Would the police force exist in a Socialist world?
- This topic has 129 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SP,exactly, Marx reacted to and understood the world around him (and even changed his ideas from those of radical democracy to Communism in the light of his interaction with the existing workers movement). People make history, not in conditions of their own choosing (as he said) and they can conjure up and imagine any sort of society, but can only realise the possible ones before them. Capitalist ideologues espouse freedom, justice and equality before the law, noble values, but they cannot realise them. We have to start with people as they are, not how we'd like them to be, and go from there. As Alan has demonstrated, much of the time socialism does espouse the same values as capitalism, but it focuses on the practical mechanism to realise them.
YMSYou appear now to be agreeing with me that values go hand in hand with socialism.We all know that the Blairs and Camerons of the world, mimic values they feel most of us want to see. At the same time they happily support the horrors we see all over the world. They are vile hypocrites, with no real value system other than that of a psychopath trying to hide among a crowd. It is not unusual that capitalism talks the talk of values but fails to walk the walk. It can do nothing else. Capitalism is a psychopathic system run by psychopaths.
Young Master Smeet wrote:We have to start with people as they are, not how we'd like them to be, and go from there.I am starting with those people. I live among them. They are my family and friends, neighbours and fellow socialists such as I find in the WSM and on this forum. We have positive values now, today! Those positive values are the ones that will be magnified in a future socialist society! If socialists do not combine the positive values, that humans thrive best among, and make them work within our movement, then we will never be able to convince the majority we are onto something better than the present system. They just won't trust us. Most people are aware of some of the hypocrisy that surrounds us. If the WSM is riddled with the same hypocrisy, what alternative is there?The WSM needs to be a place that fosters the values we want to see in a future socialist society.I ask you YMS, what values do you think are important in order that a socialist society may thrive?
I do hope the positive values in socialism won't include the use of the exclamation mark. I don't know what values will be needed for socialism, I can only say they will be those compatible with a a society freed from waged labour and based on common and democratic ownership and control of the wealth of the world.
"Much of the time socialism does espouse the same values as capitalism", really? really, really! Which "socialism" is that and where is the evidence to validate this claim?I think that no consideration is given to the fact that, as a Socialist society gets closer, so will Socialist views become more pervasive with a concomitant lessening of dog eat dog philosophy that supporters of capitalism subject us to. Nor is there a realisation of how "ideas" themselves spread.If a Socialist revolution and the mass consciousness that would be a necessary precursor, happened within say a year or two, there may, or may not be a case for claiming that a significant minority would still be imbued with a "capitalist mentality"! This would, of necessity, be counteracted by the fact that in order to bring about a Socialist society, there would need to be a level of understanding and agreement as to what this society would entail and need to come into existence and moreover, a concerted, joint effort, to bring it about.I, myself, cannot envisage a Socialist society coming about within such a short timescale. More likely, as Socialist consciousness spreads, it would take ten, fifteen, twenty years or more to reach a point where the Socialist revolution is possible. During this time, there will be a change in thought processes existant, especially with the realisation of the possibilities for mankind.No doubt there will be those, and of necessity they will be in a minority, who will either not understand the societal change or will be opposed to it. If this is the case, the majority will need to have at it's disposal, much as the minority parasite capitalist class has now, a means to protect themselves. However, in no way, shape, or form, do I envisage this to be, "a police force"! Moreover, once the new society is established and with the understanding that those living in it will still be "tainted" by capitalism, there may be a need for "monitors" but they will in no way, resemble the coercive state machine that is the present police force. The majority understanding and consciousness needed to bring Socialism about, would preclude this.If people have a negative outlook on, "people as they are, not how we'd like them to be", then I suggest they look to themselves, not try to imbue these "ideas" onto others.I for one, could fit quite easily into a society of common ownership and democratic control and know many others of whom I could say the same! In fact, look at capitalism. If mankind was not more predisposed to cooperation than conflict, do you really think, the tiny amount of "police" could control the vast, vast, majority of "others"? No.Even within Capitalism, the vast majority do not break the law because of police, nor the punitive sanctions of capitalist law. They do not break the law because they would rather cooperate than agitate.I do not think I am in a minority on this site, nor in the wider Socialist movement, when I believe we, mankind are a cooperative species, with all that entails and engenders. Steve.
Capitalist ideologues, in their utopian mood, offer freedom and equality for all: universal human emancipation. Individual responsibility, dignity for labour, all sorts of lovely goodies.Even in twenty years, most of the people in socialism would be the people who are around now, and they will have to change their minds (certainly) to get to socialism, but but that will be a process of adapting existing attitudes, rather than wholesale implanting entirely new ones.
