SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:I don't need to be religious to be caring and compasionate; nor do I need an imposed 'morality'The whole argument on morality assumes that which needs to be proven. We will have to agree to disagree, it is an endless debate.
Robbo presents a very powerful case for morality as a concept likely predating class divided society. Of course there is no hard evidence to support, but through reasoned, logical argument he has been able to present a convincing case. Without, may I add, any mention of support for religion.The case for socialism is yet to be proved, but socialists insist there is valid justification for the concept, based on reasoned, logical argument.
What I've come to realise is the people defending the ideology of some imaginary idealised capitalism, don't give a toss about the harsh realities. It just doesn't register with them.
TheSpanishInquisition wrote:Capitalism doesn't aim to meet human needs; it meets human desires, which does coincide with needs on the lower end. Anytime someone wants something, they can probably get it and if they work hard enough (ignoring opportunity, for the minute. Let's pretend it's a world where everyone starts at least average, as is the most desirable world), they can afford to buy it. This is a natural reward system of capitalism, in that the more you contribute to humanity, the more you get out of it, and that's fair because in a world with an equal starting point like the one I hypothesised just now, that is what exists.When I read this I couldn't stop laughing. I mean, this person thinks the SPGB are fantasists and here we have someone hypothisising about an ideal version of capitalism. What a joke.I live in a mining community where men worked in a deep, dark, dirty, dangerous hole in the ground. Lives were lost, health ruined and when the mines all closed down the town was left in an economic mess for years. I didn't see much balanced reward for the contribution those men and their families made to humanity.But I guess we can see for ourselves what Inquisition thinks.
TheSpanishInquisition wrote:Those billionaires aren't these lazy, useless invalids you think they are. They give huge sums to charity, they invest huge sums in businesses. They're the lifeblood of capitalism. Without them, capitalism would crumble. They're far more important than expendable workers who can just be replaced with another person if they screw up.If a community deems it to be morally unacceptable to do something, then to do it would be immoral. I'm not sure what the problem is, unless it's the religious idea of sin you are trying to bring into the discussion?
Vin, I agree that the traits suggesting empathy in certain animals has nothing to do with morality. Morality simply refers to a social code of conduct.Socialist morality would simply be a set of rules based around the need to curb what would be deemed anti-social behaviour.I've already asked, and received no replies as to whether or not it is acceptable to knowingly do harm to another person?The NERB has faced a moral issue quite recently. It is ridiculous to think such issues would not crop up within a socialist society. I'm sure there would be times whereby the community may feel deeply uncomfortable with the views of others in regards to certain issues.I think the anti-morality stance is rooted deeply within the rejection of religion.
I seem to recall a link to a very interesting essay I read several years ago on this forum. It suggested that through increased mechanisation of the production process and the removal of pointless employment, a socialist society would have little actual work to share among the current 7.4 billion people living on this planet today.The essay went on to suggest a form of compulsory work of perhaps 2 years would be expected from most people to make sure the necessary human work served the needs of the global community. Every person could choose when in their life time to do such service. When not performing such service, people would be free to pursue their interests.What makes such an idea so exciting and plausible is that there is talk today of technology replacing, I think, up to a third of all jobs.[edit] If anyone knows of the essay I'm referring to could they please provide the link, if possible. Cheers.
jondwhite wrote:Well if the people of Flint have the moral right to clean drinking water why are they being poisoned? A sudden outburst of immorality?In a way, yes.If for example a person responsible for the safety and well being of others makes a decision they know will impact detrimentally on those under their care, then they are themselves responsible for their actions. I'm not aware of the defence, "It weren't my fault your honour, it was the system that made me do it, honest."
JDW, neither I nor Robbo have said the case for socialism is purely a moral one. The comments you keep posting regarding this subject seem to imply that it's either one or the other. Capitalists and their political managers always use morality to back their corner, and we see countless examples where the same morality is cast aside or twisted to suit various actions. Capitalism is morally bankrupt. It can only add to back up our position. Many members already use it in their arguments, some probably without realising it. It's used on a regular basis in the Socialist Standard to add human, emotive, weight to many an article. Why pretend it's not?Yes morality is a fluid, awkward issue, it's part of what it is to belong to a highly social species. We are not automatons.
Tell that to the people of Flint.http://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/
ALB wrote:Ah, the penny's dropped. You weren't the sincere seeker after truth about socialism that you appeared to be but a defender of capitalism. No doubt some sort of mad marketeer. I'm sorry I wasted my time.ALB, you haven't wasted your time. People like TheSpanishInquisition will likely never be swayed whatever you or any other member of the SPGB/WSM say, but they are not important. The important people are those who may be reading what you say and have the seed of a new idea planted in their thoughts, that someday may germinate.
