Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion

[Subhaditya]

Are you telling me…When one is forced to live in a hovel while another one lives in a palace… and if the hovel dweller has a desire to live in the palace you use repression to prevent that from happening… domination and subjugation is not happening ? A new subjugated class wont come up in no time?And its a bad idea to 'encourage' the palaces and hovels to share what they have to offer to those who seek to experience them.That it is not socialistic to 'encourage' people to share… especially when there are many examples showing people are perfectly capable of sharing in a collective way.Whats with this political correctness… we are not equal or we would all look the same. We want to be treated equally. Or we would be perfectly content living in an unequal society…. which religion has tried to accomplish for thousands of years.p.s. i used the word 'encourage' not 'force'… whats with this blindness there is a difference between encourage and force… person being encouraged can reject it while person being forced will be killed or jailed or fined for refusal.

[robbo203]

Subhaditya wrote:

p.s. i used the word 'encourage' not 'force'… whats with this blindness there is a difference between encourage and force… person being encouraged can reject it while person being forced will be killed or jailed or fined for refusal.

 The problem is that the basic premiss of your argument is that socialism WILL fail of group sex is not the norm.  That sounds very much like an imperative. Group sex will be a obligatory requirement if we want socialism to continue.  I don't believe that for one moment. The fact is we simply don't know what pattern of sexual relationships will emerge in a socialist society and it would be idle to speculate.  More to the point it would be counterproductive.  Try telling  a worker today that he or she – and it seems to be overwhelmingly if not exclusively  women that you are talking of – is going to be shared around as the object of sexual desire and see what sort of response you get. I'm a strong advocate  of utopian thinking in the sense of trying to put flesh on the bare bones of a socialist model but I think this is an area where caution is advisable.  It is quite conceivable that group sex might become more commonplace but it is equally conceivable that many might prefer to maintain a monogamous relationship.  This has zero implications for the continuance of socialism either way and, in any case, equating more sex with having more sexual partners is questionable. Not to mention that there is more to life than sex I'm not an advocate of monogamy or polygamy or anything else but I am an advocate of letting people freely decide for themselves.  The decisions they make about their sexual lives will not impact on the continuance of the socialist society they have collectively brought into being.  Neither sex nor anything else can be used as a weapon to leverage power and influence over others in a society where the means of living are freely available to all.  Free access to goods and services along with the voluntary cooperative nature of labour in socialism are what will dissolve the possibility of any kind of concentration of power in a socialist society and this point can hardly be emphasised too much

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Subhaditya wrote:

p.s. i used the word 'encourage' not 'force'… whats with this blindness there is a difference between encourage and force… person being encouraged can reject it while person being forced will be killed or jailed or fined for refusal.

 The problem is that the basic premiss of your argument is that socialism WILL fail of group sex is not the norm.  That sounds very much like an imperative. Group sex will be a obligatory requirement if we want socialism to continue.  I don't believe that for one moment. The fact is we simply don't know what pattern of sexual relationships will emerge in a socialist society and it would be idle to speculate.  More to the point it would be counterproductive.  Try telling  a worker today that he or she – and it seems to be overwhelmingly if not exclusively  women that you are talking of – is going to be shared around as the object of sexual desire and see what sort of response you get. I'm a strong advocate  of utopian thinking in the sense of trying to put flesh on the bare bones of a socialist model but I think this is an area where caution is advisable.  It is quite conceivable that group sex might become more commonplace but it is equally conceivable that many might prefer to maintain a monogamous relationship.  This has zero implications for the continuance of socialism either way and, in any case, equating more sex with having more sexual partners is questionable. Not to mention that there is more to life than sex I'm not an advocate of monogamy or polygamy or anything else but I am an advocate of letting people freely decide for themselves.  The decisions they make about their sexual lives will not impact on the continuance of the socialist society they have collectively brought into being.  Neither sex nor anything else can be used as a weapon to leverage power and influence over others in a society where the means of living are freely available to all.  Free access to goods and services along with the voluntary cooperative nature of labour in socialism are what will dissolve the possibility of any kind of concentration of power in a socialist society and this point can hardly be emphasised too much

 This is a very good observation. This is the proper way to view the sexual relationship within a socialsit society

[Subhaditya]

robbo203 wrote:

Try telling  a worker today that he or she – and it seems to be overwhelmingly if not exclusively  women that you are talking of – is going to be shared around as the object of sexual desire and see what sort of response you get.

