necessarily along for the ride and have no say in the matter.

Of course, there's *plenty* of room for improvement, and that's where we come in as revolutionaries. The class division is the single greatest hindrance to humanity's further progress, and is now pulling the *whole world* backward in terms of societal-economic development. Much of the mainstream culture in the advanced, industrial (or post-industrial) countries reflects this, with economies that are running on bullshit, basically, and with service sectors that market bullshit for bullshit commodities and services. (I'm sorry, I don't know any better way to put this, because without actual forward progress the same economic routines go on, but now they're processing ersatz (backward) inventions and services, all based on bullshit and are *not* objectively progressive for society. This is because of the rise of the dominance of finance and speculation, over and above a mode of production that is manufacturing-oriented.)

In other threads of discussion here at RevLeft I've described our current times as an *existential crisis* for society, because of all of this. As individuals we wouldn't allow ourselves to start slowly sliding backwards if we were standing still -- better yet, we'd want to start *moving forward* -- yet society *as a whole* is sliding backwards because of the bullshit of class relations -- this needs to be overthrown immediately.

[red eck]

To what extent does material reality affect sub-cultures/identities? In an earlier post I assumed that Nationalism hardened class differentiation. I did not explain why that was so, but I would say it does so because the underlining socio-economic aspects are unchanged (preservation of private property; priority given to creating investment opportunities; etc..). All the talk of National Heritage/Culture or any other sentimentalist idealism is really irrelevant to material concerns. So if we have a situation were a member of the ruling class is expounding sentimentalist-type concerns, perhaps on the platform of a sub-culture/identity, then we may derive a material motive. For ruling class-types it's mostly about reducing tax and attacking anything that reduces their influence and privileged in society.

There are other motivations other than material ones. I believe that partisan motivations are also significant - yes - material ones will override them, but not all disputes are material. Why would the ruling-class wish to encourage intransigence over sexual norms and behaviour through Christianity? Opposition to Sex Education with Contraceptives is aroused due to what is perceived as an attack on the Christian identity and nothing to do with class conflict. Indeed, there are ruling class-types who oppose religion and wish to see Sex Education with Contraceptives promoted in schools.

With regards to the 'mainstream culture', I'm not convinced it exists. So I don't think sub-cultures/identities can be compared to it. You can have an identity that is in the majority, but does everyone need to belong to an identity?

[Coggeh]

Just to clear up something , I'm in a catholic school which never mentions intelligent design and teaches evolution as basic fact .

Some Christians are antagonistic to evolution not all .Its kind of absurd to assume so since the catholic church accepts evolution .

[Coggeh]

With regards to the 'mainstream culture', I'm not convinced it exists. So I don't think sub-cultures/identities can be compared to it. You can have an identity that is in the majority, but does eveyone need to belong to an identity?
Reminds me of a "discussion" i had when hammered drunk one day ...

In short no , I feel sub-cultures are mirror images of other ones and of mainstream consumerist culture .This isn't really negative because everyone on this board is also consumerist just some more than others.

For example if we said a certain sub culture were reactionary , lets say chavs for example you would know after spending 20minutes with a different sub culture their as reactionary . People in my experience usually have their own personal identity within a certain culture .

To belong to a grouping which you might see as your identity is stupid in my view . But using another example we can see its only natural .

If your in America and you get sent to jail . And lets say your Irish , you walk into a cell see a few Americans , hispanics , maybe a canadian and an irish guy .

Who are you going to go up to ?

A social identity isn't necessary and is stupid IMO but its natural in a way . Or you could argue the divisions with certain social groupings are a reaction to the unnatural system of capitalism.


Hope my post helped though i felt i may have missed your question :(

[ckaihatsu]

To what extent does material reality affect sub-cultures/identities?


We could tackle this question at the most fundamental level: Is the subculture being persecuted by the official / mainstream culture? Are they starving or otherwise at the fringes of society? (Etc.)





In an earlier post I assumed that Nationalism hardened class differentiation. I did not explain why that was so, but I would say it does so because the underlining socio-economic aspects are unchanged (preservation of private property; priority given to creating investment opportunities; etc..).


