J Surman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:!In a sane society, one would not even have these, "rites", or ceremonies. What fucking business, personal or, "socially acceptable", has it to do with anyone else, apart from the two people involved?ISteve.
Just replied to SS and then saw your post Steve.Thanks for that. I would probably have voiced it more as you have done if I were face to face! However, the message is similar.
SussexSocialist wrote:, so why generally do we propose or suggest that marriage (for example) should be ditched because of the way it is run now?'marriage' – from the oxford dictionary: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife.As the world is ordered now this is one of the laws I have had particular objection to for decades, long before I discovered the socialist party. Quite how the laws of marriage affect women in the UK now I don't know, having been out of the country for 15 years, however 'typically as recognised by law' I have always found a total irritation and an attack on my freedom. I, and many others like me – men too – want simply to be free to choose, without any ceremony, formal or informal, to live with their chosen partner. Within capitalism, of course, we are obliged to register this or that so that all authorities are aware of our joint habitation so they can take their pound of flesh.The difference I see in a socialist system would be that we would have that freedom. And I don't see why others shouldn't have their freedom to commit – formally or informally – if that's what they choose. So, it's freedom of choice, freedom of action, not to be regulated and expected to conform especially in areas that don't affect third parties. I don't see this as throwing out the babies with the bath water but I do see it as ditching an awful lot of bureaucracy.I also expect for us all to have much more active involvement in the organisation of our new society, not to have 'leaders who know best' to decide what we all must do in any and all situations. As a collection of individuals I believe we do have many thoughts and ideas as to how the way ahead can be. The reason it's not 'concrete' is simply that we're not at that stage yet.
alanjjohnstone wrote:In present society marriage still remains primarily a legal contract. What has changed substantially is what is classed as a marriage which has in many ways widened. But the purpose still basically the same, property rights, that requires a court to amend when separation arises.BTW, try bringing in a foreign partner through immigration without marriage papers. It is now hard enough even with the documentation. Certain aspects may be relaxed but others are most definitely aren't.You're right – it's all about the legal contract, the property laws. Pre-nuptual contracts making money for the lawyers. What kind of commitment is it to another person to think of such things when you're supposedly considering spending a lifetime with, dare I say, someone you love!!Re. crossing borders with a foreign partner etc, we certainly have to laugh (when we're not gritting our teeth) at some of the situations we've been in – hotels in small places where documents are required, having to purchase half the car to get my name on the insurance, having a clerk half my age suggest we get married to reduce the cost of our individual state health insurance. It's big bureaucracy gone mad.But back to the original article – the idea of committing to a community, now that I see as worthwhile.
SussexSocialist wrote:Perhaps hundreds of years ago this may have been a correct description, but seriously, is marriage today about possession and ownership? I am very happily married and certainly don't feel I own my wife anymore than she owns me as her husband. We married to make a public and private comittment to each other, nothing more or less.I have no problem agreeing that many couples are happily married – and will likely stay that way throughout their lives. What I don't accept is the current structure of marriage tied up in capitalist norms and laws wherein most of it is related to money one way or another and nothing at all to do with two individuals' commitment to each other. Capitalism makes the laws we have to abide by as couples (married, co-habiting or gay) and different countries have different rules. The UK is still hardly an egalitarian society as far as gender is concerned but in some parts of the world conditions are even harsher where husbands, in effect, do own their wife/wives. You only have to look at inheritance law to see that men are factored in as 'worth' more than women; male children more than female in many countries.So really my beef is about who gets to decide how we choose to live our lives and why 'society' should look down and frown on those who step outside the parameters. Socialism, surely, will give us those freedoms – to choose for ourselves, not to be confined within strict boundaries when it's absolutely doing no harm to anyone else?I haven't tried to find any statistics but I imagine a large % of UK population co-habit rather than marry, plus divorce rates are higher than at any previous time so that doesn't say an awful lot that's positive for the institution of marriage either.
SocialistPunk wrote:So I take it you think the party should sign up to the statement? It would be a positive move towards showing some concrete solidarity.Meantime maybe JD could post the link for any individuals (some of whom aren't members anyway) who wish to sign it.Re ALB's 'bigger fish' – yes, I read a lengthy article on this yesterday, now somewhere in the ether and I couldn't retrieve it. The one I refer to compared the position of the new pope and the catholic church in general, the Muslim brotherhood and the American right/born again christians plus the Russian Orthodox church. All of them strongly rooted in patriarchy which pretty well all of the world is to a greater or lesser degree. Patriarchy (or hierarchy) at home, at work, in governments and dictatorships, on the streets, in pubs and clubs; men v, women, father over family, old v. young, teachers v. students etc etc —- we (socialists) have much to contend with.I'm sure we all regularly find ourselves in positions where instances arise that we need to challenge, sometimes at the risk of losing a friend or alienating a colleague – but they can't go unchallenged. A big part of 'getting to socialism' means eradicating both patriarchy and hierarchy.
