Would the police force exist in a Socialist world?

[Hud955]

steve colborn wrote:

I could not disagree more with your post twc. Once again you, as others have done before, argue on the purely "mechanistic" level. You talk about the materialist conception of history, as if it were some holy grail, when in fact, it is merely an overarching theory of social development. No more no less. It pays no heed to the fact that, what is under the microscope are thinking, conscious human beings! Each individual in so many different and varied ways.The values that are so glibly sidestepped, as of no more than a side issue, are not merely fundamental to the case for Socialism but are intrinsically linked to it, intertwined if you like.If you take the "human element" away from the case for Socialism, you devalue not only it but any resultant society, that will be brought about by, "human beings", working together cooperatively, on a conscious level.By the way, I fundamentally disagree that a thoroughgoing knowledge of Marx is a necessity to understanding the case for and the need for a change in society and with it, the concomitant change in societal relationships. Steve.

 Calling people's views 'mechanistic', Steve isn't an argument; it is just a way of trying to dismiss them.  The question is not whether they are 'mechanistic' but whether they are true or reliable. Nobody, is removing the human element from socialist theory.  That's a complete misconception, as far as I can see, and a probable cause of your calling it 'mechanistic.'  I certainly don't have a mechanistic view of Marxian socialism, but I do have a materialist one.  Marx did not claim that the materialist conception of history was even a 'theory'.  He called it a 'working method'.  And that is what it is.  A set of principles we can use to get a handle on the movements of society through historical (and pre-historical) time.  And the MCH comprehends values and the individual just as much as it comprehends material conditions and society.  But it acknowledges that society is not just a summation of random individuals with random types of relationship.  Society is ordered – into classes principally – and that creates structured not random relationships.  It claims that these relationships are likely to focus 'values' in a certain direction. It recognises, in fact, that society is greater than the sum of its parts and that it has its own dynamic.  By placing your primary focus on the individual is to deny this, and as a result to deny any reason we have to suppose that socialism has any chance of coming about.  In fact, the undue emphasis that you put on the individual and values is as limiting as the udue evidence your imaginary opponents place on 'mechanical' considerations.   So maybe this debate is really a big non-argument.  Have we just got polarised?  From the point of view of propagandising for socialism and for growing the SPGB, we need at this point in time to relate to and talk to individuals, who are going to receive what we say through the medium of their 'values' whatever those values might be.  (Personally, I dislike this term.  It's a technical coinage of the social sciences and used to include all sorts of things that no-one would call 'values' in ordinary speech.) The MCH argues however, that among the working class majority those values, whatever form they take, will ultimately tend to conform to, or be overwhelmed by,  their interests and eventually focus on socialism as a goal.  In claiming that, it gives us a reason for being socialists and propagandising for socialism in the first place.  it creates purpose and direction out of randomness.  And we need some reason to believe that there is some tendency in that direction, since human values have been many and various over time, some co-operative and altruistic, some divisive and selfish, and they have not so far shown an independent tendency to evolve in the direction of socialism as far as I can see.  That needs to come from somewhere else – from history and material conditions as propsed by the MCH. Looking at this another way.  If values were all we needed we could have got socialism during the middle ages.

[SocialistPunk]

AdamIt is now known that some animals other than us human animals, display behavioural characteristics once thought to belong solely to humans. As far as I am aware, they happen to belong to the mammalian branch, of which we belong. This would suggest that behaviour demonstrating elements of what we identify as empathy, altruism etc is an evolutionary mechanism probably associated more with social,  mammals.Potentially meaning we can't help but value, values.Given that it is known a positive, nurturing environment will more likely produce offspring that are happier, more confident, improved chance of education success, less prone to mental ill health and in turn more likely to go on to provide a positive and nurturing environment for their offspring. Likewise a negative environment will go on to produce offspring more prone to traits that include, increase in mental ill health, low self esteem, lower educational achievement, and less likely to produce a nurturing environment for offspring. So the cycle continues.So, as conscious socialists committed to changing society, presumably for the betterment of the majority of human lives. We need to ask ourselves, are values important and if so, what values do we think would be helpful, to promote the kind of society we want to bring about?Should we nurture certain values, along side our mission statement? Positively reinforcing both? Or perhaps sideline them, hoping they will take care of themselves when we have the time?Either approach requires a conscious decision, from concious socialists.

