Socialist 'Ten Commandments' - 3 comments

I'm told the following was used in Socialist Sunday Schools (a little thin on the ground, nowadays) around 1900, to be committed to memory by the children.

1. Love your school companions, who will be your co-workers in life.
2. Love learning, which is the food of the mind, be as grateful to your teachers as to your parents.
3. Make every day holy by good and useful deeds, and kindly actions.
4. Honour good men and women, be courteous to all; and bow down to none.
5. Do not hate or speak evil of anyone; do not be revengeful, but stand up for your rights and resist oppression.
6. Do not be cowardly. Be a friend to the weak, and love justice.
7. Remember that all good things of the earth are produced by labour. Whoever enjoys them without working for them is stealing the bread of the workers.
8. Observe and think in order to discover the truth. Do not believe what is contrary to reason, and never deceive yourself or others.
9. Do not think that they who love their own country must hate and despise other nations, or wish for war, which is a remnant of barbarism.
10. Look forward to the day when all men and women will be free citizens of one community, and live together as equals in peace and righteousness.

Good advice for boys and girls of any age.

Via Laban, via Paul Stott.

More on bonuses - 5 comments

I had planned to comment on Peter Hain's plea (actually, it was a veiled demand) a fortnight ago that City firms donate "two-thirds of their bonus pots to charity rather than giving employees six-figure bonuses", but I didn't take it seriously. However, city bonuses seem to have become a cause célèbre for politicians who seem to have lost the will to talk about genuinely egalitarian politics.

Chris Dillow cites Ian Gibson MP's recent comments [via]:

I don't think people should have bonuses at all. They are unacceptable. I think it’s got worse. If the Labour Party recognised this problem then they would have more support today.

Well, why might bonuses be offered? Sure, there are fiddles, but the most plausible reason is to make it worth workers while to work harder (without compulsion), to improve the running of their organisation, take responsibility for its success, and to come up with ideas for making it more efficient. Without making it too obvious which one is which, I will have worked in:

1. An organisation so large that my personal contribution couldn't possibly affect my bonus.
2. A tiny organisation, unable to offer any incentive at all for a greater contribution.
3. A small organisation that was able to offer large bonuses in successful years.

Clearly the incentives are non-existent in (1) and (2), but where they do apply - in (3) - do they promote greed? Well, not necessarily. I don't see why any of the above would not apply just as strongly in a future socialist economy/society, characterised by cooperatives, a one-off equalisation of wealth, and controls on inheritance. People need reasons to do anything, and to make it impossible for them to benefit from their actions is a nail in the coffin of the legitimate economy, whatever economic system is in place. In the case of City bonuses, The Treasury/charities might be lucky enough to earn a windfall in Year 1, but the fund will swiftly dry up, reappearing elsewhere in a different form.

The real danger comes about when these "bonuses" are entrenched, allowing the recipient to gain economic or political power in this generation, or giving their offspring an undeserved head-start in the next - but these abuses can be tackled in other ways (inheritance tax, for one), as they very well should be.

Tom S lists a number of practical objections to bonuses in a comment left at Chris' blog above, and to deal with one of those here: of course we hope that human beings would work hard and innovate for the sheer love of the State it - their colleagues, their profession, the public they serve, their community, and so on. Perhaps this is an impulse it's harder to imagine existing if you believe that work is "alienating" (in the Marxist sense). Surely, though, our society should benefit as a result of human benevolence, rather than being dependent upon it.

So the challenge as I see it is to find some way of encouraging (or perhaps, rediscovering) benevolent and charitable behaviour - a feeling in people that they ought to contribute to society because it makes for a more contended place for all, rather than leaving this decision entirely to governments, and concealing your wealth whenever you have enough of it. I don't accept this is just a "City" problem: the lack of benevolent behaviour ("greed", if you like) is not the preserve of the super-rich - it increases with income, from a low base, and particularly affects the non-religious - even though the sums involved here are huge. Moreover, for too many on our side, "the City" is a place of fear, mystery, and conspiracy, and it's too tempting to single it out rather than tackle a society-wide problem.

