SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote: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Poll on the following motion : "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism is one of class interest not one of morality.'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No – 39 Abstain – 3 Spoilt – 2 Therefore the 2010 Conference resolution – Socialism is both scientific and ethical – is rescinded.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.
Anyone else noticed that the two resolutions ask different questions. The second is a carefully worded piece of political manipulation. How likely would it be that the SPGB membership would vote against the case being one of class interests, in favour of morality? Whoever worded that one knew what they were doing.
Hud955 wrote:Hud955 wrote:Picking casual quotes from the Daily Mail, (of all places), or isolated pieces of research demonstrates nothingSocialistPunk 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.
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.
Hud955 wrote:Picking casual quotes from the Daily Mail, (of all places), or isolated pieces of research demonstrates nothingI 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.
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.
Hud955 wrote:Far from being a 'bold' statement, this is really very uncontroversial stuff. The evidence is long-standing and overwhelming. Though you will get all sorts of confusing views promoted by popular writers, largely because they do not distinguish between the various kinds of hunter-gatherer groups and their very different forms of organisation.A quick search on the internet brought up the following links. With more time no doubt I could find lots more stuff.http://www.compassionatwork.com/art_minniecon.html"So when a person is born, they have to go through these initiations, right through until they die. What happens at death, there is a huge mourning. The women will cut themselves to express their sorrow and anguish at the loss of someone so important to the community. There will be bloodshed, and a whole range of incredibly deep emotions are expressed.That blood is being shed not only because of the personal depths of sorrow, but to express to the family that has lost a loved one. This is their way of saying 'sorry' with them. Because it is a very painful thing to lose someone so close. If the person who dies is of high esteem, it becomes a very big community affair. That person then goes back into the Spirit World again, and they become what we would call a part of our ancestors who are always with us."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1317867/Prehistoric-humans-compassion-cared-others.html"Some of the earliest humans in Europe developed commitments to the welfare of others between 500,000 and 40,000 years ago, a team from the University of York has discovered.""Their findings showed that the injured and infirm were routinely cared for in this period. The researchers examined archaeological evidence for clues as to the way in which emotions began to develop in our ancestors.Analysis of remains showed that a child with a serious brain abnormality was not abandoned, but lived until it was five or six years old."
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy"We tend to think of empathy as a uniquely human trait. But it’s something apes and other animals demonstrate as well, says primatologist Frans de Waal. He shows how our evolutionary history suggests a deep-rooted propensity for feeling the emotions of others."
http://news.nd.edu/news/16829-research-shows-child-rearing-practices-of-distant-ancestors-foster-morality-compassion-in-kids/"Three new studies led by Notre Dame Psychology Professor Darcia Narvaez show a relationship between child rearing practices common in foraging hunter-gatherer societies (how we humans have spent about 99 percent of our history) and better mental health, greater empathy and conscience development, and higher intelligence in children."
Then there is this from the "Human Nature. Whoopee!" thread in general discussion.Hud955 wrote:The problem with this whole area of discussion is that it is a hotly contested field (or range of fields), invoving a huge array of empirical research and complex argument. Most people you engage don't want to go there. And the fact is we are not experts either. So it is dead easy for anyone to cite a piece of evidence selectively, and equally easy for someone else just to deny it. And before you know it you have a frustrated stalemate. I think the only way forward with most of us is to keep it simple and make a few telling points,Still think the following is not a bold sweeping statement to make?
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 troubleHud955 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..
Seems that frustration, disillusionment and ultimately acrimony are being allowed to flourish in a socialist space. There is no need for it to be this way. I have always maintained that the forum be managed with a view to making it reflect socialist values of co operation, openness, democratic participation and accountability. Such an approach would go a long way to encourage solidarity.What I see now, goes against everything I was taught about socialism from the Socialist Standard, Bobby Gleghorn, Steve Colborn and other members of the (now unfortunately non existent) North East branch.I appeal to all socialists to put an end to this anti socialist nonsense and make this site a socialist space for all.
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.
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.
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.
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?
