Left Unity.org / People’s Assembly

[jpodcaster]

YMS – Of course there's no common objective yet because LU is essentially a forum for open dialogue until November 30th when, presumably, a more precise set of goals/objectives/strategies will be drawn up.Of course that won't matter to you because your party has the correct goals/means/definition of socialism.Where's that rolling-eyes emoticon again … 

[Anonymous]

jpodcaster wrote:

Of course that won't matter to you because your party has the correct goals/means/definition of socialism.

After almost 110 years of experience you wouldn't expect anything else surely…    

[jondwhite]

To copy from the Wikipedia entry on Antonio LabriolaMarxism is not a final, self-sufficient schematisation of history, but rather as a collection of pointers to the understanding of human affairs.  These pointers needed to be somewhat imprecise if Marxism was to take into account the complicated social processes and variety of forces at work in history. Marxism was to be understood as a "critical theory", in the sense that it sees no truths as everlasting, and was ready to drop its own ideas if experience should so dictate.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Marxism is not a final, self-sufficient schematisation of history, but rather as a collection of pointers to the understanding of human affairs.  These pointers needed to be somewhat imprecise if Marxism was to take into account the complicated social processes and variety of forces at work in history. Marxism was to be understood as a "critical theory", in the sense that it sees no truths as everlasting, and was ready to drop its own ideas if experience should so dictate.

[my bold]Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truths

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truths

Well, yes. But not to be confused with THE Truth, which we can only get at by testing theories against reality…"Scientific truths are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through observation."http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s6.htm

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truths

Well, yes. But not to be confused with THE Truth, which we can only get at by testing theories against reality…"Scientific truths are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through observation."http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s6.htm

Must be a Communist site I haven't come across!

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s6.htm

Must be a Communist site I haven't come across!

I'm not sure but Anton Pannekoek might be on it somewhere:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2013-0606-200612/UUindex.htmlI was wondering too what the "science policy" of the proposed new party was going to be, probably opposition to GM crops and support for so-called "alternative" (quack) medicine.

[LBird]

 

ALB wrote:

I'm not sure but Anton Pannekoek might be on it somewhere: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2013-0606-200612/UUin.

From link:

C.K. Tai s Abstract wrote:

…I will argue that by looking at Pannekoek's work using the framework of epistemic virtues, the parallels between his scientific work and his political philosophy become apparent. Pannekoek himself maintained that his scientific work was strictly separated from his socialist philosophy. A far more unified image, however, has emerged as the result of this research.

Now, that would be worth a read. It could form the basis of a unified scientific method, as sought by Marx.Do you have any quotes from Pannekoek that confirm his alleged 'strict separation' of science and politics, ALB? I'm going to have a root around myself.A new thread might be best, because we don't want to derail this one (again!).

[alanjjohnstone]

 “alternative” (quack) medicine. Always astounds me when i discuss with those who support non-evidence based medicines, how very much  reluctant they are to accept that Traditional Chinese Medicines used for thousands of years should be available on the NHS …after all, rhino horn powder is as good as Viagra, and bear bile is excellent remedyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile_bear  and a tiger gonads does wonders for general health…http://www.tigersincrisis.com/traditional_medicine.htm All these so-called Western medical “experts” who discount all claims of any curative power is because they are shills of the animal rights lobby and those medicines from  animal parts that may have a use these animal rightists are in cahoots with Big Pharma to manufacture the alternatives. Its all a  conspiracy, i say. http://www.animal-rights-action.com/chinese-medicines.html

[LBird]

DJPs link wrote:

SummaryA scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm  

Anderton wrote:

And so what we have from Einstein what he meant by theory as – theory determines what we observe.Einstein says: “Theory determines what we observe.” [1]This is contrary to many people’s understanding of what a theory is; they think in terms of collect data and then form a theory to match that data. Einstein instead thinks – form a theory then interpret that data from the theory. So for him if the data does not match the theory then the data has to be adjusted to fit.Einstein tells us: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" [2]This is completely opposite to most people who think if data does not fit the theory then abandon the theory for another theory. And this goes against their understanding of what the scientific method “is”—namely testing theories.Einstein goes against that method and keeps the theory no matter what experiments show.The issue then becomes what exactly is Einstein’s theory (theories) of relativity. (From now on I will just tend to say “Einstein’s theory”.) Since it does not allow itself to be tested then many people might think it was not a scientific theory; because from their philosophy a scientific theory must be testable. It would be good to know if science/physics were definitely based upon this philosophic attitude. However, we have allowed Einstein to be declared genius in 1919 that implies that we do things the way Einstein deemed and we adopt his method. So from that perspective he has radically changed things as to what a theory “is” and what science/physics “is.”This radical change that Einstein makes to the meaning of “theory” hits many people as –Einstein must have been joking. But it really reveals how deep down his philosophic point-of view is completely different to theirs.

