jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
June 2nd to 4th 2017
Quote:4) Ideology versus Philosophy.In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’. This reflects a position that ideology is a distorted or illusory form of thought which departs from the criterion of objectivity. If this is the case, how does philosophy differ from ideology, and how do we differentiate between concepts of ideology and philosophy? Is it a semantic difference, or is there something that fundamentally separates philosophy from ideology?mcolome1 wrote:http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/lenin-statue-of-fremontThere is a large statute of Lenin in Seatle, Washingtonyes but it wasn't a gift from the pseudo communists of China
robbo203 wrote:jondwhite wrote:The 'ends justify the means' was something associated with Trotskyism not socialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htmI thought Prakash is actually opposing the argument that the end justifies the means…
I think he is opposing the argument 'the end justifies the means' but I thought I would point out that it is an argument not traditionally used by the socialist tradition, only opportunists.
The 'ends justify the means' was something associated with Trotskyism not socialismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm
Prakash what do you think of 'safer spaces', 'virtue signaling' and Marx's personal life as a communist.
Prakash RP wrote:You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ?Prakash you should readhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principleIt seems some 'socialists' have to understand basic 'liberalism' first.
Anyone who's listened to Monty Johnstones unusual interpretation of Lenin, might find his interpretation of Trotsky interesting here;https://archive.org/details/CPGBYoungCommunistLeagueCogito1968Issue5
Like a stopped clock, even right-wingers can be correct sometimes, for example here's Peter Hitchens on the comparison between Mosul and Aleppohttp://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/03/some-good-reasons-for-not-being-taken-in-by-anti-russian-propaganda.html
LBird wrote:I'm inclined to think that I'm justified in thinking that these online views represent the wider SPGB, because not one other SPGB-inclined poster has shown any critical awareness of the 'mainstream' SPGB view of science, epistemology, maths, logic, etc.jondwhite wrote:I have found the excerpt in question and actually it comes from an article I used as a preface in the printed book.Quote:The conviction that not merely dialectical materialism but materialism in general was inherently self-contradictory (in the sense, for example, that it postulates a completely objective reality independent of or essentially unrelated to the knowledge of it, which however is and can only be a mere abstract concept and thus completely subjective) brought Harold Walsby to a general systematic critique of Marxist political assumptions, especially in far as they turn on the view that men’s consciousness is basically formed by or dependent on their material conditions of existence. Insisting that consciousness, or thought, also had its own independent nature and laws of operation, and thus was in a vital sense self-determined, Walsby eventually arrived at the concept of a hierarchy of forms or modes of thinking such that each level or “layer” of thought is more highly organised, more systematic, more detached and rational, especially in its view of society and social problems, than its predecessor – and also less extensive quantitatively (i.e. held by fewer people). Thus he held that the programme of such a body as the S.P.G.B., resting as it did on the assumption that a majority of people could become imbued with a critical, rational view of the social order, was vitiated by the inherently self-limiting nature of the development of thought.Quote:Socialism and ethics are two separate things. This fact must be kept in mind.Whoever conceives of socialism in the sense of a sentimental philanthropic striving after human equality, with no idea of the existence of capitalist society, is no socialist in the sense of the class struggle, without which modern socialism is unthinkable. To be sure Bernstein is nominally for the class struggle – in the same manner as the Hessian peasant is for “the Republic and the Grand Duke.” Whoever has come to a full consciousness of the nature of capitalist society and the foundation of modern socialism, knows also that a socialist movement that leaves the basis of the class struggle may be anything else, but it is not socialism.https://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1899/nocomp/nocomp2.htm
