SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Vin,I think you are allowing capitalist morality of the religious kind to dominate your thinking when it comes to the idea of morality.Don't be afraid of the word just because it has baggage. Socialism and communism both have baggage yet we as socialists do not shy away from the words.Gotta go now, but I'll be back later to share what I can about animals and morality etc.By the way, Matt gets where I'm coming from.Thanks Matt.
I don't think the brutality of capitalism starts and stops with just war. The examples of a brutal regime killing its populace or people being murdered for their sexual orientation and a "killer on the loose" in a foreign land are examples likely to arouse a sense of concern and compassion in most people. They may motivate a person to take some form of action. They may even be the motivating factors that lead a person down the path of socialist discovery. The link with socialism is the empathy part. Robbo203 hit the nail on the head in an earlier post on this thread when he talked of empathy and morality as the inevitability of being a social species. I feel compassion for those in the world who are starving, dying in wars etc. Once I understood it fully, I saw socialism as the formula to solve those ills. For me there can be no socialism without empathy, ethics, morality. Without the human, social, element it is a meaningless political theory.
Thanks for being constructive rodshaw. I agree with you that the religious community is varied and so what will do it for some will have no effect on others and some will not accept any evidence no matter how credible.I've done a little bit of searching the net on this and it does seem there is no hard evidence to say when a sense of morality may have developed in human pre-history, and that it requires a number of science based disciplines to unravel the mystery. My gut feeling on the topic is that morality developed as a consequence of human co-operative necessities, a sort of social glue that moves with the cultural norms of the time. As such it is likely to predate organised religions. But I could be wrong.
twc wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:What makes [war] slaughtering each other for anything [either] wrong or right?Nothing outside of the opposing interests of all parties involved.
Marx wrote:Between equal rights force decides.War is conflict resolution between rival capitalists for ownership and control of the means of social reproduction.Yet another reason for opposing the violent capitalist social system.
So what if people thousands of miles away are being slaughtered by a brutal regime. Or what if a serial killer is running riot in America again, or homosexuals being stoned to death in Brunei. What concern is it to you, me or anyone else on this forum?
Nice to see some constructive contributions here. From the lack of attention to my request and considering the personal mud slinging, I am led to conclude that there is no easy answer to my question, #400.LBird came closer with his reference to theory and metaphysics.
LBird wrote:The problem here, SP, is that what counts as 'evidence based info' is tied up in one's theory.We could have a discussion about 'ontology/metaphysics'…It seems that this area of enquiry is a complex one that involves biology, psychology and philosophy. No wonder forum and SPGB members are loathed to discuss this topic and instead opt for the easy, science beats all trump card.For clarification, I am not religious and I don't believe in a creator.
Hi rodshaw,I already have that one in the bag, so to speak. What I was looking for, and it may not be available, was some sort of actual historical, anthropology based explanation or addition.There is a danger that this thread may end up tangled with the one on socialism, morality and logic, and I'd rather it not as my enquiry was specifically about the religious view that morality, ethics, values etc came from a creator. Simply telling them that their belief is based on their cultural, political system is generally not enough explanation of itself, so any evidence based info would be beneficial. Whether that exists is another matter and is the reason for my post.
Vin Maratty wrote:I don'y think the Socialist Party has ever offered a moral case against the results capitalism. To take war as an example:"In all these years no change has taken place in the Socialist Party of Great Britain's attitude of opposition to capitalism's wars, based as it is on socialist principles and the interest of the working class. Only Socialism will abolish war from the earth."Now we are getting back to the nuts and bolts of this thread. I ask what is wrong with war? It might seem like a stupid question and I anticipate a typical answer in that it is against our class interests as workers. But what makes slaughtering each other for anything wrong or right?
To clarify a point. When I say "we have no moral authority", I do not mean socialists. I refer to anyone who does not have a creator based belief system.
I was wondering what other socialists would say to religious supporters regarding their idea that without a creator we have no moral authority? Or simply put, that the morality of atheists is simply borrowed from an overwhelmingly theistic history of human kind?I'm a bit ropey on this issue as I don't know enough about the history of ethics or belief systems. So can anyone shed any light on this topic?
Cheers DJP. Believe it or not I already knew the answer to the question as to what makes a capitalist from our perspective. I am however interested, or rather intrigued by the attitude of people who started off clearly as working class but end up, economically speaking, as capitalists, yet still see themselves as working class. These same people would probably be offended if described as capitalists.For those who ain't already guessed, this thread is actually about the subjective vs objective view of class. Something that is guaranteed to cause disagreement among the uninformed.
Oops! I think I made a bit of a mistake with my last sentence there DJP. I bet reading that you prob' thought I had lost the plot completely. That's what ya get for not previewing what ya just typed, before posting.I meant to type £10 million. Would I be a capitalist if I won £10 million?
pgb wrote:As a non-member, I am surprised that no member here has so far referred to the fact that the very question raised by Vin was put at the 2010 annual conference of the SPGB and I understand a ballot of the members was taken on the proposition that "socialism is both scientific and ethical". I may be wrong, but I think that this proposition was carried (63 for and 53 against). But as I understand it, another ballot later overturned that vote with the result that the members now hold that "socialism is scientific" (but not ethical). Is this the "official view" of the SPGB? I may have some of the details wrong here, but I mention the case only because the issue was discussed at great length on the old WSM Forum, in which I and several others participated, with strong views expressed for and against.I seem to recall this being mentioned on another thread some time ago, can't recall the thread unfortunately. I think it took a similar turn to this one though. Maybe that explains why no party members have bothered with this thread.Am I correct in thinking the discussion is polarized among us non members, with some thinking morality has no place in socialist theory and others, like myself, who contend that the two are inseparable?
I just lifted this from Wikipedia, entitled "Christian Values", but it is interesting and telling. I wonder where Cameron's views and actions fit.
wrote:Biblical authorityThe biblical teachings of Jesus include:[1]Love of God: "You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." (an excerpt from the Shema), -Matthew 22:37Fidelity in marriage: "Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder"Renunciation of worldly goods: "Gather not your riches up upon this earth, for there your heart will be also",Renunciation of violence: "If a man strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek",Forgiveness of sins: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us",Unconditional love: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".Modern use in worldwide right-wing politicsIn the 21st century United States, Australia, UK and other countries, the phrases "Christian values" and "family values" are used by conservative political groups to describe some or all of the following political stances:censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television.[2]the desirability of laws against induced abortionsexual abstinence outside of marriage and abstinence-only education[3]the promotion of intelligent design to be taught in public schools and colleges as an alternative to evolution.[4]the desirability of laws against same-sex marriagesupport for laws against the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream society[5]the desirability of organized prayer in public schools[6]Modern use in worldwide liberal politicsIn the 21st century United States, Australia, UK and other countries, the phrases "Christian values" and "family values" are used by Liberal political groups to describe some or all of the following political stances:support for a culture of empathy and compassion, seen as central to Christianity among a diverse range of religions and worldviews; favouring individuals, families (of all compositions) and small communities' interests over the interests of large corporations and the powerful;protection of the environment as the product of a deep reverence for God's creation;the undesirability of war other than as a last resort, and a respect for diplomacy;a living wage for all, seen as a mark of concern for the physical welfare of "the least among us"a high, progressive income tax to promote greater income equality in keeping with Jesus' words in support of the poor and against excessive riches;promoting separation of church and state[citation needed] and religious tolerance, consistent with the concept of Christ's kingdom not being "of this world" and warnings against the hunger for potentially corrupting temporal power throughout the Bible
