Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You see people in socialism still rushing everywhere like mad in motor cars, instead of this pollutive and dangerous mode of transport gradually disappearing in favour of more public transport and better means. You also still see today’s ugly towns and cities and road networks still being around.
I just said restraint would be necessary.
I’m airy-fairy because i’m against prisons, punishments, abuse, incarceration.
Maybe restraint will require some kind of social isolation, but are you thinking of capitalism’s penal institutions?
Why am I airy fairy?
You sound like a Tory mocker of “arty farty liberals.”
And i’m actually for anyone wanting real socialism to be allowed to join us, whatever their philosophy in other areas.
But you’re not, are you?
It wouldn’t, but then they wouldn’t be materialists. Which is ok by me, but the party excludes non-materialists (avowed), which is inconsistent. It’s inconsistency that annoys me.
So Godwin is an airy-fairy philosopher? Which leads me to think you’ve only read bits of interest to you making SPGB points.
In the link I gave you he sums up exactly the laws of causation that are everywhere. Furthermore, he says that, in spite of the facts of causation, the malefactor should still be taken in hand.Godwin airy fairy … Is that your summation of a brilliant mind?
So, I guess you expect all the punitive paraphernalia we have now, in socialism?
See where the denial of cause and effect leads you!
So capitalism is not now the principal cause of the overwhelming majority of crimes, of violent, murderous and suicidal behaviour, of mental illnesses leading to anti-social behaviour?Denying the social chain of causation dumps you back into “It’s human nature.”
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Godwin/pj71.html
Godwin on punishment.
(I have to ask, ALB, have you REALLY read him?)
Once you take away the societal reasons for violent behaviour, the only criminals remaining will be the minority whose actions are caused for medical reasons: congenital (from birth ) psychopathy. A very tiny number of people.
Caligula was an example.
“Surely restraint is a form of punishment?”
The subject won’t perhaps like it, and may see it as such. But would society be inflicting it as punishment? That’s the difference.
In a sane society, very unlike today, the subject would also be looked at to try and find the roots of why he feels the need to drink himself stupid, and then risk his own life by driving.
Under capitalism we know that intoxication (with drink or drugs), is a form of escapism. Why would anyone in socialism wish to escape?
No. The big difference is, that in class society, restraint isn’t just restraint. It’s about inflicting punishment. Prison: ugly, violent, dirty and smelly surroundings. Regimentation. Deliberate disrespect.
In socialism, restraint will be enough, surely? Need the place of restraint be horrendous? Need the subject be placed amid those likely to do him violence? Need he be shouted at and abused, or made to stand to attention?
Whatever the nature of restraint will be, it will be for those in that society to decide.
Punishment, on the other hand, is linked to the idealist dogma of free will and guilt, in which human representatives of divine judgment hand down rewards and punishments.
In socialism, I believe restraint will be purely utilitarian.
Columbo. Addressing the question of “if.”
Peter Falk: “If we hadn’t pulled it off, would you have killed him?”
Rod Steiger: “Why are you asking stupid questions? We did pull it off.”
