SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
YMS and Hudd955Rehabilitation, protection for the community, retaliation, revenge, all have a basis in a human value system. So too does socialism, material or utopian.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.I am no utopian, my values are not separate inventions and certainly not idealistic. My values are taken from my environment and experiences. Quite a few negative ones, but overwhelmingly positive ones. But as with most others the negative experiences feel heavier.I ask everyone who is taking part in this debate to come forward and state their values. I expect the majority would express values that are at odds with the ideology of capitalism. Through my experiences within the party, I would put money on a list that is similar to mine, rather than say, a Cameron, Thatcher or Blair.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?
Young Master Smeet wrote:It's not mechanical versus values, but materialism versus utopianism. The values of society will be those that it is capable of in its material conditions.Not sure who mentioned utopia, I certainly do not see a future socialist society as a perfect, flawless society. But as Steve Colborn, Jon Brown and myself have said, even within capitalism people show a remarkable ability to demonstrate positive values among the cruelest environments. Proving values are probably more important, resilient and motivating than the acquisition of material well being. In fact without the values I have already outlined we would not be socialists. We would be Tory, social Darwinists. So YMS, if a societies values are solely determined by it's material conditions, and only within socialism will we be able to figure them out, then why can so much good be found among so much horror in todays capitalism? Surely such a competitive, aggressive, destructive, bigoted system would produce nothing more than the worst kind of humans and we would not be advocating a better society here on this forum?
Jon Brown wrote:A bit like a fire service, efficient and brave when they have to put out a fire but more effective when they prevent fires and can sit in the station and play cards or chess.I thinks this demonstrates nicely how values would be put into practice in a socialist society in dealing with community problems. Prevention first and foremost. How do we prevent incidents from reoccurring? We avail ourselves of the issue, investigate and seek to get to the cause of the problem.It is obvious that in any of todays judicial systems, there is not much emphasis on seeking to find out why people do the things they do. All modern judiciary systems want, is to prove guilt or innocence, as quickly and as cheaply as possible. The outcome so often depends on the size of ones bank balance. It seeks to learn nothing of how to prevent the monotonous reoccurring of the same crimes over and over again.Without knowledge, we can not learn. If we do not learn, we can not change.Does anyone seriously expect a socialist society to lock rule breakers up indefinitely, throw away the key and ignore the opportunity to learn how to avoid the same things happening again and again? Most people would think that is an utterly ridiculous approach. We may find that some people are natural born criminals, but without attempts to find out what went wrong and if a person could be rehabilitated, we condemn the future to the same mistakes.I don't think socialists would choose such a path, or would they?
I also wonder why TheOldGreyWhistle has been suspended indefinitely. Most forum members will not be aware that I was also suspended at the same time as him, from the same thread "Future Elections". It was never mentioned openly on the forum. Presumably he was suspended for the same unexplained reasons as myself. My suspension was lifted early, yet OGW has been given an indefinite suspension, without any valid explanation as to why, except a vague reference to an inability to follow forum rules.If he has deliberately chosen to constantly break forum rules and flout numerous warnings, then these could surely be demonstrated, by providing references to the offences and warnings?Surely openness is a core value of the SPGB?(Waiting with anticipation to be flagged, but expecting no answer)
Nice one YMS. To answer your position as fully as is needed, would require me mentioning a certain issue. An issue I think should and could be made to reflect values I see as vital to socialism. But if I do that I could find my post deleted and possibly even suspended from the forum for "off topic".We hear similar excuses for todays "austerity" for the majority. Only the politicians are talking about the lack of financial resources. Not time and effort.Of course a socialist society would have no financial constraints, no concern for the profits of a few. Our concern would be meeting needs as YMS points out. However to do so in only a mechanical way, would end up with a system like we so often see in science fiction when portraying a purely science based, mechanical future society.Of equal importance, to fulfilling human material need, are the values and relationships we as humans deliberately foster with one another. So often in the direst situations positive human values shine through. Those situations do not see people calculating what emotions or values can be afforded, given the material resources and time available. As a species we find a way to foster positive relationships, to stay human.It is of the utmost importance to make a future socialist society function with specific values from the start and so the organisation that advocates socialism must start working on those values long before socialism is established. To push these to the sidelines, by saying they will receive the attention we have the time for, is missing the point entirely. We need to make that time for such an important issue.It is clear that there are two types of socialists in the WSM. Those who have a mechanical outlook and those who have a human outlook.