Right -- nationalism (of the conventional kind) is de facto support for the status quo (the existing state of society). *Any* kind of support for the status quo -- even being "non-political" -- is kind of like wandering into a football game in progress. You may not be *actively* rooting for one team or another, but you're certainly *legitimizing* the game, the stadium, the players, and the fans with your presence there.

In a few rare cases there is nationalism that is separate from the official, larger, dominant nationalism -- think Cuba, Puerto Rico, Northern Ireland, and other select spots around the world. Until a socialist revolution can sweep across an entire region to liberate it there may be legitimate, struggle-based reasons for an oppressed minority to agitate for being autonomous, but usually it's not the best way forward anyway -- ultimately the existing, larger *economic* relationships will prevail and be more deterministic than anything else.





All the talk of National Heritage/Culture or any other sentimentalist idealism is really irrelevant to material concerns. So if we have a situation were a member of the ruling class is expounding sentimentalist-type concerns, perhaps on the platform of a sub-culture/identity, then we may derive a material motive. For ruling class-types it's mostly about reducing tax and attacking anything that reduces their influence and privaledge in society.


Right -- I consider this to be the *commodification of politics* -- that is, people will make their careers and positions of privilege out of the existing state of affairs. In material terms what they're doing is almost inconsequential -- if it wasn't them it would be someone else doing the exact same thing, responding to the larger dynamics of pork-barrel politics (special, favored constituencies), patronage networks, business cronyism, bureaucracies, and so on.

The politicians and business owners *market* themselves with the cape of national identity, ethnic culture, religious in-crowd, sentimentality, or whatever, just to shore up a voting population of some sort, but their day-to-day tasks really are in line with their roles as political machine functionaries -- and this goes for the president of the U.S. just as much as any other official anywhere.

Even the "reducing taxes" line is also a type of political favoritism -- it *doesn't* refer to a reduction of *payroll* taxes -- that is, the tax on wages -- it refers to reducing taxes on capital gains, which only favors investors who are in the right circles to know what the best bets are.





There are other motivations other than material ones. I believe that partisan motivations are also significant - yes - material ones will override them, but not all disputes are material. Why would the ruling-class wish to encourage intrasingence over sexual norms and behaviour through Christianity? Opposition to Sex Education with Contraceptives is aroused due to what is percieved as an attack on the Christian identity and nothing to do with class conflict. Indeed, there are ruling class-types who oppose religion and wish to see Sex Education with Contraceptives promoted in schools.


I guess all I can say to this is that they have to draw the line somewhere -- official religious doctrine is just as susceptible to current public opinion as much as anything else cultural, so in the realm of politics the assertion of some aspect of the religious culture -- no matter how nonsensical or backward -- will be a way of defining who's in and who's out in terms of group identity. If the subgroup's culture is too mainstream then there's not much differentiation, and the members would probably wonder what's so special then -- they could just be in the mainstream if nothing's that different.





With regards to the 'mainstream culture', I'm not convinced it exists. So I don't think sub-cultures/identities can be compared to it. You can have an identity that is in the majority, but does eveyone need to belong to an identity?


"Mainstream culture" is a convenient, shorthand term for the prevailing norms of a society. It's mostly based on the official (bourgeois) state, since the state can tax, make laws, and use force, but the "mainstream" also reflects commercial norms and popular norms as well.

No one "belongs" to mainstream culture -- it's a *sociological* term, and I use it, because it recalls the dynamics of a river -- in the middle of the river the current is the strongest and most broad. It obviously affects the rest of the water in the river, but doesn't entirely control the water that's away from the center, and the water that's more on the fringes.

[red eck]

I've just discovered something that seems to approach the same thing I'm trying to discuss: Structure and Agency.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_agency

The debate surrounding the influence of structure and agency on human thought and behaviour is one of the central issues in sociology and other social sciences. In this context "agency" refers to the capacity of individual humans to act independently and to make their own free choices. "Structure" refers to those factors such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs etc. which seem to limit or influence the opportunities that individuals have.My guess is that 'Structure and Agency' is a different debate from 'Infrastructure and Superstructure'. But I am suspicious of anything that tries to produce explanations that differentiates everything into abstract categories. So I've just realised that I might be guilty of the same thing with my concept of 'identities' as they seem to be analogous to the 'structure' in structure and agency.

