[ALB]

In case people couldn't read all the way through what he wrote, here's how, towards the end, he re-states his basic premise:

Hrothgar wrote:

What I am suggesting is that, first, if humanity is to go down a mixed-racial route of development and, in effect, devolve its racial types, this could be both socially- and developmentally- damaging.  Whites and Far East Asians are civilisationally superior, reflecting a higher mean average intelligence than other races. 

Hrothgar wrote:

if whites mix with other races, this will lower the average intelligence level in European societies,

[ALB]

To show that TUSC can sometimes do as well as us in council by-elections, see this:http://democratic.lincoln.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=1&RPID=28039

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh what an evil man Ralph Miliband was:

I think that, if he was still around, he'd be a supporter of the Left Unity project as before he died he'd already seen through the Labour Party.And, if you read the Daily Wail allegations against him, what he hated was not Britain but "Tory Britain" with all its archaic "class" privileges, a view shared by millions of Labour and other voters (and whose abolition would make no difference to capitalism). After all, it was a Labour politician Nye Bevan who once described the Tories as "lower than vermin", since toned down to "the nasty party". But, then, that's what the Daily Wail likes about them.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

If I explain it in terms of my 'NHS Computer System', an analogy with which you're familiar.The system is a 'true' representation of the NHS for the purposes for which humans created it.But it's clearly not the whole 'truth' of the NHS, because the NHS consists of innumerable 'facts', the vast majority of which are meaningless for human purposes.But another set of humans could write another system, which focussed on different aspects of the NHS, a second system which we would also regard as 'true', but which is different from the first 'truth'.

But wouldn't this just be knowledge about a different part of NHS (standing for the world of reality)? Why would it have to conflict with the first, different knowledge about a different part?

LBird wrote:

So, the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge has to be related to the humans who constructed the 'knowledge', and 'why', and 'how', and a later better theorised and executed process could produce another true representation which is then considered by humans to be better for their new purposes, and thus succeeds and replaces an earlier truth.[emphasis added]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere ! "Better for their new purposes" (or even for their old purposes?). But what purpose? It would have to be something like "surviving better"? In which case, it would fall into the category of "instrumentalism" or "pragmatism" (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that).And wouldn't you have to say more than "humans" and say something like "human society" to avoid any arbitrary group of humans with some arbitrary purpose creating their own "truths"? Which raises the question of who, in the scheme, is the subject: any group, a class, society as a whole?

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Lots of leftcoms run stalls and meetings there, on the technicality that they say they are not a party.

Not yet … and, hopefully, never !

[ALB]

I don't think they'll ever let us have a stall and it's a bit undignified and even unprincipled for us to keep begging them. Better to simply set up a stall outside as we do at other such events organised by other opponents such as the SWP's "Marxism".  Over to the campaigns committee, then.

[ALB]

It appears(though not sure how reliable this source is, but it was also reported in the papers yesterday) that the rebels in Syria are now just rival brands of fanatical Islamists striving to impose their brutal rule on the people of Syria, particularly on women (Saudi Arabia is financing and arming one of these gangs) and minorities:http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-the-army-of-islam-saudi-arabias-greatest-export/5352638Talk about out of the frying pan into the fire.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

So, to return to ALB’s essential question:

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Given my beliefs as a Communist and following the outlined theory of cognition of science, I’d argue that the only ‘criteria’ which can ever be acceptable for humans are those arrived at by the society that is doing the human social activity of science. The current ‘criteria’ of the bourgeoisie won’t be the future ‘criteria’ of the proletariat.

But what would you say are the current criteria by which capitalist society distinguishes between "knowledge" and fantasy or a wrong/inaccurate/inadequate theory?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is a separate entity to ‘object’?

Yes (not sure about the word "entity", though). It can't be the same, if only because the "object", the passing world of ever-changing phenomena, is the whole universe of observable phenomena. "Knowledge" can only concern a selected part of it. But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge"  or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

LBird wrote:

Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is ‘produced’, rather than is an identical copy?

Yes. Everyone does these days, don't they? I don't know if this is relevant but there's an obituary into today's Times of David Hubel, described as "Nobel prizewinning neurophysiologist who first showed how our brains translate the signals from our eyes to give us vision". It says that his and fellow researcher Torsten Wiesel's work in the 1960s and 70s

Quote:

consigned to oblivion the popular notion that the brain received images from the eyes like film projected onto a screen.

I'm afraid I haven't read Schaff and so am not in a position to comment on whether or not his view is the same as Pannekoek's.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Well, since from my very first post I've argued that the 'object' exists outside of, and precedes, the process of cognition, your triumphal point about my 'concession' (sic) isn't very productive for a discussion of 288 posts, is it?

Of course I never really thought that you were an idealist. It was just that some of your phrases such as "thinking precedes sensation" and "theory precedes practice" left this open to doubt.

LBird wrote:

What's being avoided is discussion of 'the process of cognition'.Why can't you describe your process of cognition, ALB?

