LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I'm with Lbird on this one…
Christ! Someone supporting something I've written! Ta, Alan!
ajj wrote:i'm sure a member said once that Stuart's political position shifts with whoever he is reading at the time…Well, to be fair, this is exactly what Stuart said his method consisted of:
stuartw2112 wrote:You'll never learn anything new if you don't first empty your cup. Read it as a totally gullible fool, a sycophant, a dupe. Then you'll absorb the ideas that are actually there rather than the ones you first thought of.I think that calling it 'The Beezer Method' shows its essential worth. Comic-book philosophy.
ajj wrote:I am sure if from the reviews i read if Piketty supported the concept of common ownership and production for use, my judgement on his book would be very different too…BUT he doesn't …This is the key point, which should be stressed for any comrades intending to read Piketty's book: Piketty is not a revolutionary or a Communist/Socialist or a Marxist.Piketty's book is full of information, some relevant, some not, and much is absent. One's pre-existing ideology will provide the categorisation parameters for which box of those three, that one fills with which 'data' from Piketty.The idea of reading Piketty without one knowing one's own ideology (which will give those parameters which will sort the 'data') is downright ignorant. Unless one likes one's reading to be like reading The Beezer.No, read critically, and read whilst concious of one's own critical parameters, comrades. There's no other way.
DJP wrote:stuartw2112 wrote:One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFNI'd agree with this. In fact once a certain idea becomes on that we personally cherish we should purposfully look for things that undermine it. To do otherwise is to fall prey of wishful thinking or religous thinking. Confirmation bias is a very real phenomena and one that constantly needs to be countered.
This sounds like good advice, DJP. I take it you're now off to read Lakatos, Feyerabend, Popper, Kuhn…As for Hayek, I'm well aware of his 'ideas'. I was thirty-five years ago, at the height of Thatcherism.At least my Communism is conscious 'wishful and religious thinking', but your knowledge of the philosophy of science is truly 'blind faith'. Anyway, take your own advice well, comrade.
stuartw2112 wrote:One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFNWow!!!Talk about revealing… Hayek and the market…Wow!!!Now I know why we disagree so strongly…
stuartw2112 wrote:LBird: that's not critical thinking, it's blockheadedness. You'll never learn anything new if you don't first empty your cup. Read it as a totally gullible fool, a sycophant, a dupe. Then you'll absorb the ideas that are actually there rather than the ones you first thought of.'Blockheadedness'? That's a bit strong, from someone who suggests their reading method would involve them reading 'The Beezer' and absorbing its ideas at face value.To be serious, though, you've fallen for the myth of 'objectiveness' in science, stuart.One can't 'empty one's cup'. The contents of one's 'cup' determines how one understands what one reads. If you don't know your own 'cup contents', you'll be bamboozled by what your read.And your reaction on this thread to (gosh!) Professor Piketty, suggests you're a bit star-struck.He's a bullshitter. An academic bullshitter. And a pro-capitalist bullshitter.I think your passive cup, having 'absorbed', is now full of bullshit, stuart.Blockheadedness seems much more preferable to shitheadedness.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.Really, I'd have thought that the idea that class power, as expressed through state and social mechanisms to enforce and create the economic mechanisms would be presicely the communist acocunt: a counter to the fetishist idea that 'the economy' or 'the market' is a thing in itself.
Not to the exclusion of the exploitative mechanism, though, YMS, which was my point. It's not the factors you quote, as does Piketty, and with with I agree, but his ignoring of exploitation.An act of omission on his part, rather than commission. Sometimes, it's what they don't say!
stuartw2112 wrote:As for LBird, what could be more tedious and pointless than going through the book with a fine-tooth comb…Some would call it 'reading closely and critically', stuart.Surely you don't merely accept anything written by academics? You imply you're not 'sycophantic'.
stuartw2112 wrote:…angered…colossal achievement…wonderful book…Sounds suspiciously like 'love' to me, stuart, never mind 'sycophancy'!Perhaps you need a bit of training in 'tedium and pointlessness'… otherwise known as 'critical thinking'.But… if you're happy with Piketty, good luck comrade. We've just drawn differing conclusions from his work.
