ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:…ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas…
Yes, the source of ideas is humans.
ALB wrote:… but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.No, this contradicts the previous half of the statement.You're playing with words, ALB.What are 'ideas' if not 'the content of ideas'? How can an 'idea' not have 'content'?
They can't. That was my point but I do have to confess to playing with words — the words of Anton Pannekoek. The sentence "the human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world" are the opening words of the brilliant third part of his 1937 article on."Society and Mind in Marxian philosophy". He continues:
Quote: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.I think the confusion has arisen because a distinction is not being made between "ideas" and the "sense-impressions", "sense-data", "sensations" or whatever you want to call them which are the raw material as it were which the mind works on to create ideas and which arise from the surrounding real world not the human mind. Ideas are abstractions from the outside world made, yes of course, by humans.But we been here before a number of times now.
Actually, not a bad summary of the difference except it's a pity you couldn't resist saying "the SPGB's idea that the working class must first be taught correct theory by the enlightened" instead of "the SPGB's idea that the working class become socialist through the interaction of their own experience and hearing the case for socialism put by fellow workers".Your position commits you to (a) a revolution started by a minority and (b) a longish period in which the working class would be running capitalism, with money, wages, production for sale, etc. Both of which we fundamentally reject.
That is precisely the question: Is the extraction of surplus value against some eternal, "transhistorical" (to use the new in-word) principle of morality or justice or is it simply against the interest of the class of wage and salary workers?
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.
These two statements are not contradictory.
Depending upon the interpretation of 'come from' which is accepted, they can be.If 'come from' means 'created by', then they are contradictory.
Yes, obviously ideas are not created by material conditions but both statements said "come from" not "created by".The original statements are not contradictory because ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.Anyway, this was just a passing comment. So back to surplus value.
LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.
These two statements are not contradictory.
admice wrote:Read ch II of this. Really good stuff. Too applicable to our times.http://marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1969/marx-keynes/ch02.htmYou are right. Chapter 2 (along with a couple of the other chapters) first appeared in the November-December 1955 issue of the Western Socialist, the journal of our companion party in the US. For a review of his book, see:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/books-and-pamphlets-marxian-economics
Vin Maratty wrote:I don't think the SPGB's case for socialism is based on a moral objection to capitalism and if it is then best of luck with that oneOfficially it isn't.In 2010 Conference passed the following resolution by 64 votes to 52 "Socialism is both scientific and ethical." Six branches then called a Party Poll to rescind this resolution. The result of this vote later the same year was:
Quote:Results of the Party Poll on the following motion : "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No" No of votes cast : Yes – 81 No – 39 Abstain – 3 Spoilt – 2 Therefore the 2010 Conference resolution – Socialism is both scientific and ethical – is rescinded.robbo203 wrote:In terms of early childhood development what we see, to begin with. is what psychoanalysts call a stage of primary identification in which the infant develops a strong emotional attachment to the "significant other" (most particularly, the mother) but is unable to distinguish itself from the latter whom it sees as a mere extension of itself. This is followed by a form of identification called narcissistic identification which derives from the experience of loss of, or alienation from, the other in question. In coming to see our mothers as separate from ourselves we gain a sense of self hood.I don't disagree with the basic point you are trying to make, but am surprised that you are making an appeal to "psychoanalysis" when Freud's theories have been so thoroughly discredited. The rival behaviourist theory is also capable of giving an account of the emergence of "self". See, for instance, this from GH Mead:http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/mead3.htmI was a bit surprised to find this on the Marxist Internet Archive but it's there and probably deserves to be as his theory does have socialist implications. His Mind, Self and Society used to be recommended to Party members for those interested in the subject as it provides a social materialist theory of "mind".
I don't suppose this will stop Roman Catholics voting for Boris, but then it's a good thing that Catholics no longer vote as their priests tell them. I wonder what leading Tory Catholics such as Anne Widdecombe, former Thatcher(ite) Minister Norman St John-Stevas (but I think he might be dead) and for that matter the premier Catholic peer, the Duke of Norfolk, think of all this.
There's no such thing as an "ethical" investment as, in the end, the whole world capitalist class exploit the whole world working class. There's just investment.All investments are linked to each other and you can't really separate them, except artificially or on the surface. As this article pointed out:
Quote:Even if you are more engaged, it is not necessarily any easier to keep track of where your pension pot is being invested. The church did not invest directly in Wonga, after all – it invested in a venture capital firm that put a fairly small proportion of its funds into the company. And, despite Welby's embarrassment, it did not breach its ethical investment policy as Accel, the firm in question, did not commit 25% of its capital to Wonga..
Vin Maratty wrote:I would gamble that the vote relates directly to the 'morality' vote within the SPGB.Don't you mean , the 'anti-morality' vote?. I'm not sure they are connected. After all, does saying that socialism is not an ethical issue imply that anything goes, even from a socialist party? I don't think so.
Ed wrote:Rather than the thread being about the evils of charity, I am more interested in the fact that in order to secure the greatest return on their investment they had to compromise their principles and contradict their aims.It is only capitalist companies and charitable trusts that are forced to seek the greatest return on their investment, either by the economic force of competition or by law or both.Charities and other trusts are in fact under greater pressure to maximise the money entrusted to them than companies as they are legally obliged to seek this. If they don't the trustees can be done. This does not apply to individuals or unincorporated associations (which the party is) which can use their money as they please. In any event, I'm not as pessimistic as Ed that Party members should have voted 3 to 2 in favour of the principle of placing funds not for immediate use in some investment fund. My guess is that the members who voted for this did so as a way of trying to protect such funds from being whittled away by inflation rather than because they want the party to see "the greatest return", i.e the majority voted not to make a profit but to not make a loss. I can't see this as compromising our principles (even though I didn't vote for it, because I don't think it practicable for us).If the question had been "Are you in favour of the party placing funds not needed for immediate use where they can secure the greatest return?" there would surely have been a quite different result.
Isn't Zundap right to the extent that if someone puts their savings into a deposit account paying less than the rate of inflation then the bank will use that money (together with other such deposits) to lend at a higher rate of interest probably higher than the rate of inflation? So that the bank would be getting the protection against inflation plus more which the saver could in theory have got if he or she could have invested their money where the bank did. The trouble is that the saver normally doesn't have the amount of money nor the expertise to do this.Of course if the saver kept the money under the bed nobody would gain.
Quote:To finance their lending, investment or proprietary trading activities, banks will have to borrow or raise the necessary national currency from savers and investors.But that's essentially what they do now !The Green Party likes to position itself to the left of Labour but it has committed itself to a purely monetary theory of crises more usually associated with free-market fanatics:
Quote:Through the interest charged on the loans on which all credit is based, the current banking system increases inequality. It also regularly causes economic crises: banks create and lend more and more money until the level of debt becomes unsustainable, boom turns to bust, and the taxpayer bails out banks that are “too big to fail”. Finally, the need to service the growing mountain of debt on which our money is based is a key driver of unsustainable economic growth that is destroying the environment.Someone else has pointed out that this part of the resolution commits the Green Party to monetarist theory. On the other hand, another part commits them to roaring inflation:
Quote:The Green Party believes that the power to create money must be removed from private banks. The supply of our national currency must be fully restored to democratic and public control so that it can be issued free of debt and directed to environmentally and socially beneficial areas such as renewable energy, social housing, or support for community businesses.So what the banks are no longer going to be allowed to lend, some government monetary authority will simply issue. Money is needed to finance some reform? Simple. Just print it. How naive can you get?I wonder what Derek Wall thinks of all this in view of his recent article in the Morning Star on Marx.