SocialistPunk wrote:Sorry Jon, I would find myself in trouble.ALB wrote:Are you conforming to the rules of behaviour because of peer pressure or because of a fear of a formal punishment?In this instance it has more to do with a form of punishment. I would not be allowed to discuss a form of behaviour modification/punishment being used by socialists, despite the very relevant nature of the topic of punishment being discussed here. If that is not ironic then…..I expect this post will be flagged as well.My point being, that any form of punishment or behaviour modification via socialisation that a socialist society may find necessary should, in my opinion, reflect socialist values. Values that put people at the top of the agenda. I am talking about, understanding, tolerance, patience, co operation, openness, even empathy and compassion. Some of those things are rarely ever mentioned by socialists.So to get back to the idea of a death penalty. I am against it simply because the calculated taking of another persons life contradicts the values I have just outlined.Ooops! I think I have just strayed into morality territory.
It is interesting to see a lot of quoting going on, but little answering.We don't have to look too far for examples of how a socialist society might deal with people who break rules. I need not spell it out. But it is an interesting example of how socialist values can be put to the test.
Hi AlexGood point. It is a bit off topic, but does have some relevance to the subject.Good to hear someone else who sees a bit of off topic as perfectly fine.What is your view regarding my question?
Hi JonThanks for the reply. I am aware of the facts of what you say regarding the death penalty in todays society.Regarding the repeating of acts of extreme violence etc, within a socialist society being only to ensure non repeat of the offence. I imagine if the first act of violence someone performed was sufficiently extreme enough to warrant thoughts of execution, that person would probably find themselves incarcerated, probably for life, or until it was absolutely certain they were not a further danger. A socialist society would not be restricted, regarding resources to ensure that person was safe to rejoin society. We all know that resources for ill prisoners are severely limited within capitalism.The point behind my post, was to ascertain what motivates socialists to object to the killing of other humans in this context.I myself do not think the issue is as simple as some may think.But before anyone wishes to continue this particular line of discussion, it might be a good idea to ascertain if we are straying into off topic territory. Anyone know?
This could head off in a different direction, but since it has been mentioned, I only put this out to generate some thought that could be discussed (if wished) on a separate thread.What is the basic objection to a death penalty existing within a socialist society for extreme cases?I am not a supporter of a death penalty, (before I get it in the neck) I am simply interested in what motivates socialist objections. Material or emotional?
Hi AdminWould you be able to explain how it is possible to block IP access altogether, inadvertently?After speaking to a couple of tech savvy friends, a specific procedure needs to be carried out to totally block access.Thanks
Absolutely OGW.Some of those same names cropped up, to have a go at you and Steve not so long ago. Seems they can't help themselves and can't see their own hypocrisy.But what is the most pathetic thing about this, is that the disagreements this petty minded lot can't get past, that caused a stir among the party, were issues of democratic principle, not personalities. They are now so small minded that they place personal dislikes above that of positive socialist activity."Cutting of the nose to spite the face" is very appropriate for those idiots. At the end of the day, not all socialists will be friends, but putting the cause before personal likes and dislikes is obvious if at all serious about what we claim to be here for.
If one positive thing from Thatcher’s lonely demise can emerge, it would be that some class consciousness be rekindled among the long suffering working class of Britain. The foul lot in power now are continuing what she zealously started. ConDemning future generations to more intense exploitation as conditions are squeezed further in the pursuit of making Britain profitable for investors once more.The battle lines were drawn on Wednesday when parliament paid tribute to the former prime minister. We were treated to the site of so called "Red Ed" Miliband falling over himself to praise Thatcher, in order to show the capitalist elite he is as much on their side as she was. His vomiting, sycophantic, syllables all over her memory in an attempt to convince us he is a "conviction politician" in the mould of the Iron Lady herself, should be embarrassing enough to those who may dare suggest Labour are an alternative to the current miserable ConDem coalition. Time to wake up!
I have had a look at SPintcom regarding this issue and I am heartened to see some who are concerned about putting the socialist message forward. However there are some who seem unable to actually read plain english. Quite simply those so called socialists are the type I have concerns about. Too petty minded to see that there are more important things than their own petty egos. No wonder the party is so small, with little minds like that among the WSM.Bloody pathetic morons!