No, YMS, they will have to change, "before", your post actually backs up my posited view 100%. Steve.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I do hope the positive values in socialism won't include the use of the exclamation mark. I don't know what values will be needed for socialism, I can only say they will be those compatible with a a society freed from waged labour and based on common and democratic ownership and control of the wealth of the world.Very funny!Strange to see a socialist stumped for an opinion.What about, co operation, quite a basic I would expect? Openness? (Democratic) accountability? A few very practical values that are vital.Now for some more personal values. Tolerance, understanding, patience. Much needed if we are to police ourselves without transforming into a lynch mob.Then we have some touchy feely ones, empathy, compassion, friendship, support. Those are vital for a social species like us.The list is long. Both positive and negative. As a socialist I lean towards the side of the more positive ones. Strange as that may seem.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Even in twenty years, most of the people in socialism would be the people who are around now, and they will have to change their minds (certainly() to get to socialism, but but that will be a process of adapting existing attitudes, rather than wholesale implanting entirely new ones.I am not aware of anyone advocating some sort of new value system, plucked from another dimension, that must be in place before socialism can be established. The values I refer to, as I and others have previously stated, already exist. They are the ones that will be needed to usher in socialism and will flourish unfettered within a socialist society.YMS supports this view in the above quote. What he fails to grasp, is that those values need be encouraged within a socialist space.
SocialistPunk wrote:YMS supports this view in the above quote. What he fails to grasp, is that those values need be encouraged within a socialist space.I don't know how that can be said, when I haven't made any comment on that topic.As for socialism, obviously, the values of people in socialist society (and it's structures) will be different 100 years from the revolution, and again 300 years. On the eve of the revolution people will have a set of values built on and closely resembling, those they have today. What will drive the change is necessity and the inherent skills of humans to negotiate their social space. I should certainly hope their values will be fettered and shaped by socialist society.
This discussion seems to have drifted off topic. However it is still related to the original subject as it is about values and how values are used to achieve results in every aspect of a future socialist society.Marx was clearly influenced by the values of early socialists. Who influenced the early socialists?I strongly disagree with the idea YMS proposes about values being different 300 years down the line in a future socialist society.Human values, many we have today go back, perhaps thousands of years. Co operation, solidarity, democracy, empathy and compassion have been around for a long, long time. There is no evidence to suggest they will not be around in thousands of years time. The only way human values will radically alter is if we evolve into a entirely different species that has no need for social bonding in order to survive. But in that scenario we wouldn't be human and so our ideas here are irrelevant.The values that see humans join together to usher in a socialist world, will still exist hundreds of years from now. Some of them are vital for a socialist society to function. It is the positive values as opposed to the negative ones I suggest will flourish in socialism, unfettered by the constraints of a profit system of minority ownership.Perhaps YMS is confusing values with morality.
One thing that will, most assuredly have changed, in 100, 300 or whatever extra number of years one wants to add, will be the nature of the society we live in. What will not have changed and I agree with SP here, are some of the human values that are around today and moreover, that have been around for many, many years. Indeed, if as we all hope and aspire to help to bring about, we are in the future, living in a Socialist society, then some of these values, ie cooperation, solidarity, empathy etc, will be magnified simply by living in a society that has freed us from the worries and constraints imposed directly, or indirectly, by a society that has us worrying about simply having enough to survive.I myself think, that given the appeal of a society of the type we envisage, then the drivers for the same will be such, that every sinew the human race possess will be given over to making sure that we, as a race, will never go back to the obscenity and insanity that it capitalism. It is with this thought firmly at the forefront of, at least my mind, I would not need "any" kind of coercive machinery, to be put in place to facilitate the continued existence of this society. The mere thought of returning to a life in capitalism would give all humans all the incentive they need, to need, no type of coercive machinery, to work harmoniously together. Steve.
I disagree SP. Human beings almost certainly have a *capacity* or *potentiality* to feel compassion, behave altruistically, and create democratic institutions, just as they have a capacity to feel rage, act violently and develop tyrannies. But the claim that compassion etc has been around in society for thousands of years in any significant degree, is not obviously true. The fact that in Western society it has always been held up as an ideal to aim for, demonstrates the degree to which it was, in fact, lacking. In Western Europe the huge change towards more humane ways of treating each other and more respectful ways of behaving towards the human body only began in the eighteenth century. The Middle ages were very much a devil-take-the-hindmost kind of society whose social values were far from the ones you propose. This is even more pronounced in hunter gatherer societies, which have been around not for thousands but for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years. These societies are not known for holding compassion in very high esteem. Those that we know of all develop extreme forms of individualism, and members of these societies tend not to help one another when they are in trouble. There are a very great many accounts of this in the anthropological literature. (People often confuse co-operation with compassion, empathy altruism etc. These are not the same thing and they don't necessarily go together.) And here lies the problem with the utopian view. People have a strong tendency to project their own values, desires and experiences onto the future (and into the past).While I imagine you are right, Steve, and the lesson of capitalism will haunt socialist society for a long time, memory does eventually fade, so we cannot rely on it forever. And insofar as socialism does sustain its egalitarian character, it may not be the values that SP proposes that will be needed to do that. There is good evidence, for example, to suppose that hunter gather societies are aware of the dangers of social stratification and it is through individualism and not altruism that they have been able to keep it at bay. Of course hunter gatherer societies are not socialist, and I hope SP is right in his belief that compassion and mutual support will be the way socialism develops, but we cannot be entirely sure. We'll have to wait and see.Steve, I imagine you are right again that socialism will seek to minimise physical coercion, though I suspect they will use social disapproval very extensively to maintain social cohesion. Human beings are, and as far as anyone can tell, always have been very sensitive to social disapproval and it is a powerful means of holding society together. Hunter gatherer societies also rely on humour a great deal.
