LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:
This, to me, seems the most relevant of the reviews from ajj’s link:
Steve Randy Waldmann wrote:“The story I was told in my impressionable youth was this: Karl Marx had been a sharp analyst, but he was a terrible futurist….Marx thought that capitalists were trapped in an unstable dynamic of capital accumulation from which they benefited, on the one hand, but which led inevitably to collapse and from which they could not, as a class, escape…. Marx had underestimated the ingenuity and flexibility of capitalist societies, and particularly of the United States during the New Deal. Government intervened to solve Marx’s collective action problem, enabling capitalists secure their enlightened self-interest by keeping a distribution of prosperity sufficiently broad that the predicted collapse could be avoided…. To my father, American capitalism’s adaptability and ingenuity had proved Marx definitively wrong, in the best possible way….I really did giggle when I realized that an argument I thought of as conventional wisdom about how America proved Marx wrong sounded, perhaps because my audience was of a different generation, vaguely Marxist.I’m not taking issue at all with the substance of Yglesias’ post, which I think is smart and quite right. Health care costs are millions of people’s livelihood, and inefficient health care costs are a big part of that. Much of how modern economies survive is by protecting information problems and barriers to competition that sustain overpayments. This broadens the wealth distribution while permitting recipients the fiction that flows of purchasing power involve no transfers (“welfare”), only proud, self-reliant income….It is not those who advocate, but those who prevent, stabilizing transfers of purchasing power, who are the true Marxists. These self-styled capitalists do not espouse Marx’s theories, but they do something much worse: They perform them. They behave in precisely the way that Marx expected capitalists to behave. They cripple the American system’s greatest strength — its ingenuity, flexibility, adaptability. They prevent the sort of collective action through which earlier generations proved that capitalism could made be consonant with decent, stable, and broadly prosperous societies. In doing so, they risk proving Marx right.[my bold]Leaving aside the nonsense about ‘American strengths’, it shows that even supporters of capitalism are, in effect, saying ‘Marx was right’.The real issue, then, for both them and us, is whether political action (ie. either peaceful reforms or destructive wars, separately or together) can overcome the tendencies of the system to do what it says on the tin: markets transfer wealth to the rich.Piketty is arguing ‘yes’. A judicious mixture of war and reform worked last time, and his book displays the ‘facts’ to support his argument. How will the 'market reformists' within the socialist movement react to this prescription for 'war socialism'?Do you look good in khaki, ajj?
SocialistPunk wrote:Is this the SPGB version of the Spanish Inquisition?Burnin's too good for me!I'd say 'crucifixion', but the Stalinists apparently preferred the empty cartridge case, hammered into the back of the neck.Saves on good ammunition, eh?
alanjjohnstone wrote:I am just curious to know why LBird does not join the Party.After all you are a communist and so are we despite what you may describe as certain theoretical weaknesses but none are so fundamental in principles not to block you joining us. Why don't you join?….as you know , you can't get socialism on your own, can you? And its going to be a bit of a problem trying to find an organisation that hold identical position to your analyses. Isn't the SPGB the next best thing for you? Or have you had other better offers?I've given this some passing thought, and you're right, the SPGB seems to tick some boxes with me (the need for a majority for socialism, the need for education and propaganda, democratic control of production, end of money and markets, for eg.), and I haven't had any better offers.But… I'm heavily marked by my experience in the SWP.Quite frankly, the arguments I had with the 'cadre', who I constantly laughed at and argued against (god knows why parties recruit workers who can run rings round managers at work, but expect them to be 'tame' with 'party managers'), and I can already see the same processes at work, on this site. I'm not even in the party – the internet now means one can miss out the joining process and gradual disillusionment, writing contributions to internal papers, being accused of 'ill-discipline', etc., and go straight out the other side, back to the class one comes from.Perhaps I'll just continue to argue with the telly – it's more rewarding than typing. Plus, the social activity gives the family a laugh, at least. This is just isolated, repetitive monotony.