Good point, I am probably getting the wording all wrong… maybe this link (it is explicit ) will give a woman's perspective and which I think is healthier for socialism. There you will see for almost all of its duration women giving themselves pleasure… and at the end of it she(Dr. Susan Block at 59 years probably) says this

Quote:

different permutations of the pussy… many pussy… because I know it heals you… I want to heal you so you dont fucking go off to bomb villages and big cities

Before you go ballistic on me saying there is no relation between sex and violence again I will draw attention to James W.  Prescott's research on the link between denial of physical pleasure and violence.As long as massive number of people enjoy inflicting violence on others and themselves… 'human behavior' will look too violent, 'barbaric' and socialism 'impractical', 'impossible'.In this context a "many pussy" world looks far more likely to turn to socialism just because people will not see "many rape" when you mention the word "many pussy" instead they will see "more affection" which seems impossible to see at the moment.People cant even seem to see themselves as 'humans' and seem to be aspiring to be humans trying to control their 'animal nature'  where they equate sex with rape. James W. Prescott talks about this in his article…       

[Subhaditya]

Matt wrote:

I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.

Lol, I just realized this will be one of the unpleasant tasks … to ensure everyone gets enough pleasant sex… because well there are always many who are arent getting any sex thats worth calling it sex… money and power can go a long way in addressing that which of course only a few will have enough of… and money wont exist in socialistic society… and yet socialism isnt complete if your critical needs arent met through cooperation… So I suppose to meet peoples sexual needs in a socialist society without money…. there will be the unpleasant task of giving sex to those with whom no one they are attracted to wants to have sex with… and it cant be done by those they are not feeling attracted to…. or we can pair up 2 guys not getting any and make them ejaculate each other which is probably not going to meet these two guys sexual needs especially if they are attracted to women.So I guess for socialism to deliver on its promise of 'to each according to their needs from each according to their ability', to the list of unpleasant tasks will need to be added the unpleasant and voluntary task of giving 'pleasant sex' to those who arent managing it on their own. If I can get any cruder it would be giving 'pleasant sex' to the uglies and retards of the world who arent managing any on their own.I guess it would be managed the same way as the other unpleasant tasks that need to be done to meet peoples needs.

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

Matt wrote:

I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.

Lol, I just realized this will be one of the unpleasant tasks … to ensure everyone gets enough pleasant sex… because well there are always many who are arent getting any sex thats worth calling it sex… money and power can go a long way in addressing that which of course only a few will have enough of… and money wont exist in socialistic society… and yet socialism isnt complete if your critical needs arent met through cooperation… So I suppose to meet peoples sexual needs in a socialist society without money…. there will be the unpleasant task of giving sex to those with whom no one they are attracted to wants to have sex with… and it cant be done by those they are not feeling attracted to…. or we can pair up 2 guys not getting any and make them ejaculate each other which is probably not going to meet these two guys sexual needs especially if they are attracted to women.So I guess for socialism to deliver on its promise of 'to each according to their needs from each according to their ability', to the list of unpleasant tasks will need to be added the unpleasant and voluntary task of giving 'pleasant sex' to those who arent managing it on their own. If I can get any cruder it would be giving 'pleasant sex' to the uglies and retards of the world who arent managing any on their own.I guess it would be managed the same way as the other unpleasant tasks that need to be done to meet peoples needs.

