Socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion
- This topic has 145 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Subhaditya wrote:[Well all I can say is I can prove my superiority through violent means as well.
Dream on Bonny LadIf your theseis is that lack of sex produces violent threat, does the above quote back up my thesis that you're clearly not getting any
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:@Robbo203,You wrote. . .robbo203 wrote:I can very easily imagine an organisation such as this continuing to operate and do useful work in socialist society catering for the sexual needs of men and woman who perhaps might find it difficult to do this on their own and need someone to advocate on their behalf in a caring and respectful manner. The big difference of course is that these sexual services like all human labour will be provided on a completely free and voluntary basis which is the logical corollary of the free access to goods and services that will be hallmark of a socialist societyI don't think we need an "organization" and I think any organizations in a post socialist revolution society need to be considered with skepticism. How do we ensure the organization isn't extracting surplus value from the workers? Maybe that's the nature of organizations? If the "organization" you descibe did exist after the socialist revolution, then how would socialist leaders ensure the suruplus value extracted from any free assoication and exchange wasn't used by the organization in ways not of benefit to the people? Even if we had the power and authority to stop these organizations in a socialist world, We'd still need to monitor and endorse or veto almost every voluntary free exchange offer between people and that would take a lot of time for someone or some "organization".
SteveThere is nothing wrong with the notion of organisation per se. The Socialist Party is an organisation for example. So is a Mothers and Toddlers Club, So is the local association of Lifeguard volunteers. How do you propose to organise a post capitalist world without …organisations!? An organisation according to Wikipedia is simply " an entity comprising multiple people, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment". A local community has to have some kind of organisation to effect decision- making on a democratic basis. So does a factory or other workplace in a socialist society. Otherwise we end up with a "tyranny of structurelessness" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness Your focus is quite misplaced. It is not organisation per se that is the problem but its purpose and its relationship with the world around it that matters. A socialist society will not harbour organisations within it that are intent upon the extraction of surplus value from workers because a clear majority of people who had consciously set up such a society will have done so with the clear aim of abolishing exploitation and the existence of social classes that this implies. The collective goals of such a society and its social environment will be quite different to contemporary capitalism.Its as simple as that
Subhaditya wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Subhaditya wrote:At the height of the Victorian Age there were 80,000 prostitutes in the streets of London.The Britsh army had an elaborate system to ensure their soldiers got sex from 'non local' prostitutes, probably for security reasons 'local' was avoided.Disabled people(men and women) make use of them as 'sex surrogates' and pay them for their services….. to say such a service is not required in a thoroughly monogamous society is a joke.If you fail to add this 'pleasant/unpleasant' task (which I understand will be voluntary like every other task) in a socialist society will mean socialism will fail in its promise to meet people's needs through peaceful cooperation.I think that 80,000 prostitutes is nothing compared with the ring of child prostitution that exists around the world. Doesn't;it bother you to know that children are being used as prostitute ? Those are sexual slaves, and many of those children are already suffering from venereal diseases, and probably they will die at a very young age. That ring of prostitution is also tied to drug traffic, and some are also used to transport drugs Personally, I do not care if the socialist society is going to be monogamous, or polygamy, what is really worrying me is this society based on profits who is using children as prostitutes, and a bunch of perverts are having sex with minors, and are destroying their personal life. Those are the social issues that socialists must worry aboutThere is a big ring of women who have been forced into prostitution, only the rings from the Major Antilles is bigger than the 80 000 that you have mentioned, and those women are distributed thru different countries, and the most affected one are women because there is male prostitution too
You are right on the money there Comrade. The commodity based "society" that the upholders of Capitalism laughingly describe as "freedom" casually ignores that fact that slavery and especially sexual slavery still exists and thrives in most parts of the world.The idea of the "happy hooker" who chooses the so called sex industry as part of a life style choice. which Subhaditya appears to go along with, is a propaganda myth created for those making millions out of the misery of men, women and as you so rightly point out many children. A recent survey in the Uk by the charity Barnardos reported that of female prostitutes they surveyed over 70% began working in the sex industry as children.The fact that capitalism reduces everything to a commodity that can be bought or sold, leads to a situation where children are traffiked and forced into being sex slaves and creates a mind set where those abusing them think that it is ok to do so. The scandals in Rochdale and Rotherham, that hit the headlines are only the tip of a very large ice berg.I'd rather live in a Socialist society with the problem of some people being sexual frustrated, than a capitalist society with millions being sexual exploited.
