robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Whenever I ask ‘Who determines truth within socialism’, you don’t answer that it will be brought “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
You answer that truth will be determined by ‘Specialists’, an elite separate from “the thinking, conscious, proletariat”.
The scientific method “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat” is democracy.LBird,
I thought you had agreed many moons ago that there would indeed be specialists in socialism along with generalists (More realistically I think we will all be part specialists/part generalists – its a matter of degree). That could hardly NOT be the case otherwise you would be saying that we could all be completely knowledgeable about branch of science whatsoever – and any theory arising within any such branch. Meaning we would all be fully able to “democratically” determine the truth of the theory being debated.
After all you cant say the theory is true or false if you are not even aware of the theory or are even motivated to find out what the theory is about. No individual , even the most gifted scientist, can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge.
Given this constraint could you please explain how the truth of any particular scientific theory is going to determined “by the thinking, conscious, proletariat” in socialism.
Also would you to explain why it is even necessary that the truth of a theory should be “democratically determined”. What is the purpose? I can understand and fully support democratic decision making in the case of some practical decision that will effect people in some practical way but why should the “truth” of scientific theories be “democratically decided”. Why can we not just agree to differ? You can never win over a minority by imposing a majority view on them and it seems pointless even trying
Thanks TM
Well it couldn’t have been the Angelus because I can recall us kids filing into chapel in the evenings for short spell of prayers of some sort
I guess one reason the Catholic Church is inordinately targeted by comparison with Protestantism is that it is more formidably institutionalised along hierarchical lines. Protestantism takes a more individualistic approach to religion without the church mediating so conspicuously between you and God. So it sits more comfortably with capitalism.
That, I believe, was part of the argument Max Weber used in his 1905 text “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. Protestantism was more amenable to the accumulation of capital and worldly wealth
Started in the just pre Vatican II era, Latin mass, once a week in school, marched off to benediction every Thursday afternoon (replaced by Stations of the Cross during Lent).
You lucky sod, BD! At my old catholic school in South Africa we had to endure compulsory mass TWICE a week plus prayers – I think it was called “angelus” or something like that – every evening. It was the sheer boredom of it all that put me off religion eventually
You mention confession. I remember around the age of 11 or so being inordinately obsessed with the distinction between venial sin and mortal sin – the former (for those not aware of the difference) landing you in purgatory; the latter condemning you to everlasting hellfire. You certainly wouldn’t want to be struck down dead just having committed a mortal sin.
So it became quite imperative to clean your slate ASAP or at least weekly. Then you could start all over again the following week = ‘cos, lets face it, committing a sin was fun (particularly when the hormones started kicking in) but you wouldn’t want it to get out of hand. For instance, you wouldn’t want to commit a mortal sin on Monday and have to wait anxiously till Friday when your confession was heard in case you were knocked over and killed by the number 56 bus on Wednesday. The prospect of going to purgatory on the other hand, was bearable because it was only temporary – a bit like detention after school hours – and, besides, nobody’s perfect.
I once broke a wooden post on the school site playing “tossing the caber” when there was some building work being done on the school with building materials lying which us kids loved to get our hands on. I recall fretting over the monetary value of the wooden post and wondering whether it was sufficient to warrant the charge of having committed a mortal sin. Somehow I had got it into my head that the monetary value of a mortal sin was in the region of ten South African Rands and I nervously enquired of the priest in the confession box the following Friday whether he could confirm this was the case
Its quite extraordinary what religious beliefs can do to young impressionable minds!
Here’s another explanation of the etymology of the word gender
from the link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938009If you research the etymology of the word gender you discover that the word gender, up until the 1970’s in academia, and up until the 2010’s in the general populace, had an identical meaning to sex. Gender meant sex. Gender was used in writing and conversation in preference to the word sex, because sex also meant sexual intercourse. So to prevent confusion and so as to not evoke the thought of sex, the word gender was used. Gender meant “sex and I don’t mean fucking”. This meaning of gender originated back in the 17th century if I recall correctly.
In the 1970s, certain non-scientific branches of academia invented an entirely new concept and attached the label “gender” to it. The concept was that the way one presents themselves in society is “gender”. This historically has never been the meaning of gender. The public at large continued to use gender in the original meaning (as you will see with official forms asking for ‘gender’. If they asked for ‘sex’, people would add a box with “yes please” on it and tick it).In the 2010s this new meaning of gender leaked out of academic circles and into the general vernacular. But it is a concept that is entirely the invention of left-leaning academics, cross citing each other repeatedly in echo chamber journals.
You say there is “great variety in both”, but this is not true. There is great variety in “gender as a social construct”, that is, the cosmetic way people dress, do their hair etc. But there is not great variety in “sex and I don’t mean fucking”. Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are extremely rare and do not constitute a new sex and are recognised medically as disorders. For example, XXYY occurs in 1 in 18,000 to 40,000 male births. XXXXY occurs in 1 in 85,000 to 100,000 male births. Compare that to the “normal” male sex characteristics, or the “normal” female sex characteristics, that each occur in about 1 in 2 births.
People erroneously make the claim that other conditions, like triple X syndrome, constitute a DSD (occurs in 1 in 1000 females), but because it causes no health issues or abnormal development it is not considered a DSD by the medical community. The DSD Guideline documents [http://www.dsdguidelines.org] are a trustworthy source of information and definitions.
Thomas and Jordan
Like I say, I’m no expert on the subject but it seems , Thomas, you may be right about the meaning of the word “gender” having changed. Here’s an excerpt from https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender
“gender (n.)
c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle’s Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).
