SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry ALB and everyone else, but I based my statement on this, it gave me the impression I advocated basing socialism only on a moral basis:
ALB wrote:The case against basing the case for socialism on some abstract morality is that this is not what motivates social change.My apologies if I got it wrong, and apologies even if I didn't.As for keeping my hair on, well unfortunately I have male pattern baldness, so as much as I would love to keep my hair on I cant., lol.I did not mention TZM as I am aware they see their case based on science. I agree with most of what they say, they are in essence the same as us socialists. They just don't use the S word.What is harsh about a scientific mindset is it so often fails to treat people as people. I have seen and felt this first hand from the medical profession. Objectivity vs Subjectivity. In science objectivity wins. Subjectivity is about human feelings, emotions and judgments that are seen as unreliable.I have often used a moral question when discussing with people who reject aspects of the scientific socialist case, who distrust "isms" and class based analysis. When confronted by the moral question of whether it is right or wrong for people to starve in a world of plenty, they admit it is wrong. I get further using a human approach than banging away with a socialist lecture on class divisions in society etc. I have made further inroads with a person I know, using a "moral" approach. I am sure many SPGB members use similar approaches, whatever gets people thinking.So in effect morality is already invoked. I don't see a problem. The problem only arises when some argue it is not needed.The issue with the likes of Occupy, is they distrust political parties etc. They use moral judgments to point the blame, to raise awareness, to get people to ask questions. If we wade in, all objective, science guns blazing the likelihood is we will not connect. Fail to gain trust and understanding. That is all well and good if you are happy to be a political debating society, but if you want to turn peoples anger, frustration and energy into an organized, directed force then we gotta get creative, appeal to people on a human level.Unfortunately I don't have the answers, I wish I did, but I don't think anyone here does either. I think it is why we sometimes get stuck in these discussions, someone says something that appears to be having a go, we feel a need to retaliate and so on and so on.So on that note I am going to concede.
Listen up!I will repeat, once only, that I do not nor have I ever advocated that socialism or the case for socialism be based solely on a moralistic appeal.In my opinion, based on experience and observation, "scientifically" sidelining such here and now human concerns, such trivialities as morality, right and wrong, is a mistake.And just because the socialist prophet Marx is invoked, does not make the concept of morality irrelevant to most people living and experiencing moral dilemmas and such like on a daily basis.Now can anyone explain how the harsh, "scientific", obsessive mindset in the SPGB is going to tune in to people from the Occupy movement etc, and cleanse their "unscientific" moral outrage?
stevecolborn wrote:Can you imagine, Socialism and MORALITY, in one package? Can you not imagine the impact? If it were done in, OUR WAY?The key to greater success lies (unfortunately) in the packaging today. If we can tap into what Steve said above, who knows what we could achieve.
Hi Hud955,Well I am glad we can make some ground. I think (at least I hope you do) you know I do not advocate reformist solutions, it is why I am not afraid to use terms such as morality. The socialist case is powerful enough to be able to withstand the use of such "awkward" language. To hijack a common term, I am confident in my political skin. I just think care needs to be taken not to alienate people. I know from my time as a young punk that many I came across were distrustful of "isms" (I still find it now). Including socialism (imagine that). I came across a lot of distrust of organized politics, with its inevitable "dogmatic" views and rules.The same is seen in the Occupy movement, a lot of individuals distrustful of organized politically motivated groups and parties, including the SPGB. It is a reality, that needs to taken seriously.Sidelining morality is looked upon by many with mistrust, (not just the religious) a lot of angry frustrated people see the horrors of capitalism and judge them to be ethically and morally wrong. Who are we to say otherwise? Yes, it very often leads them into single issue politics.But has anyone considered the party scientific stance on morality just might be a turn off for many? The clever use of such a powerful motivator, could find new allies.But who knows and who cares?I'm gonna end it here, as this could end up in circles as it did previously.