[steve colborn]

Hud I think, nay I know, from the discourse so far, that it is you rather than SP who is trying to "intepret cultural 'values' for people whose social conditions are so different from ours". SP does not disavow that a materialist conception of history is very important but he recognises that it runs concurrently with a value system that human beings have. Whereas those who only relate to the materialist idiom, deny any input from the human value aspect, or at the most, relegate it to a very low importance.To state that, " Frankly, when it comes to choosing between the considered opinions of the experienced, and the romanticising of the wishful, I think I know where I prefer to look." sounds more like, "I am the experienced one here and my view is more relevant and carrys more weight than yours"!  If you have qualifications in social anthropology, you may gain some gravitas from that. I suspect however, that you do not.As a Socialist, SP has acquanted himself with a wide variety of subjects, as I suspect have you. Experience is however, not qualification. Nor is your, or anyones interpretation of the matter available any more valid than say, SP, unless you can validate that by qualification. If a lack of the latter, each is a mere dilettante, with no more nor less credibility than the other. Steve.

[alanjjohnstone]

" Should we nurture certain values, along side our mission statement?"Perhaps i misunderstand what is meant by values but we already do this and it is in our mission statement. It is in our D of P. We oppose those negative values of racism, sexism and in our organisational structure rules against ageism too ( we have no youth wing).We oppose national and religious values that hinder our movement, that the place of birth is unimportant or that we are all have "evil" within us because of original sinWe promote values of co-operation and solidarity and internationalism based on our commonality as workers.In our propaganda we constantly combat the false idea of an innate human nature but also argue against the idea that we are blank paper to be written upon by the social engineering advocates.I'm beginning to think Hud is right.  We are engaging in one big non-argument.

[twc]

Dear Steve,No, I argue from a social level  — the Marxian science of society [the materialist conception of history] — and not from a mechanical level.You seem to argue from a biological level — something like biology determines socialism — or an ideal level — something like fine ideals do.The materialist conception of history plays a comparable role for comprehending human society as, for example, Newtonian mechanics does for understanding the solar system or Darwinian evolution does for understanding biological development, etc. It is simply a testable vulnerable science. Your biologicism or idealism is more a Holy Grail [as you wildly assert the materialist conception of history to be] — a mysterious talisman that humans create in their imagination, interminably quest for on a pure simpleton's errand, and that ever fails to deliver its hoped-for miracles.Science, on the contrary, is more prosaic, and attempts to displace mystical idealism by testable determinism.Science can be demonstrated to be wrong. That is the challenge you must meet.You misunderstand the materialist conception of history if you think that it "pays no heed of conscious human beings" when you must at least know that it aims to understand that very human consciousness you take as being absolute, fundamental, self evident — something that it is not necessary to explain because it is to you, as it is to Socialist Punk, obvious.No product of consciousness is self evident. All consciousness is a social construct. Consciousness is superstructural and not basic, in terms of the materialist conception of history. [You want to make it basic.]Your vaunted ethics and morality — the more selfless they manifest themselves — are clearly non individual. Ethics and morality are attributes of society, not of individuals. Selfless behaviour only makes sense if it is in and for society and not within or for an individual.Ethics and morality are simply not individual at all. If they remain individual, they become their very opposite: selfish. More dangerous if they become internally idealized like the self-absorbed moralism of a Kierkegaard.The more that ethics and morality appear to be individual concerns rather than social concerns  — i.e. the more they appeal primarily to the individual  — the more they misrepresent the very society that calls them forth and to which the individual wants to apply them. Individualized ethics and morality unconsciously reveal how powerless they are within their social context — the more they resemble the current ineffectual social parody of individual charity donations "solving" social problems.No, socialists, like most humans, are necessarily concerned with, for and about other people. Of course, like the rest of society, we find our natural communal behaviour continually blunted by capitalism, but we manage to rise above the inhumanity of our present anti-social society, partly because we must, and sometimes we do so cheerfully enough to our own personal cost.The significant difference is that Marxian socialists have a testable vulnerable science to show us all deterministically how we can realize the ethical social needs you so strongly feel.

