Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion

[robbo203]

Subhaditya wrote:

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 ?

 Good point but I dont think you should push the argument too far in the direction of specifying or layng down a particular prescribed  pattern of sexual relations as the means by which sexual needs could be accommodated.  After all,even in a monogamous relationship sexual needs can be met.  Sexual needs are in any case not the only consideration in forming attachments or relationships; what about love or affection? I think the main point that comes across in your argument is that a socialist society should not seek to constrain the way in which individuals seek sexual pleasure, providing of course that this is consensual (which by definition rape is not and which no one here would defend).  I would go along with that and with the corollary that socialists should behave in this regard in  a way that prefigures the kind of society they seek and the values it embodies.  But it is problematic to infer from this any particular pattern of sexual attachment.  There are so many variables to contend with. Look at the way notions of sexual attractivenesss or beauty  today are mediated or structured by the  fashion industry, advertising and so on. We assume such pressures won't exist in a socialist but who knows?  Surrogate versions of the same could emerge.  Or will socialism be the ultimate expression of a post modernistic culture in which anything goes? 

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

Or will socialism be the ultimate expression of a post modernistic culture in which anything goes?

Of course not. I know you don't think this as you have argued here a moral case as well as a class case for socialism and that this is just a rhetorical question.But just in case someone gets the wrong impression, we don't agree with the post-modernists that cannibalism is just a matter of taste.

[Anonymous]

Subhaditya wrote:

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.

Yes but know. . . if sex is exclusive and you haveing sex with someone means someone else can't then yes people will fight over sex.  But that's only true for monogomous cultures and actually now that we have porn and sexual liberation, the sex=property=right to deny use of property by others argument doesn't have as much impact on people.  So it's not inevetable that sex must be fought over.  Things that are fought over are limited in supply, but sex does not have to be limited in supply.  Having sex with one person doesn't have to take away from others the opportunities to have sex.   Furthermore, Sex in bonobo societies that are matriarch based works not as a resource, but as a negotiating strategy.  People who are raised with violence and cruelty grow up learning to take away from others what they want through violence and cruelty, but people raised with sex and affection grow up learning to seduce others into shareing what they want through pleasure manipulation and desires.  So basically sex and violence are both unlimited by nature, but the man made imposition of limits on sex makes sex into a limited resources for fighting over.  But in a bonobo matriarch society man would want to impose limits on violence to make violence a limited resource for seducing and loving over.  Violence still happens in a bonobo society, but it's an expression of group exclusion; no one will have sex with you or share with you so you suffer the violence of being ostracized and alone.  You're point about the nead for sex being strong is correct, but it's the limited vs unlimited nature of sex or violence that seems relevant to discussions of socialism more than the attractiveness of the sex vs violence.  Also we can have, in theory a society without limits on both sex and violence, which seems to be the direction man is headed.   Or we can have a society with very little sex and very little violence which would limit both.  Part of the argument for sexual promiscuity and socialism is the mistaken idea that sex is inclusive and sharing based which is similar to the inclusive and sharing base of socialism.  I would argue against that reasoning because, fighting and other forms of violence are also inclusive and sharing based, It's just the sharing of negative value.  nonetheless, it seems that a culture of sex especially in early childhood when coping and persusive strategies engourages sharing with at least one other person would result in adults who seek to satisfy their needs through sharing.  Instead of fighting over food, bonobos seduce each other to get food.  Instead of fighting each other over exlusive use of shelter bonobos seduce each other to acquire a share of shelter.  

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

But just in case someone gets the wrong impression, we don't agree with the post-modernists that cannibalism is just a matter of taste.

The argument is that sex does not equal canibalism.  the phrase "anything goes" was intended to mean "anything sexual is allowed".  But in reality that's not even true as bonobo societies have ritualized and practiced methods of pleasure negotiation just like chimps have ritualized and practiced methods of conflict negotiatioins.  In a chimp society not everyone is equally violent, and in a bonobo society not everyone is equally desireable.  Power (the ability to affect change) in a patriarch society generally is based on ability to deny others resources.  Power (the ability to affect change) in a matriarch society is based on the ability to share resources.  So in chimp society a powerfulll leader directs violence(the action of taking away of resouces) of subordinates in a hierarchy based power structure.  In a bonobo society a powerfull leader directs sharing (the providing of resources) of subordinates in a hierachy based power structure.  But it should be noted the hierarchy of a bonobo society is somewhat flatter and slightly different from the hierarcy of the chimp society because of the inherent difference sharing and taking away of resources.  the argument for sexual promiscuity as a precondition of socialism seems based loosely on the idea that a sharing solution is more engouraging of socialism than an taking away solution.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Or will socialism be the ultimate expression of a post modernistic culture in which anything goes?