Clearly Christianity and other groups are identities. But all I was trying to say is that peoples beliefs and opinions are determined by what groups they affiliate with and that such beliefs are not necessarily rational and can be purely partisan.

My experience of politics is that most positions taken in arguments are purely down to partisanship. People support the Israeli state because they identify with it. People support the banning of abortion because they identify themselves as Christian. People support the Conservative party because they see themselves as hard working and decent and assume the rich are rich because they too are hard working and decent. People defend the 2nd Iraq War because they see themselves as enlightened Westerners fighting against Arab backwardness. For a lot of people, there is about as much reason involved in picking a political affiliation as there is in deciding which football team to support.

An exception that proves the rule is the case with Catholicism and Natural Selection. Most Christian affiliations are antagonistic towards Natural Selection because they see it as an attack on their identity. As a result, a lot of Christians will buy books titled 'The case for Intelligent Design' and 'Why Darwin was Wrong' and so on. Whereas with Catholicism, the Pope and his theologians have decided that Natural Selection is not an attack on the Christian identity, therefore Catholics don't oppose Darwin. I conclude that a person's affiliation determines the beliefs that person will support. What does this say about the significance of identities?

[davidasearles]

Red Eck:

Most Christian affiliations are antagonistic towards Natural Selection because they see it as an attack on their identity.

das:

Anything to back this up, or are you merely adopting this for the sake of argument?

[red eck]

My original reply was lost after the administrator error.

But basically here are all the links which demonstrate Christian antagonism towards Natural Selection:

Anglican, Church of England
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459226/Intelligent-design-theory-taught-state-schools.html

Amazon's review of the book 'The Case for a Creator' by Lee Strobel. The reviewer is a member of the Canadian 'Christian Week' publication for Protestant denominations. This book is the most popular among Christian for promoting Intelligent Design.


.,."Strobel exposes the shortcomings of Darwin's theory of evolution quite effectively...Strobel insists that with a fresh examination of the evidence which science now presents, Darwin's theory of evolution is no longer reasonable. There are too many gaps, unexplained hypotheses and conceptual flaws...This is an excellent book for those who wish to think seriously through the theory of evolution, and for those who continue to wrestle with Christianity's claims for a creator God. It is well written, the documentation is verifiable and Strobel's skills as a journalist and lawyer are self-evident in the book's composition..." -- Christian Week -- Prince George, B.C.An eccentric UK Christian project called 'Noah's ark':
http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/visiting/visiting.php

An article reporting the views of an Northern Ireland government official:
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Call-to-teach-biblical-creation.4360514.jp

A Wikipedia page which shows that proponents of Intelligent Design come from all denominations of Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

An article on the Telegraph explaining the Vatican's turn away from Intelligent Design:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

I've provided links that cover all the major denominations of Christianity. Therefore all Christians are antagonistic towards Natural Selection.

I am using Christianity with Natural Selection as an example. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that in general, a person's affiliation to a group [identity] is chiefly responsible for determining the beliefs/ideas that person ends up defending. What I found interesting was the situation with the Vatican and Natural Selection: in the past, the Vatican was antagonistic towards Natural Selection, now it appears to be playing down Intelligent Design. This change of tact was not the outcome of the views expressed by a majority of Catholics, but rather the decision of the Pope and his theologians. The outcome is that all Catholics will respond with less antagonism towards Natural Selection all purely because of their affiliation with the Roman Catholic church.

I would like to know what ideas do we hold as Socialists that are purely down to affiliation and not reason.

[red eck]

I found a very interesting essay by Eric Hobsbawm in the new Left Review titled 'Identity Politics and the Left' New Left Review I/217, May-June 1996 (http://www.newleftreview.org/?issue=213)

Which can be read at: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/articles/1996%20annual%20lecture.htm

It's a must read for this thread.

What I found interesting was that Hobsbawm regards the left as being something universal, not a social identity: "The political project of the Left is universalist: it is for all human beings."

But in my opinion, it has recently become just another identity. Calling yourself a 'Communist' is analogous to calling yourself a Southern Baptist Christian. The number of revolutionaries these days is tiny. Barely 2000 in the UK. The left has allowed itself to become a self-serving identity. I believe we need to stick to universal principles so that the objectives of the left are objectives for all and not confined to only those who believe.

