Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Advertised right next to a picture of a Twin necked Gibson EDS 1275. The “coolest guitar in rock” right next to the “coolest party in politics”. What’s the odds of that.
To get an idea of how far the Green Party would compromise its principles given the offer of ministerial Jaguars and the slightest sniff of power, have a look at what the Green Party in Ireland did when they went into coalition with Fianna Fail.
At least he has the good grace to admit he’s an idiot. His statement goes a bit south from there.
As an ex member of the RCP (Ray Chadburn Party) he’s used to being in a political party that backs the capitalist class at every turn.
It may just be me, but whilst I can recognise the well meaning, but misguided ways of most leftist parties and people, I despised the RCP and their members more or less from the moment I met them.
We debated them at the Lonsdale pub in Newcastle in the eighties and I’ll never forget the look of shifty embarrassment on their silly juvenile faces when Steve Coleman asked them why, if they supported the IRA, were they not off risking their lives on the Falls Road, rather than striking a pose in Newcastle. Tossers the lot of them
I suppose it’s the same when you look at the slogan, “vote for the case not the face”. Having looked at the collective phizogs of party members, I’ve got to be honest, and I include myself in this, there’s not a lot of eye candy, is there!
I think the party has some sort of 115 year old collective worry that somehow an overwhelming Socialist Parliamentary majority is going to be be accidentally elected by a less than consciously socialist electorate. Judging by the historical evidence from elections, I would say that’s possibly something we don’t need to worry about too much.
If by chance one or two councillors got elected, or even one or two MPs, in such circumstances, I’m fairly sure scrutiny of our case would be all over mass media. So perhaps one or two accidentally elected representatives wouldn’t be such a scary thing.
I think your analysis is a little harsh Adam. I don’t think anyone would claim that 9.4% of voters in Folkestone are committed socialists, but we do also have to recognise the hard work put in by Kent and Sussex branch over the years. The result isn’t just down to the absence of other protest parties.
The lesson to be learned is that a regular presence on the ballot paper and familiarity with the Party increases the vote substantially. A similar effect was noted in South Tyneside back when NE Branch was active and I’m sure it could be repeated elsewhere.
Perhaps we also need to use the fact that we have had what is a very good result in a local election, as part of our publicity. If one of the other minor parties had achieved that result they would be ringing up the BBC claiming they had made the long awaited electoral breakthrough.
Considering the fertile ground that is now emerging in the US, is it not appropriate for us to support the party their and in Canada by organising a speaking tour, as Steve Coleman and Harry Young did (I think it was in the 70’s). I know it might seem a little patronising, but it might generate enough publicity to create more visitors, etc. to the meetings in those parts of the world. We could reciprocate by getting a couple of Comrades from the other side of the pond to come over to the UK and speak at meetings here.
Whilst I understand the importance of internet based activity, I do think that direct inter personal interaction is also really important. The worst it could do would be to improve morale a little bit.
Clement Attlee played right half for Fleet Town and Albert Camus played in goal for Algeria, not exactly Marxists though.
I think this is one of the most poorly argued research papers I have seen in many years. It draws huge conclusions from very small data sets. Of 12 references, 3 are to the authors own works and one is a reference to Larry Hagman’s view on the use of LSD!
Hardly sound academic grounds on which to build an argument.
It’s opening gambit is:
“I want to describe what I think is a fundamental truth about the individual bio-psychology of social animals, including humans.”
So, on the basis of research carried out on the effectiveness of SRIs (fluoxitine or Prozac to the uninitiated) in increasing cooperativeness amongst humans and a study of primates which actually states as part of its conclusion:
“The literature reviewed raises the obvious question: Are these findings relevant to humans? Initially, they seem to be of minimal relevance. Humans are not hierarchical in the linear, uni dimensional manner of many species. For example, humans belong to multiple hierarchies and tend to value most the one in which they rank highest (for example, a low prestige employee who most values his role as a deacon in his church). Furthermore, the existence of internal standards makes humans less subject to the psychological consequences of rank.”
Rancourt, however, based on this flimsy evidence, has developed a fundamental truth about all social animals!
So, just to be clear, this theory covers all animals and that means humans, chimps, ants, bees, sea otters, starlings, meerkats, etc.
From this weak evidence base he then jumps to the conclusion that
“This knowledge implies that the metabolic biochemistry of dominance locks us in. No socialism theory that presumes altruistic cooperation as its organizing principle can ever work. Non-hierarchical anarchism and its libertarian cousin are useful conceptual end-points that can never be sustainably achieved.”
Quite how this “knowledge” implies a biochemistry of dominance which “locks us in” is not explained. Why, even if such an implication could be drawn (which it can’t), this would mean that a theory of socialism which is based on altruistic cooperation can never work, is similarly lacking in explanation. Not only that, the basis of socialism is not altruistic cooperation, but rather cooperation for the benefit of all, a very different concept.
So if altruistic cooperation cannot be achieved, how does our hero explain the vast amount of altruistic cooperation which goes on every day as part of human society, even in the antagonistic world of capitalism. This behaviour ranges from giving up seats to older people on buses through to the organisation of food banks, volunteers running sports clubs for children, unpaid trades union reps, etc, etc. I recently took part in a Christmas day event for people who would be lonely and isolated on Christmas day, we had to close the book to volunteers in November, there were that many people who wanted to altruistically cooperate!
As to the influence of serotonin, this article overstates the influence of one neurotransmitter, there is no mention for instance of oxtocin. Looking at this effect of this neurotransmitter in the following study seems to demonstrate the opposite of Rancourt’s “theory”:
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2008014.html
One of the interesting things about Oxytocin is the relationship between oxytocin and attachment experiences. Typically children who experience a warm nurturing cooperative care giver, during their early years, produce higher levels of oxytocin, which increases the growth and development of the brain. In contrast those who experience neglect and poor attachment tend to have smaller less well developed brains by the age of three years old:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/two-brains-belong-three-year-olds-one-much-bigger/
As attachment experience is a social experience and as social experiences are undoubtedly linked to the economic and social structure in which they are experienced, it is likely that children growing up in a socially cooperative society would be likely to experienced better attachments, that they would be more likely to raise children that experienced better attachments. i.e. Cooperation breeds cooperation and changes the physical structure of the brains with which we experience our social world. Given them above, Rancourt’s theory of a “fundamental truth about the individual bio-psychology of social animals, including humans” sounds highly preposterous.
As for Rancourt’s paper D+ would probably be a very generous mark.
Hi Vin
Good to hear from you, Marra. Hope you and your’s are well and healthy, Keep a’had bonny lad and give us a bell sometime.
Tim
p.s N’divvent fesh yersell aboot the Mackems, tha deein canny
It’s getting closer to this all of the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four