Of course not. I know you don't think this as you have argued here a moral case as well as a class case for socialism and that this is just a rhetorical question.But just in case someone gets the wrong impression, we don't agree with the post-modernists that cannibalism is just a matter of taste.

 LOL.  "Cannibalism is just a matter of taste".  Quite a quotable quote that!.  But talking specifically about sexual preferences or attachments which is what this thread is about, rather than culture in general,  I imagine people would be free or freer to chose what form this takes with the proviso that it would be consensual.  So, yes, at least in this respect "anything would go" but up to a point (where consensus runs out).  It is certainly possible even likely that some, maybe  even most,  people would chose to be in a monogamous relationship which is why I question the tacit assumption that monogamy as such is the problem.  The problem is trying to push such a relationship down ones throat if I can put it like that.One point of clarification – I don't see the moral case for socialism as  something separate from the class case for socialism.  Class consciousness is a moral construct.  It is the expression of a "proletarian morality"

[Subhaditya]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

it's the limited vs unlimited nature of sex or violence that seems relevant to discussions of socialism more than the attractiveness of the sex vs violence

Yes thats what I am trying to say by limiting sex we are creating a shortage of a critical need where power will get you more of it… how will you have cooperation if both sides dont benefit from it… you have to eliminate your competitor to get it as there isnt enough for both… whole point of socialism seems to be based on there being enough for both competitors so they dont have to fight over it… else they will be fighting over it.  

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Or we can have a society with very little sex and very little violence which would limit both.

But we cant if we go by James W. Prescotts research, its noticed in bonobos and chimps too… little sex = more violence and more sex = less violence. Its either or we cant have both.It all goes with a critical need not being met as well for the majority as it is for the powerful(rich) being able to meet it better or more sufficiently. I mean in a monogamous society since ancient times a high net worth individual could experience hundreds or thousands of women by just paying for it. So if a strong need is met so much better by having more material resources to offer than the average person can, will fellow competitors be wanting to share resources or keep it to themselves to try get richer than others ? After all if you are richer than others you get more sex especially in a monogamous or polygamous place… Will competitors behave like bonobos who get a lot of sex(they have sex dozens of times each day) and call others to come and enjoy the food pile they have come across or behave like sex starved chimps who will try to exclude others from access to the food pile and keep all to himself. Perhaps he will give selective access to those who will help him meet his sexual needs better since he is not getting much?Christopher Ryans research shows clearly we are promiscuous beings…. we are not wired to be attracted to only one person. We dont want to have sex with just one person. What if power offered you the opportunity to have sex with as many as you like…In the Hindu sacred scriptures a King had the divine right to have sex with as many as he liked while a poor man only had his wife… wouldn't you desire power in such a place, I would. I mean getting to experience as many women as I like… who wouldn't want that. When we watch porn its all we do… experience someone other than our wives. If you found yourself in a position to turn your desires into reality would you not go for it… I did imagine most would. Therein lies the need for power. But what if you could do this that is turn your porn desires into reality as an average Joe…. that will be one less reason now for craving power and being content as the average Joe.If no one or hardly anyone was watching porn we could say we are very satisfied but we arent are we. Legislatures wont be needing to pass laws and regulations effectively banning porn from theaters and television, to prevent porn from going mainstream… thats what was happening in the 70s in America until their legislature banned it from theaters. Same is the story in other countries. Thats what our masters are upto, promote monogamy and hate and ostracize the slut… and we are falling for it as we usually do.  If we loved the whore by which I mean a promiscuous woman not a prostitute… we will see the reticence of  women vanishingbut alas we 'shame the slut', we think that is some odd abnormal behavior. Everyday mass media bombards us with the message that monogamy is good natural and promiscuity is bad or stupid or abnormal. But it is not such an open and shut case yet where are the discussions on it in the mass media… 

[ALB]

Still talking about bonobos, etc and still from a male perspective.

[lindanesocialist]

Perhaps that is our problem. We talk a lot of irrelevant rubbish , while  Corbyn talks about issues affecting the working class. 

