Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One of the many strange assumptions of LBird is that the failure of the Soviet Union was a failure of ‘materialism’. He keeps insisting that Lenin’s so-called ‘materialist’ ideology was somehow important in the Bolshevik power grab in 1917 and its subsequent hold on power. Lenin’s attempt to turn Marxism into an ideology had no significance (apart from confusing the Left) in the rise to power of that bunch of opportunist thugs called Bolsheviks.
‘Count yourselves lucky a Catholic education gave you an historical awareness and a good sound schooling which enabled you to have thought processes which led you to socialism.’
I believe there is more ‘historical’ evidence for the existence of King Arthur than there is for Jesus Christ. I don’t know any socialists who believe a ‘Catholic’ education, whether their own or others, enabled ‘thought processes leading them to socialism’.
Reading the text it would appear that Suhuyini was very proud of the original pre-Muslim culture he came from (the reason for him changing his name) and that’s why I included the tradition dress image. Whilst I’ve been working on the Standard we have very rarely (for what reason I’m not sure) included a portrait in an obituary.
‘The ‘scientific elite’ of any mode are a key part of the ruling class’
No they’re not – they’re working class just like you and me. The ruling class couldn’t tell you the difference between a quark and a quasar and care less.
‘scientific’ elite and a benighted mass.’
Has there ever been such an elite taking the place of a traditional or state capitalist ruling class? As far as I know a ruling class always derives its political power, in the final analysis, from the ownership and control of the means of production. How could a ‘scientific elite’ achieve this? There seems to be no historical precedence for such an unlikely occurrence. Scientists are just wage slaves like the rest of us.
LBird – When I have a moment I’ll try and figure out what Marx meant by ‘naturalism’ and ‘humanism’ and if these terms mean something different from their common usage today. If it turns out that this implies that we can or should vote on the veracity of scientific truth then, as I say, I believe he was mistaken.
‘This is another myth, Wez. I’ve been quoting Marx, here, for years, but they were always constantly ignored.’
LBird – One last time then, give me a quote, sentence or paragraph from Marx’s work that supports your interpretation.Marx was rather unclear about this issue – I suppose one of the reasons being that he never completed his major work hence my uncertainty. It doesn’t really matter because if he thought either what you interpret his meaning to be about science or my interpretation I believe both to be mistaken. Of course we’ve been here before and you have been asked to produce quotes or passages supporting your interpretation from Marx’s text and you have always failed to do so. So please do so if you can as although I may disagree with Marx on some points I always respect his opinion.
‘Not according to Marx, Wez. Humans socially produce their ‘nature’.
Otherwise, ‘material conditions’ will determine ‘socialism’, rather than humanity.’LBird – perhaps it would be more correct to say that material conditions have created consciousness that will enable (through the socialist revolution) people to impose their consciousness on material conditions for the first time in history.
I suppose people come to an understanding and acceptance of the case for socialism in different ways. For me it was through comparing ideas about the world, how it functions and what can be done to change it. Such ideas had to exhibit a corresponding truth which helped explain my experience of life. Presumably others achieve consciousness without an exclusively intellectual approach although surely this always has to be an element at whatever level. This is why I demur from Marx’s apparent belief that the praxis of ‘scientific socialism’ replaced philosophy as the way forward. The ‘idea’ that socialism represents the end of philosophy seems to me to be as nonsensical as Fukuyama’s belief that capitalism represented the end of history. By the by LBird I believe Marx thought that philosophy enabled and/or created an elite in the past and that science was more democratic – hasn’t really turned out like that has it?
‘This has arguably led not only to the rise of pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism, but also to a shrinking pool of scientific jobs and research funds.”
‘Obviously we can have nothing to do with a view which provides an intellectual justification for pseudoscience by putting it on a par with science. However, during the next lockdown, I might add him to my reading list alongside Piers Corbyn and David Icke.’
What a tragedy that to blacken the name of somebody with whom you disagree you force him into the company of the likes of ‘David Icke’! People are not responsible for the misuse of their ideas after their death – look at Marx. Anyway we’ll have to start a new thread if anyone wants to continue the debate.
‘It would seem, therefore, that here the theory of value is incompatible with the actual process, incompatible with the real phenomena of production, and that for this reason any attempt to understand these phenomena should be given up.’
I’m no expert on economics and I’m sure that our economic guru (ALB) will enjoy answering your query in full but I think the key words in the passage you quote are ‘it would seem…’ i.e. a contradiction between appearance and reality. I may be wrong and as I say we have comrades steeped in Marxian economics so you won’t have long to wait for a better answer.
‘Therefore to simply dismiss the results of these workers’ efforts, because of the social system they were produced in is a little like denying the artistic value of Michealangelo’s work because the Pope paid for it.’
‘To put it into context, 100s of people are dying daily in the UK, due to Covid. Do you seriously believe that “big Pharma” and the government are suppressing big numbers of deaths or illness from the vaccine???’BD – Where do you get the impression that I dismiss the results of the worker’s efforts?? Also where does the idea that I believe that big pharma and the government are involved in a conspiracy come from?? Why do I have to keep repeating that I’m not an antivaxxer? It would appear that nobody actually reads what I say.
My contention is that government and big pharma have lost credibility because of the lies of the past. As a lifelong recipient of NHS treatment I can tell you with confidence that what one doctor tells you will be flatly contradicted by another – it is very difficult to maintain a belief in the coherence of medical science at the sharp end. The debate about the nature of science itself is a complex subject that perhaps wasn’t appropriate on this thread.Alan – Was the Chartist movement widespread among the working class? Were they not a minority? Of course you’re correct that the inequalities were more obvious at that time but I wouldn’t call it ‘common sense’ because the term is now associated with prejudice and reactionary conditioning – perhaps ‘class conscious’ is a better term? Would you call their movement a success historically? Other movements like the Luddites and various religious organisations seem to have been more popular – but I defer to your knowledge of that time in working class history. Ultimately they all failed of course because from the diggers to the chartists they were fundamentally idealistic and we had to wait for Marx to give us the reason for their failure.
‘Have we over-complicated the whole socialist case? It was all so much easier in the past…’
Alan – perhaps the reverse is true. Some in the Party seem to want us to jump on the populist platform and proclaim our anti-intellectualism. I’ve been trying to communicate our case for 40 years and I don’t remember it being any easier.