I've got to read that essay in full and then I'll write more about it.

[davidasearles]

Red Eck:

Most Christian affiliations are antagonistic towards Natural Selection because they see it as an attack on their identity.

das:

Anything to back this up, or are you merely adopting this for the sake of argument?

Red Eck:

here are all the links which demonstrate Christian antagonism towards Natural Selection:

Anglican, Church of England
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-schools.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459226/Intelligent-design-theory-taught-state-schools.html)

das:

Sorry, no evidence of antagonism towards natural selection there.

Here is a BBC interview with the C of E priest in question.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/246/75/

There is nothing antagonistic toward natural selection by having children in science classes at least familiar with views alternative to natural selection. "Pre-science" she calls those alternative views.

[ckaihatsu]

I would like to know what ideas do we hold as Socialists that are purely down to affiliation and not reason.





But please remember, I'm using the Christians with Natural Selection as an example. I'm trying to get at something that is general for all group identities. The big question I want to ask is this: What beliefs do us Socialists maintain as a result of affiliation rather than argument?


Socialism, by definition, is a set of political understandings and principles. This means that these ideas are based in *objective reality* and are *not* subjective, arbitrary ideas. The affiliations around socialism, therefore, are necessarily based on reason / are rational.

Beliefs are on par with mythology, or superstition -- once a society has developed enough knowledge and understanding to explain the (social) world in rational terms we can leave the superstitious beliefs behind. Socialists affiliate out of revolutionary duty, for politics, or on the basis of self-determination for our personal lives and work.

Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable these days for people to follow memes around as they pop up against the background of mass (popular) culture. For rational and self-directed people the practice seems faddish, but people live their lives all kinds of ways, so I guess it's one way to surf through life, for those who like to live more randomly and adventurously.





A meme (pronounced /miːm/ - like theme) is a theoretical unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices; such units or elements transmit from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for mimic.[1] Supporters of the concept of memes believe that they act as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.[2] The existence of discrete memes and their proposed mechanism has not been empirically proven and are not part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Memes cannot therefore be considered to have the same degree of credence given its counterpart and inspiration, the theory of evolution.


As materialists we know that cultural artifacts are dependent on a material, or economic, basis -- if a society has no industry or democracy then there will *not* be cheap consumer commodities, or a mass consumer culture that plays host to memes.

The Internet leads to a diffusion of mass culture, cutting against the corporate centralization of the same. Those interacting often over the medium of the net will see the rise of more opportunities for convergences of meaning, whether superficial, like memes, or more substantive, from many different sources, like political ideas on RevLeft, for example.

Superstituous types would call these convergences of meaning "divine", "inspired", or an example of "synchronicity", but rationally we can call them "fortuitous" / "unfortunate", "willful", "convergent", or "coincidental", depending.


Chris






--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[red eck]

In reply to davidasearles,

Intelligent design is intended as a challenge to Natural Selection. When it comes to evolution, Christians are anti-science and then deny they are anti-science. Like with sex education, they try to insist abstention to be a universal practice, when in actual fact it's a Christian one. Forcibly imposing their own beliefs onto everyone else by insisting such beliefs to be universal, when in actual fact, they are beliefs specific to their identity only.

Do you consider Intelligent Design to be a universal set of beliefs? If so, your motivation for arguing must be purely partisan, as ID is clearly not universal and is a specific belief of only the Christian identity.

If anyone joins a Christian group, they will likely be told that Natural Selection is 'flawed' and that Intelligent Design holds the real answer. That is why Christians are antagonistic towards Natural Selection.

[red eck]

ckaihatsu,


Socialism, by definition, is a set of political understandings and principles. This means that these ideas are based in *objective reality* and are *not* subjective, arbitrary ideas. The affiliations around socialism, therefore, are necessarily based on reason / are rational.

Do you consider Dialectics to be a theory based on reason or is rational?

Who are the Left? Is it just industrial proletarians, or is it other classes as well? Are Socialists just one part of the Left? Hobsbawm's essay criticises the notion of the Left being an ad-hoc collection of identities. He emphasises that the Left should always have universalist aims, not just ones confined to specific identities.

