DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A nice selection of most of the juicy bits of Marx is in Karl Marx: Selected Writings edited by David McLellan.There's a compilation of Engels writings edited by W.O Henderson and published by Pelican, but this has been out of print for a long time.
In present day society marriage is largely a property relation. Socialism is the abolition of private property and so therefore the abolition of marriage in this sense.However in a socialist or communist society (both are the same thing) I can see no reason why some people, of whatever sexual persuasion, may choose to make public vows of commitment to each other. This can be done without the overtones of religion and ownership.Socialists are not concerned with "the good of the nation", we are concerned with the good of the working class as a whole (and ultimately the whole of humanity). Workers do not own any country.The concern of socialists is to propagate socialism, nothing more and nothing less.
No leaders (and no state and no nations) does not mean no organisation.The Socialist Party of Great Britain has existed for 105 years without a leader and is a strong example that such a form of organisation is possible and resilient.Warlords, nations and gangs exist because of and as a way of preserving and expanding private property.Democratic control of the means of production means no private property. (This doen't mean no belongings) No private property means everyone has free access to the goods society produces. With society set up in such a fashion what is the need for warlords, nations and gangs?Here's another for the reading list:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1979/no-899-july-1979/world-without-money
Since competition between workers causes wages to fall and that this competition is heightened during periods of slump – there are more unemployed workers looking for work. I propose the following solution:A periodic cull of the unemployed.This simple and effective remedy will help to raise the price of labour power since wage workers will now be in shorter supply and the competition between capitalists to hire these workers will result in them attempting to outbid each other on the labour market.Of course I jest but this is our friends argument taken to it's most extreme.What the socialist party proposes instead is the abolition of the social and economic conditions that make unemployment and low wages a problem in the first place.Our position is outside what may be encountered in banal day to day conversation and may appear somewhat bewildering at first to those who have not encountered it before.Here's a couple of pamphlets which are hopefully a good introduction to our position, as is the FAQ section of this website.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-livehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativeThese can also be bought cheaply from our online store.If you really are serious about socialism you would do well to read them…
LBird as far as I can work out the only thing we are disagreeing with is your adherence to a cultural relativist definition of 'truth'.I have no disagreement with the quotes from Deitzgen and Pannekoek that you have been posting, though you seem to reading them through the prism of cultural relativism. After all theories do colour how we observe the world…I too share an interest in philosophy of science and epistemology (theory of knowledge), but whilst you are in favour of applying the standards of cultural relativism to science I am not.What I would like to know is why or how you think relativism is the communist position? Can you not see the anti-communist tenancy in this position, it would seem to render the project of historical materialism useless since one needs to clearly distinguish between truth and fictions…I'll try and give a better reply to some points raised later..
LBird wrote:Truth is an attribute of ‘knowledge’, not the ‘object’.Is false 'knowledge' actually 'knowledge' at all? An 'object' does not have a truth value in and of itself, only propositions about an object can have a truth value.
Quote:Truth thus is a social product and has a history.Certainly the development of knowledge is a social product and has a history. Not sure you can really say the same about 'truth'
Quote:Hence, ‘truth’ can be wrong, and can be shown to be wrong by a re-examination of the object by social subject.The truth of theories is proved or disproved by refering to the external world (the object). Theories can be wrong, but can 'true' be false? The proof is in the eating.It seems to me that the only sensible use of the word 'truth' is to mean 'in accord with reality'. I've looked through Pannekoek again and he seems to be using the word in this sense.
ALB wrote: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.I have a copy of the article from Radical Philosophy. If anyone's interested private message me.
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
LBird wrote:Providing links to sites of scientists influenced by the bourgeois myth is not enough. We need to be clear that ‘science’ is political, and seek to really understand what ‘science actually is’, for the proletariat. It needs discussion. There are philosophical and political ideologies involved.If we are going to have another discussion about science (which would be a good thing). I really think it should be done in a dedicated thread. So if you wish, please start one.
LBird wrote:Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truthsWell, yes. But not to be confused with THE Truth, which we can only get at by testing theories against reality…"Scientific truths are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through observation."http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s6.htm
LBird wrote:I regard 'science' as a central bastion of bourgeois authorityWhy then is there so much scientific research that undermines many claims that have previously been used to justify the capitalist system? For example the findings of behavioural economics have shown the central claims of neo-classical economics to be false.And what political implications are there to be found in physics, astronomy and geology?Do you think in socialism the philosophers should also be removed from being 'in charge' of philosophy? Surely they would have as much, if not more, opportunity for creating mischief.In fact perhaps we should remove all 'control' from all of those undertaking tasks that require specialist training, lest they set up a special clique and try and take over the world?
Bertrand Russell wrote:The concept of 'truth' as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control has been one of the ways in which philosophy hithero has inculcated the necessary element of humility. When this check upon pride is removed, a further step is taken on the road towards a certain kind of madness – the intoxication of power which invaded philosophy with Fichte, and to which modern men, whether philosophers or not, are prone. I am persuaded that this intoxication is the greatest danger of our time, and that any philosophy which, however unintentionally , contributes to it is increasing the danger of a vast social disasterLBird wrote:My mistake, I've made a gross error, if the SPGB look to Engels' (and Plekhanov, Kautsky and Lenin's) philosophical views of 'materialism'.You're mistaken if you think there is some kind of homogenous 'party line' on this matter, you're also mistaken if you think all the contributors to this thread are SPGB members.But I would like to know where or how specifically you think Anti-Duhring is antithetical to Lenin as Philosopher.
LBird wrote:‘mathematics’ is a social construct. I can show that ‘2+2=11’, in base 3. Further, if we change the meanings of the symbols ‘2’ and ‘5’, then ‘2+2=5’ would be ‘true’.Lewis Carol wrote:“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”Is Lbird trying to make the same point as Humpty Dumpty?
