steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Of course we still have a built-in fight or flight mechanism, no one is suggesting otherwise but this does not mean that human beings have a “prediliction for violence”. And I have never suggested this will disappear in Socialism.
Confrontation with members of our own species may not disappear but it will be, most assuredly, reduced drastically,as Socialism will be a society based upon cooperation, not the competitive, dog eat dog world of competition, on every level, that exists today.
I totally disagree that “confrontation”, is part of who we are. It may be part of Capitalism but, in a Socialist society, based upon cooperation, it will lose its reason for existence and being the adaptable species we are, will, over time be dumped. Just as in Socialism, war will be dumped.
By the way, as someone who played rugby union from the age of 11 until 37, I do not see evidence of ritualised violence nor, the homo-erotic overtones you imply.No hackles raised here, I’m not a dog. And no, neither do I deny the role of physical conflict in human development. If you in fact meant, technological advancements during times of internecine strife, especially during the history of Capitalism. But I suspect that this is not what you mean at all! As the following statement you made suggests,”Moreover, I think that many socialists – especially those who tend towards the hippy-ass pacifist train of thinking – do a great disservice to our case by suggesting that homo sapiens doesn’t have a predilection for a good punch-up! “I am in no wit a “hippy-assed pacifist”, in fact, not a pacifist at all. But I do not agree that human beings have, “a prediliction” for punch ups or any other type of violence, as my earlier post on this subject pointed out.The disservice done to the socialist case is by those, who continually switch and confuse the terms “human nature” and “human behaviour”.We live in a violent and in many ways, an insane world, with many contradictions and in this context, it is truly surprising how little personal violence is done, one individual upon another.That ruling classes, throughout the ages have encouraged mass violence in pursuance of their minority interests, does not, in any way validate a claim of “predilictions to violence”. It is merely proof that in class divided and minority controlled societies, the use of “VIOLENCE”, is an effective means of gaining and securing resources, influence etc.Human beings can, at times, USE, violence. But so can they show compassion, empathy, sympathy, tenderness, forgiveness, love, kindness. They are all a part of being human and having the ability to, “CHOOSE”!
Hi OGW,I’m still trying to redress the balance. Hope you and yours are well.The human nature debate hasn’t changed I see. Oh well, it’s only been30 years of trying. Maybe people will get it in another 30!
Any town any city! any Friday or Saturday night, Young males, testosterone, booze lowering inhibitions, humans supposedly “naturally aggressive”. Fuelled up on inhibition lowering booze = bloodfest, or it would if we believed the perveyors of the human nature, naturally aggressive tripe.
Actually, there are some fights, some injuries but nothing the human nature freaks would have us believe. Result? their argument fails miserably.
Thats a pity aint it? no not really its just proof they are WRONG!
Any more human nature myths you want dispelling? I’m right here.Longbowman666 says…
Interesting post, Jezreel – been catching up as have been out most of the day. Your reference to Monty Python in connection to this puts me in mind of the ‘Life of Brian’ segment -Crowd: ‘No! Follow the gourd! No! Follow the sandal!’Brian: ‘But I’m not the Messiah!’Man: ‘I say you are, and I should know. I’ve followed a few!’The point at issue is not whether the system proposed is correct or not, but whether or not such a system could or should be accepted at face value, with no evidence that it can work to back it up? And whether Steve or his pals like it or not, by their own admission, there isn’t. The theories are just simply that and nothing more, and yet the ‘workers’ are expected to swallow it as it will lead to their ’emancipation’! And this ‘alternative’ as it has been called is supposed to be THE ANSWER (which I always thought was 42 but there you go), but how can it be a workable alternative, which is expected to be applied globally, when no-one even knows if it actually ‘works’!What kind of an ‘alternative’ is that? True, other systems have their faults, but at least you can see them and you know what they are. With this ‘Socialism’ (or rather the Karl Marx version of it, seems to be several but this is the only ‘true’ one…it seems. ), you can’t see them because its never been tried even on a small scale, so no evidence base to work from, but that’s okay because you’ve been told that it WILL work. (because Mr Marx and a select few other theorists believe it to be so).Jesus managed to found Christianity on the foundations of belief – I doubt very much that the ‘party’ ever will be able to repeat that success, especially given those stunning results!“It’s true ! He stood for election in the 1999 European elections, I looked it up. He did very well really considering his policies make the monster raving loonies look like the Synod of the Anglican Church. He and his mates obtained (no giggling at the back there) 0.4 % of the vote. Even the Trots got 1.8%.And you people are going to debate with him ? You don’t know what you are letting yourself in for. This is the Monty Python of political parties, total fruitcakes. Their national membership amounts to several, because anyone who is daft enough to join (you have to take a written test to join them, I jest not) leaves after a few months. The few that remain loyal are a very odd lot, and I mean VERY. Read my posting on 10th at 4.03.I knew a bloke who was a member for a year back in the 70’s. That’s how I know about them. He used to have the pub in stitches telling us about it.If someone can be bothered to look it up I’d love to know his result in the general election.Good luck with that debate. Polish up on obscure socialists like Daniel De Leon.” the latest post on the dying to help thread.