Sophistry on faith-based discrimination - 7 comments

I've come to this quite late, but I might as well set out some of my own views, for the record. To start off, though, Andrew at Wongablog has an excellent post on the Archbishops of York and Canterbury's defence of "individual conscience" in matters of sexuality-based discrimination. Here's a stand-out sentence:

I’m not criticising her [Ruth Kelly] because of her faith affiliation, I’m criticising her because her arguments make no sense. [...] But I wouldn’t say she’s not fit to hold public office - she gives every impression of being a very intelligent and competent woman, it’s just that the evidence seems to suggest she has a blind spot when it comes to faith-related matters.

I might have summarised the issue as simply as this:

Treating people differently on the sole basis of their sexual orientation is a clear breach of universal human rights. End of story.

A couple of supplementary points, though. Given that there are no limits on faith, and no mechanism through which they can be evaluated conclusively (by definition), it should be obvious that we cannot accept one faith-based argument without accepting all such arguments, including contradictory ones. So until the various Churches decide to use moral, or practical arguments (based upon evidence), or else insist upon an individual's general right to discriminate as their conscience demands, their call for individual consciences to trump our moral principles in particular cases, is without any merit whatsoever. What's particularly pitiful is that the Archbishops are either unwilling or unable to use the teachings of their own religion to bolster their case, so meek are they. Aware that none of the above strategies can extricate them from their impossible position, they resort to sophistry in an attempt to steal the argument, covering their backs to avoid direct criticism, perhaps hoping the political heat might tell on ministers. What reasonable people they are - how cold we must be:

Those discussions have been conducted in good faith, in mutual respect and with an appropriate level of confidence on all sides. [...] As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration [...]

I'm ashamed to say that I consulted Nick Robinson's blog for the "talk among the backbenches", and found something almost as ludicrous as the Archbishops' statements (my emphasis):

[...] Allow me to delicately suggest, however, that the attitudes being displayed now towards Catholics in public life must feel to them like a form of prejudice and discrimination.

Saints preserve us! We really should display this more prominently:

More miraculous powers of tea - 1 comment

Forget secularism, and forget hip priests, the BBC can exclusively reveal the true cause of the decline in Christian worship, and the loss of respect for its institutions:


No doubt the 'powers that be' will have 'corrected' this 'error' by the time you read the article over your breakfast.

Bill Gorman, chairman of the Tea Council, also said the study was "another very positive piece of research for tea as it's clear that the researchers recognise that tea has significant health effects".

This representative of a producer group obviously isn't afraid to put his organisation's credibility on the line:

The researchers tested the effects of tea in 16 humans and on rat tissue.

No fisking required - no comments

News from the front in the War Against The Middle Class Motorists Grammar Schools Secularism Religion [via]:

There's an aspiring totalitarianism in Britain which is brilliantly disguised. It's disguised because the would-be dictators - and there are many of them - all pretend to be more tolerant than thou. They hide alongside the anti-racists, the anti-homophobes and anti-sexists. But what they are really against is something very different. They - call them secular fundamentalists - are anti-God, and what they really want is the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth.

It's so brilliantly disguised that author, Tobias Jones, is unable to provide the slightest bit of evidence to support his claims. Honestly, I've read it all, and it's pure conjecture - like The Evening Standard for pseuds:

There's also the fact that we live in a cultural milieu dominated by postmodernism.

It's a fact, so it's no use you denying it. The brilliance of the disguise is probably why you can't see that this is true.

These new militants, however, believe themselves to be the only arbiters of taste; they want to eradicate the root and cause. They will dictate what you can wear and what you can say. That, after all, is what totalitarians do.

Oh shut up already. I think the message is clear: stay away from CiF if you want to hear thoughtful people discussing moral or religious issues.

Neal Lawson's illiberalism - 2 comments

Says the Don (who also links to several other critiques), Compass Chair, Neal Lawson, is "a man with a track record of inept and counter-productive support of a range of good causes". The latest mission: using your own ignorance of economics and philosophy, and reluctance to engage with other's arguments, erect a straw man, and call him The Political System. Then, contrarian, demolish with whatever argument you fancy: here, the lukewarm platitudes of priests.

Where do we get moral leadership from today? As we pick up the pieces of another swiped out festive season it's a fitting question. Is there something more to life than the endless cycle of overconsumption? How can the Iraq war or exorbitant city bonuses be justified? Increasingly it is our religious rather than political leaders who attempt to answer these difficult and pressing questions.

