ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TM, you want to discuss “types of materialism” and we are getting nearer to identifying the two main types.
One says that the universe is made up of discrete, separate things that exist on their own and is “built up” of them. (You call these “atoms” but it is not clear why you don’t call them “sub-atomic particles”.)
The other says that the universe is the only thing that exists and as a whole and is broken down by the human mind into parts that are named (for instance, “atoms”) but don’t exist independently in that they are inseparable and interconnected parts of a single whole.
The first is generally called “mechanical materialism”; the second “dialectical materialism”.
Incidentally, I wasn’t calling your view “meta-physics”. It applies to both views in that they are theories of what “reality” is rather than a study of particular parts of it. But as I said I don’t like the word because of its association with pre-scientific philosophers who speculated about the world.
I think you are missing the point, as DJP has been trying to explain. Atoms are not “the building blocks of matter”. They are concepts and terms used by scientists to describe a part of the universe that they are studying and explaining. To add to the confusion so is “matter” in some contexts.
Arguments about the best way to describe what is observed are not the same as arguments about the nature of “reality” and “existence” (or “matter” in a different sense). Most scientists are not interested in such “philosophical” arguments and in practice don’t need to be, even if this could help them understand what they are doing (ie, describing reality not discovering it).
On the other hand, we here love such philosophical arguments. Anybody can take part in them without needing to be a physicist or practical scientist or even understand the arguments amongst them. How can any of us presume to judge whether or not “dark matter” or “quarks” or whatever are an adequate or useful description/explanation of what scientists have observed?
I don’t like the word but what we are talking about is “meta-physics” rather than physics.
It’s a question of definition, even a tautology. What is meant by “exists”?Whatever exists is “matter”.
I’d say that only one thing “exists” and that the whole universe as a whole. Don’t fancy being called a “vacuist”, though. That seems a bit medieval like the whole debate.
There is also this for the town and transport planners of the future to consider:
https://amp.dw.com/en/european-towns-remove-traffic-signs-to-make-streets-safer/a-2143663
In the London borough where I live the local council have introduced this. Before they did they carried out a consultation, which showed more were against than for (“opinion was split among the nearly 10,000 respondents on whether to implement our 20mph proposal in its original form (47.9 per cent in favour and 49.7 per cent against)”. They still went ahead. I can’t see that happening in socialism.
DJP, here’s another contribution to the debate by one of the Party’s legal eagles. Ronnie Warrington (then still a member) mentioning the concept of a classless non-legal social order:
https://legalform.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/warrington-standing-pashukanis-on-his-head.pdf
The whole question of law was discussed in the Party in the early 1990s and here is the resolution on the subject carried by Conference in 1991
“That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word “law” means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.” (Carried 87-30) (1991).
This motion had been proposed in otder to clarify the position following the rejection of the following motion proposed by Pieter Lawrence’s branch in 1990 and rejected by 113 votes against and 28 votes for.
“That concerning democratic organisation in socialism it is anticipated that most behaviour will be self-regulated on the basis of individual responsibility. This Conference also affirms that any problem caused by individuals or groups acting against majority decisions or engaging in other anti-social conduct will be dealt with through appropriate institutions, which may be adapted from existing legal bodies such as courts, and which would act from a basis of democratically-decided rules, regulations or laws. In view of the possible misleading impression that socialism will allow individuals or groups to act in an anti-social manner, on no account should any of our arguments imply that no formal system of accountability will exist, or that force, in the form of public powers of coercion will never be used; nor should it be suggested that ‘moral persuasion’ would be sufficient in all cases, or that arbitrary, unauthorised responses would be tolerated” (Lost 28-113) (1990).
Pieter Lawrence vowed to fight, fight and fight again against the 1991 resolution and for a number of years the branch he was in tried to get the Party to commit to the position oulined in the first part of their 1990 motion (the second part was accepted as read). To no avail. The 1991 resolution remains the Party’s position on the matter.
You could argue that it was a question of semantics. That members were agreed that there would be rules and regulations (and bodies to decide if they had been infringed) in a socialist society but were arguing over what to call them.
ps. I am afraid BD you are going to be a bit disappointed with his pamphlet on Law as it’s not up to his usual standard. Take this for instance:
“The assertion that in socialism there will be no law and therefore no courts and no civic powers of restraint can only be taken to mean that the rapist will not be called to account for his actions before the community but will remain free to carry on.”
Of course it means no such thing. The 1991 resolution clearly states that “rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society.” It just says that they shouldn’t be called “laws” and “law courts”.
Incidentally, “Gary Jay” who wrote the article Pieter criticised was, under his real name if Gary Slapper, a legal academic who wrote many textbooks and articles on law. See his obituary here:
You are right. Gore did win that election but chose not to pursue the matter further before the US Supreme Court because he knew there was a majority of his political opponents on it. Another example of the “democratic deficit” in the US. The only good thing about the US constitution is that it enshrines the right to “free speech” probably more than any other state.
This story illustrates two things:
First, just how corrupt the Ukraine regime still is after 18 months of being propped up by NATO.
Second, that there are quite a few men in Ukraine who don’t swallow the crap about needing to die for the motherland and want to avoid being cannon fodder for those ruling Ukraine. Good luck to them.
No. Just because the courts are used against political opponents doesn’t mean that the charges are simply invented. Prosecutors need to find something to go on and generally can. They would be stupid to mount a case against someone unless they had some evidence that could seem credible to a jury or judge.
My point was that recourse to the law, rather than an appeal to voters, to deal with opponents was a new step in US politics, a further widening of the already wide “democratic deficit” there.
Nothing to do with conspiracy theories, only evidence of a deterioration of political democracy in the US.
”The new trend is to remove political opponents thru the legal system.”
Seems to have spread to North America too.
“ unless of course you believe that the judicial system in the US is utterly corrupt”
An item for the dossier:
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/10/1193162713/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-disclosure
The “ban” (or, rather, discouragement) only applies to new poems offered by Party members, not of course to the classics, Shelley, DH Lawrence, etc whose poems have been quoted from time to time.
For instance:
What was wrong with OZ?
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/56737/swindling-the-muse
But I agree. No poetry please. We have a ban on it in the Socialist Standard as every time we have published a poem, lots of budding McGonagles sent in theirs.
