Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Why are we talking about the behaviour of chimps, baboons, etc when what distinguishes humans from these and other animals is that our behaviour, including sexual behaviour, is not just governed by biology but is overwhelmingly culturally-determined? We have a wide range of possible behaviours. They don't.

Because Sociologist who study primates tell us humans have the abiity to behave in ways primates behave. Also, they suggest strongly that the variations in primate behavior are caused more by their social structure than genetics.  Bonobos are a matriarch society with women in charge that primarily uses sex for negotiiation of resources along with an exclusion or inclusion in the group dyname.Chimps are a Patriach society with men in charge that primarily uses aggression for negotiation of resources along with a strong or week in the group dynamic.Humans seem (acording to sociologist) to have aspects of both chimp and bonobo cultures depending on cultural and unkown other factors.  here's a more detailed article. . . http://io9.gizmodo.com/5794988/are-humans-more-like-chimps-or-bonobos-the-correct-answer-is-changingor google "are humans more like chimps or bonobos" for lots of links. 

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Why are we talking about the behaviour of chimps, baboons, etc when what distinguishes humans from these and other animals is that our behaviour, including sexual behaviour, is not just governed by biology but is overwhelmingly culturally-determined? We have a wide range of possible behaviours. They don't.

 It is pure Social-Darwinism, a pseudo science created by the bourgeois to justify the violent behaviors of their own society, to justify wars, killings, and desires for profits.

[ALB]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Because Sociologist who study primates tell us humans have the abiity to behave in ways primates behave.

Of course we have and a lot more other ways too. But the point is that they can't behave in the ways we can and do.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Because Sociologist who study primates tell us humans have the abiity to behave in ways primates behave.

Of course we have and a lot more other ways too. But the point is that they can't behave in the ways we can and do.

 There is an interesting article in the  Scientific American on the subject of chimp behaviour….http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/like-humans-chimps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160824 Im not entirely convinced that the distinction between primate and human behaviour is  quite as cut and dried as it may seem.  Frans de Waal's work is quite seminal in this regard – books such as Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (2007) and Chimpanzee Cultures (1994) Here he is delivering a TED talk https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Because Sociologist who study primates tell us humans have the abiity to behave in ways primates behave.

Of course we have and a lot more other ways too. But the point is that they can't behave in the ways we can and do.

We are the only ape whose social relationships are based on trust. And that has enormous consequences for our social behaviour. Drawing simple parallels with chimps just doesn't make any sense. We are the only ape, for instance, in which males provision the females and take a share in child rearing.  We are the only ape which has voluntary control over our tongue in vocalisations. Other ape calls are genetically controlled and invariant. A chimpanzee for instance has no choice but to make food or predator calls given the right stimulus. We have choice in our communications. Our adaptation therefore is for enormously greater social complexity. Add to that, the size of our brains is not only way above that of chimps, its rate of growth, as we can assess it through the fossil evidence, was colossal and unprecedented. The prevailing theory at the moment is that we accepted the costs of this very energy expensive enlarged brain to allow us to negotiate all the complex relationships we enter into as human beings. No other ape has such a brain because no other ape needs it.

[Anonymous]

..watching chimps co-operate in a disciplined way to join in a hunting of smaller monkeys to satisfy their meat craving is a chilling experience.They have scouts, beaters out and silent ambushers. Unlike human fox hunters they actuallly eat the poor monkeys There is no doubt they enjoy the whole process.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

Im not entirely convinced that the distinction between primate and human behaviour is  quite as cut and dried as it may seem.  Frans de Waal's work is quite seminal in this regard – books such as Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (2007) and Chimpanzee Cultures (1994)

The trouble with arguing from the cooperative behaviour of other animals to try to show that humans can be too (as Kropotkin pioneered in Mutual Aid) is that those who argue that socialism won't work because humans are innately aggressive, etc can also apply the same argument to back up their case.Of course other animals do behave cooperatively and that's part of their "nature" (and we can use that to counter those who claim that all nature is red in tooth and claw). But human behaviour is very different because nearly all of it is learned from the human-made environment. Human behaviour is flexible and adaptable in a way that no other animal's is. We are unique and the behaviour pattern of other animals is irrelevant when it comes to what we are capable of.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

. We are unique and the behaviour pattern of other animals is irrelevant when it comes to what we are capable of.