More guff from Piketty, I’m afraid.All academics pay lip service to the notion of ‘the theory-ladenness of observation’. That is, we can’t understand ‘data’ outside of a pre-existing ‘theoretical’ (and we’d argue ‘ideological’) framework. Theories, models, concepts and frameworks are an inescapable part of selecting and interpreting data.But, here we have an academic, a professor, no less:
Piketty, Capital, p. 33, wrote:…I sometimes appeal to theory and to abstract models and concepts, but I try to do so sparingly, and only to the extent that theory enhances our understanding of the changes we observe….I try to show that this minimal theoretical framework is sufficient…Sometimes…sparingly…only to the extent…minimal…He’s bullshitting, comrades.In fact, like any other human, Piketty is “always…constantly…extensively…maximal” employing theory and ideology. When he denies this, it’s because he’s hiding it.Don’t fall for the bourgeois myth of passive observation of ‘data’, comrades, or the erroneous notion of the conservative method of induction that ‘theory emerges from data’.Einstein had it right, a century ago: “It’s the theory that determines what we observe’.Be aware of your own theory, comrades, and try to glean Piketty’s (unspoken) ideology from between his words.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:In fact, 'explanation' (ie. human understanding of nature) is to be found in the interaction of 'ideas' and 'material conditions'.You are seperating 'things' from the 'idea of things'.
No, I'm stressing interaction, Vin.That is, the 'material' cannot be understood without human 'ideas'.Thus, 'ideas' are as central as 'material'.Thus, stressing the central importance of 'human ideas' is not 'idealism'.'Idealism' is the belief that 'ideas' come from outside of humans, ie, from 'god' or 'nature' or 'the material'.Thus, as Marx argued, 'materialism' is a form of 'idealism'.Marx argued for the unity of theory and practice, for ideas and material, for 'Historical Materialism' or 'the materialist conception of history'.This is a million miles from Engels' 19th century positivism, that 'nature' tells us 'what it is', that the 'material' is the source of 'ideas'.Humans create ideas. Ideas are needed to understand the material.'Explanation' involves active human understanding, not passive observation of 'the material', which exposes itself to us.It doesn't. Human ideas is not 'idealism'. 'Materialism' is a form of 'idealism'.The Theses on Feuerbach make this plain. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. He took from both.
Vin Maratty wrote:Explanation for ideas are to be found in our material conditions and as you say we cannot seperate 'things' from 'ideas about things'…But, in the first half of your sentence you're separating 'ideas' and 'material conditions', Vin. For you, the origin of 'ideas' is a preexisting 'material'. That is, you separate temporally 'ideas about things' from 'things'. In the latter half, you agree that this can't be done. Can't you see, comrade, that this is confused?In fact, 'explanation' (ie. human understanding of nature) is to be found in the interaction of 'ideas' and 'material conditions'.'Material conditions' do not speak to us, or provide our ideas. Humans create ideas. Some work, some don't. Practice helps us to determine this. But the origin of ideas is humans, not the 'material'.
Vin Maratty wrote:…but we can study the material conditions of their 'interaction'.This means that 'material interaction' tells us 'what it is'. No, the actually interaction is between human ideas and material reality, mediated through practice.The ideological belief that 'material conditions' do not require human ideas to understand them, that is, human creativity, and that passive observation of 'the real world' works to produce knowledge, is 19th century positivism.The source of this confusion for Communists is Engels, and not Marx.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird I think you create differences and confilct where there are none.Unfortunately, there are differences between us, Vin. And as a comrades, I think that it's worth pointing these out, and trying to discuss them and, hopefully, clear things up.
I’ve literally just read this:
Piketty, Capital, p. 20, wrote:The history of the distribution of wealth has always been deeply political, and it cannot be reduced to purely economic mechanisms[my bold]This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.At the fundamental level, in a class society ‘the distribution of wealth’ CAN ‘be reduced to purely economic mechanisms’. That’s what CLASS EXPLOITATION is all about, a systematic ‘economic mechanism’.Of course, social, cultural, political and ideological factors also play their roles, but to analytically hide or ignore this ‘economic mechanism’ is an ideological step. To pretend that social, cultural, political or ideological factors can be amended or reformed, in the absence of ‘economic mechanisms’ being destroyed, is a myth.And Piketty is clearly propagating this myth. Capitalism is a harmful ‘economic mechanism’ which must be destroyed, not a neutral system of production that can be tinkered with to reduce ‘income inequalities’.
