Why capture political power, and what that involves?
- This topic has 157 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hud, We have always disinguished between private property and personal possessions.What if i covetted that signed first edition of Capital that you had on your book shelf and took it. There has to be a mechanism of resolution and arbitration on the disputed possession of it (perhaps after some detective work by some agency to determine that i was indeed the culprit and not another person)I am, of course , discussing the earlier days of socialism where personality traits are to some degree still influenced by the conditions of our upbringing. We have recognised laws that says the evidence is put to our peers who determine guilt or not. Do we begin all over again, or permit that type of justice to evolve in its own time to something else that reflects what people want and expect from accepted rules.Take the age of consent which will determine if someone is a paedophile of not. Culturally reached in many cases rather than biological. The importance in power realtionships is shown in the amendments that raises the age when the role of one is a position of responsibility..such as a teacher, yet in work where possible the same power-relationship can still exist, it is dealt with by sexual harassment laws and not automatically a crime. So we have blurred lines of justice that communities must accommodate in their appliction and apportion guilt and sanctions.I used to talk about being ostracised and exile as tools of punishment, but in our global community where travel and re-inventing oneself is very easy, is it now appropriately effective.I agree with your earlier statement…socialism and a socialist society will be dynamic…changing and evolving and adapting…but isn't that the argument being used by Vin, YMS in defence of the State withering and not being abolished, that it too does not remain the same…
Hud955 wrote:…the niceties of your brand of philosophical dogmatism are not. The fact is that these issues will be resolved by the working class on practical grounds and with reference to current circumstances when the time comes to implement them…Why not be open about your own brand of philosophical dogmatism, Hud?'Practical grounds' is a philosophical dogma.The fact that you won't acknowledge that, is neither here nor there.Since you're ignorant of the basis to your own views, you find it easy to condemn comrades who do know about your hidden brand of philosophical dogmatism.If you won't discuss your dogma, it's to your loss, and continued ignorance.If you don't wish to discuss, just don't anwer.But if you wish to think that you are exposing my 'dogma' alone, I'll keep putting you right.I'm open about my 'dogma', whereas you hide yours.
I note LB, that you have once again attempted to disguise your evasion by launching an attack. I don't buy it.I will give you a brief response, though. I prefer to regard the points I have made as axiomatic or empricial rather than dogmatic since I do not insist on agreement (I wouldn't dream of doing anything so godlike as putting anyone 'right' – even if the 'god' in question was a proletarian one.); I don't regard them as 'correct' or 'proper', only as offerings in an ongoing debate; and I don't try to identify them uniquely and exclusively with working class interests. So no, not dogmatic.My experience of working people is that in the main they tend to be practical in their approach to life and don't give two hoots for the kind of close-fisted philosophising you like to trade in. My belief that working people will act on 'practical grounds' is therefore largely a matter for empirical determination, to be be proved true or false in the event, and not as the end point of a form of logic chopping, dogmatic or otherwise. All this has a considerable significance for the point at issue here. It is the working class collectively who will have to face the issue of how to conduct the revolution when the time comes (the point, after all, is not to interpret the world but to change it), so it is their approach to the issue, and not that of a purveyor of quibbles that will decide the issue. And this is significant, because whether we aim to take parliament or not as a tactical move in the revolution appears to me to be an immensely practical issue and involves a lot of practical considerations. At present we do not know the exact circumstances in which revolutions around the world will take place. How each will be conducted will depend largely on local circumstances. If in a particular area the military is not on board, would there be any point in taking parliament? If they are wavering, however, would taking parliament and establishing some kind of formal legitimacy for the revolution (in terms they would understand) sway them in the working class cause? If they are fully on board, would there, once again, be any point in taking parliament? Well, would there? Why? And in what circumstances? All these considerations would be further affected by how individual revolutions affected one another. We cannot therefore debate every possible tactic or circumstance, but we need to discuss this strategically. What are the broarder issues we are likely to face which can then be recognised in particular circumstances, and what outcomes would we expect? You can be as open as you like about your 'dogma', but it won't help much to settle the issue.