[ALB]

LBird wrote:

1) Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the accepted meaning of that term (everything is 'material' or 'physical'); I've explained this, and think that the term 'idealist-materialist' captures Marx's position far better, if one reads his Theses on Feuerbach.2) The realm of the 'real' includes material and ideas. Rocks and value have the same ontological status.

Actually, I agree with the substance of this, i.e (1) that Marx won't have held that everything is material or physical and (2) that material and ideas have the same status. In which case the argument would seem to be about what to call this view, which I'm sure could be eventually settled. But what's all this about "non-physical causal powers" and Bhaskar? Where do they fit in?

[ALB]

Thanks. No I hadn't seen it but it's pathetic and a disgrace, a cruder version of Tariq McAli's argument. Both of them still fighting the 19th century battle of the industrial bourgeoisie against the landed aristocracy and its cultural leftovers today, a battle won in 1911 when the powers of the House of Lords were clipped and Lloyd George imposed heavy death duties on them. Don't think much either of the fascist-like populist talk of the "paedo-State"

[ALB]

I've been searching for anarchist arguments for voting YES but can't find any other than the other comment on the AF article (that a more local capitalism is better than more centralised one). Do you know of any other? Whatever arguments they use can't be the same as Tariq McAli's (that it will help democratise the British state). But then anarchists are a confused lot.

[ALB]

I was responding to DJP's post immediately before and also to the clip he posted by the guru. It seems that "critical realism"  is the name adopted by some philosophy lecturers to mean something different to what its name suggests. In fact, worrying, as they seem to, about whether the table behind you exists when you're not looking at it is the typical pre-occupation of the isolated individual(ist) armchair philosopher.

[ALB]

I must confess that at one point I thought that the term "critical realism" might be a useful alternative to "dialectical materialism" to describe the theory of understanding/knowledge/science held by Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek and said so in one of the numerous threads we've had on this. It suggests that there is a "real" world that exists outside our minds, with the word "critical" bringing out that the mind places an active role in understanding this outside reality. But now I see it comes associated with a baggage which none of these would accept. So we'll have to stick to "dialectical materialism".

[ALB]

The AF one is not that good. It revealss that some anarchists up there are being tempted to vote YES:

Quote:

I’m not going to tell you to vote or not vote. Some anarchists will abstain and focus on organising where they are, others will vote Yes in the hope of at least a few reforms.

So, no anarchists are being tempted to vote NO (which I would have thought the better option if someone held a gun to your head and said you had to choose).It seems that some Scottish anarchists have been affected by the nationalist virus. If not, why the need to publish an anti-YES article?The one from the CWO is much better (as to be expected).

[ALB]

I see, so you are saying that "good" people need to win control of the government so as to change the social and economic system. Leaving aside for the moment the question of who the "good" people are, I can see the need to win control of political power but not with a view to reforming the present social system to try to make it work better (which can't be done anyway) but with a view to facilitating a rapid change to a new social system organised on a quite different basis, i.e common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use (instead of minority ownership and control and production for sale with a view to profit).But I can agree with you that do-gooders and reformists won't (and don't) get very far as long as political power is controlled by or in the interest of the minority who benefit from the profit system.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

'Supervenience' focuses upon the 'component', whereas 'emergence' focuses on the 'real' (ie. non-physical causal powers, like Marx's 'value').

Is this a clue to what the "reality" in the term "critical realism" means, i.e that "reality" is made up of non-physical "causal powers"? Marx's value is certainly non-physical, but what exactly is a "causal power"?

[ALB]

What do you mean by "the system"? Is it the government?

[ALB]

Why, if Scotland breaks away, should we want to split our party into two any more than the GB-based trade unions will or should? That, both in fact, would be a step backward.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Have we got the text for a special leaflet for the TUC march yet to put on the blog ?

We'll probably use the leaflet we printed for the same sort of TUC march two years ago supplies of have not been exhausted. The wording can be found here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1298-october-2012/future-works

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

To the best of my knowledge the SPGB has never taken advice from non-members and hopefully never will.

I don't think this is true as we have sought outside advice on occasions, e.g legal opinion. What has never happened is non-members taking part in any vote. In this particular case we have two non-members, even potential members, putting forward arguments that are held by some members. So, their arguments need to be addressed anyway, but shouldn't our advice to them, then, not be "mind your own business" but "why not join and have a vote in what we decide?"

[ALB]

Here's what happened the last time this went to a Party Poll:

Quote:

JAN-FEB 1986: Are you in favour of changing the name of the Party to World Socialist Party (Britain)? Lost 72-229.

Later that same year Conference carried the following resolution:

Quote:

This Conference resolves that the propaganda of the Socialist Party should refer as often as appropriate to our membership of 'The World Socialist Movement'.

This seems to me a sensible compromise. It's why, for instance, 'Companion Party of the World Socialist Movement' is on the masthead of the Socialist Standard. Just a pity 2008 Conference voted to go backwards and insert "of Great Britain" into it. Here's what it used to look like till them: But I think we'd have to bonkers to completely abandon our long-standing full name. Even though this would not be a break with our past it would be perceived of as such. 

[ALB]

It's not just sentimentality that leads us to stick to SPGB and SPC. It's history. Both parties and in both countries have a history that is more or less known to others (more in Canada in fact) so we keep these names to emphasise the continuity. The parties in NZ and Australia do not/did not have this, so they could change to WSP without losing it. All new parties, eg as in India, are adopting WS Party or Group. That makes sense to me.

[ALB]

SB_UK wrote:

The basic idea is that either no or all people control the power which is in the hands of the few currently.So – by none or all – we can either suggest that the world is owned by everyone equally or no-one at all.Which places responsibility for things into the hands of all or none ie 'global distribution of power' both in contrast to few.

That's not a bad way of putting it except that it will require action to dispossess the few which will inevitably be "political". Also, the support of all won't be necessary. Just of a sufficient majority, "critical mass" is the term I believe Peter Joseph uses. Once this has been attained it should be possible to dislodge the few by force of numbers and via the ballot box.

[Author]

Posts