Forum Replies Created
it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production.
Blatantly obvious to whom? You, in your interpretation?Jonathan Chambers wrote:Blimey. This is really straightforward. Leaving aside the fact that neither Sussex Socialist nor myself ever said that our motivation was anything like what we’ve been accused of, it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production. I’ve merely suggested that that won’t be the case. And what’s happened? A series of distortions and hilarious ad hominem attacks is what’s happened. Shameful
Once again, you “INFER”, what OGW meant, or thinks! I think he made it quite plain what he meant. It was nothing like your inference of his written words. Once again, here is his post. No distortions, merely a restatement of what he actually wrote; “I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”What can only be deemed shameful is your presumption, of what he meant. When in actuality, he stated quite unequivocally his meaning and intent! And in post 27, there was no mention of “increasing production on all fronts”, they were your words not his. Or, if you prefer, your inference of his words, not his actual words.Read post 27 again and you cannot disavow the veracity of this statement
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.” This is what you stated Jonathon.
Here is POST 27 in its entirety;
“I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”
Where in this post is EVEN a suggestion that Socialisn will involve an increase in production on all fronts? Nowhere!
Then you, in post 41, had the temerity to say that, “There’s some seriously sloppy reading going on here” and furthermore had the gall to follow up with, “I had thought that a forum peopled by socialists might be a little more considered than the usual bear-pits. Just goes to vindicate what I’ve been saying about human nature on another thread.”
You are the one guilty of sloppy reading and moreover, guilty of putting non-existent words into someone elses mouth. Which is a vindication of nothing, least of all your argument on non-existent human nature.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:“What I’ve referred to as a predilection towards violence – and our aggression as a species along with our prehensile thumbs is one of the things that has ensured our survival as a species – is as much a part of us as our ability to co-operate.”
You continue to claim that we, as a human species, have a prediliction, a propensity towards violence. Moreover, you claim that this has helped to ensure our survival as a species! Where is your evidence? that we are naturally aggressive. If aggression is natural and or instinctive to human beings, it must of necessity be that way for every member of the human family and this is clearly not the case.The cases where people have actually let themselves be killed, rather than use violence to defend themselves, is antithetical to your argument. The only way a case for innate aggression in humans could hold up, is if it can be proved that the these,individuals and moreover groups were not, in fact humans but some subspecies!As you said in one of your earlier posts, for something to be human nature, it must apply to ALL humans. And I take the word PREDILICTION to be a case of the human nature argument and it is clearly, as stated,not the case.One last thought. A mammoth is bigger and stronger than a human and has a greater capacity for violence than a human. The only way to kill this animal for food, is to cooperate with other weak humans. To work together. The act of killing it does, in fact, need violence but is this done out of an innate violence, or out of need and necessity?
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.”
Looking at the previous posts, I cannot see where OGW made this statement! Can you tell me the post number?
“The fact that capitalism prevents you from satisfying your needs is, I’d suggest, your motivation for being a socialist. That’s a separate issue to your involvement in the class struggle which is a day-to-day conflict about which you have no choice.”
Surely not being able to satisfy ones needs is, a part of the class struggle and not seperate from it and for many, it is indeed, a day to day conflict and struggle. And furthermore, for many they have no choice becaquse not being able to fulfill ones needs is directly attributable to ones relationship to the means of producing and didtributing these things.
Jonathan, you do know the difference between “nature” and biology I suppose?
Cheers Vin, very helpful!
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”!
Concise and to the point, Could not have put it better! Well said. Apart from the FIGHTING.
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.
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.
The thread is “Dying to Help.