[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

You say my need for food is determined by ideology or philisohpy, I say it is biological and physical. Both of your responses failed to address the question.

So, you've never heard of 'Cordon Bleu', then, Vin? Just your 'biological and physical' drives. One is forced to wonder how your ancestors got beyond the stage of eating raw mammoth. Perhaps even the cooking and dining complexities of a 'pie dinner' is beyond you, and you eat raw spuds, pig, wheat and water, off the floor.

Vin Maratty wrote:

I will not engage with you if all you have is snideness and sarcasm.

I think you should look at your, err… less than thoughtful… responses to difficult philosophical questions.'Science and culture'? You seem to think that is all exhausted by emphasising 'rocks and pies'. And when I reduce complexities to simple illustrations, you cry 'foul!'.If this is really the level of debate in the SPGB, perhaps I should give up.I think I'll go for a roll in the mud…

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

… the usual smoke screen for your ignorance.Is my need for food determined by phylosophy? If you don't have an answer just say so.

A rather surly response to my feeble joke, Vin.I suppose 'humour' won't be carried forward into your 'Socialism' either?No laughs or philosophical mutterings, just pies.Is your party Solely Pie Gorging Bodies, Vin?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

My hunger is a physical,  biological need and is not determined by philosophy.

And that's 'Socialism', is it, Vin?The satisfaction of our animal needs?I had rather thought that 'culture' (educational advancement, arts, development of individual abilities, expansion of minds, etc.) was an essential part of our aims.I'd rather our slogan was 'Pies and Philosophy!'; it's so much more inspirational than mere 'Pies!'.Are you a member of the "Pie Faction" within the SPGB?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

SocialistCenter wrote:

Dear LBird. Thank you for your comments. You might want to read my article "Philosophers do not govern the world, “Wants and their Satisfaction” do: A Case For Socialism"RegardsSocialist Center

I agree. Wants and satisfaction are denied in capitalsm and are the the driving force behind socialism. Our wants and satisfaction can only be met with the common ownership of the earth and its resources

I think that you both might find that 'wants and satisfaction' are determined by 'philosophy'.In fact, in constrast to Paramjeet's article title, 'Philosophers do govern the world'! At least, in their ideological guise.Unless we fight and win the 'battle of ideas' (ie. 'philosophy' in its widest sense), then we won't defeat capitalism.The philosophy of 'common ownership of the earth and its resources' is one I share with you, Vin, because we are Communists.I think Paramjeet does not share this 'idea', and so Paramjeet will disagree with our aims.'Philosophy', eh?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

His growing authority comes from the power of his argument. Electing him instead would just be ridiculous.

You misunderstand my ideological point, stuart.It's not the 'election' of him (he can write what he wants under Communism), but that the 'authority' of his argument would come, not from its essential 'power', but from its democratic reception by an active, class conscious, critical, proletariat.That is, his 'argument' would be 'elected' into a position of 'authority', by free discussion and voting.We must ensure that, under Communism, all so-called 'authority' is our chosen 'authority', and not that of a self-proclaimed elite of 'experts', as is the case under bourgeois society.This all requires, of course, a conscious proletariat, which is, at present, lacking. Thus, we are as yet in thrall to 'experts', who are often talking nonsense (from our Communist perspective).

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

But there are two kinds of authority – that which is usurped, and that which is earned.

This assumption of yours has ideological roots, stuart.For me, as an open Communist, there are also 'two kinds of authority' 'that which is unelected, and that which is elected'.All 'authority' must be subject to democratic controls. Science and economics included.At least I'm open about my ideological biases, unlike most 'scientists' and 'economists'.From my democratic communist perspective, the 'scientific method' must include the disclosure, up front, of the scientists' ideology towards both nature and society.In this particular case, Piketty should have opened his book with his ideological assumptions, and then no-one would be surprised by his ideological conclusions.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Where have you been? A few weeks ago i posted this link particularly for yourself, LBird.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/economics-not-scienceI guess you agree that confirmation bias that Stuart threw at me is the only logical outcome…that we seek facts that fit into your own already existing particular view. But perhaps i am mistaken on that too. 