Well, not entirely Ireelevant.  What you discribe is that we aren't limited to animal behavior patterns.  What is being suggesed, is that we have the ability to for a society based on Bonobo or Chimp or Ape or Monkey or even reptile behavior.  What society and Neo-liberalism encourages is that we base our behavior or self interest and purely reptile thinking an purely reptile socail solutions.  Patriarchy is a basis of behavior coming from the chimp family tree that we can and do immitate.  Matriarchy is a basis of behavior coming from the bonobo family tree that we don't immitate currently very often in large scale, but we probably could. We aren't arguing that bonobos can act like humans.  We're arguing that humans can act like bonobos. 

[ALB]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

We aren't arguing that bonobos can act like humans.  We're arguing that humans can act like bonobos.

That's exactly my point ! But humans are not the "third chimpanzee" but a quite different species with quite different behavioural patterns and possibilities. Our behaviour may exhibit similarities between those of chimps but that's just a co-incidence.

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

We aren't arguing that bonobos can act like humans.  We're arguing that humans can act like bonobos.

That's exactly my point ! But humans are not the "third chimpanzee" but a quite different species with quite different behavioural patterns and possibilities. Our behaviour may exhibit similarities between those of chimps but that's just a co-incidence.

to say that all behavioural similarities are necessarily a coincidence is not really correct. For instance attachment behaviour, which is vital to mammal survival, can be noted in practically all mammals to a greater or lesser extent, precisely because it gives mammals who demonstrate it an evolutionary advantage.There are, however in my opinion, a few very real problems in using animal models to develop information about human psychology.Some animals in certain conditions exhibit behaviour which is similar to human behaviour, however all animals also have many behaviours that differ greatly from human behaviour and humans also exhibit behavours which differ greatly from the animals that they are compared to.Therefore using examples of animal behaviour that are ostensibly the same as human behaviours, to make inferences about behaviours of humans that that are different from the animals that are being compared (which is often what is done in animal studies) makes about as much sense as saying at certain times we behave like chimpanzees, therefore chimpanzees must be able to play scrabble.Another issue is that just because animals are exhibiting the same behaviours as humans, it doesn't mean they are necessarily behaving in that way for the same reason that humans do, there is a similar flaw in classically based studies of human behaviour, as two humans might behave in the same way, but for two different reasons.This leads on to another flaw in animal studies, which is that they can only study behaviour, any study of the cognitive factors which are influencing the animal behaviour, must necessarily be inferred from the behaviour exhibited. In contrast human based studies have the advantage that those involved can give report of the cognitive factors involved in the behaviour studied. Additionally it is clear that animal based cognitions are very different from animal cognitions, as we have the additional feature of language in our cognitions.As Vygotsky pointed out, once we become verbal not only do our relationships with others in our species change, our relationship with our own cognitions also changes, as we move to thinking primarily through the use of language, effectively we begin to have conversations with ourselves. Once this process of verbalisation begins the thought processes we can develop increase in line with the sophistication of our own internal language. As animals do not have verbal language and even if chimps and bonobos do have a form of internal speech, it is clearly no where near the level of sophisticated speech that humans have. Therefore the cognitive processes which drive behaviour must necessarily be very different in humans and chimps or bonobos.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

I'm not at all convinced by arguments from related species.  Apart from the fact that the conclusions you come to depends very much on whether you draw your observations from chimps or bonobos, the argument from genetic relatedness is itself a dubious one. It isn't the percentage of genes we share with another species that matters, it's which genes. A tiny genetic change can make huge differences across the genome if the genes affected are those which turn other genes on and off.Once this is acknowledged, it becomes clear that the phenotypical distance of the human species from chimps and bonobos and the other apes is enormous. If, for instance, anthropologists are right and the social relationships of the earliest human beings around 200,000 years ago are mirrored in existing hunter gatherer groups then our earliest social relationships are light years away from those of our nearest ape relative, or any of the apes for that matter.

