ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’d never heard of him either but this passage from that article on him is a bit suspicious:
“And finally, there is Hägglund’s proposal that Marxists can ditch communism — which in any event Marx described vaguely — in favor of democracy.”
True, communism, as a society based on the common ownership of the means of life by the whole community, is only a means to an end — the framework within which humans can lead a life freed from all exploitation and oppression and can develop their abilities.
But I think we can say that such “freedom” and “development” are only possible within that framework as in fact is democracy. Common ownership is the same as no ownership in the sense that in communism (what we normally call socialism) the means of life don’t belong to anybody or any institution. They are simply there to be used and the only way they can be used on a non-class basis is where everyone has an equal chance to have their say in how things should be run, ie democracy. So, carried to its logical conclusion, democracy is the same as communism.
Ok but I only used the word “real” (which is not entirely appropriate) because that‘s the one postmodernists and oids use in their dogma that “beliefs create reality.”
They would have a bit of a point if they argued that beliefs shape our description and interpretation of realty but not reality itself which is the ever-changing world of phenomena (the whole universe) parts of which humans experience.
Otherwise you end up with the absurdity, expressed many times here, that in the past the reality was that the Sun went round the Earth. That was only how at one time that particular part of the world of phenomena was described and interpreted.
Of course, for postmodernoids, evolution wasn’t real before the 18th century. Creationism was because that was the reality that the social consensus created until then.
Engels confronts the “hermetic” tradition:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch10.htm
It includes his amusing account of his own attendance at a spiritualist meeting in 1844.
Loren Goldner is sometimes good (he’s a Left Communist) but I am not sure about his “cosmobiology”. Sounds a bit mumbo-jumboist to me:
“Our starting-point must be the direct opposition between the body of doctrine which came to be known as ‘Marxism’, codified in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Internationals, and the ideas of Karl Marx. After separating these two, I want look at the relation between ‘Marxism’ and the body of ideas known as the Enlightenment, chiefly those of the French eighteenth century thinkers. Then I should turn to the earlier tradition sometimes called ‘Hermetic’, which includes magic, astrology and alchemy. I want to show how, when modern rational science defeated this outlook, it also lost something of value: its attitudes to humanity and nature.”
http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Cosmobiological_Tradition
Give me Engels any day !
It is not just conspiraloons who are endangering reason and science. There are others:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230870512_The_postmodern_assault_on_science
With the second wave approaching and the prospect of a second lockdown imposed as an attempted “circuit breaker“, the government’s dream of getting GDP quickly back to what it was in the first three months of the year is being shattered. No V-shaped recovery but definitely a U-shaped one maybe even L-shaped— after all, the UK GDP contracted in the first quarter of this year before the virus struck and the government imposed a lockdown. This resulted in a much bigger fall in GDP than any normal capitalist slump has produced of some 15% over 3 months compared with 4.6% over 16 months after the Crash of 2008. There’s never been anything like it and it’s not over yet.
Incidentally there’s a good YouTube video explaining how GDP is calculated here (scroll down to the end of the text) :
TM, I don’t think these were Marx’s views:Postmodern view of RealityAccording to postmodernism, apparent realities are only social constructs and thereby these are not static but subject to change. It emphatically believes that for the formation of ideas and belief, the role of language, power, relations and motivations are immense. This approach of thought does not believe any sharp line of demarcation or classification between male and female, straight and gay, white and black or imperial and colonial. It does not believe any absolute truth. Rather it believes that reality is plural relative and dependent. The description of reality is dependent on the persons and their nature who describe it. Moreover, the description of the world is dependent on the persons who perceive it and thus this description is subjective.https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.998.6261&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Anyone who really thinks that “beliefs create reality” should be eager to explain how the real motions of all planets in the solar system changed from earth-centered orbits in 1500 (when this was believed by almost everyone) to sun-centered orbits in 1700 (when this was believed by almost all scientists). Did the change in beliefs (from theories of 1500 to theories of 1700) cause a change in reality (with planets beginning to orbit the sun at some time – but exactly when did this occur – between 1500 and 1700) ?Yes, Ashley Montagu is good;
“the SPGB’s ‘materialism’ (which they share with Lenin)”
Just in case, Thomas, you get the wrong impression:
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/03/lenin-reviewed-1976.html?m=1
That’s not the view of the SPGB but of some weirdo who frequents this forum. It’s open to anyone including weirdos.
I don’t want to be (too) pedantic but it’s been known for ages that inheritance is through genes not the blood as was thought for a long time. So should we really be encouraging this mistaken belief by using its terminology? It’s a valid point of course that national characteristics are cultural rather than biological and are transmitted through learning not through genes.
Of course you are qualified to comment Alan! So-called “Modern Monetary Theory” is basically the view that the government can and should print as much money as it needs to finance its activities without needing to worry about any adverse consequences such as roaring inflation. This is why it’s been said that what MMT stands for is Magic Money Tree. Anybody can refute that. The article you refer to also criticises it after summarising its claims.
I think we’ve had a thread on them before but here’s a more theoretical refutation of the theory.
This, from a more conventional reformist standpoint than the MMTers’, isn’t too bad.
Yes , it’s because dentists (and doctors not directly employed by the NHS such as consultants and GPS) are “independent contractors”, ie profit-seeking businesses, and that’s what profit-seeking business do in any way they can. It’s called “private enterprise” and is a basic form of the capitalist system. And like all businesses one of the risks they take is being found out if they break the law or bend the rules as many do from time to time;
