LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Socilialist Punk wrote:Within the SPGB there is probably only one area of unanimous agreement, that socialism is a a global, moneyless system of common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by and in the interests of the global community.
[my bold]I certainly fall within this 'area of agreement'.I suppose my problem is that, from what I can tell by some arguments made here, I think that some within the SPGB don't.If 'scientific knowledge' doesn't count as part of 'the worlds resources', it must be a gift from the gods.I think humans produce 'truth'.Those who think, like Stanislav, that 'individuals' acting upon nature, rather than society, are the source of wealth, will also see the source of knowledge as 'individuals', rather than society.For if society is the source, it can be democratically controlled.Money equals Matter. A thing outside of society, a substance available to individuals, a neutral judge of the truth of human effort.
Socialist Punk wrote:Another thing, I've seen other forum members post stuff and never engage in discussion. Can any of us say we answer every question, enquiry and criticism put to us?Well, I always engage in discussion, but it seems the SPGB/WSM doesn't do 'discussion' about 'democratic science', if Vin's last thread is anything to go by.I suppose it's just easier to catalogue me with 'Stanislav', for most posters. Not you, though, SP!
It's almost neck-and-neck to that 3rd warning, Vin!But, on my counting, I'm six minutes ahead, so far…Maths, eh?3rd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This poster is suspended for an indefinite period.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:My New Year's resolution is to be nice to you, and not rise to your childish, ill-judged, ignorant outbursts!My new years resolution is to respond in kind to your moronic outbursts. You are a fascist and your aim is to disrupt and prevent intelligent discussion. You are a troll.
Ahhh…. irony… apparently not.2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:My New Year's resolution is to be nice to you, and not rise to your childish, ill-judged, ignorant outbursts!I can see why you get banned you ignorant twat. I wouldn't mind if your posts weren't full of absolute shit.
They're right when they say that humour doesn't translate on the internet, even with my codicil.Looks like I'm being given the opportunity to implement my resolution a day early.Unless Vin is starting to do irony…1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
moderator1 wrote:Reminder: The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.Come on, ref! I never touched 'im!
Vin wrote:northern light wrote:Welcome back LBIRD, (I'll try and sneak this one past the Mod. ….. well it is the season of good will)I like the well timed flamboyant entrance, a bit like this, I feel.https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rick%20mayall's%20flashmanYeah, he was an irritating bugger as well, lol
I take it that's a synonym for 'thought-provoking', Vin?My New Year's resolution is to be nice to you, and not rise to your childish, ill-judged, ignorant outbursts!Damn. It's not even New Year, yet, and I can't get through a sentence.BIG LETTERS: only joking, comrade!
jondwhite wrote:Welcome back Lbird.I'm touched, and starting to weep, at the effusive nature of all the welcomes!One can only hope that such support is repeated in words when I actually start to post the bad news about maths.'Bad news' for the Leninist Truth-Holders of the Engelsian Materialist religious sect and their god 'Matter', that is!
northern light wrote:Welcome back LBIRD, (I'll try and sneak this one past the Mod. ….. well it is the season of good will)I like the well timed flamboyant entrance, a bit like this, I feel.https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rick%20mayall's%20flashmanWell, I hear Lord Flashheart is worshipping me, now!Thanks for the welcome.As for 'flamboyance', whatever do you mean? I'm giving the Puritan, staid, honest-to-goodness, objective truth, just like the 'materialists' and their "God's Truth", that matter itself whispers into the ears of the believers alone.
alanjjohnstone wrote:2+2=5Nah, 2+2=11,alan!In base 3.One has to know the 'hard core' assumptions one is making, whether in physics, maths or politics.2+2=4 ONLY IF ONE ASSUMES BASE 10.Similarly, a rock is 'hard' only if one assumes human consciousness. The judgment of 'hard' requires both external world and mind, and the method of theory and practice.Ahhh… it's so good to be back!