Sorry Alan, I missed it, because it was posted on the second day of our holiday in Greece. Sun, beer, football and other real humans for once taking priority over the internet and my ghostly comrades.Of course, the key point is that, not only is 'economics not science', but that 'science is not science', in the sense of the mythical 'science' of 'producing objective truth about nature'.In fact, 'science' is just like 'economics'!The sooner we all expose our own ideological 'confirmation bias', including Stuart's and Piketty's, the better for all of our understandings.I'm a Communist, and that 'fact' colours my approach to both science and society. It can't be otherwise, because we're all humans attempting to understand 'economics' and 'physics'.Neither physical nor economic 'facts' present themselves to us, unbidden. We have to select, and our selection parameters are determined by our ideology; as Einstein said, 'the theory determines what we can observe'.

[LBird]

alajjohnstone wrote:

Did i say i do not appreciate facts? I often quote Burns that facts are chiels that dinnae ding. I have several times agreed that Piketty (and Marx…) provided a more grounded critique for us to use as tools in our case for socialism.

'Theory' is not 'grounded' in 'facts'.'Facts' are 'grounded' in 'theory'.'Grounded Theory' is a conservative method, ajj.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theoryMarx provides us with a different theory to Piketty. Our 'tools' flow from our critical ideas, not from 'facts', and especially not from Piketty's 'facts'.The conclusion from Piketty's book will be reformist, because Piketty selects his 'facts' to fit his reformist theory. We're kidding ourselves if we think that the world will draw revolutionary conclusions from this book.

[LBird]

stuart2112 wrote:

If on the other hand the facts are not your concern, that's fair enough but it puzzles me why you've come into a thread called "Piketty's data" to tell us so!

I've come to this thread to tell anyone who'll listen that the scientific method is 'theory and practice'.'Piketty's data' flows from 'Picketty's theory', and not the other way round.Our Communist theories contain other elements, that Piketty doesn't employ, to uncover 'facts', and so his conclusions will be different to ours, not because of 'moral denunciation', but because 'facts' are like fish in the sea (to follow Carr's famous analogy). Piketty and you, compared to me, employ different tackle and methods, and fish in different waters, and so get very different 'fish/facts'.

[LBird]

SocialistCenter wrote:

Each country has its own problem and issues.

This is where we disagree, Paramjeet.We have the same problem. And that is, the ruling class.The British ruling class has the same 'problems and issues' as the Indian ruling class.The proletariat in Britain has the same 'problems and issues' as the proletariat in India.If 'your intererests are different than mine', it's because your political methods will support your ruling class, whereas mine will support the international proletariat.These are philosophical differences, Paramjeet. That's why other posters have pointed out that you are on the wrong site.[edit]Your key organising concept is 'countries', whereas our key organising concept is 'classes'.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The discussion I am involved with concerns not wage slavery as is commonly defined within capitalism but the use of money as a means to ration and regulate consumption, within a so called socialist society.

[my bold] Hear, hear!And because of this assumption of opposition, which I share with SocialistPunk, I'm not sure why so many 'socialists' seem to look to Picketty for inspiration (on the other thread), or even information (unless one is a 'data produces theory' ideological inductivist).'The wages system leads to the rich becoming richer'? This is only 'Shock, horror!'-type news to reformists, and those who base their ideology on 'individualist consumption' and 'rewards for the hardworking; less for the lazy'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And in the meantime what exactly is wrong with studying the instruction manual again and checking we are using the old tool in the correct manner?

I think that you're spot on with your sentiments here, ajj. But that 'studying and checking' is at heart a philosophical exercise, rather than a practical one. I only need say again, the old mantra, 'theory and practice'. If our 'theory' is astray, then there is no hope for our 'practice'. 'Theorising' is pointless unless it is put to the test of 'practice', but, nevetheless, 'theory' comes first in the dialogue.I think that what you're proposing is exactly what I've being doing with all my posts, but the 'basics' of my views have been constantly challenged, with every right, by twc. But you seem to regard these important exchanges (to me, anyway) as too 'high-flown' for ordinary workers to engage in.

ajj, to twc, wrote:

These questions has been my explicit aim posting several links and comments while you have busied yourself with Lbird on the Meaning of Life.