Lol you two…. both of you guys have some sort of paranoid condition when it comes to the use of the word 'sex' …. did you two even read the word 'voluntary' in my post… here is the link to the meaning of the word voluntary … http://www.dictionary.com/browse/voluntaryMcolome1 also sees a bourgeoisie conspiracy everywhere.I dont think either of you read the book 'Sex At Dawn' I mentioned or checked the article by James W. Prescott 'linking lack of physical pleasure with violence'. I am not even sure you two know what I am talking about… you two keep getting drawn to issues of coercion, yet cannot see a connection between sexual frustration and coercion… In a world where it is 'natural' for women to fight over men and the 'superior woman' will get to have the man and vice versa there is implicit acceptance of inequality where the 'superior' being has the right to a better life than his inferiors, well then stop cribbing about your inferior existence. Prove your superiority and you will get to have a better life than your inferiors if not well then be content with your inferior existence. You want competition or cooperation… do you want one to forcefully prove his/her superioirity to the other and hence deny the other the thing they are competing over(sexual partner in this case) and keep it all to themselves because face it both cant have it in a sexually monogamous or polygamous place. Do you want every person to prove their superiority to their competitors as the more superior you are the better life you will deserve to have.Well all I can say is I can prove my superiority through violent means as well. Machiavellian deception comes in handy too. It is brutal but effective and maybe the only way in a world of scarcity. Socialist dont think socialism will work in a world of scarcity….Yet Mcolome1 cannot connect sexual frustration with scarcity and the pain it causes and its connection to violence, infliction of pain on one self and others…. and the environment of domination and submission it promotes…In an environment of scarcity there always will be a dominant master class who corner the scarce resources and a slave class who must be 'content' to live in deprivation if they wish to 'survive'.And that is why I am against artificially creating an environment of scarcity.p.s. Dr. Susan Block has sex with many men and women and is also married and she makes extra money by appearing in a TV show promoting pleasure seeking behavior and she is 60 years old, does she qualify as 'happy hooker' or she something else Im not sure maybe Tim can clarify.Also I know of a person who joined porn as she had doubts about her attractiveness when she was in school… so inspite of being a good student she chose to join porn…I wish there were more women in this forum I could talk to half the guys here only see rape when I mention the word promiscuity… as if peaceful promiscuity is impossible.
Well, if child sex slavery is a conspiracy. my conclusion is that you are living in a world of illusion or misinformation, because even the capitalist press have recognized the problem, and it has been proven that many high government official and members of the capitalist elite are using the service of those children. I think you main problem is that you need a partner able to provide sex to you, that would be your vaccine to cure your problems. Your scarcity is sex. I do not have to read any books written by perverts, I have better think to worry about. My problem is that I am aware of the suffering of mankind and the problems of children in this world. I did not grow reading comics books or playing video games
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Subhaditya wrote:[Well all I can say is I can prove my superiority through violent means as well.Dream on Bonny LadIf your theseis is that lack of sex produces violent threat, does the above quote back up my thesis that you're clearly not getting any
Tim you keep distracting attention … I am throwing James W. Prescott's research, Christopher Ryan's PH. D. thesis at you and what are you doing… speculating on my desires and getting it wrong most of the time.FYI last time I hit someone I was in school.
mcolome1 wrote:I think you main problem is that you need a partner able to provide sex to you, that would be your vaccine to cure your problems. Your scarcity is sex. I do not have to read any books written by pervertsChristopher Ryan is pervert, is see you will not even go through data.And of course you believe monogamy will solve all problems, the data that is showing otherwise you will not even go through it.So whose data are you following may I know, you form opinions without going through all the data that is available to you, scientist will tell you how innacurate you can get when you refuse to go through all the data that is available to you.If you had gone through the portions about our anatomy in C.R. book I doubt you would still believe we are a monogamous species. If you had gone through James W. Prescott's article you would know by now societies that practice sexual monogamy are much more violent than those where people can freely seek out physical pleasure with whoever they want.You are stuck up on rape…. try to find out how much rape is happening among the Mosuo of China… they are still around so you can even pay them a visit if you like… you will also get to see how women behave when they are free to have sex with whoever they want.