ALB wrote:You've got to admit, L. Bird, that you can be infuriating and also that you dish it out too as, for instance, accusing those who disagree with you of being religious. Perhaps you don't realise what an insult this is in the SPGB.PS I still refuse to accept that the Sun went round the Earth until it came to be generally accepted that it was the other way round. For me this conclusion of yours is a sufficient refutation of your theory on the grounds of reductio ad absurdum.But, and I've pointed this out endlessly ALB, you're confusing 'object' (the paths of sun and earth) with 'knowledge' (of the paths of the sun and earth).You seem to think it's being argued that the 'object' changes, whereas it actually being argued that the 'knowledge' changes.The problem being, if you believe (and it is a belief, almost 'religious', I'd say) that 'knowledge' is the same as 'object' (and one has to believe this if one argues that our 'knowledge' is a final and complete account of the 'object), then Rovelli's quote, for example, seems to undermine that belief.Science doesn't produce a copy of 'object'; it produces social 'knowledge'. And humans can be wrong; we also know that from all the latest philosophers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos). Science is often 'wrong', so we know we don't have a foolproof method of producing 'copy knowledge' of the 'object'.This is a philosophical difficulty that must be addressed by philosophical discussion. Just insisting that "the earth goes round the sun, and that's that" can't be maintained anymore.'General acceptance' as the basis of knowledge within a class society will lead to the domination of ruling class knowledge. We have to criticise what's 'generally accepted', both in 'markets' and 'science'.But, I've said all this before, and I know already that the 'religious-like' certainty of Engelsists can't be shaken. They have a foolproof method. They observe nature, and it tells them The Truth.So, 'insult' or 'accurate characterisation'? That's another one for one's ideology to decide.
jondwhite wrote:We can have a fun discussion if you are amenable, but I'm not going to go ad hominem just because I disagree with you.'Fun'? That's becoming a novel concept around here, for me, at least.In fact, it's becoming so unfunny, and indeed uncomradely, that I'm beginning to wonder, if it's really worth my time.I'm not learning anything (which is why I'm trying to get a discussion going about 'science') and clearly no-one is learning from me.I've read a lot of books about the philosophy of science, and would like to integrate the most modern bourgeois insights into a proletarian worldview based upon Marx's ideas, not least around the notion of the 'unity of science', which Marx seemed to think possible.Perhaps I should just go back to 'my personal enlightenment' as an aim, and forget trying to share the fruits of my reading with other comrades. I could provide a 'shortcut' through some time-consuming books, but it all requires a willingness to discuss. I'm not sure anymore that this willingness exists, and not just on this site, but throughout the 'Communist/Marxist' movement (read 'Engelsist', in my opinion).Sorry, for the tone, jondwhite, but I'm not feeling very 'amenable to fun' at the moment.
jondwhite wrote:I'm interested in what are the main theoretical contentions of LBird?Well, I haven't got much to go on, there, have I?Perhaps one main one would be that "I'm not an individual, I'm a worker".Would you like to take that further, or is there something else that you have in mind?I'm assuming that this thread has been started in good faith, but I've been personally attacked so many times by posters who have allegedly been discussing 'in good faith', that I'm starting to wonder if there's a wider problem on this site. The latest yesterday was DJP doing the usual routine, supposedly asking genuine questions and then expressing outrage and making childish responses attacking me rather than my ideas (which is fine; we all learn from criticism), when he doesn't get the answers that fit with his unspoken ideology, so nothing would surprise me.Let's hope you're genuine, jondwhite.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Even though it is from an unashamed capitalist apologist and with an intention or contaext that we do not share, this author's concluding comment is appropriate.Quote:He is to be commended as well for demanding a humbler empiricism from the community of economists. But if we are to proceed from analysis to action, we still need a more robust theory of what is actually causing the problem …I'm afraid that 'this author's concluding comment is' not 'appropriate', ajj.'Empiricism' (whether 'humble' or 'arrogant') will lead to conservative ideas being expressed.They'll pretend to extract the 'more robust theory' from 'The Facts', by 'induction' (sic), and that theory will suit their own purposes.What we need to do is to clarify our own 'theory' prior to reading Piketty, and this will allow us to discern his own 'theory', and thus determine the 'theory-ladenness' of Piketty's so-called 'facts'.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fineNo I don't think that. What I do think is that to further engage with your eccentric muddle headed fantasism is a waste of my time.