The use of the term "retards' is completely unacceptable on a Socialist Forum and is highly insulting and pejorative to people with an Intellectual Disability.You appear not only to wish to insult women but also appear to wish to insult other groups of people who do not meet your Benchmark of acceptability.Can I suggest you go off and educate yourself on the societal position of people with intellectual disability and the struggles that have faced to overcome dehumanising attitudes like yours. You appear to want to join in the societal devaluation of people with intellectual disabilities. Can I suggest that instead of giving vent to your bizarre sexual fantasies you take the time to find out about the struggles of other workers and their families, 

[lindanesocialist]

Subhaditya wrote:

the unpleasant and voluntary task of giving 'pleasant sex' to those who arent managing it on their own. If I can get any cruder it would be giving 'pleasant sex' to the uglies and retards of the world who arent managing any on their own.

Of course, There is no reason why you can't freely express this opinion. This forum allows complete and free expression of all opinions

[Subhaditya]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

The use of the term "retards' is completely unacceptable on a Socialist Forum and is highly insulting and pejorative to people with an Intellectual Disability.You appear not only to wish to insult women but also appear to wish to insult other groups of people who do not meet your Benchmark of acceptability.Can I suggest you go off and educate yourself on the societal position of people with intellectual disability and the struggles that have faced to overcome dehumanising attitudes like yours. You appear to want to join in the societal devaluation of people with intellectual disabilities. Can I suggest that instead of giving vent to your bizarre sexual fantasies you take the time to find out about the struggles of other workers and their families, 

Tim I have heard many people like you… in the name of respecting women's honour you enslave them…. in the name of batting for the retards you keep them castrated… Here I am batting for better sex lives for them and look at you… you are diverting attention to terminologies. So what is the earth shattering difference between the term intellectual disability and retard both qualify a person as intellectually inferior to the average person in some way or you would call them 'normal' not use special terms to describe them.You know all that matters is if you actually care for them or not, thats far more important than stupid terminologies.Ensuring niggers get same treatment as the white man matters far more than the term nigger or negro… thats just statement of intent… actual delivery is what matters in the end…. even a 10 year old can treat just about anyone with respect if it wanted to… are you going to waste time on teaching respectful terminology or actually do something like try meeting their needs.Have you ever wondered why blacks keep referring to themselves as niggers ? 

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

[Tim I have heard many people like you… in the name of respecting women's honour you enslave them…. in the name of batting for the retards you keep them castrated… Here I am batting for better sex lives for them and look at you… you are diverting attention to terminologies. So what is the earth shattering difference between the term intellectual disability and retard both qualify a person as intellectually inferior to the average person in some way or you would call them 'normal' not use special terms to describe them.You know all that matters is if you actually care for them or not, thats far more important than stupid terminologies.

To deal on a personal level with the ridiculous insults you throw at me. I have spent the last 35 years of my working life as a Social Worker. A good proportion of that time has been spent working to protect and support people with Intellectual disabilities and working to actually enhance the lives of people who have intellectual disabilities. As opposed to merely talking shite on a website (battling for a better sex life my arse).As part of that work I have been directly involved with assisting people with intellectual disabilties gain their freedom from the Long Stay institutions which they have been incarcerated in, many for a large proportion of their lives. I have indeed actually come across individuals who have been castrated, women who have been sterilised, individuals who have had their teeth removed, denied the right to have intimate relationships by arbitrary hospital rules, been forced to live in squalid crowded hospital  wards, etc. etc. All carried out by people who like you claim to have "their best interests at heart.I have spent much of that time batting with people who have attitudes like you, people who view people who have those disabilities as, to quote you "them" not as part of us. The "earth shattering difference between" using the term people with an intellectual disability" and "the retards" as you so ignorantly put it is that people with an intellectual disability, expressed through groups like the People First movement" have strongly lobbied that they find the term "retard" insulting and pejorative.The use of a term like "the retards" is not only insulting, it is also part of a process of dehumanization. If we dehumanise people we can do what we want to them, they are not humans any more. If we call them retards it makes it easier when we lock them up in institutions, take their freedom and choice away from them, they are inferior, we can do what we want. The process of dehumanizing groups of individuals has a log and sad history, you are part of the process of dehumanizing a group of people who you wish to label as retards, you should hang your head in shame.This leads me to the question, why, if a group of people find a term insulting, why would you as an individual insist on continuing to use that term?,Perhaps it is because, despite your protests of liberation, actually don't think that people with intellectual disabilities are capable of making such a distinction for themselves, that the "retards" you refer to are not capable of self advocacy, they need to be liberated by leaders like you.Well I have got some news for you, not only are people with intellectual disabilities advocating for themselves, lots of people with intellectual disabilities are advocating how they will develop their own loving and caring, adult relationships. I have come across many people with intellectual disabilities who have very active and varied sex lives. Perhaps you find that hard to believe, that people who by your own words you describe as inferior are actually managing to develop their own sex lives, without the support of patronising, creepy individuals like yourself. Isn't that ironic, the people you deride as inferior, are getting plenty of it, but judging from your comments here, you are clearly not getting any. To find the answer to why that is, perhaps you could look in the mirror and ask yourself, what would you rather by a "retard" or a virgin!