+5
Subhaditya wrote:And of course you believe monogamy will solve all problems, the data that is showing otherwise you will not even go through it..Subhaditya Nobody here is saying that monogamy will "solve all problems" or, indeed, advocating monogamy per se. I don't know why you keep on making this claim. Very likely socialism will give rise to a wide range of relationships but the key thing here is that this will be a matter of choice and free association. That in itself undermines the central premiss of your argument – that socialism will fail if sex is not used for group cohesion. I understand the argument you are making but it is highly reductionist and over simplistic. Group cohesion depends on many factors quite apart from sex. There are even groups that cohere on the basis of complete celebacy. Human beings are more than the sum of their sexual dives – much more – and if your argument held any water and these sexual drives gave rise to serious tensions, then society itself would naturally adjust with respect to the pattern of sexual relationships. We don't need to adopt an overprescriptive approach that upholds group sex as some kind of obligatory practice and turns into a dogma to be universally adhered to.. The point is we don't know for sure how the pattern of sexual relationships will pan out in a socialist society. It is conceivable that some people will prefer to be in a monogamous relationship and I for one fail to see how such a preference could serve to undermine group cohesion in a socialist society
For a slight variation on this theme of group sex, this might be of interest. It seems that sex with other human species might have been the reason for Homo sapiens's success https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-with-other-human-species-might-have-been-a-secret-of-homo-sapiens-s-success/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20161024
Some recent stuff I saw said we seem to have inherited DNA from some different species with genetic protections against some diseases and put at a slight disadvantage with others.It is alluded to on this programme,http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00kmtft/the-incredible-human-journey-2-asiapossibly here also but I haven't watched it yet, so not definite.http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ks641/the-incredible-human-journey-3-europeI don't know if you can access this in easily in Europe, if not then apologies.This is an older Guardian one suggesting as much as a fifth of our genetic code comes from Neanderthals,https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/29/fifth-neanderthals-genetic-code-lives-on-humansOne blaming the poor suckers for my nicotine addiction.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/neanderthal-dna-may-account-for-nicotine-addiction-and-depressionCheers.
robbo203 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:@Robbo203,You wrote. . .robbo203 wrote:I can very easily imagine an organisation such as this continuing to operate and do useful work in socialist society catering for the sexual needs of men and woman who perhaps might find it difficult to do this on their own and need someone to advocate on their behalf in a caring and respectful manner. The big difference of course is that these sexual services like all human labour will be provided on a completely free and voluntary basis which is the logical corollary of the free access to goods and services that will be hallmark of a socialist societyI don't think we need an "organization" and I think any organizations in a post socialist revolution society need to be considered with skepticism. How do we ensure the organization isn't extracting surplus value from the workers? Maybe that's the nature of organizations? If the "organization" you descibe did exist after the socialist revolution, then how would socialist leaders ensure the suruplus value extracted from any free assoication and exchange wasn't used by the organization in ways not of benefit to the people? Even if we had the power and authority to stop these organizations in a socialist world, We'd still need to monitor and endorse or veto almost every voluntary free exchange offer between people and that would take a lot of time for someone or some "organization".
