steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Parliament or, Parliaments, are merely a way to judge when a majority to change society has come about. At the moment, to me at least it is our only term of reference.
One more thing, do people really expect a spread of socialist ideas to spread in one country alone? In isolation?
Ever heard of the internet. Ideas spread fairly quickly there. It would be absurd to think that one could have a majority of workers reach this level of political consciousness in one country but not in others.
When this level of consciousness has indeed been reached say, for instance, in the UK, it will be mirrored in many more.Right or wrong, can only be judged on the mores and values within which they are contextually assessed against.
In a society, which is premised on slavery, ie ancient rome, one does not have the benefit of hindsight we have today looking back. One would have no point of reference.
In a society in which life expectancy is, perhaps 30 at the most, is it morally wrong that those as young as 12 were thought to be of childbearing age? Once again it is the context in which this happened! In todays society, with life expectancy relatively high and the same for the period of womens reproductive lives so long, we judge this on entirely different criterion.
As with many things we must judge in context!
Morality, whatever that means, is fluid. Using hindsight, or the existing social context prevailing at a given time, the two judgements are, and must remain dissimilar. One cannot judge past societies, or social values, using the MORAL precepts existing today.
What I can and do say is, that I think the class based society we have today, is unnecessary. We have the ability to produce enough for all. That a minority have used their POWER and ownership to continue their dominance is a fetter to the fulfillment of the needs of all. A state that is not relevant, nor to be warranted.
When the dispossessed majority see through this travesty then, and only then will we see it’s end. Mass social consciousness, rather than, MORALITY will see to this.For Socialists, who have to operate in the current environment, where the movement is small, to then set hard and fast strictures of what could, or could not pertain in the future, when the movement has grown to SIGNIFICANT proportions is, I must say, and would be percieved to be, merest navel gazing and an exercise in futility.As ALB has stated, it will be up to those socialist who inhabit this future to decide, in light of THEIR CIRCUMSTANCE, who must make any decisions. We cannot circumscribe their actions, nor should we.We can merely work now, to put these people in the situation where Socialism is and is perceived to be, a viable alternative.
Fabian wrote:I did. Being that you don’t have any ethical stance on autonomy of the individual I want you to conretely say does that mean that it’s not wrong for someone to take a kidney from me without my consent. And if the answer is no, then why? If you don’t accept my right to exclusive use of my body (being that you don’t believe in anything like what is called natural right), I want to know on what do you base your assumption that my body will be safe in a socialist society?You did indeed Fabian. you made up your OWN argument, then demanded others answer a point that was never raised before you did, indeed is not even an issue, except in the twisted tautological mind, you seem to inhabit.I asked for your reply as to where, apart from you anyone had mentioned, or even slightly inferred, individuals could lose their kidneys to others, without their express permission. No answer was forthcoming.Indeed, the whole of your response above, was an exercise in illogical prevarication. I’ve had enough of your nonsense and will not play YOUR GAME. If others wish to continue to indulge your blatant nonsense, that is their choice. As for me, asta la vista.
Because my friend, even to bring about a Socialist, or shall we say, an alternative society, will require an enormous amount of cooperation and common understanding. Do you imagine this understanding will just disappear? I think not. It will not merely be a revolution in the sense of a change of socio-economic system, it will also entail a revolution in thought, in the way we relate one to another.In the time leading up to a revolution, with the greater awareness of ourselves AS A CLASS, that this will necessarily entail, think of the burgeoning freedom of thought this will bring about. Of the possibilities of living in a society of cooperation, rather than the dog eat dog competition of Capitalism.These are the reasons, the justification, for claiming people having the right to personal possessions. But, if you are still not convinced and YOU are one of the people you claim will want others personal possessions, I’ll keep a ood supply of socks, (laundered of course), so you can help yourself and although it will be a pain, you can help youself to whatever else you would like to take, I’m sure other members of society will help replenish my losses at the local depot. But you are not talking about yourself are you, but os others?By the way, by your obfuscation of the issue, you still haven’t answered this,
Quote:“Where has anyone, on this thread, or any other, suggested a situation whereby in a Socialist society someone would be able to come into your domicile and take your shoes, let alone take one of your kidneys!”Will you answer this or not? Or will you continue to obfuscate!
