ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“You have previously poured scorn on the philosophy of science.”
I don’t recall doing that. In fact I am all in favour of the theory of science, i.e., discussing what we mean when we say we know something and the methods of verifying this. Nothing wrong with that at all. That’s all that’s left of “philosophy” (except, I suppose, folksy sayings about what attitude to take the vicissitudes of life and wild theories often linked to religion, eg Nietzsche, Jung, etc).
Actually, if you read it carefully it is not saying what you seem to think it is saying. It was in fact carefully crafted (it was redrafted several times by the editorial committee) to take into account different emphases while respecting the general position of the author.
All it is saying is that the laws of physics and laws of social evolution are not “entirely equivalent” and that it is rather “contentious” to say so. They may both act on humans as a coercive force but the difference is that the laws of physics, etc are external and operate independently of human action whereas the laws of social evolution are carried out by the actions of people eg through class struggles and through developing new technologies.
We will probably get stick from the other sides as well, eg from those who think that there is no end (aim) of history or who think that the laws of physics are human-made too as well as those who think that the dialectics applies to nature as well as human thought.
Bit of a cheap jibe incompatible with your usual respect for the rules of logic, isn’t it, to say that the passage signals junking the theory of surplus value? Even if the article did say (which it didn’t) that there were no laws of historical and social evolution, it would not follow that the theory of surplus value was wrong.
As you know, A junks B does not imply that A junks C.
A counter-challenge, Wez. Can you point to Marx having written anything or even expressed an interest in philosophy after he had settled his accounts with German philosophy in 1845?
Of course this could just be a question of semantics about what the word “philosophy” means. For Marx it seems to have been German (mainly Hegelian) philosophy. These were the philosophers who he said had only interpreted the world, even the best of them Feuerbach.
After he had settled with them, Marx only expressed ideas on the methodology of economic, social and historical research and analysis. Which falls into the realm of the theory of science not speculative philosophy.
Marx’s contemporaries in the communist movement who did speak about philosophy after 1845 said like Engels that philosophy came to an end with Feuerbach or like Duetzgen that the positive outcome of philosophy was science. Dirtzgen was interested in epistemology, which is a branch of science not philosophy.
As has been pointed out here, it was only an accident of history that the communist who first development a coherent explanation of capitalism and its economic laws happened to have come from a background of German philosophy. I doubt if anyone other communist did. And there is no reason why they should, certainly not today. Marx’s intellectual development is interesting from some points of view but not crucial to being or becoming a socialist/communist.
“In Delray Beach, Florida, several hundred people marched, some carrying signs reading “Count every vote” and “We cannot live under a Marxist government.”
I think we can agree with both those slogans, especially the second. A “Marxist government” is an irrational concept so it can’t exist. So we can’t live under one.
Interview here by a Russian-speaking member of the World Socialist Party (US) of a member of an opposition group there:
http://www.wspus.org/2020/11/whats-going-on-in-belarus/
Not all oppositionists favour the introduction of liberal capitalism which they recognise would lead to the rule of oligarchs as in Russia and the Ukraine.
Bit of a scoop, actually,
Actually his comments were rather offensive.
But the main point was that the panel didn’t accept that IHRA’s tendentious definition that to criticise the foundation of the state of Israel is itself anti-Semitic.
“Imagine waking up and seeing $1,000 in your bank account. Imagine the good feeling when you can pay your rent, or put gas in the car or buy food and after your needs are met, you calmly think about how to move on with life. Imagine knowing your child will never have to go hungry, or your grandparent without medicine. Imagine another world is possible.”
Sone people lack imagination.
A rare judgement that anti-Zionism is not anti-semitic.
No change in Syria either:
As we know, at one point Trump wanted to withdraw US troops from Syria but the military/foreign policy establishment wouldn’t let him. Biden won’t need any persuasion as what not to do. US capitalism’s geopolitical interests will be safe in his hands, safer in fact than in Trump’s who was a bit of an isolationist. Some might even describe him as a “lesser evil” for this !
I listened to this programme on bbc radio 4 last week as I was driving. The one called Tom questions the usefulness of the concept of “white privilege” in the same sort of way as we would and also makes some other good points against the proposition under discussion:
That’s a coincidence as today’s papers are reporting that Scientific Reports has done a U-turn on this claim:
Fuller version here I think.
Apparently it might turn out to be true but only over 500 years as if anyone could say anything about what things will like then or what will happen in between (surely socialism would have been established in the meantime !).
It looks as if the backlash against alarmist claims about global warming is underway. In any event, nobody can claim that capitalist states are not taking measures to try to stop it, inadequate and unco-ordinated as they might be.
That’s very interesting as in 1977 our then French-language group brought out a leaflet addressed “Aux Ecologistes”, specifically those campaigning against the construction of nuclear power stations in France, (published in Socialisme Mondial No 8, Spring 1978) which contained the following. Single issue campaigns, it pointed out
“can be co-opted to serve the interests of groups of the capitalist class. We don’t suppose for a single moment that this is actually the case, but it is not inconceivable that the ‘oil lobby’ could make a financial contribution to anti-nuclear campaigns such as yours as it would be the beneficiary of their success under capitalism. In any case, the anti-nuclear struggle must be seen with an approving regard by the giant oil companies” (rough translation from the French).
If the headline to the article above is true, then we were more right than we thought. On the other hand, how can we be sure that the above article wasn’t inspired, even financed, by the ‘nuclear lobby’? Under capitalism, a rational energy policy is not possible, precisely because of different groups of capitalists trying to protect their vested interests.
Just ploughed through this. I suppose it could be said to be interesting. The other description that comes to mind is pretentious. What will be more interesting is how the modern translation it introduces turns out.
Our pseudo-trot is all over the place, to a large extent because he hasn’t mastered the principles of logic.
His basic position is that if you didn’t vote or didn’t advocate voting for Biden you are a fascist. But that takes in a lot more people than us.
1. It takes in all those who voted for the Green Party candidate (so even if you did go and vote that doesn’t let you off his hook).
2. Then there are the third of the electorate that did not vote (most of whom will have decided not to because they felt, on the basis of past experience, the outcome would make no difference to their lives and so was irrelevant).
That’s an awful lot of “fascists” in the US. In fact, with those who voted for Trump it’s well over a majority of the electorate. Which is absurd.
In logic this is known as the disproof of a proposition by reductio ad absurdum. Which is where his search for fascists under the bed leads.
I’ve had an email from my MP, who is a Liberal Democrat (not quite sure how I got on her mailing list), but here’s her comment on the US presidential election;
”I was very pleased to see Joe Biden confirmed as the next President of the United States over the weekend. I believe his policy priorities reflect what our government’s priorities should be here: competence and compassion in the fight against Covid-19, a strong programme to combat climate change, a commitment to fight racism and prejudice, and an economy that works for everyone. I respect President-elect Biden’s honesty and integrity and am relieved to see the return of decency to the White House.”
I suppose he could be described as a liberal Democrat (and I suppose LT would have campaigned and voted for her rather than the Labour Party as she was the best placed candidate to defeat the “greater evil” of the Tories,)
An economy that works for all? Making the capitalist economy work for all, that’s mission impossible. Capitalism can only work as a profit-making system in the interest of the profit-takers.