My worry is that Socialism has recently become just another identity. It's for people who like wearing Che-Guevara T-shirts and all things perceived to be Socialist. All the arguments and reasoning behind the aims of the Left have long gone cold. When was the last time you heard any good debates on economics? Why are so few people interested in Brenner's work? - after all, he only speculates on the crises of Capitalism.

And the preservation of Dialectics demonstrates to me that we are no better than Christians when it comes to science, economics and history. We do hold beliefs that are not universal and are only held because an identity was formed, which in turn, requires the preservation of such beliefs in order to maintain the identity.

[ckaihatsu]

Do you consider Dialectics to be a theory based on reason or is rational?


Dialectics, as I understand it, is just a way of managing categories through time. It's really too abstract and micro to be called a *theory* proper -- it's more like a generality about objective reality itself. It does nothing itself until it's applied to a tangible situation.





Who are the Left? Is it just industrial proletarians, or is it other classes as well?


I really couldn't tell you about the demographics. I have practically zero interest in this aspect of politics, which I find to be academic. I'm sure this kind of information is good to have around, for historical reasons, if nothing else, but I could personally care less....





Are Socialists just one part of the Left?


Yes, from a theoretical standpoint socialists are not the only kind of leftists -- not that I *advocate* any other kind of leftism besides revolutionary leftism -- you can take a look at my blog entry for a theoretical overview of some leftist factions.





Hobsbawm's essay criticises the notion of the Left being an ad-hoc collection of identities. He emphasises that the Left should always have universalist aims, not just ones confined to specific identities.


Well, the point of politics is * effect *, not demographics. We can either look at the left in theoretical terms (theory), historical terms (practice), or through the lens of some kind of abstract demographics which tells you more about the lens than the politics.

Note that in order to track a population by demographics (by identities) you have to first *define* the categories you're going to use by some criteria, and, in the absence of using political theory, you have to define *cultural*-based parameters, within which you can look for certain indicators among the population -- these indicators, then, have to be defined, and then the identities you're going to look for have to be defined on the basis of these less-than-objective indicators, and then at that point you may as well just call it all fashion.





My worry is that Socialism has recently become just another identity. It's for people who like wearing Che-Guevara T-shirts and all things perceived to be Socialist.


Yeah, it was bound to happen. Mass pop commercial culture does this to *everything*....

As I mentioned above, there's a difference between the *objective* politics (and practice) and whatever bastardization culture may use politics as subject matter for their social fashions.





All the arguments and reasoning behind the aims of the Left have long gone cold.


I can't speak for the less-than-revolutionary left -- meaning (many) anarchists, and radicals, progressives, Greens, liberals, reformists, social democrats, etc.

The problem with going to the right of the revolutionary left on the political spectrum is that not only does politics go soft, but so does objectivity, so whatever you hear from the soft left about *theory* has to be filtered through soft-leftism *in reverse* to make sense of it.

This is also why there's more of a social-fashion culture around the soft left because that's meant to caulk in the gaps left by removing actual politics and objective theory.





When was the last time you heard any good debates on economics? Why are so few people interested in Brenner's work? - after all, he only speculates on the crises of Capitalism.


Can't speak to Brenner, whoever that is. I stay around RevLeft because it's the single best resource for dealing with revolutionary politics *dynamically* -- I wish this was around in the early and mid-'90s when I was first politicized (and that was into revolutionary socialism).





And the preservation of Dialectics demonstrates to me that we are no better than Christians when it comes to science, economics and history.


This statement is a tragic disservice to leftism in general -- have you been to the World Socialist Web Site? Marxist.com?





We do hold beliefs that are not universal and are only held because an identity was formed, which in turn, requires the preservation of such beliefs in order to maintain the identity.


I guess you'd have to advance specifics here....

[Pogue]

I'd maintain that Socialism isn't a social identity. This certainly comes into it but that ignores our whole anaylsis and approach to society.

Socialism in the form of marxism is an sociological perspective, and thus a way of analysing and interpreting society and the world in general.

Socialism is also a political ideology. Yes we identify with certain things in it but unless your totally absorbed in a socialist subculture or the general movement it doesn't become solely a social identity, although obviously if you're active or open with your views it could be said to become such.

[davidasearles]

Red Eck:

in reply to davidasearles,

Intelligent design is intended as a challenge to Natural Selection.

