[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

Are you asking me about my personal opinions, or about scientific methodology?If no-one here wants to read, think about and discuss 'science', and just fall back onto 'common sense' and 'what folk believe', that's OK by me. I'll leave it alone.

I don't know why you are so touchy about this. I was trying to make a general philosophical point about your "theory of truth" and to tease out how you distinguish between a "true" and a "wrong" statement.

LBird wrote:

After being recommended  Assiter's article by you, ALB, and having posted some thoughts on it, I'm not sure why you haven't started to discuss the article.

Because I've not yet re-read the article and was out all day yesterday helping to run a Socialist Party literature stall. But I will contribute something later on the SPGB Education Bulletin I mentioned.PS. I hope that quoting that Anderton bloke doesn't mean you believe in UFOs. Please tell us that you don't and that this was just an unintended own goal.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i fully expect the BBC and the yellow press not to seek contrary opinions to the prevailing war-mongering.

This is an exaggeration. The BBC has been regularly interviewing Tory MPs who are opposed to British intervention in the Syrian civil war. Two in particular are John Baron and Adam Holloway. Both have a military background and could well be unofficial spokespersons for a section of the military establishment that is opposed to intervention (though in the end the military will do what the government tells them). But the ruling class seem to be split on this one.Just listened to Holloway on Radio 4. Here's some of what what he said (he was actually more forcefully anti-intervention):

Quote:

Conservative MP Adam Holloway said Parliament must be consulted but he doubted whether MPs would sanction any military action, since intervention was not in the UK's national security interest and would be "pure foolishness".

It appears that a "No" vote in parliament would be much more effective than any anti-war march. Which, after all, is what we'd expect, isn't it?.(Of course this should be a separate thread)

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP is wrong

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

[ALB]

It's the SWP. The bit about the "revolutionary party" is a bit of a give away.

[ALB]

What is the name of this "UFO science" person?

[ALB]

What I do when this happens (sometimes when pasting a text typed somewhere else) is click "Disable rich-text" and insert </p><p> where you want the line break(s).Then press Preview" to see if it has worked.Just has for me.

[ALB]

User555net wrote:

Christianity persuades people that women are inferior, science is a hoax, gays are sinful and the bible is the law.

Which part of the world are you from? Over here in England most Christians don't believe these things but have adapted to the secular society and its values that surround them and don't think women are inferior (women bishops are coming soon), accept science (including Darwin and evolution), don't think gays are sinful (there are even openly gay clergymen) or that the bible is the law.  Only a few fundamentalist sects believe these things and nobody takes them seriously. In other words, over here, the battle against fundamentalist christianity has been won.Modernised christianity still preaches fairy tales about a man called Jesus who is supposed to have existed 2000 years ago in Palestine and who died and then came alive again, etc, etc and they still preach that the world we live in is not the only one but that when we die, if we've been good, we'll move on to a better one and that trying to get there is the aim of life.. This view still has to combatted. And we do. Our position on religion in general can be summed up as follows:

Quote:

The Socialist Party takes a non-theistic, materialist approach to things, in particular to society and social change. Religious people believe in the existence of at least one supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs. Socialists hold that we only live once. Religious people believe in some afterlife. Clearly, the two approaches are simply incompatible.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Before continuing it may be worth giving these a (re)listenhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/marxism-sciencehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/dietzgen-and-dialectical-thought

Has the party transcribed these, DJP? They'll be easier to print off, read and comment on, rather than listen to.

ALB wrote:

This article (pp. 153-5) has something about Pannekoek, science and politics:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2013-0222-200753/10.1007_s00016&#8230;

This link doesn't seem to work for me, ALB.

I don't know why. It works for me. Try this.I don't think these talks have been transcribed. Incidentally, the first on "Is Marxism A Science?", dating from May 1979, by "Alison Waters" was given by the now prominent feminist theorist Alison Assiter who was then a member of the SPGB. About the same time she wrote an article in Radical Philosophy 23 (Winter 1979) on "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History" which may have put the same view as expressed in the talk.  As far as I know, she is still a realist/materialist and opponent of postmodernism and cultural relativism.There is also an SPGB Education Bulletin from the same period (March 1980) on "Science and the Socialist" but this only exists in paper form. It ends up with a series of questions for discussion, one of which is:

Quote:

Hitherto the party has assumed that the solidity of scientific knowledge stemmed from the adequacy with which it reflected the world. How different is that from the view of this bulletin, that society and its social mechanisms supply the solidity to knowledge?

But also:

Quote:

In that none of this makes any material alteration to the party's case necessary, is it of any relevance to socialists?

 

[ALB]

Don't forget either what happened to the "United Left Alliance" in Ireland. They actually got 5 TDs (MPs) elected but then it all fell apart:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Left_AllianceI realise that this is why at their first meeting Left Unity voted to be an individual membership organisation not an alliance of existing organisations. We will see if this will make any difference. One thing it will mean is that the SWP, SPEW, TUSC, etc will see it as a rival (even if they don't say so openly).

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Do you have any quotes from Pannekoek that confirm his alleged 'strict separation' of science and politics, ALB? I'm going to have a root around myself.

No. I read his History of Astronomy years ago (but don't think he wrote anything there about the Sun going round the Earth until 250 years ago). I think you'll have to get in touch with the University of Utrecht and C.K. Tai.This article (pp. 153-5) has something about Pannekoek, science and politics:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2013-0222-200753/10.1007_s00016-012-0084-y.pdfThe author says:

Quote:

Pannekoek was both a prominent astronomer and a prominent theorist of socialism, and he insisted that the two parts of his intellectual persona were strictly separate. In astronomy he was known, for example, for his work on the detailed structure of the Milky Way; as a socialist, he stood to the left of Troelstra’s SDAP.

