DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Scientific knowledge is produced by humans and has the status of a ‘truth’. This ‘truth’ is not the same thing as the independently-existing object, of which some ‘knowledge’ has been actively constructed by humans. Thus, humans being fallible, a ‘truth’ (scientific knowledge) might be actually untrue. This can be revealed by other humans interrogating the same independently-existing object and actively constructing another ‘truth’ which is then judged by humans to be a more accurate (but still not final or complete) ‘truth’. Thus, ‘truth’ has a history. It is not ‘The Truth’.Since society creates ‘truths’, they are social truths. It is only a short step to realise that, in a class-divided society, ‘truth’ will have a class component, sometimes great, sometimes small. And judgements between ‘truths’ are social judgements. There is no universal ‘truth’ which a supposedly ‘value-free’ method can produce. Humans are not ‘value-free’.
If you want to use this definition of 'truth' then I would agree with the above. Though to avoid the confusion between 'truth' and 'The Truth', perhaps it would be clearer and better to talk of sceintific 'hypotheses' instead of scientific 'truths'?
Knowledge can only ever be partial. In some cases it would seem sensible to leave the decisions to those that have more knowledge about the particular issue. To think otherwise would, to me, seem to be falling for the "democratic fallacy". What you want is not a majority, but an informed majority – whatever the issue may be.The truth of the matter always exists independently of those that observe it.I don't really think it makes sense to talk about a "communist" science or a "bourgeois" science any more than it makes sense to talk of a "socialist" mathematics or a "capitalist" geology. All that would change with a change in the mode of production would be the direction in which scientific research and the application of technology is applied. The principle of skepticism and deductive reasoning etc remain the same. Does Pannekoek write about this stuff in Lenin as Philosopher?
Kliman et al. have made there paper critising Heinrich here:http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/the-unmaking-of-marxs-capital-heinrichs-attempt-to-eliminate-marxs-crisis-theory.html
According to people such as Marshall Sahlins, in his book Man the Hunter, people in hunter gatherer societies worked a lot less than do people in modern society.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society#.22Work_time.22_and_.22leisure_time.22Wondered if anyone one here has come across anything to counter or bolster this claim?May use it in passing in my talk on Saturday.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/robot-stole-my-job-employment-automation-and-profit-norwich-200pm
celticnachos wrote:I thought you were all anti-Trotsky, you do know that is permanent revolution?The Socialist Party of Great Britain has been around for a long time. Here's what was written in the August 1918 edition of the Socialist Standard
Quote:Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160,000,000 and spread over eight and a half millions of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the North, the struggling peasant proprietors of the South, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces, and the industrial wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity, and equipped with the knowledge requisite, for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life?Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place, or an economic change has occurred immensely more rapidly than history has recorded, the answer is “No!”And it is extremely significant that neither Trotsky nor Litvinoff say a single word on this aspect of the situation….The full article is here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-168-august-1918/revolution-russia-where-it-fails
Alex Woodrow wrote:So give me specific examples of raw materials which you can't find in a certain area which people need so that they can live.Well if you insist on being spoon-fed.To have any level of technological development you're going to need access to copper, if you have any knowledge of geology you will know that this is not evenly distributed throughout the Earths crust and can only be found in certain areas.But, if you want to take it down to the most basic level, how about flint for making arrow heads and tools? Again, flint only occurs in areas where the geological conditions are right, in this case it is formed in chalk deposits.So even at the most basic level of technology no single local area is ever going to be able to produce all the raw materials it requires, nature is not so kind.I think where you are going wrong is assuming global = hierarchical and local = egalitarian. This is a fallacy.
Alex, I think you should read these pamphlets, otherwise it seems to me we are talking at cross-purposes..Socialism As a Practicle Alternative:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternativeFrom Capitalism to Socialism:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-liveThe Alternative to Capitalism:http://libcom.org/library/alternative-capitalism
Alex Woodrow wrote:DJP, may I ask, where across the globe are raw materials needed to produce goods and facilities not available?In terms of being primitive, I do like nature and the environement because it is great for the world and looks beautiful. So maybe I am some kind of primitivist.If you think your local area can source all the raw materials that are necessary to build for example a modern hospital or an internet terminal or any of the other complicated goods that are necessary for the production of abundance you are surely deluded.If you think that it would be desirable to live in a society without such things I would strongly disagree.
Alex Woodrow wrote:May I ask though how do you know that some local communities can't be "self-sufficient"? Do you have any evidence for this?The simple fact is that the raws materials needed to produce the goods and facilities needed to sustain a society with a decent level of health care etc are not available everywhere across the globe.Are you some kind of primitivist?
ALB wrote:Kliman's argument is that labour's share has not gone down, so a reduced working class consumption cannot be an explanation for the crisis.If I remember right Kliman's research does show a decline in wages, but only after the crisis. Just to be clear…
celticnachos wrote:I have a question. Even if you do think material conditions for world socialism exist now, how are you sure that the revolution will be successful?The ONLY way that a socialist / communist revolution (for a moneyless, wageless and stateless global society) is if the vast majority of the population understands what this entails and is willing to put it into practice. This is because a socialist system will require the conscious and free co-operation of all those who operate it.The masses cannot be coerced by a "socialist" vanguard party into accepting socialism, all that such a party can do (until it has grown to a majority) is propagate the case for socialism to speed up the revolutionary process.We do advocate the capture of the state, via democratic methods. Not so that a minority vanguard can declare socialism by decree, but so that the destrctive actions of any remaining pro-capitalist elements can be dealt with in as peaceably a manor as possible.It is not the absence or presence of a vanguard party that is the crucial element, but mass socialist consciousness that is the deciding factor (alongside the development of productive forces, which have already been developed to an adequate level) The potential of the Russian revolution failed on both these counts, there was no mass movement for socialism (as defined above) and the productive forces where in a state of underdevelopment.
Hi celticnachos, it's time to kill your idols!Read this account of the Kronstadt Commune, written at the time: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mett/1938/kronstadt.htmAnd this demolition of romantic visions of Lenins period of rule:http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/The Russian Revolution was a capitalist revolution from the start, it could not have been anything else.
The Socialist Standard has for a long time argued against underconsumptionist theories of crisis.Andrew Kliman's book on the great recession The Failure of Capitalist Production is well worth a read, as is his earlier Reclaiming Marx's Capital
All this JFK stuff seems pretty well debunked here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htmIt shouldn't be needed to be pointed out but the Oliver Stone film is a work of fiction and has little bearing on the true facts…