The mainstream media in this country undoubtedly trivialises politics in the UK, but the world is full of moral guidance (leadership, if you must): throughout our lives we watch, listen to, and read about the activities of people ranging from family members, to schoolteachers, businesspeople, politicians, and people with many different points of view and ideology, and we respond to what we take to be the positive and negative consequences of those actions, adapting towards what we hope to be 'the good life'. It's central to Lawson's argument that humanity is incapable of any such growth; without the moral leadership - and Lawson clearly has specific moral leadership in mind - the result is disaster. After all, what else could "overconsumption" mean? It's impossible to prove either way, it can be defined any way Neal likes, it sounds bad, and it plays on our guilt, so it's an essential part of the vocabulary for any budding puritan.

I had intended to post just before Christmas in defence of consumerism. It seems to be used overwhelmingly in a puritanical, as well as a snobbish manner, implying that self-appointed arbiters are a better judge of what people spend their money on than they themselves, that the general population is too unsophisticated to see through advertisers' messages, that most shoppers - unlike the happy aesthete - shop out of habit, and for the sheer love of money, and possessions. Consumerism^* also implies the population, free to walk the streets, and the puritan fears this kind of mass movement. What is this moral guidance that the religious authorities have to offer? An anti-democratic contempt for the above, but without anything so controversial as an appeal to charity, humility, or generosity? Nothing but platitudes appear in Lawson's piece, just the unfalsifiable "Something (what?) is wrong; something must be done!" that we expect from a Cameron or a Princess Di.

To sacrifice the concept of individual freedom, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor appears to advocate - something that the powerless have struggled to seize from the powerful (religious leaders very much included) throughout human history - in favour of some hot air about "the fundamental questions on the sense and direction of our lives", seems designed to return humanity to the stupefaction of centuries past. If Lawson were to realise that it is attempts by religious authorities to increase their presence in schools, to advocate and enforce dress codes (those affected naturally only become "some of society's most vulnerable people" for Neal when the rules are challenged, and the religion takes offence on the individuals' behalf), to defend blasphemy laws, to suppress freedom of speech, to meekly tolerate violence against their own communities, or to tolerate and even advocate the preaching of violence against others - rather than the peaceful faith of individuals - that is a matter of legitimate public concern over the influence of religious representatives, he might be less inclined to impugn atheists, secularists, rationalists, and politicians, not to mention workers at Goldman Sachs.

Our politicians have forgotten that power and principle are two sides of the same coin. Politics has stopped being a different vision of the good society and is instead a job for technocrats and for self-proclaimed rationalists.

To suggest that those involved in politics aren't interested in visions of a good society is a pretty ignorant comment for someone loosely involved with the blogosphere, and who must encounter individual politicians and political bloggers frequently. Neal might have a point if he has "managerialism" in his sights, but substituting the idea that unelected religious teachers should "lead and motivate the nation", in place of elected politicians doing so, hardly seems an attractive one, even if you believe that people have to be led. The fact that individuals, companies, or collectives, could be empowered to tackle society's problems in a more decentralised way seems hardly to have been considered. Now who's out of touch?

Not content with using the current state of Iraq to say "we were right" to the disparate group known as "opponents of the war", whatever the arguments - some 'realistic', some repulsive - those individuals employed, what Lawson implies is a kind of victor's justice, under which those who fall into the "supporters of the war" camp are to be judged moral criminals, morally vacuous, timorous, or 'careerist', irrespective of the arguments they used, and the principles they sought to promote and defend. Whatever kind of politics could produce this, it's not liberal. Only a tyrant - or a mob - could celebrate the chaos in Iraq - or indeed any argument they believe themselves to have won - with a victimisation of their opponents, as if the moral case was done and dusted, and the continuing debate pushed to one side. Norm's piece on this is a breath of fresh mountain air in comparison.

I don't deny that there will be religious figures (and to reiterate, I'm not talking about individuals with religious faith) who, on the basis of their brains, imagination, humanity, and so on, have acquired a moral authority of their own - or who bring evidence to discussions - and have earned the right to be listened to by thoughtful people. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes they enjoy the same right on the basis of their status within their particular sect, or on the basis of a personal recommendation by Neal Lawson (for whom "overly rationalist" is a censure, rather than a precondition for an intelligent debate), can get to the back of a very long queue.

-----
^* My dictionary gives an additional definition of "consumerism", namely "the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers". Is this also frowned upon?