ALB wrote:DJP wrote:[The most popular forum thread was the "Science for Communists" one but that's at around 100 in the charts…What happened to him, anyway?
I was banned, for the second time.That's right, readers, the originator and the most compelling, erudite and understandable contributor, to the most popular thread of 2014 on the SPGB forums, was banned.Not a great advert for the liberties we can expect under 'SPGB Socialism', I fear.But…. I'm back!However, I suppose it will be "three strikes and out", eh?I was thinking of starting a new thread, entitled 'Mathematics for Communists', with the same critical approach that the SPGB apparently disapproves of, but I can hear the howls even now, from the 'objectivists' of 'mudpie-ism' ('Engelsian Materialism', for the uninitiated in these arcane debates):"He's ruined physics for us, and now he intends to slur mathematics, too! He's bound to say mathematics should be under the democratic control of the workers, too, the bastard! Is there no end to this betraying of the objective world, the static reality, the uncriticisable nature of the physical world?"Well, all I can say, comrades, is:"Not according to the relativist Karl Marx, and his theories about 'Modes of Production', that our human understanding of both physics and mathematics (amongst everything else) is related to our social production".Shall we go for 'third strike maths', comrades?
YMS wrote:Lbird,I dropped rock because we're discussing value, and rocks aren't (generally) the produce of human labour.YMS, what bit don't you understand about what you wrote:
YMS, post #123, wrote:LBird,Ah, I see. Considering this thread is about explaining value, I read your question in that light, rather than as a general question about epistemology.'Epistemology' is about understanding (and thus closely related to explaining).So, explaining 'rocks', 'volcanoes', 'elements', 'light', 'bricks', 'walls', castle, 'watches', 'cars' AND VALUE is a 'product of human labour'.You're a 'materialist', and 'materialists' claim that human don't have to 'produce knowledge' of 'material things' (like your opinion about 'rocks'), because 'matter', for the 'materialists', talks to humans.This is why you're forced to remove a natural product from a list that includes everything that can be explained by the same method as 'value'.'Knowledge' is a 'human, social, product' and that applies as much to nature (eg. rocks) as to society (eg. value).Your problem, as for all the 'materialists', is that you can't openly say that you employ 'ideas' to understand 'matter', because then I'll simply ask 'which ideology do you use to understand rocks?', and you won't (and can't) answer, because to a materialist any questions about 'ideas/ideology' is 'idealism'.The materialists got this nonsense from Engels, not Marx.For Marx, 'material' meant 'social production' (and not 'matter'), and 'social production' requires both 'theory and practice', and thus the production of knowledge (whether of rocks or of value) is social, historical and ideological.I've said this numerous times to you, personally, YMS (never mind to others), but you keep insisting that a 'rock' tells you what it is, by individual, biological senses.One can't tell 'what a rock is' without an ideological theory.The ideology you employ is 'bourgeois individualism', and so you won't have a Communist telling you that a vote is required with your comrades for you to determine what a rock is.You 'know' what a rock 'is', and you won't let democracy deprive you of your 'experience' of your world. Never mind Einstein.Can't you leave me alone, now, YMS?I feel like Sisyphus, and you're my 'rock'.
YMS wrote:What soylent green says about a car, a watch, a brick, is that they are parts of a human, created by human labour, and twhen you enter into any relationship with that object, you are entering into a transferred human relationship with the human beings who brought it before you (even if they are now present).Good luck with that explanation, YMS.I see that you removed 'rock' from the list, but I'm past caring.
YMS wrote:And I answered that because soylent green revealed …How the hell does 'soylent green' explain a rock? Watch? Brick? Car? Castle?
YMS wrote:AFAICS you asked "what is the underlying philosophical basis of 'soylent green', in your view, that allows us to explain day-to-day, simple experiences of workers, in the first place, as an inital step, and thus provide a basis for an explanation of something much less obvious, that is, the concept of 'value'?"[my bold]YMS, just give up, will you? You stick to 'soylent green', and I'll forget about the SPGB.Deal, eh?
