Lew
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It appears to me that the working class in advanced capitalist societies has nothing against capitalism so long as it is relatively prosperous, and it has been sufficiently prosperous thus far to ensure there is no great demand for socialism.
This assumes that the working class has considered and understood what capitalism is and what socialism will be. But there never has been more than a tiny number of workers who have done this. So it cannot be said that workers generally have nothing against capitalism, and there is no demand for socialism because workers are mostly unaware of it.
It’s not a question of whether predictions in some fields are easier than in others but rather a case of whether they are falsifiable or not. For any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For a critique of this view see “Popper” in An A-Z of Marxism:
“still no socialist revolution in sight”
There is a difference. The anarchist position (about which you say nothing) is based on individualism and can never lead to socialism. Instead of regularly posting your counsel of despair, why don’t you tell the SPGB what it is doing wrong? Just repeating that there is no socialist revolution in sight in itself does not show that it is wrong.“Not that there’s anything to disagree with”
If the blurb is accurate, there’s plenty to disagree with.
“… as people engage in activity, they simultaneously change the world and themselves… the means that revolutionaries propose to achieve social change have to involve forms of activity which transform people into individuals who are capable of, and driven to, both overthrow capitalism and the state and build a free society.”
This hasn’t worked in the past, it isn’t working now and there’s no reason to suppose that it will be more successful in the future.
Or, to put it another way, Palestinians kill two Israeli settlers and the settlers go on a rampage:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/27/israeli-settlers-rampage-after-palestinian-gunman-kills-two-west-bankLooks, then, as if Labour is not going to have too much trouble winning back its traditional Catholic vote !
As Scottish Labour Leader, Anas Sarwar, is a Muslim they might not.
But I have not met anyone who thinks that this is because they are “an independent ‘self’ not subject to cause and effect.” That would imply that you could think anything you wanted, irrespective of your past and present experiences as recorded (or whatever) in your brain.
It’s not surprising you haven’t met anyone who thinks that, because it would be rather an odd conversation: Hello, do you think you are an independent self, not subject to cause and effect. Most people, including most party members, wouldn’t have a clue what you were on about.
The second half of your comment is philosophical speculation.
It would invalidate the materialist conception of history, if the mind were independent of motive.
This is a different argument and one I wouldn’t dispute. Yesterday I did ask you: How would it adversely affect the case for socialism if everybody believed they had free will? (#238578) and you replied: “It wouldn’t” (#238587).
TM:
members there are who believe choices are not bound by cause and effect, but are free; that therefore they are made by an independent “self” not subject to cause and effect.
For the record, I know of no member who holds such an absurd view. In fact I have never met anyone who does.
It doesn’t matter one way or the other, but I’ve certainly met plenty of people, including members, who believe choices are not bound by cause and effect. They are probably in a majority, but as I say, it doesn’t matter. Socialism isn’t invalidated either way: this is the socialist equivalent of how many angels you can get on the point of a pin.
It flies in the face of all scientific evidence of how the brain works.
I would like to see this scientific evidence.
So a Catholic can join?
There is a question about religion. Obviously you’re not a member otherwise you would have known; nor does party “exclude non-materialists” as you alleged.
It wouldn’t, but then they wouldn’t be materialists. Which is ok by me, but the party excludes non-materialists (avowed), which is inconsistent. It’s inconsistency that annoys me.
The last time I saw the Form A there was no question about materialism, or free will.
In which case I would reply,
“True, but you still need to be restrained.”
Or do you believe in blame and punishment in socialism?Surely restraint is a form of punishment?
“The idea that anarchism mainly appealed to peasants or appears where capitalism hasn’t developed just doesn’t fit with the facts.”
Nobody said anything about peasants. It is a fact that anarchism has been most popular in states where capitalism has been less developed, not that capitalism hasn’t developed at all.
Why was Anarchism more popular in Latin southern Europe, and Marxism associated more with the north?
George Lichtheim dealt with this issue at some length in his A Short History of Socialism (1970). His argument, in essence, is that anarchism flourishes wherever capitalism fails to develop.
