[ALB]

That's a bit sad. So we're never going to know what is the difference between "materialism" and "realism".  Nor what  "ontological monovalence" ("the primordial failing of western philosophy") is. Ah well, but I guess it doesn't matter.

[ALB]

I didn't realise he was so touchy.

[ALB]

Fair enough. I see you are a critical Critical Realist (and why you want to distance yourself from the guru himself) but what is the difference (for you) between a "realist" and a "materialist"?

LBird wrote:

For a materialist, everything must be at base 'material'.

For a realist, must everything be at base "real"?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Your ideological beliefs have nothing to do with Communism and democracy.The focus on 'matter' is a conservative philosophy.What's more, you can't define 'matter'.The concept is a 19th century concept.I've even told you where you get these ridiculous ideas from: Engels, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy.

I agree with you, Vin, I don't know why we bother to continue discussing with him. Probably because he's a socialist even if he's all over the place with philosophy and because we believe it's possible to convince people by rational argument.Actually, I doubt if he's actually read Engels's book. So, here's a few extracts.Here's where Engels explains what he means by "materialism":

Quote:

Thus the question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of the spirit to nature — the paramount question of the whole of philosophy  (….)The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other — and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity — comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.These two expressions, idealism and materialism, originally signify nothing else but this; and here too they are not used in any other sense. What confusion arises when some other meaning is put to them will be seen below.

And here's him describing "the material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong" as "the only reality" (will that do as a definition of "matter"?):

Quote:

With irresistible force, Feuerbach is finally driven to the realization that  (…) the material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality; and that our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter. This is, of course, pure materialism.

But, like our friend, Feuerbach was unable to go the whole way because of the kind of materialism espoused by some physical scientists:

Quote:

But, having got so far, Feuerbach stops short. He cannot overcome the customary philosophical prejudice, prejudice not against the thing but against the name materialism. He says:“To me materialism is the foundation of the edifice of human essence and knowledge; but to me it is not what it is to the physiologist, to the natural scientists in the narrower sense, for example, to Moleschott, and necessarily is from their standpoint and profession, namely, the edifice itself. Backwards I fully agree with the materialists; but not forwards.”Here, Feuerbach lumps together the materialism that is a general world outlook resting upon a definite conception of the relation between matter and mind, and the special form in which this world outlook was expressed at a definite historical stage — namely, in the 18th century. More than that, he lumps it with the shallow, vulgarized form in which the materialism of the 18th century continues to exist today in the heads of naturalists and physicians, the form which was preached on their tours in the fifties by Buchner, Vogt, and Moleschott.

The extract I like is this where he deals with the argument, also advanced here, that we're all idealists:

Quote:

we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains — even eating and drinking, which begins as a consequence of the sensation of hunger or thirst transmitted through the brain, and ends as a result of the sensation of satisfaction likewise transmitted through the brain. The influences of the external world upon man express themselves in his brain, are reflected therein as feelings, impulses, volitions — in short, as “ideal tendencies”, and in this form become “ideal powers”. If, then, a man is to be deemed an idealist because he follows “ideal tendencies” and admits that “ideal powers” have an influence over him, then every person who is at all normally developed is a born idealist and how, in that case, can there still be any materialists?

[ALB]

You are playing Humpty Dumpty again and making words mean what you say they mean. The trite observation that people are influenced to act by ideas is not what Bhaskar and his philosophy mean by "non-physical causal powers" and, as a "critical realist" yourself, you must know it.  No doubt too, you must take up some position in this debate about amongst your fellow "critical realists" about the nature of these mysterious "causal powers":

Quote:

A third issue is the ontological status of powers. Harré and Madden – and, following them, Nancy Cartwright – argued that it is things that exist, not free-floating powers. Harré and Madden used the term ‘powerful particular’. Cartwright, in turn, refers to ‘capacities’ rather than to powers or dispositions because, she says, it is harder to forget that capacities are always the capacities of something. Bhaskar, by contrast, advanced the view in RTS that the most basic things may not be things at all, but just powers tout court.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

The key problem is not simply that a return to political economy which does not downplay the importance of the social and historical factors would solve the issue, but that the 'physical sciences' (including physics) can't be simply based upon 'mathematical models', either.

This might be the time and place for you to explain Bhaskar's concept of "non-physical causal powers" that you avoided before which I had assumed perhaps wrongly (it's difficult to fathom what he's on about) implied a model of reality that was akin to mathematical ones, i.e some sort of non-physical structure.

[ALB]

As you say, another nutter. and like all racists (or is it racialists?) he gets his facts wrong. Japan does have migrants from other countries, especially Korea. But I suppose he could come back and say that the old Apartheid regime in South Africa used to classify Japanese as "Whites".

[ALB]

The Labour Party has gone all workerist over this. Yesterday's Sun quotes two of them.Here's John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw:

Quote:

White vans, England flags, are Labour values.

I don't suppose that'll help Labour's campaign to regain support in Scotland or go downwell in Wales.And here's Simon Danczuk, MP for Rochdale:

Quote:

Hard-working White Van Man represent the backbone of this country.

The Sun also published the political views of the owner of the house in the photo:

[ALB]

DJP wrote:

Yes. You should always park your van front facing outwards.