[steve colborn]

I have read your post quite a few times Alan and on only one point and one point only, can I see anything other than excellent points being made. To quote you, "No amount of pointing to a starving child in Ethiopia will result in a desire and drive for a socialist society." In this I seem to differ and only on this. As a father of two lads, when I see scenes of unalloyed misery engendered in scenes such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan et al, I am minded, at these times to put myself and my family into this horrific reality. It may be empathy, sympathy or whatever but it makes my determination to bring an end to Capitalism, the cause of these horrors, to as swift an end as possible. In that sense, my empathy, gives my argumentative and debative skills more focus, strength and forcefulness, in my efforts to discuss with my fellow workers the need for societal change. I draw strength and determination from them.It may not be scientific but, for me, it works. It is also the reason, that no matter any disagreements I have with fellow Socialists, I still consider them, "fellow Socialists". Comrades in the fight for sanity, and rationality.Steve.

[SocialistPunk]

Hud955 wrote:

Picking casual quotes from the Daily Mail, (of all places), or isolated pieces of research demonstrates nothing

I chose that piece deliberately because it was in the Daily Mail. The research it refers to can be found in many locations on the internet. For me it was the most interesting bit out of all I found and unfortunately Hud, it demonstrates an awful lot about our ancestors and the development of the dreaded, empathy and altruism etc.That piece of research is very important, in that it shows a type of behaviour going way, way back, that was totally unexpected. It shows strong elements of caring for the ill and essential useless, thats powerful empathy at work, by any standards. It also suggests these values are part of an evolutionary process.The research mirrors a docu I saw a couple of years back about Neanderthals. It showed a grave adorned with flowers and shells, with the body carefully wrapped and positioned. I was touched by what I saw, I imagine it would have been more powerful to those who discovered it.By the way, calling someone an "idealist", Hud isn't an argument; it's just a way of trying to dismiss them.I see nothing but distortion of mine and Steve's position, in an attempt to swamp us out of this discussion. No one is calling for an appeal for pity or empathy to lead the way forward. What will it take to get this fact across?I guess some socialists don't let facts get in the way of a good pile up.

[steve colborn]

twc, I do not assert that the materialist conception of history is some kind of holy grail. What I said was "you" use it at such, like a club. The MCH is a theory posited by Marx, one I happen to agree with and moreover understand. Whilst refuting your label of me as arguing from a biological level, I will restate, as well as the mechanistic view inherent in the MCH, I use in conjunction with this a value system, garnered from 51 yrs of being subjected to the abomination Capitalism most assuredly is, and 32 years of learning all about this system and the alternative.That Socialist learning led me directly to Uni, fostered by a need to instil within myself, knowledge and the credibility of Capitalist educational accreditation, is down to comrades in the SPGB. That I have spent 32 years gaining the knowledge to fight for Socialism, is down to the SPGB but I have used my empathy also, empathy with my fellow workers to strengthen my resolve to gain this knowledge, the knowledge all Socialists need for the fight. Steve.

[SocialistPunk]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

" Should we nurture certain values, along side our mission statement?"Perhaps i misunderstand what is meant by values but we already do this and it is in our mission statement. It is in our D of P. We oppose those negative values of racism, sexism and in our organisational structure rules against ageism too ( we have no youth wing).We oppose national and religious values that hinder our movement, that the place of birth is unimportant or that we are all have "evil" within us because of original sinWe promote values of co-operation and solidarity and internationalism based on our commonality as workers.In our propaganda we constantly combat the false idea of an innate human nature but also argue against the idea that we are blank paper to be written upon by the social engineering advocates.I'm beginning to think Hud is right.  We are engaging in one big non-argument.

AlanAt last I think this discussion is getting somewhere. Your post here mirrors what Steve and I have been saying all along. Somewhere along the line we were accused of being utopians and idealists. All for daring to suggest values go hand in hand with socialism. Now here you are demonstrating the same thing. Socialist values.For that I thank you Alan.I also agree this is a non argument. So please could everyone refrain from suggesting Steve and I advocate idealism or utopia. We never ever said values must come first, only that they already co exist, and that certain values are preferable for a socialist society to function more effectively than others. That is fairly obvious.