We're pretty much in agreement then, Alan.As for 'one person's anti-imperialist is another's imperialist' – that's how it goes.To return specifically to Chavez, as that's what this thread is supposed to be, he publicly admitted that Venezuela was not 'socialist' – it couldn't be, in isolation, but he promoted it as the Bolivarian revolution to emulate what Simon Bolivar had tried to do, and called it socialism for the 21st century (as everyone knows) as a work in progress. Now, whatever has been achieved for some sections of the people it still has a very long way to go but at the risk of being labelled an apologist for the Chavistas it strikes me that huge numbers of Venezuelans show greater signs of true democratic awareness – they certainly have more chance to actively participate than before.Lets wish the people the conditions to progress and the will to push further up to and following the upcoming election.
alanjjohnstone wrote:but how can we (and they) forget the support he has offered to Gaddaffi, the Ayatollahs, Hezbullah and Assad.Wasn't this just one more sign of Chavez's anti-imperialist stance? Gadaffi's Libya, Iran, Hezbullah's declared opposition to Israel's (earlier) occupation of Lebanon and currently Syria have all been subject to outside interference by various 'imperialist' nations in the guise of promotion of democracy, human rights etc, attempted destabilisation from agents within, funding for opposition parties sympathetic to those outside powers (US, UK, Israel, NATO and institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the American Enterprise Institute).The uprising in Libya was instigated by 'the west'; Iran's 'colour' revolution (like the other 'colour' revolutions) was orchestrated and financed to a degree by 'the west'; the chaos now in Syria was largely brought on by those same western interests bent on shaping the world in their own interest.Remember Libya, Iran and Syria were, some years ago, declared to be part of 'the axis of evil' which had to be dealt with.
Interesting contrasts from writers, depending on where they're coming from politically or where they are published.Alan Johnstone's Counterpunch quote is from Tariq Ali – we know his background and can make our own individual judgement call.Hallblithe's is from Human Rights Watch which is funded by such as George Soros. It's worth looking at Wikipedia's entry for HumanRights Watch, especially near the bottom, under 'criticisms' where one specified criticism is that of US's interference in Latin America.Love him, hate him or remain indifferent, it's certainly got many different figures writing and talking and no doubt it will continue as the election nears.
Yes, Thanks for the link ALB. As you say, very interesting, many good points raised in the interview. As for the book itself, 'Life without Money', that too I found had a number of thought provoking ideas, although some not along the same lines as the SPGB's. If nothing else it reveals greater numbers seeking and believing that there is a viable alternative to capitalism.
Re TS3 Brian: I understand what it's about from following this forum – unfortunately we have incredibly limited band width here (some people will be tired of hearing about it I'm sure) and TS3 is out of the question, as is youtube, downloading videos, even audios are a problem. And going to a restaurant, probably with very loud music, with good band width to engage in an online discussion isn't my idea of fun.But, please keep up the good work!
Brian's 'turgid' I definitely agree with.Taking a long view on socialism/TZM it seems to me that the more we are able to engage with them, in whatever forum/debate/discussion it can only further socialist aims. There are a lot of folk out there tuned in to TZM – members or not is not that important – looking for a viable alternative that fits with their views. The more they are exposed to the WSM/SPGB the more (some of them) can see that we are basically heading the same way—-and have a credible history.
Maybe i've just wasted 10 minutes of my time reading the 'In These Times' article and posting a comment there, but then just maybe someone will take time to look at our web site and learn something new. Reading the comments posted before mine reveals so much about the total lack of understanding in many quarters – even of folk who call themselves 'progressive'. Why Not Socialism? – now there's a challenge!
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/2004-george-w-bush-beats-barack-obamas-2012-numbers-mandate/Willy Loman, aka Scott Creighton posts some interesting stuff, style a bit 'in your face' but over time he's proved to be pretty accurate in his forecasts/opinions. Today's post, above, reveals the numbers, low turn-out (Obama actually got approx 25% of possible vote – less than G W Bush in 2004), comparisons with previous elections etc. One thing he does point to is the obvious apathy/disinterest/turn-off of voters in general. They know they're being screwed right, left and centre – and don't know what they can do about it.Evil is evil, there's no 'lesser' about it!
Re ALB's 'and, perhaps surprisingly. a massive under-representation of women.'Should we be surprised? Isn't this how it is across the board in politics? I've never been into feminism or demonstrated for women's rights etc, but I am certainly aware of the discrepancies in the position of women compared with men in the worldwide arena. It's not necessary to go into details here but suffice it to say that even in the so-called 'developed' countries women have a long way to go to be on a par with men. I think what it demonstrates to us as socialists that here is another group we haven't managed to penetrate to any degree. (And before anyone makes a lewd comment – I did notice my choice of words and decided to stick with them – I do have a sense of humour too). Such a shame though that so much energy can be put into a separate cause, that many women don't feel they are part of an equal human race and only want to win their separate battle.I can't point to any good reasons why women, in general or in significant numbers, choose not to be involved in certain areas but I do wonder how much of it is down to a simple matter of perceived inequality. The patriarchal society – it's rife in the media, in main-line politics, in business and employment opportunities and also still in many homes – and I'm talking about 'the west' in general here.A couple of days ago Jondwhite posted 'Utopian feminist?' and the link below to an article from Laurie Penny about her recent book tour. At 26 she has a remarkable grasp of some of the divisions between the genders and a pretty good way of expressing herself. Especially if you don't know of her writing I recommend a look:http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2012/10/notes-feminist-book-tour-its-alright-want-everythingA separate point now regarding the recent posts above and how we communicate – We can each only do what we know best, and there is surely plenty of variety in that. Let's have discussion on it, but not too much soul-searching which may be a distraction.