[Anonymous]

I do not know why in this forum which is forum to promote socialism, or to educate the working class about the principles of socialism, this type of converstaion degrading women and others human beings, and making promotion about business and business administration are permitted. Frankly, shit like these I wil never permit it in the forum of the World Socialist Movement. Personally, I think this forum is taking a wrong road

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

I do not know why in this forum which is forum to promote socialism, or to educate the working class about the principles of socialism, this type of converstaion degrading women and others human beings, and making promotion about business and business administration are permitted. Frankly, shit like these I wil never permit it in the forum of the World Socialist Movement. Personally, I think this forum is taking a wrong road

What does that have to do with the thread topic of "socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion"?  I think the working class educated in the princioples of socialism would follow the rules created for this forum for staying on topic, which you have not in this comment. Let me take a try at re-derecting you might approve of and put some words into your mouth (feel free to fix the words or correct them). . .by infering from what you wrote, I think might agree with this restatement of your previous comment to conform it to on-topic rules and make your contribution more consistent with communist communication practices while still capturing your intended meaning. . . 

Quote:

"we are currently living in a capitalist society where sex is not used used for group cohesion so we can discuss the comments of other posters as examples that might be related to the lack of sex being used for group cohesion. What some of these posters are aguing and thier discussion practices are the results of capitalism and sex not being used for group cohesion here's a breakdown of what I mean by that. . .degrading women with words they request not be applied to them is a violation of the communist spirit that all people are to be considered of equal value.  This degradion of women also occurs in a community of nominally socialistic aware and practiced individuals, specefically this website discussion thread.  There's two possible explanations for this. . .1) communism that does not use sex for group cohesion might not dispel power conflicts between the genders even if it maintains communistic practices and philosophies.  or2) this discussion thead has been inflitrated by people who are not communist or not practiced in communism or not ideologically acting consistent with communism. Also, It is my belief that communism will not have business or business administration, so I think the discussion or promotion of anything using the word business or that could be called business is antithetical to communism.  The closest thing communism has to business and the word and concept that should be used for discussing the management of groups of poeple to produce things is the collective?(please help me Malcolm1, I'm pretty sure I got the word "collective" wrong and need you to tell us the right word that you would like in place of "business" or "collective". )  

Hope this suggesting meets with your Malcome1's satisfaction and you found value in my free contribution to this discussion. . ….

