DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:DJP I don’t think over production should be likened to a car accident.
You’re misunderstanding me. I wasn’t saying that crises are like car crashes but using it as an illustration of what a tautology is.
robbo203 wrote:I don’t think “anarchy of production” per se is the ultimate cause of crises. After all, unless you are an advocate of society-wide central planning in which the totality of inputs and outputs are consciously coordinated in an apriori sense within a single vast plan – an absurd idea – then socialism too will be based too an an extent on an “anarchic”, self regulating or spontaneously ordered system of production involving the mutual adjustment of a multitude of plans to each other. Actually , there is no other way in which a large scale complex system of production can be run..Nice point Robin. I guess you should the proviso ‘profit motive’ should be added to avoid this possible confusion.
ALB wrote:I can’t believe that any of these believe in the Parecon blueprint for an ideal society. It looks as if they’ve signed up to something without checking first.What do you think Stuart? Ask David Graeber?I wouldn’t be that surprised! They must know what Parecon is
If time permits me I would like to contribute properly to this debate.But in the meantime:http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
stuartw2112 wrote:I’m not convinced the debate has any value. A word can mean whatever you want it to mean. Meanings can only be fixed on provisionally by groups of people who want to talk to each other and be confident they are understood.Sensible stuff..
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:As I said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class…yet you have previously said
Rosa Lichenstein wrote:..I explain what I do mean, and why all philosophical theories are non-sensical, at the link I posted earlier.Here it is again:http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?788-Why-all-Philosophical-Theories-are-Non-SensicalSo explain how you can say the above without being ‘non-sensical’. Why bother quoting Marx now you’ve proved that all philosophical theories are non-sensical? Seems to me there’s a bit of inconsistency going on here, but then I suppose that is necessary for one to be a Leninist.I’ve read the article by the way, there’s a simple equivocation error in the middle of your argument. Can you spot it?
alanjjohnstone wrote:(Explanation : Hegel and Marx use a logical procedure called dialectics to seek
answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions.In all seriousness though the Marxian dialectic has less to do with seeking “answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions” and more to do with how the whole relates to its parts.Hegelian dialectics and Marxian dialectics are different beasts and those who say that you have to read Hegel to understand Marx are probably only demonstrating that they’ve been duped by Lenin.
It seems to me you are not using the word ‘socialism’ to refer to the same thing as the socialist party does. If you were the answer to your question would be self evident.
‘Dialectical-Materialism’ of the kind that used to be spread by the ‘communist’ parties is a sham and a fraud, its no wonder people are suspicious of it.The same can be said for Rosa Lichenstein and her crusade.If you want to know about dialectics read Dietzgen, it’s a shame he has pretty much dropped off the radar.As a review in the October 1998 Standard put it “dialectics means that, in analyzing the world and society, you start from the basis that nothing has an independent, separate existence of its own but is an inter-related and interdependent part of some greater whole (ultimately the whole universe) which is in a process of constant change.”This holistic view has pretty much been incorporated into mainstream science these days, so nothing particularly controversial there.The controversial aspect is the notion of ‘contradiction’ There’s a review of Pannekoek’s ‘Lenin as Philosopher’ which deals with this here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1187-july-2003/book-reviewsSo there is something in what Lichenstein is saying but she just gets lost in long and boring rants and hasn’t really studying her subject well enough.
‘Direct Action’ is such a broad and all encompassing term it seems a folly to declare oneselve either in support or opposition to it.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Is there a difference between not opposing a reform and supporting it?I would have thought supporting something would require something more pro-active than ‘not-opposing’ it.Individual reforms have to be judged on there own merit, it’s pure silliness to think anything else.I’ll let someone who was there at the time answer the Poland question but it should be remembered that the trade union leaders that led the solidarity movement only went on to be the administrators of the capitalist state.The ultimate and only way we can really ‘support’ the working class is by pointing out that the only way to end the endless treadmill of the class-struggle is to abolish the class society.
Brian wrote:All formulations are mechanistic by default.I thought you where going to say “comes from” implies “can only be one way”. In Roslyn Bologh’s text it says “grounded in” this is probably less open to misinterpretation but a bit more accedemic in style.So, ALL formulations are mechanistic? I don’t think this can be the case, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to say anything at all without it being mechanistic.