I could not disagree more Hud. Your claim that, " The fact that in Western society it has always been held up as an ideal to aim for, demonstrates the degree to which it was, in fact, lacking." is a religious claim in Western society, to justify that we were and are, born with original sin!I disavow this religious interpretation of humans, as religious bodies see it, "species being". In fact, if one looks back at primitive communist societies, one will see more of an acceptance of humans as, cooperative and social beings, in fact, it is proved by the way their societies operated and were organised. Hunter Gatherer societies never even considered social stratification. They considered only the, here and now. The here and now to them, consisted in what provided a chance, the chance, for "their societies" to survive. One also, has to, at the same time understand, that these societies lived in a much smaller world, without the knowlede to understand and moreover extrapolate a wider social ethos. They are not called, primitive communism, for no reason whatsoever. Regardless, the likes of the Pinara Indians, the Khalahari bushmen, indeed, the aboriginal people of Australia, had a rich and varied social history, which at their best, well befitted their name of primitive "communist" societies. Indeed, the history of these peoples, 60.000 years, straddled the majority of HUMAN history.With the benefit of historical foresight and knowledge, we can call them primitive but in their time, they were the pinnacle, that in todays dog eat dog societies, we can only look to, and aspire to reaching. Empathy, community, compassion, indeed, understanding of their place in nature.That some "social anthropologists", for whatever reason, and I suspect we know the reasons, try to disparage these cultures, is more to do with these "social anthroplogists" trying for their own places in the theoretical pantheon of "experts". That does not of and in itself justify their claims, nor invalidate the claims of Socialists that these were in fact, proto-Socialist societies. With everything this contributes to the arguments, people like myself, SP, OGW etc posit. Steve.
SocialistPunk wrote:Did Karl Marx suddenly one day think, "I know, I think I will formulate a critical analysis of the current economic system, just for a laugh." I wonder if he was at all motivated by the industrial scale misery he saw on a daily basis, as a result of capitalism? I expect he sought to improve socialism, make it a stronger more robust ideology that could be a realistic basis for positive revolutionary change….With that in mind, it is not unreasonable to expect a socialist society to start off with a given set of values that are at the opposite end of the scale to that of capitalism. The two ideologies are opposites, are they not?Where is the problem?the problem is that no, you can't expect socialism to start off with a given set of values. The strength of the socialist case is that it doesn't require people to have good postive, communitarian values before they can establish a good positive, communitarian society. Some people may be primarily motivated by a hatred of the capitalist class. Some may be just sick of capitalism and have given little through to what will replace it. Some may have fearful or entirely selfish or self-centred reasons for wanting it. I know some socialists who happily admit to that, and as a young man I guess it was true of me too. Some might only have a partial understanding of their exploitation and be going along for the ride because they feel it is safer to go with the majority. There could be all kinds of reasons why people might join a socialist movement. Of course it is true to say that people who have the values of a Cameron or a Thatcher are unlikely to become socialists, but black and white arguments like that are fallacious. There are many other possible values which may motivate socialists. Marx grounds his theory in material conditions and not in values for a reason. The reason is that material conditions (wage-labour relationships) are uniform and social; 'values' are individual are various. Capitalism may cause people to respond with all kinds of values from socialist ones to facist ones. We could have no faith in human values unless we were clear that behind the arising of values there lies a material and historical process (the exploitative nature of capitalism) that is driving values in a socialist direction. Human beings have a huge capacity for co-operative working or living. That's true, but capitalism is not going to bring that fully out in them. But if capitalism hasn't, we presume that socialism will. Then we have to ask what values will be most appropriate. We can't be absolutely sure. It may be for instance that in the early days of socialism, we will need ego-fuelled techies fascinated with problem solving rather than caring, compassionate types to feed the millions that capitalism had abandoned. Who knows? The material conditions will decide that.
Hud955 wrote:The Middle ages were very much a devil-take-the-hindmost kind of society whose social values were far from the ones you propose. This is even more pronounced in hunter gatherer societies, which have been around not for thousands but for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years. These societies are not known for holding compassion in very high esteem. Those that we know of all develop extreme forms of individualism, and members of these societies tend not to help one another when they are in troubleI would be very interested to see the evidence for this rather bold statement..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.