ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, the case against voting YES is so overwhelming that I'd almost be tempted to vote NO ! After all, there are some valid reasons for doing so: a YES vote would encourage a nasty petty nationalism, undermine cross-border trade union unity and threaten even more established living standards. It looks as though we are going to have to rely on the common sense of a majority of Scottish workers to avoid this. I'm prepared to stick my neck out and say that I'm confident we can rely on this.
No, Vin, that's not how it works (or is supposed to work) though I agree that that's probably what many people would do if this system was introduced.If you only plump for one option then you are saying that you couldn't care less and are completely indifferent as to what is chosen if yours is not. If that's is what you really think then that is what you should do. It means leaving the choice to the other voters. If you really hate "World Socialist Party of Great Britain" then you should place it last after expressing all your other dislikes in descending order. Otherwise you are increasing the chances of WSPGB being adopted.It's complicated, I know, with the outcome depending on tactical voting which many voters won't realise but I'm not an afvocate of the system myself. I'd prefer such multi-option decisions to be left to an elected committee where all the options can be fully discussed — though not, I hasten to add, so controversial an issue as a party's name.
OK, to enter into the spirit of the thing, I vote:B>C>D>A>E>Fthough actually if we were going to have to make the mistake of changing our full formal name I would vote for World Socialist Party (Britain)
Before I vote let me see if I have understood the tactics well: if you really don't want something you place them last giving a preference over them to other things you don't want either? In other words, after voting for what you do want you vote for what you don't want in order of least objectionable — even if that's going to mean getting something you don't want?In other words, it's a vote for want you don't want the least? I still can't see how that will not result in the least objectionable option to most people, i.e the most boring or bland one, or lowest common denominator, getting chosen.
LBird wrote:Just good, old fashioned, 'theory and practice produces knowledge'.I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.LBird wrote:Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between having an unproven 'theory', prior to practice, and 'knowledge' produced by 'theory and practice'?Is that all you are saying: that when a researcher or an observer (
researches or observes something (A) they are testing "an unproven 'theory'", i.e a hypothesis? And that the outcome of this will be "knowledge" as a confirmed ("true"?) theory? If that's all you are saying then you're not saying anything controversial. But if that is what you are saying I think you need to make the distinction in your formula, eg.Knowledge (C) is produced by a subject ( with a hypothesis (D) observing what happens (A). Or maybe D should be C1 and C C2But isn't this is what is generally accepted (as far as scientific research is concerned, if not epistemology)gnome wrote:A is preferred to B by a majority of voters and B is preferred to C by a majority. However, it is also the case that C is preferred to A by a majority.This sort of thing seems to be also being discussed on the Philosophy for Communists thread:
LBird wrote:A+B=C (or, B+A=C)This disagreement needs to be sorted out, or we'll continue to misunderstand what each other is saying.Maybe I'm not getting it, but I still say that the person, project or motion getting the most preferences compared with the others will be the one that the least number object to, i.e the lowest common denominator. I haven't done the maths so I'm prepared to be shown that I'm wrong. Better to have "artistic" matters settled by some other method, eg a committee chosen by lot (as in the case of the fascia decision) or by some artists or group of artists on a take it or leave it basis.
Maybe it would, but I wouldn't want to be on the ballot committee:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Concordet+methodBut I nominate you.
slothjabber wrote:But good on you for applying. If you want to say that you were banned from having a stall this year, then I shall be offering no objection.Fair enough, but do we have to apply every year and be refused to be able to say that we have been banned? Personally, I was opposed to applying this year as we knew from past experience what the answer would be. It's clear they don't want us and we should not demean ourselves by begging to be allowed in.i agree that they are being inconsistent in letting the CWO in but not the ICC especially since the CWO is more into the ideology and practice of the vanguard party than the ICC.
LBird wrote:Materialists insist A=C, or C=A.Idealists insist B=C, or C=BRealists insist that C=A+B, or C=B+A.For those interested, A=object, B=subject, C=knowledge,and the plus sign is 'practice'.Is part of the point that you are trying to make that what is observed (whatever it is) is A and that statements about it are C requiring the intervention of B to observe and make statements? If so, what's the problem? Except of course the status of C, but now you seem to be saying that B is not simply the observing subject but is "theory":
LBird wrote:Theory must exist. (Not quite the same. It sounds a bit like B=C or that B inevitably has a C before observing A. Hence the need to clarify what C is, e.g any statement about A or one that is "true" or "useful" or "possible" or what?
The membership were consulted about a having a new design and what it should look like in general. The reason why conference voted for a three-person committee to come up with a detailed design was that they realised it was not practical to leave this to a vote of the whole membership. We know that the result of any such vote is likely to be won by the least objectionable, i.e probably the most boring, design. A committee is a better way of deciding such matters rather than a referendum. In fact, the reason why the party has been discussing a logo for twenty years or more and has not been able to reach a decision is that members have insisted on the decision being made by the whole membership and nobody being able to agree on what designs to submit to such an ill-advised vote.I write as someone who thought that the present fascia of HO was ok (after all, it's only seen by passers-by in a street in one London suburb) and who doesn't like the decision finally reached, but I can't see any other way of reaching a decision on a matter like this.
LBird wrote:Realism gives equal weight to the material and the ideal.Just as a matter of interest, and without wanting to get involved in a debate (yet) about terminology, is this what "realism" has meant historically and generally even today? As DJP has just pointed out, this view has generally been known as "monism" (as it posits that there is only one "stuff" out there). I thought "realists" were those who argue that the world out there really is as it seems ("naive realists") or that what scientists are doing is gradually uncovering the "true" nature of "reality" ("scientific realists"), a view which has been strongly argued against here. Sorry, I seem to have just joined in the debate about terminology.
LBird wrote:My advice is to leave Bhaskar out of it, for the moment anyway, and just regard him as one proponent of CR.OK. Noted.
LBird wrote:If you can accept that Marx's 'value' is an example of 'non-physical causal powers', then the explanation about CR might be easier to understand and agree with.I can accept that Marx's concept of value is "non-physical" and would say it has "explanatory power" but am not sure about saying it has "causal powers", not least because this raises the long-standing debate amongst philosophers of what is meant by "cause". So I'll suspend judgement on this while awaiting further clarification.
LBird wrote:If one holds to 'materialism' or physicalism, and the suggestion that anything about 'ideas' is 'idealism', then most of what CR holds will be rejected, out of hand, as 'idealism'.I'm not sure that there are any "physicalists" (who say that only what is physical is "real") here but if there were I wouldn't see this as a problem. It certainly wouldn't mean that they weren't socialist/communists.