[robbo203]

  Hi Subhaditya I don't disagree with some of the things you say but part of what you say seems to be mistaking the shadow for the substance.  I refer to your argument against monogamy. My position is that I am neither for nor against it.  If  people wish to maintain a monogamous relationship thats fine by me, If they wish to enter a polygamous relationship thats equally fine by me.  Its the compulsion to conform to one or the other thats the problem. I'm not convinced by your rather tortuous line of argument.  According to you sex is a critical need (true) and that if we dont get to have enough of it this mechanically translates into increased competition over sex leading to increased levels of violence.  But what does getting enough sex entail? There is no apriori reason why our sexual needs cannot be fulfilled completely within a monogamous relation,  It depends on the individual,  Yet you interpret  sexual scarcity in terms of not having enough partners to satisfy your sexual needs, rather than the actual time we spend having sex, Again this may be true for some individuals but it does not follow that it is true for everyone, You mention porn but I think there is a danger of inadvertently succumbing to a kind of capitalist supply and demand model of sex.  Under capitalism sex is a commodity. Sex sells.  Not only is sex sold in the direct proximate sense but but also facilitates the sale of other commodities through the seductive power of association.Porn is the expression of the commodification of sex, I don't wish to come across as prudish here, If people want to indulge in porn thats entirely understandable given the nature of the society we live in, But we shouldn't overlook what lies behind it . The fetishism of commodities takes on a deeper meaning in the case of sex. There is some evidence to suggest that porn can be addictive in some cases – what does this say about the law of supply and demand – and for men in particular this can lower the quality of their relationship with their female partners though – curiously – not the other way round apparently .  See this for example  http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/04/pornography.aspx.  I'm not quite sure what the evidence is in case of gay relationships There is a lot more to life than sex.  Don't get me wrong.  Lenin in his debate with Alexandra Kollontai talked of sex "stealing fire from the revolution" if I remember correctly (though I cant recall the actual source of this quote).  Kollontai's socialist feminist perspective is nicely summed up in this article    https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1724 You state:In the Hindu sacred scriptures a King had the divine right to have sex with as many as he liked while a poor man only had his wife… wouldn't you desire power in such a place, I would. I mean getting to experience as many women as I like… who wouldn't want that. When we watch porn its all we do… experience someone other than our wives. If you found yourself in a position to turn your desires into reality would you not go for it… I did imagine most would. Therein lies the need for power. But what if you could do this that is turn your porn desires into reality as an average Joe…. that will be one less reason now for craving power and being content as the average Joe. I find this a little confusing.  On the face of it it seems to be saying that the king having access to as many women as he likes should have no need to crave power.  Would that that were the case in real life! Pornography and prudishness are but two sides of the same coin that we exchange for sex under capitalism – not necessarily in brutish physical sense of resorting to prostitution but also in the more refined sense of a Jane Austen novel in which a good marriage is equated with a sound business proposition without even the hint of embarrassment at the very thought of it

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Still talking about bonobos, etc and still from a male perspective.

Super-macho shit  in a socialist forum. We should send an invitation to Donald Trump

[Subhaditya]

robbo203 wrote:

I find this a little confusing.  On the face of it it seems to be saying that the king having access to as many women as he likes should have no need to crave power.  Would that that were the case in real life!

I am saying the King had such a right because he was powerful… or else he would have to live like the poor commoners with a wife to get sex from… its power that gave him such a right and that is why he craved it…Student unions of colleges here are mostly recruiting organs of political parties.Now I know of a student union secretary of a college here who deftly manages to get girls to have sex with him while a parent is waiting for their daughter to get her admit card to gain admission to the college in the next room. You see the parent doesnt know what their daughter is upto in the next room neither was the daughter until she enters the room… and the daughter knows her education will be badly affected if at that moment she doesnt do what the union secretary is telling her to do, and most of the time she chooses to satisfy him rather than have her education affected. A girl did go to the police station to complain … the police verbally abused her away.This union secretary stopped holding elections for the student union… I suppose he doesnt want to lose his position of authority… power can be the most pleasurable thing there is I suppose.I read Gaddafi's story in the book by Annick Cojean… same thing he was using his power to get more pleasure… I dont think Gaddafi would have gotten even a tenth of the sex he managed if he didnt have power.Anyway I was reading the article on Alexander Kollontai,  I am confused about Red Love, what does it mean… is there anywhere I can find more details about it.      

[ALB]

Subhaditya wrote:

Anyway I was reading the article on Alexander Kollontai,  I am confused about Red Love, what does it mean… is there anywhere I can find more details about it.

I don't know if this is the same as she meant but here's an article from the Socialist Standard in 1910:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-76-december-1910/case-free-love-some-capitalist-hypocrisies-exposed

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Subhaditya wrote:

Anyway I was reading the article on Alexander Kollontai,  I am confused about Red Love, what does it mean… is there anywhere I can find more details about it.