I’ve just got my copy of Piketty’s Capital last night, and I’m only still reading the introduction. But one thing stands out already: he’s talking about ‘income’, its disparities and the inequality that it produces.To me, this is immediately ideologically suspect. To give an example to try to explain about my unease:If ten serf farmers each produce 100 tons of wheat, and the baronial landlord takes 50% from each serf, the result is that each serf is left with 50 tons, and the landlord is left with 500 tons of wheat.Thus, speaking of ‘income’, the landlord has ten times the income of each serf.This ‘disparity’ can be addressed by some policy action (either forced on the baron or by his choice) which reduces the disparity to, say, 9:1, 8:1 or even only 3:1.In political terms, a rearrangement of political action can produce a much ‘fairer’ distribution, and a more ‘equal’ society.For Piketty, as for many supporters of markets, this is a completely acceptable outcome.But… my big problem is that the ideological notion of ‘income’ actually hides the economic mechanism which is at work. That is, in plain language, theft.The serfs are being exploited by the baron. There is a relationship of exploitation between them, which is a systematic relationship not amenable to removal by gradual political action. The ‘income’ inequality, even if reduced to 1:1 (that is, the baron has the same ‘income’ as a serf) and so ‘inequality’ actually disappears, still doesn’t address the fundamental factor of the relationship: the non-productive baron now has the same ‘income’ as a productive serf.The core, fundamental problem is not ‘income’ (and the possible attempt to reduce its inequalities), but the exploitative CLASS relationship.As I’ve already said, I’m only at the start of the book, but I have a funny feeling that when I get to the end, I’ll be wondering why so many revolutionaries (ie. Socialists/Communists) seem to praise Piketty so highly.It seems to me that, given what other comrades here have already said, and the reviews that they’ve recommended, that all Piketty will achieve is backing for reformist political action. To me, this is not enough. Even if it were possible for Bill Gates to end up on the same ‘income’ as his Microsoft workers, the point is, they do the work and he doesn’t!The point of our politics, surely, is to smash the systematic exploitative class relationships within our society, not merely tinker with ‘income’ differences.They say ‘income’, we say ‘theft’. And Piketty's book doesn't expose this relationship, with its focus on 'income' and 'inequality'.
steve colborn wrote:Until then, my focus is on the emancipation of myself and my class. If thats OK?You certainly need to emancipate yourself from 'rocks and pies'!This fixation, that you share with others on this site, is rooted in Engels' so-called "Materialism", and the notion that things and our ideas about things are in opposition. And so, the 'materialists' focus on 'things', like 'food' and 'biological imperatives'.But our ideas about 'food' and the 'biological' are as important as those things themselves. This claim is always painted, by the 'hard' materialists, as 'idealism', because, it appears, it involves 'ideas'.This is pure nonsense. We can't separate out 'things' and our 'ideas about things', because they are intimately linked.I won't bother saying anymore, because I've said it all before, and I'm sure this post will have the same little effect upon the 'materialists'.I'd strangle Engels if I could get my hands on him!
steve colborn wrote:…pointless discussion.It makes me wonder… what is the point of the SPGB having a discussion site, if any attempt to discuss anything more complex than pies and rocks, is seen as evidence of the Bullingdon Club-like tendencies?Some of us are actually interested in philosophy, politics, science, etc. Y'know, talking about how we can build for Socialism, and develop workers' understanding of the world they live in, both physical and social.If you and Vin are not happy with 'time-wasters', why bother to engage? Why not leave it to those members of the SPGB who are interested in expanding their knowledge? In fact, are there any?
In fact, I'm compelled to say more.Can you two really not see the developmental difference between 'raw mammoth', 'pie dinner' and 'Cordon Bleu' dining? The thousands of years of human culture and thinking, which is just a bit more than 'stuffing bellies' with 'calories'? In fact, food as art.Given your 'biological imperative' analysis, it wouldn't surprise me if you think that dining in Socialism would only require buckets, troughs and gruel, so that the 'biological imperative' is met, and 'wants and needs' are thus 'satisfied'.Personally, I have (had?) higher hopes of Socialism.
Vin Maratty wrote:Why don't you just admit to making a silly statement? It doesn't hurt, I'v done it myself.Yeah, I confess: I thought humans were more than biological drives. Silly me.Another triumph for the SPGB. All I need now is twc to back this all up with 'objective science', which will 'prove' that all humans require is gruel and a full stomach.