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Hud, We have always disinguished between private property and personal possessions.What if i covetted that signed first edition of Capital that you had on your book shelf and took it. There has to be a mechanism of resolution and arbitration on the disputed possession of it (perhaps after some detective work by some agency to determine that i was indeed the culprit and not another person)I am, of course , discussing the earlier days of socialism where personality traits are to some degree still influenced by the conditions of our upbringing. We have recognised laws that says the evidence is put to our peers who determine guilt or not. Do we begin all over again, or permit that type of justice to evolve in its own time to something else that reflects what people want and expect from accepted rules.Take the age of consent which will determine if someone is a paedophile of not. Culturally reached in many cases rather than biological. The importance in power realtionships is shown in the amendments that raises the age when the role of one is a position of responsibility..such as a teacher, yet in work where possible the same power-relationship can still exist, it is dealt with by sexual harassment laws and not automatically a crime. So we have blurred lines of justice that communities must accommodate in their appliction and apportion guilt and sanctions.I used to talk about being ostracised and exile as tools of punishment, but in our global community where travel and re-inventing oneself is very easy, is it now appropriately effective.I agree with your earlier statement…socialism and a socialist society will be dynamic…changing and evolving and adapting…but isn't that the argument being used by Vin, YMS in defence of the State withering and not being abolished, that it too does not remain the same…Hi Alan, That's a valuable issue you raise, but I'm not at all sure that it can be answered at this point in time. It would depend on the kind of institutions that a revolutionary working class decided it wanted. When imagining our socialist future there is a very powerful and natural tendency to project our own experience (of capitalism) into what we think that future will look like, so I always think there is value in undermining this imaginatively as thoroughly as we can. Of course, in the early days, that dead hand of the past will still lie upon the imagination of a revolutionary working class, but I suspect that even so, a revolutionary situation would generate a vast amount of creative energy and get people very quickly thinking along new lines. The distinction the party has always made between private property and personal possessions is a useful one to socialists. It helps us to explain to doubting members of the working class that in socialism we are not proposing to expropriate everyone and make all goods collective. Within capitalism however, there is no concept of personal possessions, only of property (property of a specific type), and capitalist legal structures are founded on this concept. The social relationships underlying private property and personal possessions are very different and the values and attitued will be different also. In the very early days you might be upset if I came into your home and took your prized copy of Capital, because I coveted and prized it too. But on the other hand you might not. You might even be happy for me to have it knowing that I valued it much more highly than you and be ready to let go of it. How could a punitive legal system based on property rights be applied consistently and meaningfully in circumstances where economic atomisation and the law of value did not exist? I think the difficulty and complexity of the task of adapting the institutions of capitalism to those of socialism are frequently underestimated in the party.How would you see a system of 'arbitration' working in a socialist society? Do you conceive of this as a 'law-bound' formal body with coercive powers derived from the community? I find it very difficult to see how a body of individuals with powers to pass judgement on other individuals could be made to work in an egalitarian society. And if it is an informal body, how would it execute its decisions? Under what circumstances would any such body, formal or informal,, chose to exercise its powers. Gazing into my crystal ball, I would imagine that a process of mediation would be more appropriate to such a society because there is a further underlying issue that needs to be considered.The purpose of a capitalist law court is the administration of 'Justice'. But in a socialist society, even a very young one would this still be the case. The very concept of 'justice' is itself a practical response to a propertarian system. We know that in existing egalitarian societies a concept of 'Justice' or 'fairness' is simply unknown. These societies have very sophisticated means of social mediation when disputes arise. Their aim, however, is not to administer justice. Wherever in the world they arise, their aim is always the restoration of social harmony, and the outcomes they achieve are very often not 'just' or 'fair' in our capitalist understanding of those terms, but something much more valuable: good relations between individuals. I'm sorry, I am short of time and unable to answer your more specific points, but I think this is a discussion that needs to be had within the party. Too often, it makes very broad assumptions and fails to consider issues of this kind. Yfs
alanjjohnstone wrote:Take the age of consent which will determine if someone is a paedophile of not. Culturally reached in many cases rather than biological.Would Jimmy Savill have been OK in a Socialist Society? Is it nasty capitalism that punishes him and prevents him fucking young children. ?Protection of children is not culturally nor morally determined but is a biological drive. In which society did 3 year old children get fucked by adults and instruments pushed in to their arses and vaginas? This has nothing to do with culture. Think of children as you would think of yourself. Socialism will free us of sexism and racism it will also free us from tha abuse of children: Peadophilia Is this why this issue is being ignored?
Hud955 wrote:I note LB, that you have once again attempted to disguise your evasion by launching an attack. I don't buy it.My earlier post was to actually support your position, with one small caveat. No 'attack' of any sort. Simply a disagreement about your underlying philosophy.You responded, not by either ignoring something that you consider unimportant (which is fair enough) and simply noting my support of the bulk of your post, nor by giving a considered response to my minor disagreement, but by attacking me for 'dogmatism'.If you're not interested in your own philosophy, I can't make you so.But, if so, you can't just call someone 'dogmatic' because of your lack of interest in philosophy.
