steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hud I think, nay I know, from the discourse so far, that it is you rather than SP who is trying to "intepret cultural 'values' for people whose social conditions are so different from ours". SP does not disavow that a materialist conception of history is very important but he recognises that it runs concurrently with a value system that human beings have. Whereas those who only relate to the materialist idiom, deny any input from the human value aspect, or at the most, relegate it to a very low importance.To state that, " Frankly, when it comes to choosing between the considered opinions of the experienced, and the romanticising of the wishful, I think I know where I prefer to look." sounds more like, "I am the experienced one here and my view is more relevant and carrys more weight than yours"! If you have qualifications in social anthropology, you may gain some gravitas from that. I suspect however, that you do not.As a Socialist, SP has acquanted himself with a wide variety of subjects, as I suspect have you. Experience is however, not qualification. Nor is your, or anyones interpretation of the matter available any more valid than say, SP, unless you can validate that by qualification. If a lack of the latter, each is a mere dilettante, with no more nor less credibility than the other. Steve.
I could not disagree more with your post twc. Once again you, as others have done before, argue on the purely "mechanistic" level. You talk about the materialist conception of history, as if it were some holy grail, when in fact, it is merely an overarching theory of social development. No more no less. It pays no heed to the fact that, what is under the microscope are thinking, conscious human beings! Each individual in so many different and varied ways.The values that are so glibly sidestepped, as of no more than a side issue, are not merely fundamental to the case for Socialism but are intrinsically linked to it, intertwined if you like.If you take the "human element" away from the case for Socialism, you devalue not only it but any resultant society, that will be brought about by, "human beings", working together cooperatively, on a conscious level.By the way, I fundamentally disagree that a thoroughgoing knowledge of Marx is a necessity to understanding the case for and the need for a change in society and with it, the concomitant change in societal relationships. Steve.
Are you a member of the SPGB? If so then yes, Socialism will start off with a given set of values, and as a Socialist, if you are, you will understand and agree that this will apply. IE, understanding, ie why we want a different way of organising society, than the one which puts minority interests above the interests of the rest of us. Empathy and cooperation. Understanding that it is only with this in mind, we will be able and moreover have the will and reason to organise society differently. Cooperation, understanding that this, along with understanding, is the only way that Socialism could work. If we do not cooperate on an intellectual and knowledge based level, the new society will not work. Empathically, because if we do not agree, we would have no "reason" to fight and work for a new society.I could go on, but it's late at night, I'm tired and quite frankly sick of re-stating the same old, same old, obvious arguments, to people who should already understand and appreciate them!Going to stretch my legs to get rid of the horrible cramps in them. Take my medication and cogitate on how best to put my argument across tomorrow, so that it is easier to understand!Be well m8, night night and lets get on with screwing capitalism. Steve.
I could not disagree more Hud. Your claim that, " The fact that in Western society it has always been held up as an ideal to aim for, demonstrates the degree to which it was, in fact, lacking." is a religious claim in Western society, to justify that we were and are, born with original sin!I disavow this religious interpretation of humans, as religious bodies see it, "species being". In fact, if one looks back at primitive communist societies, one will see more of an acceptance of humans as, cooperative and social beings, in fact, it is proved by the way their societies operated and were organised. Hunter Gatherer societies never even considered social stratification. They considered only the, here and now. The here and now to them, consisted in what provided a chance, the chance, for "their societies" to survive. One also, has to, at the same time understand, that these societies lived in a much smaller world, without the knowlede to understand and moreover extrapolate a wider social ethos. They are not called, primitive communism, for no reason whatsoever. Regardless, the likes of the Pinara Indians, the Khalahari bushmen, indeed, the aboriginal people of Australia, had a rich and varied social history, which at their best, well befitted their name of primitive "communist" societies. Indeed, the history of these peoples, 60.000 years, straddled the majority of HUMAN history.With the benefit of historical foresight and knowledge, we can call them primitive but in their time, they were the pinnacle, that in todays dog eat dog societies, we can only look to, and aspire to reaching. Empathy, community, compassion, indeed, understanding of their place in nature.That some "social anthropologists", for whatever reason, and I suspect we know the reasons, try to disparage these cultures, is more to do with these "social anthroplogists" trying for their own places in the theoretical pantheon of "experts". That does not of and in itself justify their claims, nor invalidate the claims of Socialists that these were in fact, proto-Socialist societies. With everything this contributes to the arguments, people like myself, SP, OGW etc posit. Steve.
One thing that will, most assuredly have changed, in 100, 300 or whatever extra number of years one wants to add, will be the nature of the society we live in. What will not have changed and I agree with SP here, are some of the human values that are around today and moreover, that have been around for many, many years. Indeed, if as we all hope and aspire to help to bring about, we are in the future, living in a Socialist society, then some of these values, ie cooperation, solidarity, empathy etc, will be magnified simply by living in a society that has freed us from the worries and constraints imposed directly, or indirectly, by a society that has us worrying about simply having enough to survive.I myself think, that given the appeal of a society of the type we envisage, then the drivers for the same will be such, that every sinew the human race possess will be given over to making sure that we, as a race, will never go back to the obscenity and insanity that it capitalism. It is with this thought firmly at the forefront of, at least my mind, I would not need "any" kind of coercive machinery, to be put in place to facilitate the continued existence of this society. The mere thought of returning to a life in capitalism would give all humans all the incentive they need, to need, no type of coercive machinery, to work harmoniously together. Steve.
