Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 21, 2016 at 5:09 am in reply to: Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion #121847
Bijou Drains
ParticipantALB wrote:You're thinking of Ernst Fleishman. His article is here:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/sex-in-free-society.htmlNot sure, though, that Reichian psychology is valid, though, as it posits a mysterious "sexual energy" which nobody has been able to find but then any talking therapy works whatever the theory behind it.I would doubt you find many mainstreeam counsellor or psychotherapists taking Reichian psychotherapy particularly seriously. By the end of his career he was selling what were effectively large metal boxes that people could sit in , which he said were orgone accumulators. He ended up being jailed, effectively for repeatedly selling quack remedies. (The orgone accumulator was said to be the inspiration for Woody Allen's Orgasmatron, in the film The Sleeper and also the inspiration for Kate Bush's video for her single Cloud busting). I actually have an Orgone Accumulator, cunningly disguised as a large metal document cupboard. Obvioiusly these are now very rare, due to US law enforcement, however I would be willing to sell it to anyone interested in taking up Reichian Psychotherapy, due to its rarity, it would be very expensive. All monies would go to the party.A friend once went on a course through work developed by a trainer with a Reichian background, which worked on the concept of "body awareness, being in touch with feelings, etc.". As part of it he was given a leaf from a tree and asked to concentrate on the leaf, become "in contact with it" and then think about how it felt to him. When he asked for to give his his feedback to the group about how the leaf felt to him, he said "leafy"I wouldn't necessarily agree that "any taking therapy works whatever the thory behind it". There are some examples of very dangerous "therapies" that have actually made people a hell of a lot worse. Examples include Attachment Therapy (not to be confused with Attachment Based Therapy), and some talking therapies have been shown to exacerbate problems for people who self harm. Also some theoretical approaches to talking therapies appear to be more successful than others in relation to particular difficulties, for instance Dialectical Cognitive Therapy appears to be more effective for people diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, than other talking approaches.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantSocialistPunk wrote:gnome wrote:moderator2 wrote:This is not an official reminder but more of a comradely early intervention to avoid future problems. Cde. Sarkar is a fellow member of the WSM and we cannot accept having aspersions cast upon his character on the forum.If this is not an official reminder to Gorachand wouldn't it have been preferable to send him a PM? But it occurs to me that he was well within the limits of Rule 7 which permits the candid and forceful expression of views. Odd too that "aspersions" can be cast upon certain members of the SPGB without so much as a murmur from the moderators.
The moderators were so biased in their approach they even let a particularly uncomradely aspersion made against themselves go unchallenged.
Yes SP but are you a Mod challenging a challenge against a Mod, or are you a forum member challenging a challenge against a Mod and does this make me a Forum member questioning a mod, challenging a mod, challenging a forum member, challenging a mod, or a forum member, questioning a forum member, challenging a forum member, challenging a Mod…….. at the court of King Caractacus
Bijou Drains
ParticipantTim Kilgallon wrote:gnome wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I still can't remember the name of D'Arcy's miserable mate. He had a face like a well smacked arse when the heathens of NE branch turned up, with our "strong regional accents".Harry Baldwin?
No not him, just came back. Cyril Bloody May!!!!!!!
He had the look of an Easter Island statue, that had been "digitally penetrated" and really wasn't enjoying it.