Your right. . . sort of.  your genetic argument is sound, but the argument doesn't rest on the claim that we are like bonobos genetically. The argument rests on the claim that we CAN behave like Bonobos socially.  If you've heard of "emergent poperties" then the idea is that there are natural social organization practices which are stable and sustainable and emerge from the properties of an organizational model.  Think of emergent properties as a sort of combination of game theory like the prisoners dilema and the results of the game theory and a Nash equilibrium condition.  In a prisoner's dilema game the rules are that both prisoners can turn evidence against the other and get a reduced sentence while the other gets a very very long sentence.  But if both prisoners keep quiet then both get only a short sentence.  So under some conditions such as both prisoners knew each other and expect to be in this situation again or have some family bond that makes them care fo reach other, then they are more likely to collaborate and both will keep quiet.  under other conditions where both prisoners already dislike each other then they'll each try to be first to take the defecting bonus of a lighter sentence.  So then we have a situation where the behavior of the prisoners is an emergent property of their social relations to each other.  Bonobos offer us an alternative look at our society scale type prisoners dilema's.  So this experiment should produce the same results based on social connection whether the prisoners are bonobos or chimps or humans.  The genetics aren't the part that determines what solutions are most likely to result from this situation. For capitalism and socialism we have a similar kind of situation and the argument is that if the conditions for creating capitalism in chimps exist then the conditions for creating socialism is chimps can tell us about the conditions required to produce capitalism in humans or socialism in humans.  Then the argument goes on to say that sexual customs or behaviors are one of the key variables in the game that determine whether we solve the problems of resource distribution using socialism or capitalism.  Or maybe there's a weeker claim that Sexual behavior is somehow linked to socialism or capitalism, but not in a causal way.  For example in the prisoners dilema example I proposed earlier, the same solutions between prisoners might be reached for sharing items as for not telling on the other or even for if both prisoners expect to have sex with the same woman but that woman won't have sex with a either of them if they defect on the other (maybe she likes them both because she thinks of them as selfless), but neither prisoner knows who's her favorite.

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

It's not what it looks like, I was just helping establish a society of common ownership!

Somehow, I don't think it'll catch on.I don't think sexual liberation needs socialism and I dread to think how this might be imposed on the unwilling. Like Gerry Healy in the WRP? Like the 'horizontal recruiters' in the 'Revolutionary Workers League'? At least there is no suggestion that Sheridan's shenanigans were anything other than consensual and at least not prevented by the morality of the Pope or Rupert Murdoch or any other media mogul.

Women liberation and sexual liberation is just a bourgeois reformist  movement, and left wingers have also fell in that trap.We are not going to be liberated by sex, religion, color of the skin, national origins, or ethnicity, or the color of any stupid flag, on the contrary, those superficial things keep us divided,  We are going to liberate ourselves as human beings. It is like the believe of some racial groups that the problem in our society  is racism when the real problem is capitalism.I do not know  why socialism has been mixed with sex,  genetics, and law,  Socialism is a social-political movement and it has nothing to with biology, genetics or jurisprudence, even more, we are not going to be liberated thru the legal system, with a doctorate degree in Law I can clean my buttWe  are the only social being that exist over the earth, we have assigned our own behaviors to animals, and there is  a pseudo scientific movement influenced by the capitalist ideology known as social- Darwinism that has tried to transfer animal behaviors to our human society, by using that pseudo science the capitalists have tried to justify the jungle behavior of their own society.  The romantic view on animals is run by a business trend that produce billions of dollars in profits. There are more than 63 millions of families than own a dog, and that there millions of children who die every years, and many peoples do not care, or do not know about that, they love their animals more than the human being. A monkey is a  monkey, and human being is a human being

[Subhaditya]