SteveThere is nothing wrong with the notion of organisation per se. The Socialist Party is an organisation for example. So is a Mothers and Toddlers Club, So is the local association of Lifeguard volunteers. How do you propose to organise a post capitalist world without …organisations!? An organisation according to Wikipedia is simply " an entity comprising multiple people, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment". A local community has to have some kind of organisation to effect decision- making on a democratic basis. So does a factory or other workplace in a socialist society. Otherwise we end up with a "tyranny of structurelessness" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness Your focus is quite misplaced. It is not organisation per se that is the problem but its purpose and its relationship with the world around it that matters. A socialist society will not harbour organisations within it that are intent upon the extraction of surplus value from workers because a clear majority of people who had consciously set up such a society will have done so with the clear aim of abolishing exploitation and the existence of social classes that this implies. The collective goals of such a society and its social environment will be quite different to contemporary capitalism.Its as simple as that
I wrote something very similar to that in a postcard as an example. I practiced what your are writing about in theory with in the postcard example too. The postcard example document I keep promoting is an example of a functional peoples store for information goods in operation and discusses these issues. You guys keep thinking it's some marketing gimmick, but it's really more of a manifesto and blueprint for the future economic revolution marx predicted or something closer to it than what we have now anyway. I wrote a vision of the future for you people in the forum and you rejected it because it's in postcard format. Whatever you're loss, You weren't a necessary part of the future vision anyway, and I was only sharing with you out of good natured considerate FYI. It's true i don't know a lot of your fancy words and academic linguistic distinctions. That's not a problem, that's an advantage in comming up with outside of the box solutions to promote communism. I came up with an original conception of exchange theory that I think Marx would approve of if he read all the postcards in the series.
Socialism will fail is sex is not used for group cohesion? Yes and here's why. . . look at the world socialism declaration of principles.point 7) That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.point
The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon the members of the working class of each country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/object-and-declaration-principles the website declaration of principles is anti-sex. In the make love not war bias of cultural norms it uses language like "hostile" and "wage war" from the patriarch lexicon. So socialism without sex or matriarchy seems to devolve into tribalism imperatives at least here at world socialism website. Conversely, in a society where sex was used for group cohesion, we wouild have a pro-sex bias to language usage and choosing words from the Matriarch lexicon. Instead of "wage war" our declaration would say "seduce". and instead of "hostile", our declaration would say "subvert". And the difference it makes is significant. A small group of people can seduce a larger group of poeple successfully with words or entertainment, or knowledge or yes even sex very successfully. But a small group of people can not "wage war" against a larger group of people successfully. So the sex opposition in our cultural and linguistic norms leads us to see solutions in a way that leaves the solutions for small groups to seduce larger groups to their way of thinking as not an optioin for socialism. I see the attitude in the declarations of principles as the attitude that works well only for a larger more powerfull group with the ability to enforce their will on a less powerfull minority they seek to destoy. That's how war works. you need superior numbers and power. BUT, In a world where sex was used for group cohesion, I'd see the attitude in the declaration of principles as the atttidue that works well for a smaller less numerous and less powerfull group that seeks to seeks to co-opt or seduce a larger more powerfull majority. that's how seduction works. You benefit from being a smaller number and don't need to force people or events against their will. P.s. on a related note, how is it possible to agree with this declaration of principles to "wage war" legally? Presumably they just meen figuratively "wage war" because literally wouild get this board shut down by govt. The langauge in the declaration of priciples is confrontratioinal and aggressive and not inclusive. it's the attitude of chimps beeting their chest proving their determination and threats. Why can't it be the attitude of bonobo's luring in outsiders and seducing them to be supporters? . From the SPGB Declaration of Principles …[quote-SPGB] 7. That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.8. The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to lure and wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, … [/quote]Your “matriarchally” improved version insults the matriarchies that founded human society:
