DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What occurs to me is that throughout this exchange no-one has defined what they mean by 'science'.Borrowing from Sokal and Bricmont I can come up with 4 definitions:1. An intellectual endeavor aimed at a rational understanding of the world2. A collection of accepted theoretical and experimental ideas3. A social community with particular mores, institutions and and links to the larger society4. Applied science and technologyAny meaningful discussion about communism and science would have to distinguish between these and make sure the meaning doesn't slip during the debate.Also I'd like to repeat my question to LBird. Do you see the enlightenment as playing a deciding factor in the rise of capitalism? It would be interesting to know as this may help us get to the heart of the matter…
LBird wrote:But the logic of this position is that 'scientific knowledge' has a human component. Thus, humans not being infallible, that 'scientific knowledge' can be wrong. If this logic is accepted, then we can see that what's 'true' for one set of humans (due to social and historical conditions) can be 'untrue' for another set.Non-sequitur. Your making a jump from 'knowledge' to truth. It has never been true for anyone that the sun revolves around the earth. The majority may have thought it at one point, but this is not how truth is tested.
Quote:We can now explain why we should not regard 'science' as producing 'objective truth', which helps undermine the notion of 'scientific authority', which is used by the bourgeoisie as a central pillar of their ideological control of society, a bit like 'the market', There Is No Alternative (TINA) to following their experts.Now you'll have to explain how the scientific method is a central pillar of capitalist control. Why does science produce evidence that is favourable to socialists?Should we not be concerned with empirical evidence?Do you think astrology has the same validity as astronomy?Do you think that the origins of capitalism are tied up with the enlightenment?
Actually I like the introduction to the Grundrisse this would make a good general introduction to the rest of Marx's workhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
Users that can edit pages on the website, including forum posts are: DJP, Admin, Pfbcarlisle and Gnome.All users can also edit there own posts should they need to.
A nice and short but sweet podcast with some general background stuff from the rather good philosophy bites website:http://philosophybites.com/2009/01/david-papineau-on-scientific-realism.htmlNote I'm posting this because I think people will find it interesting not because I generally agree or disagree with it..
wiscalatus wrote:Human nature is inherently selfish, so this trait will re-assert without government regulation and control.It's funny how predicable responses from people who are not familar with socialism are…"Human nature is inherently selfish", now is that a fact or an assertion? Do you think you are inherently selfish? If people sometimes behave in a selfish way, what is the cause of that behaviour? You cannot deny that people also sometimes behave altruistically, so why is not "altruism" also an inherent part of human nature?I'm answering with questions because this is something that you yourself need to think about..There's hundreds of articles dealing with this topic on here. Here's a few:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/subject/human-nature
wiscalatus wrote:No one has yet answered my other questions: namely – why is there so much more unemployment now, and why should I now be out of work because someone else is prepared to do it for one third of the wage?Why are people employed in the first place? Only because someone can make a profit can be made from employing them. When there is a lack of profitable avenues, as is the situation now, workers are laid off since there is no money to be made from employing them.You would do better to look at systemic causes rather than blaming those who have been made desperate enough to work for low wages…
There is nothing to rule out none internet committee members from becoming moderators or assisting the moderator should such assistance be required.Gnome has extended permissions on his account as he maintains the events section of the site.Other users of the website that perform tasks such as uploading articles etc will also have more knobs and buttons at their disposal.The only moderator at present is myself, not that there has been much moderation to be done…
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.
