Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion

[Anonymous]

twc wrote:

From the SPGB Declaration of Principles …[quote-SPGB] 7. That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.8. The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to lure and wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, …

Your “matriarchally” improved version insults the matriarchies that founded human society:

Steve-SanFrancisco wrote:

7. That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must subvert every other party.8. The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to lure and seduce all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, …

Such dishonesty, advocated in cowardly deference to your imagined “matriarchal” terminology, simply unmasks your duplicitous role here—to subvert, to lure and to seduce.I repeat.  If you must, ply your disgusting deception elsewhere.[/quote]Well, I have Eagle eyes. Some romantic theoretician did not believe what I was saying If you give to this research expert  a recipe to cook Chinese food, he would cook Arabian food. He twists all the conceptsIf Hollywood decide to give trophies and Grammy for Bullshit comedy, he will win all of them, and probably the Academy would be forced to borrow some from Charlton Heston, Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Mario Puzzo and Copolla, because they would not have enough.We must continue our discussion on socialism, and forget about anything else, Let's continue in our path, we have more important issues

[Anonymous]

I would prefer to have in this forum a proletarian agitator, than a bourgeois  provocateur, and a capitalist lover.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

Hi Mod 1I'm not sure if the above post refers to me, however, just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR  Mod 1 I did not take "responsibility" for rule enforcement, Nor did I state that I believed that any post violated any rule. Similarly I did not "chastise" anyone for anything. (I gave up chastising when I left the Catholic Church). I also want to make it clear that I'm not questioning a moderation decision, merely expressing surprise. I assume it is within the rules of the forum to be surprised. life would be very dull without surprises.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

Hi Mod 1I'm not sure if the above post refers to me, however, just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR  Mod 1 I did not take "responsibility" for rule enforcement, Nor did I state that I believed that any post violated any rule. Similarly I did not "chastise" anyone for anything. (I gave up chastising when I left the Catholic Church). I also want to make it clear that I'm not questioning a moderation decision, merely expressing surprise. I assume it is within the rules of the forum to be surprised. life would be very dull without surprises.

Just to be absolutely clear.   A reminder is not directed at an individual user but at all users.  

[Bijou Drains]

mcolome1 wrote:

I would prefer to have in this forum a proletarian agitator, than a bourgeois  provocateur, and a capitalist lover.

[twc]

gnome wrote:

Agreed, except that the word 'lure' doesn't appear anywhere in our Declaration of Principles.  'Wage war against' most certainly, but the SPGB does not 'lure'.

Sorry, in my copy/paste editing of our Declaration to reproduce his criticism of it alongside our original, I incorrectly pasted his word ‘lure’ in our original version, and unfortunately left it there.World time zone differences precluded me from reading, until now, what you immediately picked up.  I’ve just read it, but I can no longer edit it, and so the shameful word ‘lure’ that we all know never disgraced the Party in its 111 years must stand in my abortive copying.Thanks, and humble apologies.

[twc]

Perhaps moderator1 might kindly change    “lure and wage war against”     into    “wage war against”in post #116?

[moderator1]

twc wrote:

Perhaps moderator1 might kindly change    “lure and wage war against”     into    “wage war against”in post #116?

You should have PMed this request under the rules.  Your unfortunate mistake was referred to in #118 so any changes to your content in #116 would amount to changing the historical record. Which under the 'Moderators guidelines and rules' is prohibited. 

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

twc wrote:

Perhaps moderator1 might kindly change    “lure and wage war against”     into    “wage war against”in post #116?

You should have PMed this request under the rules.  Your unfortunate mistake was referred to in #118 so any changes to your content in #116 would amount to changing the historical record. Which under the 'Moderators guidelines and rules' is prohibited.

What another load of baloney.  A genuine mistake was made so why on earth can't twc's post be amended accordingly?  It strikes me that these so-called 'moderators guidelines and rules' are either being made up on the hoof or, if this particular 'rule' actually exists, is not fit for purpose.

[moderator1]

gnome wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

twc wrote:

Perhaps moderator1 might kindly change    “lure and wage war against”     into    “wage war against”in post #116?

You should have PMed this request under the rules.  Your unfortunate mistake was referred to in #118 so any changes to your content in #116 would amount to changing the historical record. Which under the 'Moderators guidelines and rules' is prohibited.

What another load of baloney.  A genuine mistake was made so why on earth can't twc's post be amended accordingly?  It strikes me that these so-called 'moderators guidelines and rules' are either being made up on the hoof or, if this particular 'rule' actually exists, is not fit for purpose.