I was not commenting on appeals, but on the blocking of contact with the forum moderator, in order that one could not follow guidelines and rules. One is aware that one can contact the ID dept however, in the past I have been accused, by various individuals of wasting the departments limited and valuable time, so even if I had considered this, I would have been reticent to follow through, because of the possibility of further accusations flying.Once again, I will ask, what is one to do when one is prevented from stepping on the first rung of the procedural ladder? Steve.
No, YMS, they will have to change, "before", your post actually backs up my posited view 100%. Steve.
"Much of the time socialism does espouse the same values as capitalism", really? really, really! Which "socialism" is that and where is the evidence to validate this claim?I think that no consideration is given to the fact that, as a Socialist society gets closer, so will Socialist views become more pervasive with a concomitant lessening of dog eat dog philosophy that supporters of capitalism subject us to. Nor is there a realisation of how "ideas" themselves spread.If a Socialist revolution and the mass consciousness that would be a necessary precursor, happened within say a year or two, there may, or may not be a case for claiming that a significant minority would still be imbued with a "capitalist mentality"! This would, of necessity, be counteracted by the fact that in order to bring about a Socialist society, there would need to be a level of understanding and agreement as to what this society would entail and need to come into existence and moreover, a concerted, joint effort, to bring it about.I, myself, cannot envisage a Socialist society coming about within such a short timescale. More likely, as Socialist consciousness spreads, it would take ten, fifteen, twenty years or more to reach a point where the Socialist revolution is possible. During this time, there will be a change in thought processes existant, especially with the realisation of the possibilities for mankind.No doubt there will be those, and of necessity they will be in a minority, who will either not understand the societal change or will be opposed to it. If this is the case, the majority will need to have at it's disposal, much as the minority parasite capitalist class has now, a means to protect themselves. However, in no way, shape, or form, do I envisage this to be, "a police force"! Moreover, once the new society is established and with the understanding that those living in it will still be "tainted" by capitalism, there may be a need for "monitors" but they will in no way, resemble the coercive state machine that is the present police force. The majority understanding and consciousness needed to bring Socialism about, would preclude this.If people have a negative outlook on, "people as they are, not how we'd like them to be", then I suggest they look to themselves, not try to imbue these "ideas" onto others.I for one, could fit quite easily into a society of common ownership and democratic control and know many others of whom I could say the same! In fact, look at capitalism. If mankind was not more predisposed to cooperation than conflict, do you really think, the tiny amount of "police" could control the vast, vast, majority of "others"? No.Even within Capitalism, the vast majority do not break the law because of police, nor the punitive sanctions of capitalist law. They do not break the law because they would rather cooperate than agitate.I do not think I am in a minority on this site, nor in the wider Socialist movement, when I believe we, mankind are a cooperative species, with all that entails and engenders. Steve.
On this thread, "suspended users" I have asked for some info, or more precisely, specific details re a suspended user. Someone, I dont know who, has flagged my post as offensive, why?I am on the correct thread to dicuss this topic, am not trolling, being offensive, using foul and defamatory language, nor insinuating wrongful comments. So why has someone flagged this post? This is intolerable! Steve.
Can I ask that you provide specific details of OGW's indefinite ban and the reasons for the same. If this has been done with across the board support from ID members and the discussion has been as lenghty and thourough as implied, then this information should be readily to hand and as a forum user, I would like the chance to make up my own mind as to the veracity and fairness of this "evidence" and the conclusions drawn from it!. Steve.
I live in Capitalism "now" and even "now", I attempt to treat people in a way I would imagine would exist within a Socialist society. When I see news reports of starvation and famine, I look at them in a way they would be approached in a society of common ownership! When I hear the bigotted talk of immigrants coming into "their" country, for a better life, I ask these people, what would you do if you were in their situation? would you not try the same, for you and your family? Most tellingly, most refuse to answer! Even in their ignorant bigotry, they see to the heart of the matter. Apart from the fact that, most of them own none of "their" supposed country, or so little as to make no difference.Finally, one can do no other than agree with SP, when he states their are those who have a Mechanistic outlook to Socialism and those who have a human outlook to Socialism and I would add, to being a Socialist. The pages of this forum being proof positive of this.It is "acting" like human beings now, not just in a future Socialist society, that will shape that society. As Jon Brown states, even with all the barriers thrown up by Capitalism, we are a remarkably cooperative species, remove these barriers! what kind of blossoming of humanity could we envisage? Certainly a blossoming that would make "police" redundant in all the cponnotations with which they exist in Capitalism!Steve.
I cannot see the justification for this action nor, I expect, can many others. A very, very sad day to be a Socialist! Steve Colborn.
YMS, I do not think anyone, least of all SP would disagree with you, that in a Socialist society, we would not have anarchy! Of course there would be rules and regulations, if for no other reason than to keep us safe. What I think you, for whatever reason, overlook, is that as well as having "rules", as a basis for a sane society, we would also have that society based on "human values", values such as, "understanding, tolerance, patience, co operation, openness, even empathy and compassion". If these values were not considered or, moreover, placed at the "core" of the new society, how could it, in any meaningful sense, be called a "Social" ist society? Without the core values that differentiate us from the rest of the animal kingdom!By the way YMS, I do not see any link whatsoever, between your post and that of SP. Steve.
Got to agree with SP. A good way to spread the Socialist case. From each according to ability, to each according to need! It says it all. Steve.