But of course Pannekoek could just have said this to get a job (which would have been fair enough, even if it didn't work). But saying his "intellectual persona" was separated is not the same as saying that science and politics were.Amusing, though, that Einstein was mistaken as a Communist because someone else with the same name was.

[ALB]

But, Julian, you don't have to be Nostradamus to know what's going to happen on 30 November. From the discussions on the Left Unity site it is clear that the Left Party Platform is going to be accepted, with the result that a wishy-washy Left reformist party is going to be established with similar aims and policies to the Green Party. A second Green Party  if you like (but with Trotskyists in it).  And what's the point of that?I agree, though, that in the run-up to this decision there is a heightened opportunity to discuss socialist ideas with other critics of society.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s6.htm

Must be a Communist site I haven't come across!

I'm not sure but Anton Pannekoek might be on it somewhere:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2013-0606-200612/UUindex.htmlI was wondering too what the "science policy" of the proposed new party was going to be, probably opposition to GM crops and support for so-called "alternative" (quack) medicine.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

Finally, in order to see socialism as "the answer," we need to understand the points that I've raised concerning peak oil and argue that they are true. Otherwise, one will end up ironically repeating what capitalists say: that global warming is either a hoax or a non-issue because it will be mitigated easily, that peak oil is a hoax because there is lots of oil still available or a non-issue because in case there isn't enough oil we can find alternatives easily, and that anyone who insists otherwise is nothing more than a doomsayer.

Yes, I agree that is the danger/dilemma but perhaps there's a middle way. Global warming is neither a hoax nor a non-issue (not that all capitalists do argue this; it's that, because of profit considerations and vested interests, they can't agree on what to do and so are not doing much effective about it). Personally, I'm not so convinced about peak oil, but others here might disagree.Anyway, supposing that you are right about peak oil, what do you see as "the answer"?

[ALB]

Someone has just drawn attention on our other forum to this letter that appeared in the Guardian a week or so ago (I'm neither a Guardian reader nor a Guardian-reader):http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/12/left-unity-alternative

Quote:

We urgently need a new party of the left. Labour will not provide the opposition to coalition policies that the situation demands. We need to provide a genuine alternative to the austerity policies which the three main parties support. A party that is socialist, environmentalist, feminist and opposed to all forms of discrimination.Since we launched our appeal in March to discuss founding such a party, more than 9,000 people have signed up and more than 100 local groups have been established across the country. As Left Unity moves towards its founding conference on 30 November at the Royal National hotel in London, we call on all those who are sick of austerity and war, who want to defend the NHS and our public services, and want to see a fairer Britain, to join us.Gilbert Achcar, Jean Alain Roussel, Alan Gibbons, Zita Holbourne, Kate Hudson, Roger Lloyd Pack, Ken Loach, China Miéville, Michael Rosen

Come on, Stuart, what is this alternative to austerity under capitalism? What is this "fairer" capitalist Britain?

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LU have invited people to have their say at the founding conference on the 30th Nov where you require to register and be a founding member of Left Unity. Will the EC if prepared to issue an open letter to LU also be asked to authorise a member or members to attend and make known the party view. I am assuming since the party is not yet a formal political party an SPGB member can join it to make a contribution…then once it is formally declared a political party rather than an exploratory collection of individuals and existing parties at the conference, be the first to resignI would suggest that it is an opportunity to address an audience on our socialist principles and our own democratic structure but hopefully not with a long harangue. 

We can't do that, if only because Stuart would sneer at us even more!Actually, we probably won't need to as, if they are logical, the supporters of the "Socialist Platform" will be putting a similar argument. Here's one of the signatories, Nick Wrack:

Quote:

Solidarity: Many people make that vagueness a virtue. They argue that it will help to garner wide electoral support from everyone to the left of the Labour Party, and that the Socialist Platform would narrow it down.NW: Our aim should be to make socialist ideas popular, not to become popular by hiding them. The view that’s shared by the platform signatories is that popularity based on appearing as all things to all people is not worth having. You’re building on sand.I believe that socialist ideas, explained patiently, are inspirational, and the socialist left has forgotten how to inspire people. One of the consequences of socialist ideas being in retreat in society is that even a section of the socialists themselves have become reluctant to argue openly for socialist ideas and socialist change. They think that, if you water your ideas down, you might get electoral support.We’d prefer to play a longer game. This is not an overnight get-rich-quick exercise. We want to take socialist ideas into working-class communities and give them roots so they last. We don’t want an ephemeral, here-today-gone-tomorrow success.

And from 6 others (7 including Wrack):

Quote:

Any government that aims to manage capitalism, rather than dismantling it and restructuring society with production for need, not profit, will inevitably be forced by the logic of the market and the workings of the system to act in the interests of the capitalist class. If a government wants capitalism to work better, it will be forced by the economic basis of the system to do whatever is necessary to make it work better. That means implementing policies that promote investment and maximising profits: in other words, low taxes, minimum regulation, low wages, privatisation and so on. This is the reason that the social democratic parties across the world, like the Labour Party, Pasok in Greece or PSOE in Spain, support austerity policies. Because they cannot contemplate a break with capitalism, they are compelled to act in its interests.Capitalism cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority. That is not how it functions. Big business will always find ways to flout or ignore regulation. Even if regulation succeeds, which it never can fully, the basic exploitative relationship between capital and labour remains – the capitalist makes his/her profit out of the unpaid labour of the workers s/he employs.

Mind you, we probably would have to there to draw the conclusion from:

Quote:

Capitalism cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority.

that, then why try to make it work that way? Why campaign to get the government to do this?Actually, the debate on 30 November promises to be fascinating (even if the result is a foregone conclusion: victory for the opportunists). I'm going to try to be there.

[Author]

Posts