[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Next installment from the positivists: 'Marx's 'value' is not scientific!'

Next instalment from the relativists: Marx's 'value' is not scientific because most people in capitalist society don't think it is scientific!

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

'Accepting general realism or materialism' means it is acceptable for Communists to accept 'naive realism' and 'positivism', which are 19th century-based ideological views of 'science', and would also allow Uncle Joe's 'Dialectical Materialism' in, too.

This is probably a fair enough description of the range of materialist views held by Socialist Party members. The only test we apply to see if an applicant is a materialist is that they are not religious. Personally I think that's adequate enough.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Of course, when it comes to history, we defend the MCH, not any other theory even if it be materialist…

Yes, but what comprises the 'MCH'? I think what I've been arguing is entirely compatible with the 'MCH', and that yours and DJP's views about the sun/earth relationship is not.The sun/earth relationship has a history. To argue that it is, on the contrary, a 'True Discovery', is to take the 'Historical' out of MCH. Thus, we are left with a Static 'Materialist Conception'.

For the umpteenth time this is not what DJP and me have been arguing. Of course the MCH can be applied to history of science, a brilliant example being Pannoekoek's History of Astronomy. Another example would be that 1980 SPGB Education & Discussion bulletin you like.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

The same with regard to action to change society. We have our particular theory which differs from other theories even though they too are materialist.

Yes, 'change' and 'society', includes 'change to science'.

I just said that

LBird wrote:

We Communists must ditch the bourgeois myth of 'discovery science', and replace it with the MCH.

I agree with you that "discovery science" is inadequate.

LBird wrote:

As you rightly say, 'our particular theory differs'. But… what is 'particular' about it, if it accepts naive realism and positivist notions of 'Truth' and 'discovery science'?

I'm not arguing that the Party should accept either naive realism or positivism when it comes to epistemology, but don't see why this should be a bar to membership or a case for expulsion. After all, when it comes to everyday living you too will be a naive realist, i.e treat everyday objects as if they really were separately-existing things.I should add that I don't think believing that it was true that the Sun went round the Earth till 1700 should be a bar to membership either.

[ALB]

twc wrote:

Sure ALB, we can, and should, drop reference to Kuhnian scientific paradigms, etc. — they are merely significant in the current context in opposition to formally legitimized political casuistry.But we can never forget that Marx bequeathed us the only science we have.  We comprehend that science to gain our Object — a direct consequential outcome of that science.Our opponents thrive on an incoherent political Object and on flexible political Principles.  Their behaviour, though clearly politically opportunistic, is also clearly anti-scientific — pseudo science.Coherent science for Socialism!

I was not suggesting a free hand for socialists when it comes to history or politics as long as they accept a general realism or materialism, only with regard to theories of what knowledge is (epistemology) and of science.Of course, when it comes to history, we defend the MCH, not any other theory even if it be materialist (as nearly all others are these days: god has been driven out of history). The same with regard to action to change society. We have our particular theory which differs from other theories even though they too are materialist.

[ALB]

I see they did publish it and more, but also that you've been hiding your excellent blog under a bushel:http://somersetsocialist.org.uk/I hadn't realised that Newman had been in the SWP. Thought he was more the IMG type.

[ALB]

Interesting items here about what's going on in Syria that you don't hear much about:http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/14092013http://rudaw.net/english/interview/21082013http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/08/al-qaeda-pkk-war-syria-turkey-border.htmlOf course we can't know from here how much of this might be propaganda and how much is true.

[ALB]

Saw the latest copy of the AWL paper Solidarity yesterday (which another comrade bought) and was surprised to see that their comments on "The British Far Left in Syria" , especially about SPEW's view that the TUC can topple the present government if it calls a 24-hour strike and about some Trotskyist groups that have called for the rebels to be armed, were similar to those here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/syria-will-west-attack?page=4#comment-7853A shortened version of the article can be found here:http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/09/03/british-far-left-syriabut it doesn't contain this comment on the joint appeal by three Trotskyist groups to arm the rebels:

Quote:

The International Socialist Network (ISN, the SWP splinter group), Workers' Power, and Socialist Resistance have issued a joint statement (bit.ly/isn-syria) It has the merit of not letting its ideas on Syria be read backward from thrills about Cameron's defeat, and of mentioning the predatory ambitions of Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran.But it lauds the Syrian opposition militias, without qualification, as embodying the "Arab revolution". Why not then welcome the US bombing, which may at least help that opposition a bit? Because, the statement says, the bombing would be a means for the US to gain "control".In another comment, Gilbert Achcar of SR extends the thought. There he opposes bombing on the grounds that it may help the US engineer a peace deal. So full victory for the most militant parts of the opposition is the desired result?Incoherently, and always by implication, never by positive statement, the ISN-SR-WP text makes three contradictory demands on the western powers.1. That they arm the whole Syrian opposition, without conditions;2. That they supply (only?) "defensive" weapons to the opposition;3. That they arm (only?) the "progressive and democratic" parts of the opposition.So there are reactionary parts of it? Will the ISN send a member to the region to advise the US on which opposition groups are "progressive and democratic". Or do they trust the US to exert that control unadvised? But wasn't their objection to the bombing precisely that it would help the US exert control?

This is where you end up if you think it worth advising capitalist states how to play power politics. 

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

Sad to see that the very first congratulatory comment comes from Ken Macleod who should know better than to think that Newman or the Labour Party have anything to do with socialism.

Yes his political views do seem a bit eclectic:http://meanwhileatthebar.org/bar/matbarchive/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=17747&p=634142

[ALB]

Latest news concerning Andy Newman:http://socialistunity.com/andy-newman-labour-candidate-chippenham/Another Trotskyist defection to Labourism. It seems that the Labour Party has no objection to their candidates calling themselves "socialist" as long as they are standing in seats where they haven't got a chance. Though how anyone calling themselves a "socialist" can be in the Labour Party is difficult to understand.

[ALB]

Three of us went but were politely and apologetically told that it was a meeting only for those who had signed Ken Loach's appeal for a new Left Unity party. One consequence was that a leftwing German journalist was also denied access. She couldn't understand why they wouldn't want their discussions being known. Neither could we. Probably force of habit from groups some of them had previously been in. So we went with her to a local pub for 3-4 hours to wait the end of the meeting. She turned out to be a member of an animal liberation group which had come to realise that this has can only be achieved in a non-capitalist society and to embrace Marxism, especially of the Paris Manuscripts and the Frankfurt School. See here. So in the end neither our time nor hers were wasted.Apparently there was a vote at the meeting as to whether or not to admit observers that was lost by only 2 votes. Apparently too the Leninist amendments proposed by the CPGB to the platform got majority support in the meeting, not that this changed anything since the votes were only "indicative". It is not clear whether or not these votes reflected the views of the 100 or who had signed the original statement or the success of the CPGB in bringing its supporters along to the meeting. No doubt there'll be a full report in next Thursday's Weekly Worker.Incidentally when the CPGB delegation arrived and we gave them a leaflet they said "we're debating with you next Saturday".  We said we didn't think so. They explained that they were referring to the debate with the "Labour Party Marxists" which was one of their front organisations. Don't know if North London realise this.

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

You're never too old to start you know give it a try this Sunday.

Meet you up the road here after the meeting.

[ALB]

DJP wrote:

He's coming to the UK soon to debate with SPEW; we should try and nab him too.

Do we know when and where yet? This could be an interesting debate as, if they believe their own election promises (which of course in private they may not), SPEW should logically be defending the proposition that it is possible to redistribute income within capitalism so as to benefit the wage and salary working class,

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

Therefore, whilst we should rightly reappropriate the colour red we should also now appropriate the colour black…

We would have to do more than just dilute the red flag by adding black to it to get a stall at the Anarchist Bookfair. We'd have to abandon Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of our declaration of principles. I don't think so.

[ALB]

Just ordered a review copy of his latest book Can Income Redistribution Rescue Capitalism? Obviously not. but that's not going to stop trade unions and assorted leftists from propagating the myth that it can and futilely campaigning for this. More details here:http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/philosophy-organization/sept-16-discusion-new-mhi-pamphlet-on-monthly-review-school.html

[ALB]

Why not take it a stage further:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10305258/Arise-Sir-Baldrick-Tony-Robinson-knighted-in-Queens-Birthday-Honours-CBE-for-Blackadder-Rowan-Atkinson.htmlAnyway, looking forward to seeing you at the meeting on Sunday.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

That is beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't see why it is. If you just denounce "peak oil" and leave it at that you could be taken for a Jeremiah (as Cameron has just called Vince Cable) or a mere doomster. Which I take it you aren't.I would say that, even assuming you are right, the only framework within which the problem could be solved would be one where all the resources, natural and industrial, of the world have become the common heritage of all the world's population. Only on that basis can a rational policy be implemented to deal with global warming and peak oil.If you believe that a solution can be found within the present world capitalist system then you would in fact be prolonging the problem and allowing it to get worse.

[Author]

Posts