I don't know if this is the same as she meant but here's an article from the Socialist Standard in 1910:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-76-december-1910/case-free-love-some-capitalist-hypocrisies-exposed

This article cited by Adam has more relationship with socialism, than all these  macho shit published in this thread.  All these sound like worshipping to men power and leadership mixed with a bunch of reactionary and backward conception.Since the very beginning this thread started by degrading women, like typical discussion form a prostitution parlor conducted by Gigolo, Pimps, 'Chulos"  and 'Maipiolos"Gaddafi did it, and Rafael Trujillo, Ramfis Trujillo and John F Kennedy did it too. They used power and money in order to get sex, but they never found real  happiness with all the power that they had. They were fierce anti-communistsMy question is,  what is the relationship of all these rubbish with socialism ? What is the relevant of all these for the forum of a Socialist Party ? If we are against domination, chieftain,  and leadership why do we permit this type of things in this supposedly socialist forum ?  This is just bourgeois trash, that we have heard for many years

[Anonymous]

Subhaditya wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I find this a little confusing.  On the face of it it seems to be saying that the king having access to as many women as he likes should have no need to crave power.  Would that that were the case in real life!

I am saying the King had such a right because he was powerful… or else he would have to live like the poor commoners with a wife to get sex from… its power that gave him such a right and that is why he craved it…Student unions of colleges here are mostly recruiting organs of political parties.Now I know of a student union secretary of a college here..

You are just speaking of abuse of power. The sex is irrelevant consequence rather than a motivator,i don't think the king craved power for his 'nookie', he would have already been showing unhealthy abusive tendencies, except inasmuch as it is an opportunistic misuse of a privileged position.We intend to end privilege forever, so none of your examples, which seem like personal obsessions, will apply in a socialist society.

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

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.

 Yes, I agree with all that but theres more. . . what you describe are confounding factors and worthy of consideration.  It may be as you suggest that bonobos lack some aggression chemical in the brain (for example) that makes them sexualized and also makes them more socialized to socialism.  Perhaps bonobo's are incapable of socialism or perhaps chimps are incapable of socialism. Human psychology may indead be predisposed towards capitalism.  BUT we what if the societal scale result of humans organizing under socialism vs capitalism isn't related to psychology.  What if it's a result of game theory and the emergent properties of organizations under different starting conditions. We don't know what the starting conditions are for a society that results in it's transformation to socialism although Marx argued he did.  Marx argued that capitalism is a the the primary and perhaps only precondition needed for a society to evolve into socialism.  Marx didn't distinguish between game theory and psychology in his critique of capitalism (please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption about marx understanding of the conditions necessary for socialism to arrise).  But without explicitely using the words Game theory, he was talkign about game theory and an emergent property of the social rules (game rules) that cause capitalims would also be the same social rules (aka game rules) that result in capitalism transforming spontaneously into socialism. the idea of game theory is used to explain parallel evolution where different birds, for example, in different islands that are unconnected genetically, both develope long beaks for poking into tight holes.  that's not determined by the genetics of the birds on both islands being the same or different or the psychology of birds on both islands being the same or different.  the determining factor is that the long beeks of birds on both islands is a better solution to the same environmental conditions (aka game rules).  An example of this might be that humans or any intellegent species, finding itself with a currency based on capital goods will invariably have the emergent property of capitalism.  Another example of this principle is that humans or any intellegent species finding itself with only an monogomous option for reproduction will invariably have the emergent property of capitalism.  And the example the discussion thread seems to be advocating for is that "humans or any intellegent species finding itself with only a non-monogomous option for reproduction where the genetic contribution of each individual towards each offspring is unknown will invariably have the emergent property of socialism.  And the stronger argument is that with only monogomous options for reproduction, socialism will not be a stable emergent property of human organization and that capitalism is a better evolutoinary fit for the monogomous reproduction environment.    p.s. I would consider an evolutionary fit framing of discussions as a Matriarch (aka bonobo) derived metaphor for understanding behavior.  I'll talk about that more if you want, but it gets into gender based linguistics and is quite complicated.  I mention it to you because I support ALB's earlier argument that a lot of the discussion in the last few comments is from a male perspective and I'm making some small effort to translate or convert the framing into a female perspective.  for reference I specifically rely on Deborah Tannen and Barbara Lakoff, for their theories of genderlect (gender specefic language usage).  So if you happen to be familiar with either of those then you can probably work out the reason I'm claiming to have used a more gender female framing and perspective in my persuasive technique (pss. not that a patriach response would have used the words "in my argumentation technique" instead of using the word "persuasive".  the matriarch framing is generally not going to use confrontation words and instead is typificed by attraction based words and in-group, out-group framing. Matriarch based arguments typically use language to express magnitude of connection and ability to reward instead of the ability to punish)

[Author]

Posts