Are you sure that you're a 'grown-up', DJP?To return to the world of adults: to avoid any more diversions on this thread, I'll start a new one, for Communists to discuss science.That doesn't include children who hurl abuse, like you, DJP. Do all 'individualists' throw tantrums when the big kids use big words that they don't understand, like 'society'?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:most 'people' share exactly the same ideasOh dear. If that where true I'm not sure why we would need this forum.I'm just getting the feeling you havn't considered what I said. You havn't replied to much of my points just repeated what you have said 1000 times before…Yes, no individual exists seperatly from their place in history and in society.And yes science and language are social activities. These are nothing but banalities.But at the same time it is not "individualist" to suggest that there is not going to be complete uniformity amongst members of a group.I fail to see what point you are trying to make other than we do not share the same ideas, which seems to contradict your starting point.Maybe take up my essay suggestion because I don't see this current discussion going anywhere.
All your doing here, DJP, is reiterating your ideological beliefs.If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fine, but then there seems no point in discussing 'science' with me, because I hold the contrasting ideological belief that 'society' is the origin of indivdual's ideas, and so will discuss 'science' from that perspective.We need this forum precisely because you, Vin, YMS, et al, all say the same thing. With complete uniformity!These are not your 'individual thoughts', but social beliefs about the nature of 'individuals', 'society', 'ideologies', 'science', etc., etc. I would say this, because of my ideological beliefs.Now, if you want to discuss from a liberal perspective, say so, and I can bid you good-night.I'm on a Communist site precisely because I want to discuss science with other Communists. I've clearly made the mistaken assumption that all comrades here were Communists/Marxists. If some aren't, that's fine. But I want to discuss with those who are Communists/Marxists, so perhaps only those who regard themselves as such will want to continue the discussion with me.My mistake.
DJP wrote:The trouble is no two people will share the exact same compound of beliefs, experiences or concepts.To me, DJP, this is a statement of liberal ideology.Because I'm a Communist (as I never tire of being open about), I think that 'ideas' come from society, and that most 'people' share exactly the same ideas, and these ideas come from classes.So, if I'm to discuss 'beliefs', I don't start from 'people' (in effect, this means 'individuals'), who supposedly have their 'own beliefs', but from society, and the ideas that it implants into the members of that society.And, as we live in a class society, I would look for the broad similarities within 'class ideas', which oppose each other, ruling and exploited.Now, I'm open about my ideology.If you don't agree with my outline of 'social ideas', and prefer 'individual ideas', that's fine by me. But why not spell out your ideological bias towards 'no two people'?It's not just 'your opinion', but the basis of an ideological outlook, which I do not share.So, if we want to discuss 'science', we need to be open about our contrasting ideologies, from the start, so that all can follow our discussion, as clearly as possible.The points I would go on to make about 'science' would be anathema to 'individualists', because I see science as a social activity, not an individual one.It's best to be open about our ideologies. We all have them, but only Communists have no 'material' () reason to hide this.
DJP wrote:1. Asume good will.2. Apply the principle of charity.3. Avoid binary over-simplifications (all x's are y)4. Avoid appeals to authority.5. Use your own words as much as possible.6. Test your own arguments against the strongest opposing ones you can think of.7. If you feel wind up by a post turn the computer off.I've tried all these, to no avail. I can't get anyone to discuss, on these threads, whether they think there is something to what Rovelli says.I can't get anyone to tell me what ideology they employ, in reading Piketty, or doing 'physics'.The default seems to be the pre-Einstein position that 'science has a method which produces the Truth', and is not ideological. But Rovelli claims that is not true, and all recent philosphers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos) seem to agree with Rovelli.I suspect that the 'ruling class ideas' about science are the ones that are prevailing, though.
Given what you've said, DJP, I can only take it at face value, and apologise for my tone in the last post.But I need some time to reflect, about why I'm 'doing a very bad job of it'.
Furthermore, DJP, I'm fed up with the disingenuous questions, on the pretence that you're actually interested in discussing these issues. You stick to your Engelsian ideology, and I'll stick to my Marxian one.If you want to know more, re-read the dozens of post I've made to you especially, in my forlorn attempts to get you to think about science, and what physicists like Rovelli argue are fundamental problems with what the layperson calls 'science'.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Marx was a trained philosopher, but Engels was, at best, an amateur. And we now know his amateurish books are wrong (NB. his science, not his other works).So, are *you* a trained philospher? Have you written your views in essay legnth form anywhere?
Ahh… you won't have a word said against the Holy Father, will you now, DJP.More displays of unreasoning faith, and refusal to discuss.