No it's not. I thought this had been settled. Anyway, again, here it is (from Pannekoek's 1937 article on "Society and Mind in Marxian Philosophy"):

Quote:

The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. 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.The recurrence of nearly the same situation and the same experience leads to definite habits of action; these are accompanied by definite habits of thought. The frequent repetition of the same observed sequence of phenomena is retained in the mind and produces an expectation of the sequence. The rule that these phenomena are always connected in this way is then acted upon. But this rule – sometimes elevated to a law of nature – is a mental abstraction of a multitude of analogous phenomena, in which differences are neglected, and agreement emphasized. The names by which we denote definite similar parts of the world of phenomena indicate conceptions which likewise are formed by taking their common traits, the general character of the totality of these phenomena, and abstracting them from their differences. The endless diversity, the infinite plurality of all the unimportant, accidental traits, are neglected and the important, essential characteristics are preserved. Through their origin as habits of thought these concepts become fixed, crystallized, invariable; each advance in clarity of thinking consists in more exactly defining the concepts in terms of their properties, and in more exactly formulating the rules. The world of experience, however, is continually expanding and changing; our habits are disturbed and must be modified, and new concepts substituted for old ones. Meanings, definitions, scopes of concepts all shift and vary.[My emphasis]

[ALB]

Yes, the one on David Harvey promises to be interesting.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Positivism is the view that the only source of ideas and knowledge is experience.

I disagree with your definition of ‘positivism’, here, ALB. I think positivism goes further than ‘experience’, and claims that ‘experience’ provides ‘positive’ proof of ‘objective reality’. This claim can’t be true, because we know that science both makes mistakes and can only give a ‘partial truth’ of the ‘object’, at best.In its simplest form, it claims that the scientific method can’t be wrong. The twentieth century has put paid to that ideological claim!

As I said, I didn't want to get into argument about semantics, but I doubt that you will be able to bring forward someone calling themself a positivist who would hold the view you attribute above to positivism. To tell the truth, I don't understand what you mean by "'experience' provides 'positive' proof of 'objective reality'". If not, what does? Historically positivism arose as a criticism of the view that science discovers the world as it actually is and introduced the concept of partial, temporary truth.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

As someone once put it if not in so many words, sensations (or, rather, the outside world that gives rise to them in humans) have to precede thinking about them.

No, the ‘outside world’, or object, precedes ‘thinking’, but ‘sensations’ don’t necessarily. Have your ever ‘sensed’ Tasmania (or somewhere you haven’t been, if my example falls down by you actually having been to Tasmania!), or is just a theoretical construct in our minds, but which we can scientifically prove, if we wanted, by flying there? Theory precedes practice.

Actually, hearing and learning are "sensations" ! I think you using "sensations" to mean "facts". Anyway, you have conceded the point by saying that the outside world precedes thinking. Which makes you a materialist after all.

[ALB]

In the original smear article the Daily Wail hack referred to LSE professor and Labour politician Harold Laski who died in 1950, as Ralph Miliband's mentor, describing him as

Quote:

a giant of Labour's Left, whom some Tories considered to be a dangerous Marxist revolutionary.

Laski is now more or less forgotten, so here's an article from a back issue of the Socialist Standard on him:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1946/no-502-june-1946/professor-laski%E2%80%99s-secret

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

George Osborne attacked 'Marxism' the other day.

Quote:

…I share none of the pessimism I saw from the Leader of the Opposition last week.For him the global free market equates to a race to the bottom with the gains being shared among a smaller and smaller group of people.That is essentially the argument Karl Marx made in Das Kapital. It is what socialists have always believed

I missed that but have found it here.Here is what Marx said on free trade, not in Capital, but in a talk on the subject he gave in Brussels in 1848 to a meeting of bourgeois democrats:

Quote:

What influence will the adoption of free trade have upon the condition of the working class? All the laws formulated by the political economists from Quesnay to Ricardo have been based upon the hypothesis that the trammels which still interfere with commercial freedom have disappeared. These laws are confirmed in proportion as free trade is adopted. The first of these laws is that competition reduces the price of every commodity to the minimum cost of production. Thus the minimum of wages is the natural price of labor. And what is the minimum of wages? Just so much as is required for production of the articles indispensable for the maintenance of the worker, for putting him in a position to sustain himself, however badly, and to propagate his race, however slightly.But do not imagine that the worker receives only this minimum wage, and still less that he always receives it.No, according to this law, the working class will sometimes be more fortunate. It will sometimes receive something above the minimum, but this surplus will merely make up for the deficit which it will have received below the minimum in times of industrial stagnation. That is to say that, within a given time which recurs periodically, in the cycle which industry passes through while undergoing the vicissitudes of prosperity, overproduction, stagnation and crisis, when reckoning all that the working class will have had above and below necessaries, we shall see that, in all, it will have received neither more nor less than the minimum; i.e., the working class will have maintained itself as a class after enduring any amount of misery and misfortune, and after leaving many corpses upon the industrial battlefield. But what of that? The class will still exist; nay, more, it will have increased.

He concluded his talk:

Quote:

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

I don't see what this has to do with the Labour Party. Given what people can see the Labour Party is, I can't see the Tories getting away with labelling it as "Marxist". Everybody knows that's nonsense. Still it's good to see that Marx's ideas are still being discussed.

[Author]

Posts