When Brazilian Ronaldo won the World Cup, he said it felt as good as sex… thats the thing sex is the best thing there is….Now if a man gains more control over resources he ends up getting more sex that is more power = more sex… someone called it the "Kissinger Effect"  where an ugly powerful man manages to have sex with way more beautiful women than a poverty stricken handsome man with 'superior genes' manages… power will be the key to happiness.In a world like that men will be eliminating each other to gain power… just for more sex… and this craving for power will be more the more shortage of sex there is. Thats all I was trying to draw attention to when I referred to the primates… the relation between power and sex and how sex can be used to bring about more cooperation or reduce cooperation by increasing or decreasing the amount of sex that is available….I mean the singer whose songs make half the women want to have sex with him probably wont be craving power….. he is getting enough without it.But when relative wealth or call it power is the key to getting more sex… there goes socialist cooperation and desire for equality… well, at least among the ones who fancy their chances… because sex > everything else.  

[Anonymous]

Subhaditya wrote:

When Brazilian Ronaldo won the World Cup, he said it felt as good as sex… thats the thing sex is the best thing there is….Now if a man gains more control over resources he ends up getting more sex that is more power = more sex… someone called it the "Kissinger Effect"  where an ugly powerful man manages to have sex with way more beautiful women than a poverty stricken handsome man with 'superior genes' manages… power will be the key to happiness.In a world like that men will be eliminating each other to gain power… just for more sex… and this craving for power will be more the more shortage of sex there is. Thats all I was trying to draw attention to when I referred to the primates… the relation between power and sex and how sex can be used to bring about more cooperation or reduce cooperation by increasing or decreasing the amount of sex that is available….I mean the singer whose songs make half the women want to have sex with him probably wont be craving power….. he is getting enough without it.But when relative wealth or call it power is the key to getting more sex… there goes socialist cooperation and desire for equality… well, at least among the ones who fancy their chances… because sex > everything else.  

Porfirio Rubirosa who was a gigolo and a male prostitute, who spent his whole life living like a parasite from women, he had the same ideas, that you have.His secret was that he was able to control orgasm for a long period of time, more normal than others men,( man now have surgery and they can have erection for more than one hour )  he learned that trick with poor  prostitutes.He never wanted to be friend with others men like him because he hated competition. He was a man with power. money, he was always lonely, scare, and he never had a formal family. He died like his mentor: Ramfis Trujillo on a car accidentKissinger was a son of a bitch who has never been born, and should be placed in jail many years ago. Some peoples have power when they are supported by machine guns and others have machetes and mochas, and kitchen knifesI do not see any relationship with that manhood and socialism, and those ideas sound very reactionaries and backwards  to me

[Subhaditya]

mcolome1 wrote:

I do not see any relationship with that manhood and socialism, and those ideas sound very reactionaries and backwards  to me

Ok sex is clearly a motivator, even ISIS uses sex to motivate its fighters.Porfirio Rubirosa may have seduced a few heiresses for money… but he also bedded thousands of poor women not for money but for pure physical pleasure… and he was an ambassadors son and got  a foreign education and had money enough to spend lots and lots of time with prostitutes which is more than what the average Dominican could afford… he wasnt poor. If you could get people to risk their lives and kill other people for more sex dont you think its a serious need as important as food or shelter.British soldiers used to sing of a 'lakh and lass a day' while drinking where lass is a woman and lakh is 100,000 Indian currency… it wasnt just for money they were off to conquering the world… it was also for more sex… that is they werent just deprived of material needs they were also deprived of their sexual needs and the sexual needs were as important as the material needs.So I am saying for peoples needs were to be met adequately through peaceful cooperation… the critical needs that need to be met isnt just going to be food, water,shelter but food,water,shelter and sex…. James W. Prescott's research shows that monogamous and any society that tries to discourage physical pleasure seeking is a violent one.So how will socialism succeed in an environment of violence… people will be killing each other not for food, water or shelter but for sex… need for sex is no less trivial than need for food,water or shelter… so shouldnt socialism deal with it as seriously as it deals with issues like food,water, shelter ?

[Author]

Posts