*********
of course it is. so what. all ideas are to be challenged
*********


When it comes to evolution, Christians are anti-science and then deny they are anti-science.


******
no doubt some are. so what? Can't science withstand it?
******

Like with sex education, they try to insist abstention to be a universal practice,


*****
again you are over generalizing. That's very unscientific, don't you agree?
*********

when in actual fact it's a Christian one. Forcibly imposing their own beliefs onto everyone else by insisting such beliefs to be universal, when in actual fact, they are beliefs specific to their identity only.

Do you consider Intelligent Design to be a universal set of beliefs?

If so, your motivation for arguing must be purely partisan, as ID is clearly not universal and is a specific belief of only the Christian identity.

**********
And here I thought that my motivation was to point out that you were making generalizations without logical or factual support
******************

If anyone joins a Christian group, they will likely be told that Natural Selection is 'flawed' and that Intelligent Design holds the real answer. That is why Christians are antagonistic towards Natural Selection.

************
again no data to support your statement. How very unscientific.

[red eck]

Here's an article from the Telegraph discussing the outcome of a poll called the ComRes survey on people's beliefs on Intelligent Design and Natural Selection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4410927/Poll-reveals-public-doubts-over-Charles-Darwins-theory-of-evolution.html


In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages"
And which institution is responsible for this outcome?




A recent poll of science teachers found that one in three believe creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.
Where it says 'creationism' read 'Christianity'.

What you are doing, Mr davidasearles, is like asking me to prove that every Christian is antagonistic towards Natural Selection. I don't have the resources to carry out such a massive empirical task, I have only google. But will you at least agree, that people who sign up to the Christian idenity, will have to accept that their institution as a whole is antagonistic towards Natural Selection? And that it is therfore reasonable to regard all members of the Christian identity as anti-Darwin. If one person of Christian identity does not like it, then all they have to do is stop being Christian.

Can you prove that all members of the KKK are racist? Do we have to??

[davidasearles]

Red Eck:

Where it says 'creationism' read 'Christianity'.

das:

Sorry - its an over generalization.

And so what about the poll. What does it prove? What would it have proven if it had turned out that the entire 51% also identified themselves as Christians? Not a thing as to cause. A significant enough number of Christians it would seem agree that natural selection is a fact of life, sufficient that it cannot be logical to say that all or even most people or groups identifying themselves as christian support the idea of intelligent design over natural selection outside of church.

I heard one preacher say on a similar topic that the bible contains many truths, some of them factual.

[red eck]

Where it says 'creationism' read 'Christianity'.das:

Sorry - its an over generalization.So, are you suggesting that those 1/3 of teachers who think creationism should be taught alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe are not Christians?

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/elec-j09.shtml


Obama, Clinton and identity politics


By Patrick Martin
9 June 2008

The victory of Senator Barack Obama in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has been hailed by the American media and political establishment as a testament to the progressive and democratic character of American politics and society.

Obama is the first African-American to win the presidential nomination of one of the two major big-business parties. His chief rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he narrowly defeated in the protracted primary contest, is the most successful ever female candidate for the presidential nomination.

Clinton touched on identity politics in her speech Saturday in which she officially bowed out of the race, suspending her campaign and endorsing Obama. The speech was greeted with rapturous applause from both the Democratic Party leadership and the media.

Throughout her 28-minute address, Clinton presented her campaign as a pioneering effort for women’s rights that, while falling short of the ultimate goal, nonetheless represented a step forward. “As we gather here today, the 50th woman to leave this Earth is orbiting overhead,” she declared. “If we can blast 50 women into space, we will someday launch a woman into the White House.”

In her most explicit embrace of a feminist rationale for her campaign, Clinton said, “I was proud to be running as a woman, but I was running because I thought I would be the best president. But I am a woman, and like millions of women I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious, and I want to build an America that embraces and respects the potential of every last one of us. We must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay and equal respect.”

At the same time, she hailed Obama’s campaign as equally transformative. “When we first started, people everywhere asked the same questions. Could a woman really serve as commander-in-chief? Well, I think we answered that one. Could an African-American really be our president? And Senator Obama has answered that one. Together, Senator Obama and I achieved milestones essential to our progress as a nation, part of our perpetual duty to form a more perfect union.”