If I had carried out the delition #118 and the subsequent conversation arising from the mistake would not have made any sense for the mistake would have mysteriously disappeared from the original text. 

[Dave B]

The problem with the title of the thread is that the only successful ‘communist community’ ;that lasted a hundred years or so. [successful communist community being one that practiced a free access moneyless system within it of voluntary labour etc.] was one that prohibited sex , and was ‘christian’ ie the Shakers. http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm the communist part of it however is pretty much left out of the otherwise glowing Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers Engels said it was communism in 1844 anyway in a preamble to his pamphlet in a letter to Karl. It is quite clear also that many of the early Christians were communists in the sense that they believed in having things in common As in Didache circa 100AD , epistle of Barnabas 130, anti Christian tract passing of Peregrinus 170 , Celsus again anti Christian and ad 170, Justyn the Martyr circa 130. etc. Ignoring the well trawled acts stuff. And there is also the other stuff, like below again from 2nd century. For man God made all things to be common property. He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed rightousness to be a universal sharing along with equality. But those who have been born in this way have denied the sharing which is the corollary of their origin and say Let him who has taken one woman keep her, whereas all can share her, just as the other animals show us. With view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God´s decree……Consequently one must understand the saying You shall not desire as if the lawgiver was making a jest, to which he added the even more comic words Your neighbors goods. For he himself gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be supposed, though he removes it from no other animals. And by the words Your neighbors wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private posession.  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/epiphanes.html Sexist orientated admittedly but plenty to sink your teeth over that kind of thing????? This stuff however seems to be preserved by early Christians critiquing some kind free love notion of Christian communism; looks like flower power kind of stuff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpocrates

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

The problem with the title of the thread is that the only successful ‘communist community’ ;that lasted a hundred years or so. [successful communist community being one that practiced a free access moneyless system within it of voluntary labour etc.] was one that prohibited sex , and was ‘christian’ ie the Shakers. http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm the communist part of it however is pretty much left out of the otherwise glowing Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers Engels said it was communism in 1844 anyway in a preamble to his pamphlet in a letter to Karl. It is quite clear also that many of the early Christians were communists in the sense that they believed in having things in common As in Didache circa 100AD , epistle of Barnabas 130, anti Christian tract passing of Peregrinus 170 , Celsus again anti Christian and ad 170, Justyn the Martyr circa 130. etc. Ignoring the well trawled acts stuff. And there is also the other stuff, like below again from 2nd century. For man God made all things to be common property. He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed rightousness to be a universal sharing along with equality. But those who have been born in this way have denied the sharing which is the corollary of their origin and say Let him who has taken one woman keep her, whereas all can share her, just as the other animals show us. With view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God´s decree……Consequently one must understand the saying You shall not desire as if the lawgiver was making a jest, to which he added the even more comic words Your neighbors goods. For he himself gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be supposed, though he removes it from no other animals. And by the words Your neighbors wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private posession.  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/epiphanes.html Sexist orientated admittedly but plenty to sink your teeth over that kind of thing????? This stuff however seems to be preserved by early Christians critiquing some kind free love notion of Christian communism; looks like flower power kind of stuff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpocrates

 Christianity was also a Roman  working class movement, and they never supported wars, or the state, or Emperors, and women were not discriminated in the same way they are now by all the monotheist religion. Christians of our era do not know that historical passage or their pastors do not want them to know that. Robably, some of our communists principles came from ChristianityFor more than 900 in the Middle East, Christian, Muslim, and Jews, lived together in harmony, peace and understanding, and each ones practiced their religion freely without any type of confrontation, and they shared among themselves

[twc]

Thanks, moderator1, for your explanation and moderation.I made the suggestion because I had mangled something as important as the Party Declaration of Principles. However, on reflection, I am happy to agree that my post #116 should stand in its mangled form, and that the related discussion should stand.I made a mistake that others drew attention to.  Yes, this minor episode on a major matter of principle deserves to stand in its naked unaltered form for any to see.twc

[Anonymous]

twc wrote:

gnome wrote:

Agreed, except that the word 'lure' doesn't appear anywhere in our Declaration of Principles.  'Wage war against' most certainly, but the SPGB does not 'lure'.

Sorry, in my copy/paste editing of our Declaration to reproduce his criticism of it alongside our original, I incorrectly pasted his word ‘lure’ in our original version, and unfortunately left it there.World time zone differences precluded me from reading, until now, what you immediately picked up.  I’ve just read it, but I can no longer edit it, and so the shameful word ‘lure’ that we all know never disgraced the Party in its 111 years must stand in my abortive copying.Thanks, and humble apologies.