September 16, 2016 at 9:34 pm in reply to: Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion #121830Bijou Drains
ParticipantSubhaditya wrote:In the book "Sex At Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jentha, the authors show that we humans have spent most of our existence( like 95%) as hunter gatherers living in egalitarian groups that were like communes where people shared everything material resources, women and also responsibilites.It was just the most efficient strategy for survival.The thing is sex was used more often for group cohesion than for reproduction. Like 99% of the time we were having sex for social bonding than to reproduce. I dont think those communes would have remained egalitarian and peacefully cooperated if they practiced things like monogamy which severely restricts pleasure seeking behavior.Now James W. Prescott in his article "Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence" shows that almost every human society he studied had high levels of violence if physical pleasure seeking behavior was discouraged which is true in every monogamous society. The reverse was also true that they were more peaceful much less drawn to violence if physical pleasure seeking behavior wasnt looked down on. People were getting lot more physical pleasure in these places from their adolescence, both premarital and extramarital sex was tolerated. In "Sex At Dawn" the authors even highlighted societies that encouraged promiscous behavior.The thing is we are not monogamous beings at all as the book "Sex At Dawn" shows convincingly. So if you encourage physical pleasure seeking behavior or tolerate it you might find the average woman is having sex with several males at any given time and the average man is having sexual relationship with several females at any given time.Now socialism is trying to scale up the communes of 100-150 people that existed 10,000 years ago to communes involving millions of people. The thing is the females were shared in the communes to make them work as was parental responsibilities. I dont think people will be inclined to share material resources if the females arent shared. The ideal situation I can think of is where every female is accessible to all men and parental resposibility is shared communally.Discouraging accessibility will also discourage peaceful cooperation and sharing among men, instead men will go violent as James W. Prescott shows the solution isnt monogamy either as it too discourages accessibility to females. We will never have an egalitarian society with men peacefully cooperating with each other if they have to fight over access to females, society will forever remain an unequal place with unequal rights and privileges.If we do decide to tolerate or encourage physical pleasure seeking behavior how we may go about it, the authors of "Sex At Dawn" highlight several communities that do just that often having rituals that encourage female accessibility and discouraging men from behaving possessively / selfishly. Ultimately trying to create conditions where every female is accessible to all men.Ultimately I suppose its about encouraging or discouraging certain tendencies to bring about peaceful cooperation among people and I think sex will play a big part in it. I mean sex can be used to bring about group cohesion or divide it.I take it you've never actually had an adult relationship with a woman. Honestly they're not as scary as they seem, just try talking to one or two of them in a pleasant manner.
Bijou Drains
Participantgnome wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I still can't remember the name of D'Arcy's miserable mate. He had a face like a well smacked arse when the heathens of NE branch turned up, with our "strong regional accents".Harry Baldwin?
No not him, just came back. Cyril Bloody May!!!!!!!
Bijou Drains
ParticipantFrom what I remember Martinez was extremely honest, honourable and straight about his views and argued in support of them, this was in sharp contrast with the future members of Socialist Studies, who tried to keep him quiet and then argued that we shouldn't make a fuss and that he should resign from the EC and that would be the end of the matter. So much for Socialist principles. I still can't remember the name of D'Arcy's miserable mate. He had a face like a well smacked arse when the heathens of NE branch turned up, with our "strong regional accents".i suppose the proof of the pudding is how their predictions worked out. Regarding what they said in their pamphlet, I may be mistaken but I don't recall the party rejecting the parliamentary route, embracing Industrial Unionism, etc. I always found their obsession with homosexuality a little strange, perhaps a case of "thou protest too much"?