[my bold]http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/anderton66.pdf So, we have the bourgeois myth of scientific method:-           “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the theory”;And Einstein the scientist’s statement:             “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the experiment”.Providing links to sites of scientists influenced by the bourgeois myth is not enough. We need to be clear that ‘science’ is political, and seek to really understand what ‘science actually is’, for the proletariat. It needs discussion. There are philosophical and political ideologies involved.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Providing links to sites of scientists influenced by the bourgeois myth is not enough. We need to be clear that ‘science’ is political, and seek to really understand what ‘science actually is’, for the proletariat. It needs discussion. There are philosophical and political ideologies involved.

If we are going to have another discussion about science (which would be a good thing). I really think it should be done in a dedicated thread. So if you wish, please start one.

[ALB]

But, Julian, you don't have to be Nostradamus to know what's going to happen on 30 November. From the discussions on the Left Unity site it is clear that the Left Party Platform is going to be accepted, with the result that a wishy-washy Left reformist party is going to be established with similar aims and policies to the Green Party. A second Green Party  if you like (but with Trotskyists in it).  And what's the point of that?I agree, though, that in the run-up to this decision there is a heightened opportunity to discuss socialist ideas with other critics of society.

[alanjjohnstone]

“a wishy-washy Left reformist party …a second Green Party if you like  (but with Trotskyists in it).” And where does TUSC (with SPEW in it) fit in and RESPECT that like Solidarity and the SLP appears to be a convenient vehicle for its egoist leaders …Left Unity if it is to mean anything has to include those parties… And what actual Left Unity in Scotland if it is a separatist  Left. I see little debate on that.  Can we be blamed for being sceptical when we have those German and Rees declaring that they have changed their spots and now willing to join with Left Labourists like Loach and Owen.  I cannot really accept that there is a serious change in the Left taking place at any other level than those who were already politically involved and slightly disenchanted with the existing arrangement …it does appear that as someone mentioned a game of musical chairs again, shuffling around but still failing to connect with those who are not activists.  This is the universal problem and re-branding and re-labelling or making our mission statement more palatable. won’t be a long-term solution.  We are being offered a way forward with too few to remind us, we have already been there.  Perhaps too many on the parochial  English Left failed to see the weakness of the SSP which was a Left Unity Party, which did take off with a surprising popularity . The majority of my shop-stewards resigned from the Labour Party and the SNP to join it, for instance, but the SSP simply became lost because it was actually directionless, basing itself on whatever populist slogan was in vogue…free school dinners for all, free travel for all…all very worthy aims if related to making free access the objective but the one aim that never got voiced was socialism.  

[ALB]

Don't forget either what happened to the "United Left Alliance" in Ireland. They actually got 5 TDs (MPs) elected but then it all fell apart:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Left_AllianceI realise that this is why at their first meeting Left Unity voted to be an individual membership organisation not an alliance of existing organisations. We will see if this will make any difference. One thing it will mean is that the SWP, SPEW, TUSC, etc will see it as a rival (even if they don't say so openly).

[alanjjohnstone]

In regards to Occupy and its success, we must praise it in that it was successful in raising class consciousness of people.The 1% V the 99% drove home to many, particularly Americans, that the middle classes was largely mythical and reinforced the real fact that we live in a 2 class society.It brought to the forefront of working class politics the issue of methods and ways of organising democratically without a vanguard or distinct leadership even if it still retained certain flaws in regard to voting and delegation.The fact that currency cranks were so prominent was that people like ourselves were not able to present the alternative as effectively as we should have. Our failing, not Occupy's. It was shared by many on the libertarian/anarchist thin red line. The occasional visit for a few hours to hand out leaflets and Socialist Standards was not a suffice response but it was a start that should have been built upon.As a party we are relatively well off in material resources with a potential for much more but we do not make full use of the few volunteers we can get together. Our approach to how to make our sparse membership more visible and vocal must be our priority in discussing propaganda. More literature and banners is just a beginning to convey our message.Why i am keen that we actually attend and address LU directly is that they should have the full possible alternatives to choose from. The choice of political strategy should always be up to the working class, they make their own bed and must sleep in it, and suffer the consequences of wrong decisions but we cannot allot blame to them if they are not given the option of accepting or rejecting our case. Once again it will be our own lapse in not providing the necessary information and propaganda and engaging more fully in discussions and debates. I would rather see this done via the Party iself and not by individuals which i think was a situation akin to Zeitgeist. Our case for socialism is a Party case and we should endeavour to make it under its auspices and be prepared to accept the rebuff as a Party and to come back again …and again…and again…with the same message but perhaps with different lyrics and sung to a different tune. 

[Author]

Posts