[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, he didn't add the words 'speculative' or 'metaphysical' to 'philosophy' when he declarded that "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought…", nor when he said "One has to 'leave philosophy aside'", so no, he didn't mean "speculative, metaphysical philosophy", but philosophy.

I would have thought that by "philosophy" Marx meant the German philosophy of his day (which was both speculative and metaphysical) of which he was once an adept himself, both before and, for a while, after he became a socialist. I don't think he included the English, Scottish and French materialists in this.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Why do we need a 'theory of science'? What use it is?

Maybe that's why Morgenstern suspected you of naive realism and kicking Dr Johnston's stone. We'll see if this is so after round two.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

So, scientists accept that they should be caged, and trained, and fed on our whim? Just like a pet bird, and not 'worry'?

I take it this is directed at Rosa Lichtenstein not me since they are the one who is saying that scientists don't need a theory of science.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

Another one here which struck a chord:http://brokenbottleboy.tumblr.com/post/1241752902/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-and-the-messiah-complex

This is shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. What the Romans used to call an ad hominem argument.Brand talks about revolution and everybody's talking about it. Ken Loach talks about forming a new Left Party and it's a floparoo (well, a few thousands do but it's not all over the social media). There must be a lesson there somewhere.Once again, it's not Brand or his personality that's important. It's the fact that he's got people talking about revolution. When I was getting signatories yesterday for the nomination papers for us to stand in a local council by-election in Lambeth 2 of the 20 people I talked to spontaneously mentioned Brand and revolution when I explained who we were.Personally I don't see too much point in getting a Socialist Standard to him (but why not?). It's getting to the people he's got to think and talk about revolution that's important.No point in us kicking a gift horse in the teeth.

[ALB]

Surely he just meant that scientists get on with their research without worrying about the theory of what they are doing just as birds get on with their lives without worrying about what ornithologists say about them? Which is probably the case irrespective or not it should be.

[ALB]

I see you have to be (or are supposed to be) a student to join in, but have we any members who are students of economics? Probably not, as economics these days seems to be a branch of business studies. Not like in the olden days (i.e. the 1980s and before).

[ALB]

I agree that Marx rejected speculative, metaphysical philosophy such as still survives especially on the continent. Although I don't think he says so explicitly, I think he took the view that it had been replaced by science. Certainly the 19th century German Social Democratic movement did. But in this case, a theory of science is needed of which "epistemology" (as the "theory of knowledge" will be a part, science being a form of knowledge).  Or are you agreeing with Richard Feynman's well-known quip that

Quote:

Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

[ALB]

Here's how things are for women in Saudi Arabia, the main supporters financially and with arms, of the Syrian rebels:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24658753Is this the sort of regime that its mercenaries in Syria will be imposing on the people there if they manage to overthrow the government? And there are some Trotskyist groups who still back the rebels in this civil war.This said, Saudi Arabia's interest in Syria will be more strategic than religious: they want to weaken Iran, their main rival for regional hegemony, by overthrowing a regime sympathetic to the regime in Tehran.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

An interview with Rosa Lichenstein can be found herehttp://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10789

Just got round to reading this. The first part echos what Ted Wilmott wrote in that series of articles he wrote in Forum in 1956, except that the SWP takes the place of the old Communist Party:

Quote:

These activists now declared that ‘dialectics’ meant there were no ‘fixed or rigid principles’ in revolutionary politics. Everything it seemed had now to be bent toward the ‘concrete’ practical exigencies of the class struggle.

It also echos what we said in our 1975 pamphlet on Historical Materialism, but with reference to the CP rather than the SWP:

Quote:

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, a misused concept which grew in popularity with those who defend the tortuous policies of capitalist Russia and other State capitalist countries, acquired the mystical characters of reconciling all points of view even the most contradictory.[….]But whereas Hegelianism was impregnated with the idea of universal change (even though upside down) the confused, contradictory and changing policies of Soviet Russia bewilder its adherents and drive them back into a different and bastardised Hegelianism with leadership as the absolute concept. Is there a contradiction between principles and policy? No matter! An understanding of dialectics will show that everything is all right in this best of all possible Russian worlds. If the Russian workers are "free" to control their own destiny but must obey the dictates of the Stalin or Brezhnev oligarchies; if the capitalist class is the enemy and yet Russia concludes alliances with them; if imperialism is a capitalist method of fleecing and yet the "Workers' Republic" fights for markets and spheres of influence, don't worry! Dialectics explains and solves these contradictions. The more incomprehensible dialectics appears to the ordinary worker, the firmer the bonds of leadership are riveted upon him and the higher the self-appointed interpreters climb.

Apparently, reading this interview, this (policy contradictions and zigzags explained away by the leadership by "dialectics") is a feature of all Leninist groups.Our review of GA Cohen's book which Rosa Lichtenstein seems to like can be found here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1979/no-900-august-1979/marx-philosopherThe Northern Star interview contains the intriguing statement that

Quote:

Marx isn’t interested in epistemology

I suspect this is true, but what's the basis for claiming this?.

[ALB]

Actually, some progress that has been made towards incorporating modern communications into Party decision-making. Apart from the internal forums which permit discussion on issues that may come to a vote, the model branch standing orders have been amended to allow branch members to vote by email under certain circumstances. The EC's Standing Orders have been amended to allow EC members to participate via Skype and we even held one entire EC meeting by this. Overseas members vote in Party ballots by email if they want.Complete electronic voting is hampered by two problems (a) some members are not on email or the internet and (b) verifying that the voter is who they say they are (encryption).Personally, I don't think that there is a real substitute for face-to-face meetings where all the aspects of an issue can be thrashed out and participants' opinions changed. Sometimes, electronic voting is in effect just a way of recording already established opinions.

[ALB]

No, it's not too late as we don't send the December Socialist Standard to the printers till more than half-way through November. In the meantime too  (of course) someone is writing an article on the interview.

[ALB]

Morgenstern wrote:

Zen is looking pretty good

I see what you mean.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Not read the pamphlet  " The Revolution Will Be Hilarious" but perhaps it may be of interest to this thread -. Maybe the Library Committee could order it.

We've already got it. Review already done, to appear in the December Socialist Standard.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Basically, i feel the same sympathetic argument is being made in support of Brand as with the Occupy Movement. They both have made the subject of revolution popular in the media, returned it to the public domain, once again made it a respectable topic for the over the dining table.

That's the point (not too sure about the dining table, though). Just as Occupy helped to make "capitalism" a dirty word Brand has popularised the concept of "revolution". Both things we can only welcome as they provide us with an openingHave we missed the boat on this? Not necessarily. For instance, there's another local by-election coming up near Head Office next month. Up to now we've been using on our election address the slogan "Vote for yourself for a change". We could change this to something like "Revolution Not Reform" or "Why We Need a Revolution" or even "Let's Make a Revolution" or "Time for Revolution". Anyway, something with "revolution" in it.

[ALB]

Interesting twist to the arguments we have been having on another thread (the one of Pannekoek) where one assumption has been that there are three factors: the object (the real world of experience), the subject (the experiencer) and knowledge (the subject's understanding of the object). Which are you saying "we" are?

[ALB]

More on Brand's views and where he's coming from here:http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WSM_Forum/conversations/messages/51790

[Author]

Posts