I read most of what you wrote up to here.  I think you do protest too much.  Who's really being disruptive here based on counting the number of off topic comments and moderator warnings?  What would Karl Marx's "strongest" living "male debater" say on the strategic and moral and political "critical differences" between luring and attacking?  — or –What would Karl Marx's "most persuasive" living "female advocate" say on the strategic and moral and political "considerations shared" between luring and attaking?– Proposed ideas –1) The greatest trick the devil ever pulled on you was convincing you he didn't exist.  The greatest trick the capitalist ever pulled on you, was convincing you it was better for you to attack capitalist until they agree with you than it is to lure capitalst into agreement with you.2) Check your social norm on this topic for consistency with the principles of Marx.  Do socialist reach for the gun and use a kiss later to make up for it?  Or do they reach out with open arms to the world and keep a knife in their back pocket in case things go bad?  Guns are better than knives in socialism?  Or are knives considered the weapon of the people?3) Do socialist Kiss or do they Hug?  The answers to these questions are not just opinions, they are social norm questions that characterize the voice and "tone of voice" that Socialist are percieved as by the world.  Both socialist and capitalist use tone of voice in writing and word choice to distnguish between group philosophies and identities in the social ecosystem.4) Can you recognize the tone of voice difference by demonstrating you understand how you as a group answer these questions about tone of voce and gender and approach and strategy by actually answering the questions and checking confirmation statistics?  Do you understand your people well enough to answer those questions I posted at the begining of this paragraph as a statistical statement of % agreement for SPGB?  If you're wrong and you can't guess statistical agreement for SPGB very closely, than it undermines your credibilty about how accurately and completely YOU represent SPGB community values and beliefs.  So are you being a faithfull representative of the people like a "true Socialist" would be?  if the answer is yes, then you will know the statistical norm argeement to the quesions I am posing it's required knowledge for you to represent the people that you have a good understand of their statistical agreement with you on certain topics.  to make a sincere and credible claim to understand the difference between a "Socialist" and a "Capitalist" then you should really want to know also the difference between a "True Socialist" and a "True Capitalist".  Can you prove you understand capitalist well enough to predict their statistical agreement with the questions I posed? If you claim to really understant the nature of capitalist and the heart of capitalist then surely you can guess their statistical choice between the two or questions I posed the begining of my comment   If you can't guess reasonably well the statistical agreement to answers to these opinion questions then you need a surveyin order to better act like a socialist. Socialism isn't just a theory, it's a way of life and doing things and you need to check regularly for new ideas in how to live and act more like a socialist would want the whole world to live and act.  Practicing and learning socialism never ends and is something you can always explore in a new direction. But first you need to understand the direction you're going by how the answers to these statistical opinon questions change over time for SPGB community.  This "true understanding" at a statistical counting level is the ability and behavior needed to be a "True Socialist".  5) It's a well known psychological principle that vocal minority groups suffer from a cognitive bias that over-estimates their own importance and the volume of the their voice in the bigger world outside their community.  They do not represent the whole world equally as well as they represent their smaller group.  But statisitcally we can discover who they really represent based on their ability to estimate their support for an idea they are promoting.  So for example if you think 50% of the SPGB community agreas more with the first question variation using a male tone of voice, and 50% of the SPGB community agree more with the second variation using a female tone of voice.  Then I can (in theory) compare you're guess with my guess to see who better undersands and represents the people with their arguments.  Asking you to guess the percent agreement in SPGB community VS your guess of the percent agreement to any question you expect for Great Brittain can, with the power of math, tell me how inclusive your world view is.  So we do this with what are called worldview tag questions.  And yes this is all extended theoretical understanding of communication theory I'm talking about and yes it was invented for advertisers working for capitalism and YES Karl Marx said capitalism would provide the means for communism.  And this is a a "means" or a medan and or mean solvable problem.  .   Can you summarize you opinions by clarifying wich of the above numbered items is most agreeable to you and which is least agreeable to you. If you can't do that than you don't truly know yourself and will never be able to defeat the capitalist.  Lest uptrain your social norms and skills with a progressive makeover for ideas on socialistm?  Go ahead and reply how you want, but answer for me first before I waste more of my time on you the answer to a simple proof that you spent your time reading what I wrote here.  Include in your reply proof that you read what I wrote and considered it. Copy into yor reply your favorite and most agreeable numbered item above and then you're least agreeable numbered item from above.  Do that first and I'll take my time reading your reply and considering your argument or counter argument. If you're not willing to exchange that favor of reading and consieration time equally as a true socialist would then you're not worthy of my time reading you're worthless diruptive drivel. 

[Author]

Posts