You mean that is what the "middle class" do? Seriously, it is a stereotype of how the media and, apparently now, the politicians (after all, one of them was forced to resign over it) depict "the working class". It doesn't conform of course to our conception of the working class as anyone obliged by economic necessity to work for wage or a salary, irrespective of what job they do or how they spend their leisure time or adorn the place where they live or what sort of vehicle they drive.This is what we mean when we use the term, but are we sure it is what most of those who read or hear us understand us to mean?

[ALB]

I think he'd rather see the dungeons.

[ALB]

That's good stuff about a slogan we still use and which sums up what socialism is all about.. We should all read it. It's not very long.

[ALB]

We keep getting emails at HO from prominent Labourites. Here's one from the Leader himself:

Quote:

People sometimes say that they don't know what we — what I — stand for, so I'll put this in the simplest terms I can, so no one can have any doubts. This country is too unequal, and we need to change it. So here are the promises I'm making to you about the kind of Britain I will lead:First, I will undo the damage the Tories have done to our country:I will scrap the Bedroom Tax, which unfairly punishes the disabled and the vulnerableI will scrap the Health and Social Care Act, which damages and undermines our NHSI will scrap the gagging law, which limits our freedom of speech and right to campaignI will reverse the Tories' £3bn tax cut for millionaires, so we get the deficit down but do it fairlySecond, I will take on the powerful vested interests that hold millions back:I will force energy companies to freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017I will give power back to those who rent their homes, by scrapping letting fees and stabilising tenancy agreementsI will raise money from tobacco companies, tax avoiders, and a mansion tax to fund doctors, nurses, careworkers and midwives for our NHSI will reform our banks so that they properly support small businessesI will stop recruitment agencies hiring only from abroadThird, I will start to rebuild a fairer, better Britain:I will raise the minimum wage, to ensure that everyone that does a hard day's work is properly rewardedI will promote the living wage by giving tax breaks to companies that pay itI will ban the damaging zero-hours contracts that exploit British workersI will bring in a lower 10p income tax rate, cutting taxes for 24 million workersI will support working parents with 25 hours of free childcare for three- and four-year-oldsI will help more young people get on the housing ladder by getting 200,000 homes built every yearI want to know — is this the kind of Britain you want to see? Tell me now which of my three promises is most important to you:

At least he calls them promises., but he omits the word "piecrust".

[ALB]

Here's the result:

Quote:

Mark Reckless (UKIP) 16,867 (42.10%)Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative) 13,947 (34.81%)Naushabah Khan (Labour) 6,713 (16.76%)Clive Gregory (Green) 1,692 (4.22%)Geoff Juby (Lib Dem) 349 (0.87%)Hairy Knorm Davidson (Official Monster Raving Loony Party) 151 (0.38%)Stephen Goldsbrough (Ind) 69 (0.17%)Nick Long (People Before Profit) 69 (0.17%)Jayda Fransen (Britain First) 56 (0.14%)Mike Barker (Ind) 54 (0.13%)Charlotte Rose (Ind) 43 (0.11%)Dave Osborn (Patriotic Socialist Party) 33 (0.08%)Christopher Challis (Ind) 22 (0.05%)

Confirmation as to why we no longer contest by-elections – the risk of being discredited by being beaten by such as the Monster Raving Loony Party. A warning too, maybe, of contesting general election seats where we've nobody on the ground.Interesting the way the Labour Party is entering the anti-immigrant stakes. After Gordon Brown was criticised during the last general election for calling a bigot a bigot, now one of their frontbench spokespersons is forced to resign for mocking the flag of St George.

[ALB]

Just read through the whole debate. It was obviously made for MPs with odd ideas on money.Here's Douglas Carswell, once again committing himself (and now UKIP?) to supporting "free market capitalism":

Quote:

Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. Does he agree that, far from shoring up free market capitalism, the candy floss credit system the state is presiding over replaces it with a system of crony corporatism that gives capitalism a bad name and undermines its very foundations?

And Austen Mitchell (Labour):

Quote:

I speak as a renegade social creditor who is still influenced by social credit thinking; I do not pledge total allegiance to Major Douglas, but I am still influenced by him.( …) Some argue—Major Douglas would have argued this—that credit should therefore be issued only by the state

In fact, there was a disagreement amongst the Monetary Reformers as to what precise reform was needed, with those on the left like Mitchell and Michael Meacher advocating that the State should issue all money and those on the right like Baker and Carswell arguing that the state should not interfere.The only person to give anything like a realist picture of how banks operate was Andrea Leadsom, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (presumably on the basis of what her officials wrote for her):

Quote:

Whenever a bank makes a loan, it credits the borrower’s bank account with a new deposit and that creates “new money”. However, there are limits to how much new money is created at any point in time. When a bank makes a loan, it does so in the expectation that the loan will be repaid in the future—households repay their mortgages out of their salaries; businesses repay their loans out of income from their investments.In other words, banks will not create new money unless they think that new value will also in due course be created, enabling that loan to be paid back.

[ALB]

I should have added Steve Baker to the list of currency cranks in parliament. He supports the US Tea Party and wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and, presumably, the Bank of England:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXnavnAvMVMhttp://www.stevebaker.info/2014/11/understanding-the-money-creation-and-society-debate/He runs the Cobden Centre and is an admirer of Baron Ludwig von Mises.And of course there's Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.

[Author]

Posts