[ALB]

Couldn't read that but there were other articles in the press yesterday  comparing of the two, e.g. here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3718044/Watch-Corbyn-Labour-party-pioneer-Keir-Hardie-branded-enemy-state-considered-life-prison-ministers-newly-published-archives-reveal.htmlA bit far-fetched as there was not the slightest chance of it being acted on as the Liberal government of the day depended on the support of Labour and Irish Nationalist MPs. And the last time the 1797 Mutiny Act was used was in 1834 to transport the Tolpuddle Martyrs to Australia.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

After reading what "correspondence theory of truth" means, then yes this is what I think is correct at the moment.

Actually, Sympo, while this theory, "naive realism" if you like, is alright for everyday living, it's not really adequate.  Our minds don't simply reflect or photograph the world out there "as it really is".There is something out there, a passing mass of ever-changing phenomena, which the mind makes sense of by describing and naming parts of it, this with a view to being able to better survive in it by being able to predict what will happen, both to take this into account (eg the apparent movement of the Sun in the sky which means that day will follow night) as well as to control it (if you do x, y will happen, eg plant seeds and food will grow). This is essentially what science is doing.

[ALB]

I don't think Marx did subscribe to the "20 trillion flies can't be wrong" theory of truth

[ALB]

Interesting report. I don't think most of Corbyn's supporters will be Trotskyists if only because there aren't that many of them. Two of my relatives joined Labour to vote for him. One of them asked me who Trotsky was.  I think most of his supporters were be more Green-types. After all, a lot of his policies and that of the Green Party are the same.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

ALB wrote:

"That the sum total of the prices all the goods and services on sale is the same as the sum total of their exchange-values. But don't forget the words "in principle" as this assumes that capitalism is a static economy whereas it is not."

Why do you believe that this is the case, that total price equals total exchange value? What leads you to this conclusion?

Marx's argument is that if, under capitalism, commodities sold at their value (the amount of socially necessary labour required to produce them from start to finish) the more profitable industries would be the labour intensive ones (since profit derives from unpaid, or surplus, labour as labour expended over and above the cost of reproducing the workforce's working capacity). But this is not the case as there is a tendency for the rate of profit on capital invested to be equal across all industries.His explanation for this is that the part of a commodity's value corresponding to surplus value is, as it were, pooled with that of all other commodities and shared out amongst capitalists in proportion to the amount of capital they invested. This is brought about by competition and capitalists moving their investment from less profitable to more profitable industries.His assumption is that total profit = total surplus value; which means also that total prices = total exchange values.But total prices = total exchange values is only a tendency towards an equilibrium position that is never reached in practice as capitalism is a dynamic system in which the factors determining value are always changing due to increases in productivity (which decrease the value of already existing or previously produced commodities).So, it's all to do with Marx's theory of surplus value as the source of profits.

[ALB]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

It makes me think of a comment by a lecturer I had back in the 80s "Philosophy is just psychology for posers"

As a student of philosophy I was taught that "psychiatrist" rhymed with "trick cyclist" ….

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Mattick wrote:

‘Laws of nature’ relate not to ‘ultimate reality’ but are descriptions of the behaviour and regularities of nature as perceived by men. Perceptions change with the change of knowledge and with social development which affects the state of knowledge. Concepts of physical reality relate then not only to nature and men but also indirectly to the structure of society and to social change and are therefore historical

That's what Pannekoek said too:

Quote:

The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world. Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it, the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream. All our observations of the surrounding world, all experiences of our lives are continually enriching the contents of our memories and our subconscious minds.The recurrence of nearly the same situation and the same experience leads to definite habits of action; these are accompanied by definite habits of thought. The frequent repetition of the same observed sequence of phenomena is retained in the mind and produces an expectation of the sequence. The rule that these phenomena are always connected in this way is then acted upon. But this rule – sometimes elevated to a law of nature – is a mental abstraction of a multitude of analogous phenomena, in which differences are neglected, and agreement emphasized. The names by which we denote definite similar parts of the world of phenomena indicate conceptions which likewise are formed by taking their common traits, the general character of the totality of these phenomena, and abstracting them from their differences. The endless diversity, the infinite plurality of all the unimportant, accidental traits, are neglected and the important, essential characteristics are preserved. Through their origin as habits of thought these concepts become fixed, crystallized, invariable; each advance in clarity of thinking consists in more exactly defining the concepts in terms of their properties, and in more exactly formulating the rules. The world of experience, however, is continually expanding and changing; our habits are disturbed and must be modified, and new concepts substituted for old ones. Meanings, definitions, scopes of concepts all shift and vary.

But why feed him? He won't take any notice and will just keep on repeating the same lie about what we stand for. You can't have a proper discussion with him. He just an obsessive. Tim diagnosed his problem the last time round.

[ALB]

It's all because Comrade Shannon's PDF converter broke down.

[ALB]

Found a better organisation for him to join:http://www.geocentrism.com/The latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer has an article on this group under the title, appropriate in the circumstance, of "Does the Universe revolve around Me?":https://business.highbeam.com/5799/article-1G1-455989010/does-universe-revolve-around-me-critical-review-geocentrism

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

a dishonest ideology, which lies to workers.

As in:

LBird wrote:

To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'.

[ALB]

It must be to do with the fact that we are using a PDF version prepared by the printer and not by the editorial committee as usually. It could also be to do with people's browser. I don't have a problem with mine. Still looking into it. Will have to ask the printer perhaps.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.

This is not what ALB "believes" as this individual well knows. But he keeps repeating this lie, both about me and the Socialist Party. Which is why I want nothing to do with this dishonest individual.For the record, my views are more or less the same as that expressed by Anton Pannekoek in this article, in particular part III:https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/society-mind/index.htm

[ALB]

I don't think that's likely. The US President is not all powerful and, if he or she oversteps the mark, can be impeached and removed from office and no doubt would be if they tried to establish themself as dictator.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

Is it basically "Everyone during Socialism should vote on what should be considered to be true(for example the statement 'CO2 damages the ozone layer', " v.s. "People specialized in a certain field should discuss what is correct in that specific field, people who don't know that much about the subject shouldn't take part in the debate"?

Not quite. The first part is correct (except I'm not sure that C02 does damage the ozone layer, does it?). There is an individual here who argues that the proposition, eg, that "increasing C02 in the atmosphere does not contribute to global warming"  should be put to the vote and, if carried, it would be "true" that it didn't.As far as I know there is no-one here arguing that people who are not specialists in a particular field should not be able to take part in debates about issues in that field.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

To fellow Communists, I make it plain that a Corbyn government will break strikes, just as all previous Labour governments have. To workers who ask my opinion about who to vote for, in both the leadership election and a future general election, I say 'vote for Corbyn'.

[Author]

Posts