Hi JDW,This has been discussed before and Robbo and myself pointed out that the morality we speak of is not capitalist morality, more a socialist morality based to some extent on altruism.I don't think the partly moral case for socialism is likely to be any more or less effective. I just think that denying it simply on the grounds of some ideological basis, is a bit pointless, when all morality refers to is a set of ethical communal rules to hold anti-social tendencies to account. The moral bullshit spouted today by all manner of leaders, is broken on a minute by minute basis. It's meaningless. So given that capitalist morality is pure hypocrisy, it's another area socialists can take full advantage of. I would like to think I wouldn't use the word "evil" to describe capitalism myself, but understand instantly what it conveys, cruelty, misery, suffering, corruption etc. Come to think ot it, perhaps it isn't such a bad word to use as it conveys so much meaning.I still expect a socialist society to have problems. We won't all just love one another when capitalism gets the chop. There will be relationship breakdowns, personal disagreements that might spill over into violence etc.Of course any social rules would be decided upon democraticaly, but what would be their basis and why? Is it wrong to make another person feel inferior? Is it ok to inflict physical pain upon another person? Is it fine to torture animals before they're slaughtered for food? Is it ok to slaughter animals for food? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive the utopian socialists were using morality to appeal to the ruling class to be the agents of change and not the workers, hoping it would encourage the formation of a society based on their early versions of socialism?To think socialism would be a moral free zone, is itself utopian.
For those who think socialism has nothing whatsoever to to do with morality.Would a global socialist society have any rules or guidelines as to what are considered unacceptable ways to treat one another?If so, what would be the basis for such rules?
Hi LBird,With reference to your post #122 above. The way I see it education is key. I'm not talking about reading the complete works of Marx, who as you point out is very vague and far from user friendly.The education I refer to is the stuff we can all relate to, from school onwards. My experience of education once I got to comprehensive level was one of boredom and frustration. In contrast education in a socialist society would be designed to be stimulating and fun. Education can and should be enjoyable. But I'm straying off my point slightly, so I'll get right to it.Wouldn't education within a socialist society be vastly different from today? Pupils would be encouraged to enjoy learning and be allowed to explore and develop at their own pace. As such I see education within socialism as being a lifelong habit for most people, should they desire it. This could mean, in theory, a highly educated global population capable of a great deal of flexibility and creativity. Given such a scenario, I see the likely hood of social academic ideas falling into the hands of an elite, very unlikely.The only way I see an elite controlling the production of social academic ideas within a socialist society, would be from the start. If such a scenario were to take place during the build up to a socialist/communist revolution, it wouldn't be the socialism I envisage. It would be a technocracy.In all my years of exposure to the SPGB/WSM, as a teenage sympathiser, later a member and back to a sympathiser, I've never got the impression a technocracy was on the agenda.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Hi Ike,Good to see a new face willing to get involved with discussion.I'm curious as to the quote by you I highlight in bold below. Are you referring to "racial" groups as a whole, or pockets of "racial" groups within specific environmental, economic, cultural situations?Ike Pettigrew wrote:the cultural differences that exist between human societies are down to the fact that different people have evolved in different places and have become identifiable as discrete and distinct racial groups, with some groups more intellectually capable than others.I'm referring to both. My starting point is that intelligence is too complex, subjective and multi-faceted to measure with fine precision and is in any case largely the result of genes interacting with environment.I can't take IQ fully seriously. For me, the only serious measure of human group intelligence differences is what we see with our own eyes. It's apparent that many non-white societies are not technical cultures and are essentialy stuck in the Bronze Age. Others have bolted-on European systems and institutions (in effect, capitalism) to their societies, but are dysfunctional. Lots of other comparative observations can be made. So I do think it is possible to compare whole racial groups, yes.However, I think the most useful comparisons are smaller and I would suggest two models as a starting point:(i). Comparing different racial groups under the same environmental conditions. A good example of this is European Americans and African-Americans.(ii). Comparing sub-groups of the same racial group in different environments. A good example of this is African-Americans and black British. I hope I have answered your question. I was very tired when I typed this.
Regarding (i) and (ii), what methods for comparison would you suggest?[edit] Thanks for getting back to me.
Hi Ike,Good to see a new face willing to get involved with discussion.I'm curious as to the quote by you I highlight in bold below. Are you referring to "racial" groups as a whole, or pockets of "racial" groups within specific environmental, economic, cultural situations?
Ike Pettigrew wrote:the cultural differences that exist between human societies are down to the fact that different people have evolved in different places and have become identifiable as discrete and distinct racial groups, with some groups more intellectually capable than others.