[twc]

Hi Steve,You say I wield the materialist conception of history "like a club".Just as Newton wielded his laws of motion and Darwin wielded his theory of evolution, although they wielded their guiding principles more elegantly than I — more like a rapier or a scalpel.Marx used the materialist conception of history everywhere, even where it's not immediately obvious. He explicitly tells us that it was the guiding principle of all his studies, just as the other conceptions continue to be the guiding principles for Newtonians and Darwinians.Scientific theory is useless if you can't wield it. Wielding is precisely what scientific principles are for. That is their social role.We wield the materialist conception of history as much to apply it as to test it. That's because the materialist conception of history is a testable, vulnerable, deterministic science.By following a scientific principle where it leads us and not where we want to lead it is the only scientific approach. If we correctly apply it, and it fails, we deterministically weaken the materialist conception of history as a scientific principle.Somebody, some day, needs to go through Marx and make explicit just how he consistently wielded the materialist conception of history throughout his complex scientific structure.So much hot air has been wasted on challenging or re-interpreting his clearly stated materialist conception of history as a foundation by people who think they have a better foundation. Well, the challenge for such people is to develop a social science whose guiding principle isn't the materialist conception of history, and then we can take them seriously.Until then, challenges to the materialist conception of history remain so much waffle — untestable and indeterministic. On this score, challengers have cowardly eschewed determinism and avoided testability.For the moment we proudly wield [even if  like a club] the extraordinary social conviction that "social being determines consciousness"!

[Hud955]

LOL, Steve.  You are setting up a straw man here.  No, I have no qualifications in social antrhopology, but I do have qualifications in philosophy of science and mathematics and so I do have a notion or two about the logic of scientific reasoning and can tell a rational argument from a fabricated one.  If SP wants to base his understanding of the world on an article in the Daily Mail, then so be it.  I shan't challenge that any further.  I'm suggesting though that before he draws knee jerk conclusions from such second-hand and uncontextualised information, which provides no independent reason to accept it,  he would do well to read some comparative studies that give a more rounded understanding of hunter gatherers than he will find in individual articles found in odd places on the web. and can I suggest that you are in no position to preach about credibility, since your own lack of professional qualificants in this field did not prevent you from making some pretty dogmatic statements on this subject a few posts back – statements which I am sure you intended to be taken very seriously.  If socialists only spoke about subjects they had academic qualifications in we would all be a lot less vocal than we are.  We can all read and we can think and we can all debate.  So, let's not get too quickly into undermining each other for dubiously partisan reasons. 

[ALB]

This of course is a discussion that has been going on in the Party for years, with the majority opinion swinging from one side to the other. In 2010 Conference passed the following resolution by 64 votes to 52:

Quote:

Socialism is both scientific and ethical.

Six branches then called a Party Poll to rescind this resolution. The result of this vote was:

Quote:

Results of the Party Poll on the following motion :  "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both  scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism  is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No"  No of votes cast : Yes      –  81 No         – 39 Abstain –   3 Spoilt    –   2  Therefore the 2010 Conference resolution – Socialism is both scientific and  ethical – is rescinded.  There were 9 invalid returns.

So, this is the current "Party position" though the discussion is still ongoing. Nothing wrong with that of course. In fact that's one of the purposes of this forum to give minorities the chance to become the majority.

[steve colborn]

Hud, no straw men applied by me, moreover, it is you, yourself, who disavow anyone's view that does not coincide with your own. No more dogmatic statements from here, than from the other side of the discussion, either. I do have relevant qualifications, a degree in Politics/Sociology. Whilst not in the fields of anthropology or paleo-anthropology, it is, nevertheless in the field of the "social sciences".TWC, you will find it impossible to find any comment, where either myself or SP did not acknowledge the importance of the MCH, it has been stated and re-stated. All we have done, is draw the attention to human "values", in the way we move forward, both as a movement and as a species. Steve.

[SocialistPunk]

Hud955 wrote:

Hud955 wrote:Picking casual quotes from the Daily Mail, (of all places), or isolated pieces of research demonstrates nothing

SocialistPunk wrote:

I chose that piece deliberately because it was in the Daily Mail. The research it refers to can be found in many locations on the internet.

Now this slick piece of willful distortion.

Hud955 wrote:

If SP wants to base his understanding of the world on an article in the Daily Mail, then so be it.  I shan't challenge that any further.

Hud955 wrote:

No, I have no qualifications in social anthropology, but I do have qualifications in philosophy of science and mathematics and so I do have a notion or two about the logic of scientific reasoning and can tell a rational argument from a fabricated one.

For a person who claims a knowledge of scientific reasoning, Hud is very fond of distortion. But I guess the world of science is littered with one-upmanship at all costs. Quite sad coming from a socialist.

[steve colborn]

A quote stated elsewhere by Adam. Quite appropriate to this particular thread wouldn't one think? "That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society." (1991) Steve.

[Author]

Posts