Obama responded in kind, with a statement declaring, “I am thrilled and honored to have Sen. Clinton’s support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams.”

According to the American media, the emergence of African-American man and a woman as leading presidential candidates represents a social advance for masses of people—despite the fact that Obama was carefully groomed by wealthy corporate interests, while Hillary Clinton owes her political prominence to her marriage to the former president.

The tone of uncritical media celebration was expressed quite openly by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in an op-ed piece published June 7 under the headline, “Savor the Moment.” Herbert contrasts the Obama-Clinton contest in 2008 to the prevalence of racism and sexism in the America of 1968, when George Wallace ran as an independent candidate for president on a segregationist platform and women were largely excluded from politics and many professional careers.

“Racism and sexism have not taken their leave,” Herbert writes. “But the fact that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and that the two finalists for that prize were a black man and a white woman, are historical events of the highest importance. We should not allow ourselves to overlook the wonder of this moment.”

The columnist concludes, “We’ll see whether Senator Obama gets elected president. But whether he does or not, this is a moment of which Americans can be proud, a moment the society can build upon. So a victory lap is in order. Not for Senator Obama (he still has a way to go), but for all those in every station in life who ever refused to submit quietly to hatred and oppression. They led us to a better place.”

What precisely is the nature of this “better place”? What has been the real record of American society over the four decades since 1968? No doubt there has been a decline in the overt expression of race and gender bias. But in the most fundamental sense, in class and economic terms, America is more unequal today than at any time since the days of the Robber Barons in the late nineteenth century.

The top one percent in American society controls more than 45 percent of the wealth. The top one-tenth of one percent has monopolized nearly the entire increase in national wealth over the last two decades, while the vast majority of the people have seen their living conditions deteriorate, their jobs become more precarious, their overall social position become more insecure.

For black workers and youth, the decline has been even more precipitous. It is hardly necessary to recite the well-known figures: more young black men in prison than in college, crumbling schools and other social services in the inner cities, poverty levels once again approaching those of the early 1960s, disproportionate levels of unemployment, drug abuse, violence, homelessness and other social evils.

This social polarization has been to some extent masked by the inclusion of a small layer of blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, etc., in the privileged elite. But the rise of an Oprah Winfrey or a Tiger Woods or a Barack Obama (or a Hillary Clinton) does not make America a more egalitarian society.

Having a black man, Colin Powell, as chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or a black woman, Condoleezza Rice, as national security adviser and now secretary of state during the ongoing war in Iraq does not alter the imperialist and predatory character of those wars. Nor did having an African-American (CEO Stanley O’Neal) at the helm of Merrill-Lynch make the collapse of the subprime mortgage market—due largely to rampant speculation and deceptive lending practices—more tolerable for millions of low-income borrowers (a disproportionate number of them from minority communities).

Herbert harks back to the conditions of 1968, but ignores the class-conscious political response to the social upheavals of that era on the part of the American ruling elite. It embarked on a deliberate policy of recruiting a layer of black professionals who could be promoted as the “representatives” of their community, while leaving the basic social structure of America untouched.

The big cities that had become battlegrounds during the ghetto eruptions of the 1960s were largely handed over to African-American mayors. A layer of black and Hispanic congressmen and congresswomen took office, providing an essential prop of the Democratic Party. Similar efforts took place in the media, in the trade union bureaucracy and in the ranks of corporate management.

One of the most conscious advocates of this process was Richard Nixon, whose administration—it is now widely forgotten—pioneered the concept of “affirmative action” as a means of recruiting and co-opting a privileged layer in the black middle class. With consummate cynicism, Nixon combined this policy with a strategy based on appealing to a white racist backlash, particularly in the South, to bolster the electoral base of the Republican Party.

The coincidence of appeals to racial prejudice and the promotion of identity politics was not accidental. The essential aim of the official promotion of identity politics was, and remains, to foster divisions within the working population and divert attention from the more fundamental social and economic sources of poverty, exploitation and oppression.

What Herbert ignores, like most commentators in the bourgeois media, is the essential division of American society—the class division.

There is no doubt that the Obama nomination—and still more, should it transpire, an Obama presidency—will be used to whip up popular illusions in the democratic character of American society. The social reality, however, is very different.