Bijou Drains
ParticipantMy recollection of the time may be slightly different, being outside of London I wasn't aware of all of the nuances, however distance sometimes gives perspective. From what I observed many members of the two branches who formed Socialist Studies, had a view of themselves as in some way "The real SPGB". At the time there was the growth of several large and very active branches. The Islington branch was very active and growing, as was the branch (later two branches in the North East) there was a lot going on in Manchester, Glasgow, and other places. Coming down to conference or ADM I have to say the welcome from the bulk of comrades was in sharp contrast to the scowls and disdain that came from the likes of Jim, D'arcy, (Jim D'Arcy had a mate, whose name I cannot for the life of me recall, he kind of played Muttley to D'Arcy's Dick Dastardly) Harry Young, Ken? Knight, Joe Bell, Lily Lestor etc. Sadly Hardy seemed in thrall to Jim D'arcy, however I must say he was never anything but warm, polite and encouraging to younger members like myself.In my view the events that culminated in those two branches leaving wasn't really the issue at hand. The real issue, to my mind was the view of some of these members that there were members of the party who were somehow lesser party members than the genuine members in their branches. The implication was often that we didn't understand the case for Socialism, the form F process in other branches was less than in theirs and that the Party was being taken over by trendy lefties. The fact that some of these younger members questioned some of their attitudes to issues like sexism and racism provided an irritant. Who were we to question their use of sexist remarks, etc. The issue of homophobic views held by some older members of these branches at the time was also something that needed to be addressed. (This was even more ironic, considering their views on a Party Poll about expelling a member of one of these 2 branches who had been elected to the EC and who it turned out actually held views that were diametrically opposed to the SPGB!, I think his name was Martin, some of the London Comrades may recall better than I can,)The level of personal insult from these members and intolerance of any view other than their own was noticeable. Harry Young in particular I recall used the phrase Jewish Anarchists to describe some Party members he disagreed with. Another example was of a member of one of the Branches concerned who took issue with a comrade from Liverpool who had recently joined after having been a member of the Militant Tendency. The member of Camden Branch(I can't use the word comrade) took it upon herself to ring the employers of this new member from Liverpool, in order to check that he "wasn't infiltrating the SPGB!The lesson of that time cannot afford to be lost. New comrades will join the Party, some will have ideas from their generation which those of us may find odd, however it is vital that we recognise that we are a truly democratic party, there is no elite who know better than others, yes there is experience and knowledge. What the members of these two branches didn't understand was that you gain respect and influence, you don't demand it.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantSo how old are you Brian, I would have put you in your mid 90s, are you even older than that?
Bijou Drains
ParticipantThanks for your clarification BrianYFSTIM
Bijou Drains
ParticipantTim Kilgallon wrote:moderator3 wrote:Forum rulesYour use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules.Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.Reminder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Thank you comrade for providing yet another example of just how unfit for purpose (that is the purpose of demonstrating how a socialist society would operate) the current rules (which look like they have been copied and pasted from a "World of Minecraft" chat room) are.
having re read my post, I decided I would paste rule 12 into google. The first two results were the SPGB forum (not surprisingly) number three and a very close match was the forum rules for a chat room about Planet Calypso. Considering the amount of discussion that has taken place on this forum about copyright and Intellectual property, perhaps the "author/s" of our forum rules have some explaining to do?Perhaps even more when you examine what Planet Calypso is about?"Planet Calypso features a Real Cash economy and can be explored on all levels as an explorer, entrepreneur or in a number of other professions and roles.While hunters go after the indigenous species or the ubiquitous Robot menace that from early Calypso history on have threatened the planet, miners look for precious resources using seismic investigation methods and more.Some choose to craft tools, weapons and other items for the open market where Calypsians can both trade and invest."Seemingly some people don't experience enough of real capitalism, they have to also have a virtual capitalism, for their spare time.Wonderful thing google!