Steve-SanFrancisco wrote:7. That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must subvert every other party.8. The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to lure and seduce all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, …Such dishonesty, advocated in cowardly deference to your imagined “matriarchal” terminology, simply unmasks your duplicitous role here—to subvert, to lure and to seduce.I repeat. If you must, ply your disgusting deception elsewhere.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Socialism will fail is sex is not used for group cohesion? Yes and here's why. . . look at the world socialism declaration of principles.point 7) That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.point The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon the members of the working class of each country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/object-and-declaration-principles the website declaration of principles is anti-sex. In the make love not war bias of cultural norms it uses language like "hostile" and "wage war" from the patriarch lexicon. So socialism without sex or matriarchy seems to devolve into tribalism imperatives at least here at world socialism website. Conversely, in a society where sex was used for group cohesion, we wouild have a pro-sex bias to language usage and choosing words from the Matriarch lexicon. Instead of "wage war" our declaration would say "seduce". and instead of "hostile", our declaration would say "subvert". And the difference it makes is significant. A small group of people can seduce a larger group of poeple successfully with words or entertainment, or knowledge or yes even sex very successfully. But a small group of people can not "wage war" against a larger group of people successfully. So the sex opposition in our cultural and linguistic norms leads us to see solutions in a way that leaves the solutions for small groups to seduce larger groups to their way of thinking as not an optioin for socialism. I see the attitude in the declarations of principles as the attitude that works well only for a larger more powerfull group with the ability to enforce their will on a less powerfull minority they seek to destoy. That's how war works. you need superior numbers and power. BUT, In a world where sex was used for group cohesion, I'd see the attitude in the declaration of principles as the atttidue that works well for a smaller less numerous and less powerfull group that seeks to seeks to co-opt or seduce a larger more powerfull majority. that's how seduction works. You benefit from being a smaller number and don't need to force people or events against their will. P.s. on a related note, how is it possible to agree with this declaration of principles to "wage war" legally? Presumably they just meen figuratively "wage war" because literally wouild get this board shut down by govt. The langauge in the declaration of priciples is confrontratioinal and aggressive and not inclusive. it's the attitude of chimps beeting their chest proving their determination and threats. Why can't it be the attitude of bonobo's luring in outsiders and seducing them to be supporters? . interesting that this poster is tolerated, whilst clearly posting material which is off topic, disruptive and clearly aimed to disrupt
twc wrote:From the SPGB Declaration of Principles …[quote-SPGB] 7. That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.8. The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to lure and wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, …Your “matriarchally” improved version insults the matriarchies that founded human society:
Steve-SanFrancisco wrote:7. That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must subvert every other party.8. The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to lure and seduce all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, …Such dishonesty, advocated in cowardly deference to your imagined “matriarchal” terminology, simply unmasks your duplicitous role here—to subvert, to lure and to seduce.I repeat. If you must, ply your disgusting deception elsewhere.[/quote]Agreed, except that the word 'lure' doesn't appear anywhere in our Declaration of Principles. 'Wage war against' most certainly, but the SPGB does not 'lure'.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Socialism will fail is sex is not used for group cohesion? Yes and here's why. . . look at the world socialism declaration of principles.point 7) That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.point The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon the members of the working class of each country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/object-and-declaration-principles the website declaration of principles is anti-sex. In the make love not war bias of cultural norms it uses language like "hostile" and "wage war" from the patriarch lexicon. So socialism without sex or matriarchy seems to devolve into tribalism imperatives at least here at world socialism website. Conversely, in a society where sex was used for group cohesion, we wouild have a pro-sex bias to language usage and choosing words from the Matriarch lexicon. Instead of "wage war" our declaration would say "seduce". and instead of "hostile", our declaration would say "subvert". And the difference it makes is significant. A small group of people can seduce a larger group of poeple successfully with words or entertainment, or knowledge or yes even sex very successfully. But a small group of people can not "wage war" against a larger group of people successfully. So the sex opposition in our cultural and linguistic norms leads us to see solutions in a way that leaves the solutions for small groups to seduce larger groups to their way of thinking as not an optioin for socialism. I see the attitude in the declarations of principles as the attitude that works well only for a larger more powerfull group with the ability to enforce their will on a less powerfull minority they seek to destoy. That's how war works. you need superior numbers and power. BUT, In a world where sex was used for group cohesion, I'd see the attitude in the declaration of principles as the atttidue that works well for a smaller less numerous and less powerfull group that seeks to seeks to co-opt or seduce a larger more powerfull majority. that's how seduction works. You benefit from being a smaller number and don't need to force people or events against their will. P.s. on a related note, how is it possible to agree with this declaration of principles to "wage war" legally? Presumably they just meen figuratively "wage war" because literally wouild get this board shut down by govt. The langauge in the declaration of priciples is confrontratioinal and aggressive and not inclusive. it's the attitude of chimps beeting their chest proving their determination and threats. Why can't it be the attitude of bonobo's luring in outsiders and seducing them to be supporters? . interesting that this poster is tolerated, whilst clearly posting material which is off topic, disruptive and clearly aimed to disrupt
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.