In addition to my attempts to discuss the philosophical basis of 'science' (which I regard as a key debate for Communists), I also think that, in line with your ideas, I've also tried to open up 'economics' to 'ordinary' workers, by trying to get a discussion going about the meaning of Marx's ideas, an explanation of Capital. To me, just repeating Marx's often mysterious formulae is not working; the 20th century has proved that. Most workers don't understand 'exploitation', even though they endure it every day. To me, this is the fault of Communists, not workers; that is, the fault of worker-communists, not the wider class. Experience doesn't simply lead to theory. Theory is a creative impulse by communist-workers.I think I agree with twc here (if I understand them correctly), that there is no necessary need to jettison all old terms and phrases; they can be put forward anew, with better explanations.To me, the 'ideas of the ruling class' are still the dominant ones, even amongst many Communists, as we constantly hear when discussing 'individuals' and 'discovery science'. If I were pushed, I would list the tripod of ruling class ideas as consisting of "I'm an individual", "Science produces the Eternal Truth" and "There is no alternative to The Market". I think, even amongst Communists, only the latter has so far been successfully challenged.But even that successful challenge is not being disseminated amongst the class, but is being kept secret by lack of explanation.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Was my suggestion on track as a proper response? Can you offer other arguments/sources to support the idea that you cannot pay a worker his wage plus surplus value?

I know your question was aimed at twc, but, once again, I think that delving into Marx and economics, without being clear about one's own ideological position, is a recipe for falling into a swamp of misunderstanding.The simple reason a worker "can't be paid a wage plus surplus value" is that that mechanism in operation would make the 'worker' into a 'boss'.A 'money-wage' can't be equivalent to what the worker produces. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore the production process.The very suggestion, (by Vin's opponent?), shows that the person suggesting it has no understanding of the role a 'wage' plays in the process of production.A 'wage' isn't something an individual can have, and the basis of the very suggestion is that 'we are all individuals', rather than a productive community of humans, 'a society'.Vin must challenge his protagonist on these ideological lines, otherwise the discussion will be upon philosophical grounds that both parties will remain unaware of.If Vin is a Communist, it seems obvious to me that his opponent isn't. Discussing 'economics' outside of ideology is impossible. There are no 'objective facts' of economics which exist outside of an ideological, interpretive, framework.Pretending to 'just discuss the facts' means that the persons doing the discussing are ignorant of their own 'framework'. As Communists, we're not ignorant of our framework, and we distain to hide it.

[LBird]

Vin, another way of putting it, is that 'money' (and its version for proletarians, a 'wage') is a measure of 'theft-success'.As 'value' is produced by an exploitative economic relationship between the vampires (bosses) and victims (workers), its 'expression' or 'universal equivalent', that is, 'money' is how we can understand the relationship.If one has little money, one is a donor (a 'value-producer'); if one has much money, one is a bloodsucker (a 'value-vacuum').This is why 'money' (or 'wages') can play no part in Communism, but your professorial protagonist argues that it can.Money is not a measure of 'individual effort' (and so would be an 'objective' reward for work done, according to the 'market socialists'), but is a measure of 'theft-success'. Money requires an exploitative relationship.Without exploitation, there is no 'money'.The retention of 'money' will mean the retention of exploitation.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Vin,Please ignore LBird’s pronouncements on Capital, which he misunderstands because he has not read it.

You and the SPGB remain with twc, Vin, and remain mystified, along with most workers.twc's ideology and methods are no way to help inform our class. The 20th century has proved beyond doubt that the mere quoting Marx doesn't explain anything.Unless and until Marx's ideas are more clearly explained, we will continue to fail.

[Author]

Posts