Bijou Drains
Participantrobert.cox wrote:Hello TimRegarding your post #216 regarding “a set of guidelines for the production of party Videos”, I for one think that is a great idea.The EC can agree it, they should check it is compliant with any rules or conference decisions etc.If you have not heard back from the acting Gen. Sec. I can assure you that you are a member (currently the only member) of the AVC. There is a link to list of officers and committee members put out now and then on SPINTCOM (Files section).As for funding for advice (or anything else), the EC would have to agree this. Most Committees (see their terms of reference), should have reported to the EC by now on its plans and financial requirements for 2017, which then go in the EC report to ADM. But don’t worry about that, the EC can deal with it later on an ad-hock basis. However, committees have the authority to make a one –off payment up to £250 without EC authorisation.Actually if you have time its not too late to submit a report to the EC (for ADM). Basically you could repeat what you said on the forum post, and if you have any more information (like on costs or any progress) you could add that too. If you get it up to Head Office at least a couple of days before the EC on 1st October (mark it Urgent – EC/ADM report) it could get submitted as a late report to ADM.Another reason your idea is welcome is that all committees in the Outreach and Products Dept. should provide a ‘how to’ manual and job description (obviously to keep a historic memory and help new/prospective committee members), so this would go towards that. It could also go on SPINTCOM files and be available for all members/Branches to access (see for example the Media Comittee folder there). If you are able to get your finished guidelines ready in time for the 5th November EC, it would be best if you can submit it to the Assistant Gen Sec (who does the agenda) by the Sunday before the meeting, to make sure it gets on the EC agenda. If you are in a hurry to get it adopted, you may find it useful to share a draft in advance with an EC member (as well as on the Forum?), in case there are any obvious questions or technical issues they are likely to refer back to you for further information.Hope this helps (from one EC member who does visit The Forum). NB I am assuming you have login access to SPINTCOM files and have the committee TOR’s etc.Hi RobertMany thanks for your encouraging and helpfl response, I will try and put a brief report together for ADM and follow your kind adviceYFSTim
Bijou Drains
Participantmoderator3 wrote:Forum rulesYour use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules.Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.Reminder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Thank you comrade for providing yet another example of just how unfit for purpose (that is the purpose of demonstrating how a socialist society would operate) the current rules (which look like they have been copied and pasted from a "World of Minecraft" chat room) are.
Bijou Drains
Participantgnome wrote:ALB wrote:Best to leave things as they are.It's a further example of rules being amended 'on the hoof'. First we had the rewriting of Rule 17 by the EC without it having received any authority from the membership, now we have this latest 'can of worms'. Then at it's August meeting the EC managed to contravene one of the Terms of Reference of the Head Office Organiser AND a Conference ruling, both at the same time.
As I said in an earlier post, it is a classic example of the Legal Maxim " Hard cases make bad law"I have posted on several occasions stating that this is not about Vin it's about how the forum should operate. Vin (sorry to say this Marra) is irrelevant, the important issue is how a democratic party, that has prided itself on over a century's history of free speech, to the extent of enduring physical threats and actual violence, manages a situation like this. I am still of the opinion that the principle of anyone, let alone a member of the party, having an indefinite ban from expressing views on this forum is an absolute travesty. I wonder how Moses Barritz would ract to a situation like this, you can't overwhelm the internet with an oboe.
Bijou Drains
Participantmoderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.This particular objection will not arise once the draft guidelines are accepted by the IC and the EC. I've no idea how long that will take.
As part of a process of consultation with SPGB members, will you be posting the guidelines for comment/feedback before sending them to the EC?
Bijou Drains
Participantmoderator2 wrote:" I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum."This an old debate about having no moderation and it was settled a long time ago. Your or my personal individual feelings have nothing to do with it anymore. The decision has been made about the structure of the forum. I'm afraid there is no point in resurrecting it unless your branch is formally proposing its end at Conference and indeed decided that it is prepared for the unintended consequences that will arise in a free-for-all forum without any moderation And, yes, moderators have assumed certain responsibilities but are fully cognisant that our actions do not always carry the infallibility of a judgement from Solomon. We will not always be right.However, when we prove to be malicious or incompetent or dictatorial, we hope there will be a move for our dismissal as moderators but until that time, we can only take the silence from the majority of forum users as implied approval of our actions.Mod 2, are you seriously suggesting that because a decision has previously been made that this topic is closed for further debate? It's a bit like saying "the issue of captialism or socialism was decided at the last general election and there is no point debating it anymore as the issue is now settled". Surely the point of the forum is to generate debate and the purpose of moderation is to moderate that debate, not to lay down which topics can be discussed and which cannot? Am I not as an individual member, within my rights to discuss any issue about the running of the party on this forum, without recourse to my Branch?So taking on that right to discuss these issues, I will!I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.
-
AuthorPosts