A socialist speaker on question time
- This topic has 87 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:It's important, when having these discussions, to locate 'opinions' within ideologies.They are most certainly not 'individual opinions'!
LBird, Is the ideology here that of a democratic socialist one, ie we as a collective community and not law makers etc get to decide?
Getting back to the opening post about a socialist speaker on question time and the Party not having a particular policy on such matters. What would be the policy if this footballer were a Party member?
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird, Is the ideology here that of a democratic socialist one, ie we as a collective community and not law makers etc get to decide?Well, as someone who argues that the results of science should be subject to a democratic vote, and truth established in the same way, then I can't see how 'a collective community' decision won't form the basis of 'law and order' (or whatever we call it, 'custom and practice', perhaps?).Although, I can see that different communities with different traditions might have different 'customs', but there would have to be a "supreme world workers' council" (either delegate or the whole planet gets to vote, as we decide) to settle some particular issues, that most communities would find offensive, even if one or two wanted them.'Cutting bits off kids' genitals' might be one such issue. Sounds OK to make illegal where FGM is concerned, but this would also infringe on Jewish circumcision customs, too, if passed.No easy answers, I'm afraid. Communism won't see the end of politics and debate.
Good point LBird. I have given some thought recently to the idea of a socialist society needing some sort of universal human rights bill. As you point out communities will likely have different traditions that will probably survive into a socialist world, but mutilating kids for the sake of tradition is something that should be prevented.Nothing is ever easy.
SocialistPunk wrote:…mutilating kids for the sake of tradition…Ahhh, but they often argue that they're 'mutilating kids for the sake of science'…'Science' tells some that the circumcised penis, in the long run, is healthier for men and women, apparently.I'm no expert, but as you say…
SP wrote:Nothing is ever easyNot even 'science'. Ahem.
LBirdI do believe that Jewish circumcision is a religious practice, something to do with a covenant between a god and its worshippers and not a hygiene issue. However I am of the oppinion that somehow hygeine and a religious story were blended.As a socialist I would argue, as I think you would as well, that access to good hygeine would be one of the priorities of a newly emerged socialist society, so genital mutilation as a preventative measure due to lack of knowledge and facilities to enable good hygeine practices, is a non starter. Leaving only religion and tradition as the reasons for wishing to mutilate children. I can't imagine a socialist wishing to inflict harm to a child.
SocialistPunk wrote:Getting back to the opening post about a socialist speaker on question time and the Party not having a particular policy on such matters. What would be the policy if this footballer were a Party member?I would assume up to the point that a Party member were proven guilty they would still be eligible for membership, but once convicted of such a crime, what is the Party policy?It surely must have a policy otherwise a situation could arise whereby the Party becomes a safe haven for unsavoury characters.I'm not talking about crimes such as shop lifting or bank fraud, but crimes that cause serious harm and suffering to other people.
SocialistPunk wrote:I can't imagine a socialist wishing to inflict harm to a child.You can't?! I've had kids, SP!
Young Master Smeet wrote:Obviously, we are opposed to rape, and we would argue that rapists in socialism would need to be dealt with …If we accept that we are opposed to rape then it must follow that we are opposed to rapists? In what sences are we opposed to them?How would we deal with a convicted rapist in the Socialist movement? Or indeed a convicted paedophile? Are such convictions compatible with membership of the Socialist Party?If they are , then in what sense are we opposed to rape and paedophilia?
No takers Vin, hardly surprising, as this issue enters into the realm of morality or for anyone who doesn't like that word, how we should treat each other and expect to be treated. Or to break it down to an even simpler level is it acceptable to hurt others for your own gratification?I take it there is no Party policy on this issue. Perhaps it is time there was?
SocialistPunk wrote:No takers Vin, hardly surprising, as this issue enters into the realm of morality or for anyone who doesn't like that word,I am not sure that protection of offspring has anything to do with morality: Unless most animals are guided by a moral system?But I agree the issue is an important one. Do we oppose reformism but not rape and paedophilia? Imagine Paxman asking such a question of a party representative? We need to be prepared for such questions. What is or should be our reply? I know what mine would be.
VinI don't have any offspring to protect or for that matter a sister to protect from chauvinistic footballers, but I still care about other people being hurt by others for personal gratification. To me morality is the expression of a social code that binds non family groups of people together through empathy. Part of the social bond is how to deal with those who transgress. As a socialist society will face situations, especially in its infancy, of this nature, then those who advocate such a socialist society need to address these issues now and not wait until a Newsnight type scenario has exposed such a huge flaw in the plan.
SocialistPunk wrote:such a huge flaw in the plan.That's where you are wrong, on other threads as well. Socialism is not some "plan" that the Socialist Party is going to implement. I know we are often accused of that, but that's utopian system-building. Socialism is a system of society that the working class is going to establish by prosecuting the class struggle to a victorious conclusion. We today don't have to have the answers to everything. We haven't got them and it would be stupid and arrogant of us to think we could have. All we can say with certainty is that the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources would provide a framework within which all the problems humanity faces can be dealt with, certainly a better framework than the present one of minority ownership and control. The rest can only be speculation, interesting and instructive perhaps but not a "plan". Having said that, when the socialist movement is much larger and nearer to winning then, yes, I'm sure, groups of workers will be drawing up plans on what to do when capitalism is ended, but we are nowhere there yet.
I accept your point Socialist Punk. The point I was making is that opposition to rape and paedophlia does not have to be based on morality. We are social animals and will protect our children. I have no opposition to the 'feelings' being described as 'morality' (edit: I feel them too)Having said that, I think the argument around 'morality' is endless and has in the past proven – in the main – to be one of samantics
I empathise with and thouroughly understand SP's comments. Even as small as the "Movement" is at the moment, members can and indeed do, consider the problems that may arise, in a Socialist Society and speculate on how, as the "Movement" grows, we can put in place systems that can be implemented quickly, once a majority of us are "Class Conscious" enough to bring it about.As Adam say's and once again, I agree with, it is not for Socialists today to lay down blueprints for the future. Our role at this point in history is to "make Socialists" and to keep the idea alive. In 5/10/20 years time, who knows how much science will have moved on and how much this will impact on bringing Socialism about!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.