Vin,I recall not too long ago in America , a 18 yr old was sentenced to life imprisonment for having consensual sex with a 16 year old which was classed as statutory rape because of her age…i recall a very long time ago, Jerry Lee Lewis being banned from the UK for following the Southern custom of marrying his 13 yr cousin, (and it was only in 1928 or 1929 that the age of consent in the UK was raised from 13 to 16.) Remember the custom of running off to Gretna Green?…a 16 yr old was permitted to marry in Scotland without parental consent but not in England for she was still a minor until she was 21.Only quite recently has consensual homosexual sex with an under- 21yr old male has become legal in the UK until it was equalised. Around the world the legal status varies…Do we condone the local custom of death for particular sexual behaviour? In all the recent rape cases in the press in India, it is a country with strong anti-sexual harassment laws where the mere way of looking at a woman can be classed as a crime (called locally eve-teasing) yet the law doesn't necessarily offer protection, does it, when not enforced. I also specifically mentioned that age of consent changes when a person in a position of trust is involved (and in the case of mental health well-being, the physical age is irrelevant)…and i asked isn't that cultural too as i inferred an employer isn't deemed such a person.The definition of a child is also cultural and is recognised by various laws on criminal culpabilty, for instance, such as the Jamed Bulger killers or Mary Bell. Even between Scotland and England there is a difference in age of responsibility…12 in Scotland but 10 in England whereas in some states in the US it is as low as 6. These are the cultural blurred factors i intended to raise about law…not your extreme example which i think may be more to do with your own branch incident. You are ignoring the entire context of my message was made in. We have laws in place that endeavour to bring a socially acceptable definition to a code of social behaviour (whether efficient or not, we can see by the differences i have made it is not easy)…i raised the question…what is good for Auchtermurchy, is it good enough for Llanelli. i do argue that some laws are unversal and should be applied over and above local custom and practice. Brian's original comment tended to say that local rules take precedence. Again, the question is …do we when socialism is establish still apply the rules and conduct as defined in law-books, or do we immediately abolish law and permit lynch-law, which lets be honest, is often the first response and reaction a community has to a particularly nasty and anti-social crime. Hud i think agrees that these things are complex complicated questions to decide a priori, so isn't it sensible that existing law stands until it evolves into something else…which means such things as identified as the State (to once more return to the thread topic) such as police, courts, judges, prosecution services, lawyers and jails do remain until they are adapted and modified over time.
LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.
Hud955 wrote:LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.You just can't help yourself, can you, Hud?You feign an 'interest', but won't discuss it.But, in reality, because you can't discuss it, through ignorance, you feel compelled to denigrate my attempts to discuss your philosophy as 'dogmatism'.Why not just say that you don't understand what I'm saying, and so don't feel able to discuss it, rather than pretend to 'have an interest' in your own 'philosophy', of which any criticisms are offhandedly dismissed as 'dogmatism'?Who are you fooling? Not me.
Hud955 wrote:LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.You just can't help yourself, can you, Hud?You feign an 'interest', but won't discuss it.But, in reality, because you can't discuss it, through ignorance, you feel compelled to denigrate my attempts to discuss your philosophy as 'dogmatism'.Why not just say that you don't understand what I'm saying, and so don't feel able to discuss it, rather than pretend to 'have an interest' in your own 'philosophy', of which any criticisms are offhandedly dismissed as 'dogmatism'?Who are you fooling? Not me.
2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
alanjjohnstone wrote:You are ignoring the entire context of my message was made in.After having another look at the posts, I have to agree.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We have laws in place that endeavour to bring a socially acceptable definition to a code of social behaviour (whether efficient or not, we can see by the differences i have made it is not easy)…i raised the question…what is good for Auchtermurchy, is it good enough for Llanelli. i do argue that some laws are unversal and should be applied over and above local custom and practice. Brian's original comment tended to say that local rules take precedence. Again, the question is …do we when socialism is establish still apply the rules and conduct as defined in law-books, or do we immediately abolish law and permit lynch-law, which lets be honest, is often the first response and reaction a community has to a particularly nasty and anti-social crime. Hud i think agrees that these things are complex complicated questions to decide a priori, so isn't it sensible that existing law stands until it evolves into something else…which means such things as identified as the State (to once more return to the thread topic) such as police, courts, judges, prosecution services, lawyers and jails do remain until they are adapted and modified over time.My original comment neither tended nor even implied that local rules take precedent. Rather the reverse."Of course its a challenge regarding the complexity of putting the theory of DPD into practice but like we have always admitted there is no such thing as an un-problematic society. Which I suspect is what makes us tick?I think that if the essence of DPD is the accepted norm the rules of behaviour will converge around the harm principle."What I'm implying here and in agreement with you Alan that there will be a universal principle on what behaviour is considered to be acceptable to the global community. What is considered appropriate is another matter and of course will depend on the culture and tradition of a given people and locality. Nevertheless, all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our environmental conditioning. I contend that the main conditioning factor in a socialist society will be the practice of DPD in everyday life. This is not to say that DPD is only going to be concerned with voting, administration, structure, procedures and processes. Not by far.Besides having a huge impact on what exactly constitutes the new set of social relationships DPD will also have a significant impact on our interpersonal relationships, how we interact with nature and other species, the conflict between town and country, etc.In that DPD sets the framework for the harm principle, rather than the current wishy-washy application, to be the guiding factor for us to become truly human.
Brian wrote:Nevertheless, all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our environmental conditioning.No, "all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our social conditioning."The use of the term 'environmental' suggests that well-worn word 'material'.Our behaviour is not the product of 'material' conditions.If by 'material' is meant "ideas and nature", then it should be clearly said that one means 'ideal-material', and not 'material'.That is, 'social conditioning' involves 'ideas and nature', not simply physical environment, which is the infamous 'material conditions' that Engels wrote about, as opposed to Marx's 'material production', involving human ideas and natural environment.'Environmental conditioning' is a conservative concept, and is of no use to Communists who wish, through theory and practice, to transform our world.
LBird wrote:If by 'material' is meant "ideas and nature", then it should be clearly said that one means 'ideal-material', and not 'material'.Only if you are an idealist and believe that the realm of ideas has a mystical existence outside of the material world.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.