An Obama administration will represent and defend the interests of the financial aristocracy that rules America. Tens of millions of working people—black, white, Hispanic and Asian, men and women—will come to recognize this social fact in the course of explosive and bitter struggles.


Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

[Hoxhaist]

While it is important to recognize the significance of Obama's nomination and Hillary's campaign, it seems that the focus of the gender and racial origins of the candidates was a replacement for the real issues facing America.
It seems to have been a smokescreen as was the "CHANGE" slogan. Especially seen in Obama's appointment of old Clinton people and the retension of Bush's Sec/ of Defense.
The continuance of the bailouts for Wall Street and the respect for the "sanctity" of AIG bonus contracts while UAW was pressured into losing benefits in a contract "renegotiation"
Obama not only continued but expanded the double standard for unions and management.

[ckaihatsu]

While it is important to recognize the significance of Obama's nomination and Hillary's campaign, it seems that the focus of the gender and racial origins of the candidates was a replacement for the real issues facing America.
It seems to have been a smokescreen as was the "CHANGE" slogan. Especially seen in Obama's appointment of old Clinton people and the retension of Bush's Sec/ of Defense.
The continuance of the bailouts for Wall Street and the respect for the "sanctity" of AIG bonus contracts while UAW was pressured into losing benefits in a contract "renegotiation"
Obama not only continued but expanded the double standard for unions and management.


Yup -- the history has already been written on the Obama Administration. Never mind their social identity -- let's take a look at the *political* identity of Obama, et al....






Labor rights

Obama supports the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that adds penalties for labor violations and which would circumvent the secret ballot requirement to organize a union. Obama promises to sign the EFCA into law.[6] He is also a cosponsor of the "Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradesworkers" or RESPECT act (S. 969) that aims to overturn the National Labor Relations Board's "Kentucky River" 532 U.S. 706 (2001) decision that redefined many employees lacking the authority to hire, fire, or discipline, as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama





UNITY & INDEPENDENCE
Supplement to The Organizer Newspaper
P.O. Box 40009, San Francisco, CA 94140.
Tel. (415) 641-8616; fax: (415) 626-1217.
email: [email protected],net
Please Excuse Duplicate Postings
------------------------------------------------

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

The article below from the April 3 New York Times on Larry Summers, President Obama's top economic adviser, is very revealing. This same Summers who was paid all these millions of dollars by the Wall Street speculators is the very same person who stated in an ad published in the Times on March 11, 2009, that "unionization is a cause of long-term unemployment" and that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is a bad idea at this time.

Summers' statement, plus the earlier declarations from Obama himself that he would welcome a "compromise resolution" on EFCA that "could meet the legitimate concerns of the business community who oppose the bill," sent a signal to the country that EFCA is now off the table. True, Obama said he would sign EFCA if it came to his desk, but as he said this he was also sending an unmistakable signal to the corporate elite and the politicians that EFCA might very well be too "divisive" at this juncture. (source: Washington Post interview, Jan. 16, 2009)

Accordingly, Arlen Specter, Dianne Feinstein and a handful of other elected officials went public to announce their desire to find a "compromise" resolution -- one that essentially keeps the anti-union laws on the books, but tweaks them just a bit. It is highly unlikely that Summers could have gone public with his anti-EFCA statement without the knowledge of -- and perhaps even nod from -- his commander in chief.

The challenge to the labor movement is immense. None of the leaders of the labor movement to my knowledge challenged Summers for his anti-union statement in the ad published in The New York Times. Brother Harry Kelber called them to task for this -- and he was absolutely right to do so.

And then you have SEIU President Andy Stern and his statement to The Nation magazine on December 10, 2008, according to which the task of the labor movement today is "to make sure that what the President wants to get done, gets done" -- and NOT to put forward our own labor agenda if this creates friction with the employers and the new administration. Stern stressed the need to pursue "interdependence" with the employers and the government -- not to push for our "independence" (meaning NOT to present and fight for our own class interests, independently, if this meets with opposition from the corporate class).

So, should the labor movement now backtrack on EFCA and fight for the best-possible alternative thrown at us by the robber class, as Sister Cindy Sheehan calls the corporate elite who rule this country?

No! To abandon our agenda would be suicidal.

[...]