The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
As far as the World Health Organisation’s definition of gender as the socially constructed characteristics of individuals this does seem to be quite a widely used definition
See for example the following links
https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363(this article says “Historically, the terms “sex” and “gender” have been used interchangeably, but their uses are becoming increasingly distinct, and it is important to understand the differences between the two”)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
https://genderspectrum.org/articles/understanding-gender
My wife who is Spanish tells me that at least in Spain the term “gender” refers to biological differences rather social constructs This would be more in line with your understanding of the term Thomas and how it used to be widely understood in the past
You may have misread me. Gender is a biological fact, and I was asking how do all these “woke” (?) people explain that, according to them, humans, who are animals, have 27+ (?) genders,
Hi Thomas,
I think you might have the terms the wrong way round but I am no expert on this subject. Still, according to WHO:
“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities. Gender-based discrimination intersects with other factors of discrimination, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. This is referred to as intersectionality.
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.”
(https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1)One final comment – I became aware of the controversy surrounding Jordan’s Twitter post because someone on the Ultras v Tankies FB group tagged me to get me to explain how or where Jordan acquired what he called these transphobic views. I have challenged this group to explain in what way Jordan was being transphobic and have yet to receive a coherent response. It seems many people in this FB group don’t understand the meaning of the term phobic. That didn’t stop them expelling Jordan from the group in a typical display of woke intolerance.
No wonder the Left is in such disarray
We wouldn’t qualify (not enough followers, at least not yet) and wouldn’t accept the condition to carry advertising as well ( would we?).
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en
I think the American comrades were discussing the possibility of advertising on FB so it might be possible…
Pass the bucket. I am starting to feel quite queasy at the very thought of it.
How anyone with the slightest sympathy for the socialist cause could identify or associate with this disreputable thoroughly opportunist organisation, god only knows. Its so patently obvious Labour is just the alternative team (to the Tories) for running capitalism. The grey suits on both teams are to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable
Dunno if there is anything in this but someone on one of the FB groups I am on suggested China might have been a player in the background as far as the coup was concerned. Anyone heard anything about this or is it just more fake news?
My main criticism of religion is that it has held back all of humility in the spheres of science
James
Hmmmm I think it is not quite so cut and dried as you suggest (BTW I assume you meant to type “held back all of humanity in the sphere of science”)
Natural theology or the religious study of nature prior to the emergence of modern science as we know it, though inspired by the desire to discover god’s purpose in creation, actually laid the basis for modern science by seeking out causal connections operating in the natural world. I am thinking of people like the 18th century parson-naturalist, Gilbert White, who was a pioneer in the field of ecology and many other such “gentleman scientists” as they were called
Or take the part of the world where I live – Spain. Under Moorish rule what was called the Golden Age of Islam, science flourished and Jews, Christians and Muslims all collaborated to produce some wonderful architectural structures, as in the city of Cordoba, in a social climate of relative tolerance. Here around Granada we are still benefitting from that marvellous innovation introduced under Muslim rule – the acequia system. This is the massive network of irrigation channels and pantanas (water deposits) that still tap the meltwater from the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Compared to the Christians after the 15th century “Reconquest”, the Muslims were lily-livered liberals (or at least part of the time). However, even the Christians were not so dumb as to abandon Muslim technology and though they expelled the Moors after the Morisco uprising in the Alpujarras valley south of Granada in the 16th century, they allowed 2 Moorish families to remain in each Alpujarran village to pass on their knowledge of the acequia system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_the_Alpujarras_(1568%E2%80%9371)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
I think it is important not to be to be too rigid about the relationship between religion and science / scientists. After all many eminent scientists are themselves religious. Of course there are cases were religious dogma can be downright anti-science – as in the debate on evolution vs creationism- but each case needs to be judged on its own merits
I hope nobody here is going to suggest that this is part of the struggle against corporate capitalism and that workers should show sympathy for the small investors in their class struggle against the corporates!
Definitely not, Adam, but it is interesting that market libertarians and anarchocapitalists should jump on this example of GameStop as a way to mount an assault on corporate capitalism. As if. The notion that you can have capitalism without the large corporations that dominate the economic landscape today is pure pie in the sky – as is the suggestion among some of them (the Ancaps rather than the Minarchists) that you can get rid of the capitalist state under capitalism
Alan, you make the point that ” there is a benefit in distinguishing structural varieties of capitalism from superficial appearances. Corporate capitalism versus crony capitalism.” I agree but I have always thought that corporate capitalism is what the market libertarian crowd mean by crony capitalism . In other words, the incestuous “you-scratch-my-back-and-i-will-scratch-yours” relation between corporations and the state
Those pesky small investors…
https://medium.com/discourse/turns-out-wall-street-isnt-fond-of-the-free-market-da32d445999f
Actually Thomas it was the religious ritual of the mass that turned me off religion as a catholic teenager – it was so insufferably boring. I recall each time I went to mass I would grab a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet in the rack at the back of the church and read through it instead of attending to what was being said. One of these pamphlets (I think on the topic of sin) got me thinking and seriously questioning my religious faith
But fair enough , each to their own. Some of the things you like I like too and I’m sorry, Ozy, but its patently ridiculous to infer from a love of “the Latin Mass and the Greek Liturgy” , an endorsement of the horrific acts you mention committed by “Bon Secours Sisters” at Tuam in Ireland. That’s way over the top. I suspect most religious people would be horrified too by such acts
Just as I don’t think you need to have read Marx or whoever to become a socialist so I don’t think its going to matter terribly much that many people are still likely to hold religious ideas in some shape or form for the indefinite future. Its not going to prevent such people from wanting or working to achieve socialism
What is more probable than the secularisation thesis is that the form and practice of religion and religious beliefs will change over time and particularly so in response to the growth of the socialist movement itself
Historical materialism rather than philosophical materialism is what we should be concentrating on