This subject has been discussed previously and no doubt it will again in the future, as there is no right or wrong answer.When I referred to the morality of capitalism, I simply meant it often shows the hypocrisy politicians so readily display. However the idea that we do not use the hypocrisy of capitalist morality against them is a strange idea. We cannot afford to ignore any philosophical, theoretical weapon in the fight against capitalism. If we could get Cameron into a debate about capitalism, I am sure he would not say millions dying of starvation is acceptable, (he may think it) yet he would defend the system that creates it. Such an opportunity to expose capitalisms managers would be jumped at by most in the SPGB.As for morality, it is a word, a word that like it or not is used on a regular basis in every walk of life. Most people have an idea it is to do with right and wrong. Feel free if you wish to tell them it is irrelevant.Humans are the most social creature on this planet. Empathy and compassion exist as human emotional states. I don't think they are hardwired, but we tend to gravitate towards these tendencies more, in our everyday social lives. It is as a consequence of these human bonding emotions and behaviors that we get ethics and morality emerging.If our species was, as some would have it, non social or anti social, vicious etc, we would not have a concept such as morality.I care about others, I care about what happens to others I have never even met. Do socialists not care, and see only logical necessities?"Capitalism and other kids stuff", opens up with a highly emotive scenario, it pulls at our human emotions, it is meant to.It is an effective tool.It could be argued it is moral in its approach.When I talk about socialism and morality, I do not mean that socialism is just a moral issue, I have never advocated that. I see them as compatible. It is self defeating to try to surgically remove such a powerful, motivating force, as if the emotional aspect will somehow get in the way. Perhaps it is the scientific part of the SPGB and companion parties? Objectivity vs subjectivity? In science and medicine subjectivity is often seen as irrelevant. That is fine with pure science, but when we add humans into the equation, ignoring human experience is fool hardy.Feel free to rip me to shreds, like I said there is no wrong or right answer.
Hi ganidu10,Always good to see new members getting involved in discussions.I checked out the link you posted, as well as the site of the organization, World Transformation Movement.I have to say I didn't see much scientific evidence to support the idea being put forward, considering the fella behind it is a biologist?I did notice a lot of repetition and use of quotes.But if I have missed anything I would be willing to take a further look if you could point me in the right direction.
ALB wrote:But I do agree that we shouldn't use capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality as part of the case for socialism. That way leads to reformism, i.e trying to make capitalism live up to its own standards, eg by not discriminating against women, gays, immigrants, disabled people, etc.Really?What off the millions who have died of starvation or are in the process of doing so? What of the millions of lives torn apart by war during the last century?Would these be considered "capitalism's failure to live up to its own morality"? I think so. I've never heard any politician openly support mass starvation and they always claim war is the last resort.The party so very often points to these failings as the strongest argument for the failure of capitalism and why it needs to be eliminated.Why? Could it be because we "care"?I was attracted to socialism as a teenager, not out of some all powerful philosophical correctness, but simply because I thought it could end the vast majority of human suffering.
I laughed at first, then cried and then nearly pissed myself with laughter.I just love the logic: no profit motive = no incentive = nothing is produced = totalitarian regime.Scary thing is, many people will accept this crap!!!!
How about a little continuity!?Here is a suggestion to end this once and for all.10/10/2012 9.12am this:
Quote:MODERATION WARNING.Ed and Old Grey Whistle are now on final warnings. Any further abusive language directed at any other forum user will result in these users being barred for the forum for one week.Then 13/10/2012 at 6.32pm the following:
Quote:MODERATION NOTICEThis is a final warning issued to Ed. The appropriate channels of complaint have been outlined above.Ed wrote:Does your research come straight from the mouth of Maratty?Do you find the word shit abusive?Do you find 4 people ganging up on 1 to not be abusive?Do you not think a member has the right to defend themselves when they are being attacked by a group of 4?Are you Maratty using a different account?What we need is some continuity regarding warnings and suspensions from the Moderators.We have a situ were one member has been given only 2 warnings and then Banned for seven days.But another member involved in the same dispute gets 3 warnings.This matter will end now if one of three suggestions are put in place:1) OGW is reinstated on the forum now, but has 3 warnings in place the same as Ed2) Ed is given a seven day Ban.3) OGW is reinstated now and his and Eds warnings are wiped on the guarantee they end the issue forthwith.In the interests of peace and unity I suggest 3.Not too hard is it?