Y TERMS!OBJECTIVITY & SUBJECTIVITYThe difference between these two important ideas is the difference between fact and opinion. Facts are objective
and provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to be
produced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals and so
are always biased. If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, they act as propaganda or persuasion,
e.g. a newspaper headline might state: “Youngsters are the prime cause of trouble in this area”. This is presented
as an objective fact but is clearly a subjective opinion.
An objective piece of information, therefore, needs either to be the whole truth and at least be unbiased or
balanced, whereas a subjective point of view is biased because it is either not the complete picture or it is
merely a viewpoint or expression of feelings.
When studying literature, it is best to be objective when you consider a text’s qualities. Of course, literature
read for pleasure should be approached subjectively as this allows you to ‘be there’ with the characters, feeling
involved with the plot and so forth. But when you discuss literature for an essay, it is far safer to ‘stand back’
and see it objectively for what it is: no more than an attempt to engage and hold your attention, build trust in
its writer, and persuade you to a way of thinking – the writer’s way!
Looked at objectively, a text is no more than a ‘vehicle’ for communicating a persuasive message. This applies to
characters and settings, too – all highly compelling and believable ‘vehicles’ for the writer to convince you to
think his or her way!Morality, class ad nauseum, are not subjective but objective. We, as human beings do not decide our position in society, it is without our remit.
One can claim to be, MIDDLE CLASS, but this is our subjective view of our place in society. Our class is not ours to choose, it is decided for us by our relationship to the means and instruments for producing the things we need to live.Fabian wrote:You’re still evading the questions. If in a socialist society people could democratically decide that someone else needs my kidney more that I do, and they take it, than I find that kind of socialism not ridiculous, but mosterous. I am against capitalism because capitalism is theft, the capitalist takes the products of worker’s labor, and I surely not going to support any system that is the same in essence, but just replaces the private capitalist with the state or a democratically organized municipality, or a democratically organized worldWhere has anyone, on this thread, or any other, suggested a situation whereby in a Socialist society someone would be able to come into your domicile and take your shoes, let alone take one of your kidneys!When Socialists talk of the end of private property, they mean the end of minority ownership of factories, airlines, shipping lines, oil, gas, in fact all minerals. The minority ownership of the means and instruments for producing and distributing what we, as human beings need to live.Socialists do not now, nor ever have wanted to take into COMMON OWNERSHIP peoples personal belongings. Don’t worry, no one will sneak into your house to nick your socks, shoes or any other items. When Socialism comes about, we’ll just pop down to the local distribution centre and get our own.As to where your “misappropriated” kidney argument has come from, I simply can’t imagine. You’ve either just made this load of effuvium up, or have an ulterior motive.Please point to the post where this was raised as even a hypothetical possibility!If not, please refrain from gratuitously making it up as you go along, you’re making my grey matter hurt.
I will say again, the warning should have been given to Jonathan. He jumped threads.
I was attempting to bait no-one. I was expostualting a position and trying to make a point, vis a vis, STAY ON THE THREAD THE TOPIC RELATED TO.
Jonathan never did this, why?
As I said ;
steve colborn wrote:
Sorry ADMIN, but you are a bit too late, the warning should have been given to Jonathan he, after all, went off topic on 2 different threads. If I’m wrong I apologiseSorry ADMIN, but you are a bit too late, the warning should have been given to Jonathan he, after all, went off topic on 2 different threads. If I’m wrong I apologise!
The freemarketeers have only screwed up the world, the point, for workers, is to change it! Sorry Karl for the paraphrasing. See you in heaven, or not lol.
steve colborn wrote:Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.Fabian wrote:Ethical nihilism is a performative contradiction.What? Are you on a wind-up mate? What part of my post that you took this comment from, can you possibly call, nihilistic?Please elucidate!