---

Please consider replying to my comment with this survey.  I realize it's more time and effort for you to reply in this format but in return I promise to spend an equal amount of time and effort in any reasonable way that pleases you.  You can cut and paste this part below into your response and edit it for convenience. 1) Was this information of value to you?( YES   or   NO )if yes, do you want to consider my time spent to get you this information as fair value for your time reading it and considering it(YES   or   NO). 2) How much of your time did you spend on considering the information I wrote and completing this survey to get it back to me?_______ minutes. 3) How would you like me to use the time? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________p.s.  you can find the cumulative results of this survey and how my time debt was budgeted and used for these mailers as a running total at https://goo.gl/QswLlN . Your personal information will not be shared, but ALL legally publishable comments and suggestions for use of my time will be published at the URL so please don't include anything in a comment you want to keep private.  

[moderator3]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

I do not know why in this forum which is forum to promote socialism, or to educate the working class about the principles of socialism, this type of converstaion degrading women and others human beings, and making promotion about business and business administration are permitted. Frankly, shit like these I wil never permit it in the forum of the World Socialist Movement. Personally, I think this forum is taking a wrong road

What does that have to do with the thread topic of "socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion"?  I think the working class educated in the princioples of socialism would follow the rules created for this forum for staying on topic, which you have not in this comment. Let me take a try at re-derecting you might approve of and put some words into your mouth (feel free to fix the words or correct them). . .by infering from what you wrote, I think might agree with this restatement of your previous comment to conform it to on-topic rules and make your contribution more consistent with communist communication practices while still capturing your intended meaning. . . 

Quote:

"we are currently living in a capitalist society where sex is not used used for group cohesion so we can discuss the comments of other posters as examples that might be related to the lack of sex being used for group cohesion. What some of these posters are aguing and thier discussion practices are the results of capitalism and sex not being used for group cohesion here's a breakdown of what I mean by that. . .degrading women with words they request not be applied to them is a violation of the communist spirit that all people are to be considered of equal value.  This degradion of women also occurs in a community of nominally socialistic aware and practiced individuals, specefically this website discussion thread.  There's two possible explanations for this. . .1) communism that does not use sex for group cohesion might not dispel power conflicts between the genders even if it maintains communistic practices and philosophies.  or2) this discussion thead has been inflitrated by people who are not communist or not practiced in communism or not ideologically acting consistent with communism. Also, It is my belief that communism will not have business or business administration, so I think the discussion or promotion of anything using the word business or that could be called business is antithetical to communism.  The closest thing communism has to business and the word and concept that should be used for discussing the management of groups of poeple to produce things is the collective?(please help me Malcolm1, I'm pretty sure I got the word "collective" wrong and need you to tell us the right word that you would like in place of "business" or "collective". )  

Hope this suggesting meets with your Malcome1's satisfaction and you found value in my free contribution to this discussion. . ….

---

Please consider replying to my comment with this survey.  I realize it's more time and effort for you to reply in this format but in return I promise to spend an equal amount of time and effort in any reasonable way that pleases you.  You can cut and paste this part below into your response and edit it for convenience. 1) Was this information of value to you?( YES   or   NO )if yes, do you want to consider my time spent to get you this information as fair value for your time reading it and considering it(YES   or   NO). 2) How much of your time did you spend on considering the information I wrote and completing this survey to get it back to me?_______ minutes. 3) How would you like me to use the time? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________p.s.  you can find the cumulative results of this survey and how my time debt was budgeted and used for these mailers as a running total at https://goo.gl/QswLlN . Your personal information will not be shared, but ALL legally publishable comments and suggestions for use of my time will be published at the URL so please don't include anything in a comment you want to keep private.  

 Hey, do not try to fool around with me, when you were coming in life, I was already returning. I do not answer business survey, and this is not a forum that must be used for business research. Are they paying you any commission to effect these survey ?  The message insetted was written by a person who knows about socialism, it was not written by an amateur

[moderator1]

Reminder: 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.

[moderator2]

I think i have to agree this poster has idiosyncratic views and ways of expressing them that generally does not accord with the general opinion of socialists within the WSM  i refer folk to this insightful post on one aspect of his argument. http://class-warfare.blogspot.com/2007/09/i-was-born-facially-disfigured-with.html

[Author]

Posts