Editorial – the Case Against Censorship The fuss over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed has not been the only recent event that has raised the issue of free speech. There was also the government’s failed attempt to make it more difficult to criticise religion. There were the trials of the BNP leaders and of the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza. The elected mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was required to appear before an unelected body with the power to eject him from office for a remark made to a journalist from the gutter press. David Irving was arrested in Austria for holocaust-denial. All these were attempts – either by law or by direct action – to punish people for expressing an opinion.We in the Socialist Party have always insisted on the advantages, for the advancement of the cause of socialism, of the fullest possible freedom of expression of political and social ideas, including when these take the form of religion (since all religions hold views on how society should be organised and are in this sense political). No view should be prevented from being expressed. And no view (not even religion) should be exempt from being criticised.We have always practised what we preach. We opposed the banning of the Daily Worker in 1941. We have criticised the policy of “no platform for fascists” as censorship by direct action. We have debated against fascists and Islamists, exposing their views before their followers to the withering criticism of the socialist case.The main case against censorship is that it considers that people are too ignorant to decide for themselves and so must be protected from hearing certain views. All censors, actual or would-be, consider themselves a cut above the rest. They are not corrupted by reading Lady Chatterly’s Lover but their servants would be. They are not affected by reading anti-Christian or anti-Muslim writings (as the case may be) but their followers would be. They are not affected by a BNP rant but other, less enlightened people would be.Since ideas are thrown up by social conditions censorship never works to suppress them anyway. The Catholic Church was not able to prevent the rise in Europe of the secular, practical materialism generated by capitalism and has been forced to accommodate itself to this. The same fate awaits Islam, which seems to want to rival Catholicism for the title of the world’s most intolerant religion. At the moment its clerics are desperately trying to hold back the spread of capitalist secularism – and still have the power to mobilise fanatical mobs to rage against a few harmless cartoons – but, as capitalism progresses more and more in the areas where they now dominate they too will lose influence, painfully slow as this is turning out to be.In any event, Socialists are opposed to the attempts made by Muslim clerics to prevent and punish criticism of their religion. We are under no obligation to respect the religious dogma of these obscurantists that places the so-called prophet Mohammed beyond criticism, not that he has anything relevant or sensible to say for 21st century conditions.The last refuge of those who favour censorship is the proposition that people should be legally banned from insulting each other. It is true that if you want to persuade someone to change their views insulting them is not the best way to begin. But you can’t legislate for good manners or good persuasive techniques. To allow one side in an argument to cry “you’ve offended me” and appeal to the law to silence the other side would mean an end to free speech.Our answer to all censors is to reaffirm that workers are quite capable of judging for themselves, quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and working out which ideas accord with their interests – and which do not. The best condition for the emergence of socialist understanding remains free and frank discussion. May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.
Glad to see there is some positive discussion going on here at last.However as a potential rejoining member I am disgusted at the treatment of OGW, who's only "crime" was in defending me in my absence against an unnecessary aggressive outburst. If this is an example of how you treat potential members and what you consider "fair punishment", then I am not surprised there are only 332 members in the party.At the moment I am seriously considering not bothering with this THING and taking my potential activism somewhere else. I am sure I would not be the first nor the last.You won't be hearing from me for a while, not until 18th October at least, as I am going to withdraw my participation in this forum in solidarity with Vincent Maratty, and Steve Colborn.
I disagree with the idea it will make us look like nutters, if we even consider the idea of infiltration. I am sure left wing as well as right wing organizations are aware of the tactic. And it has been used by the state against groups on both side of the political spectrum.I understand the unacceptable nature of leveling or inferring that kind of accusation at people on this forum. I expect some will think that of me, given that I am asking awkward questions. I do not however understand the idea that the notion of that tactic being used at some point in the party, past, present or future is "quite ridiculous". Seems a bit naive to me.I accept your explanation of the incidents at the meetings described, I was not there and I am sure you know these people on a personal level.I offer my sincerest apologies to anyone who may have taken any offence at my previous post to which ALB refers.
Absolutely nothing wrong with hippies OGW. I should in fact have penned myself as "SocialistHippyPunk". A marvelous contradiction, if stereotypes are to go by. Lol.
