Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
John wrote:‘We are star stuff, but so is your cat; and the entirety of human history and concerns will be gone in a puff of cosmic time just as surely as the maggots in a bowl of stale food.’ and ‘However, we will eventually disappear as a form of existence in no longer than a cosmic second, together with the sum total of all our history and achievements, as will the Earth and this solar system.’
These statements are both valid within the traditional concept of time but this conception is also, along with mind and reality, subject to possible profound revision the more we understand nature (the universe). Is it possible that the mind/reality duality can be resolved by seeing ourselves and our understanding (something that cats and maggots do not exhibit) as an attempt by the universe to become conscious of itself? As you say we are stardust and so we are nature. The delusions of ideology have prevented us from this realization and socialism will finally liberate consciousness from its dualistic egocentric prison (hopefully). This kind of speculation may well frustrate some socialists but such reasoning is preferable to passively accepting cultural norms and helps us exercise our intellect. Ideology tells us what to think and philosophy informs us how to think.
All of Marx’s work was framed within the dialectical philosophical tradition. Don’t forget that science had its origins in natural philosophy. The truth is that without these inherited traditions he could not have transcended elements within them all. We believe socialism to be the resolution of the class struggle and so ending the need for ideology but even after the revolution we will still ponder the questions raised by this thread in terms of mind, consciousness and reality and these concepts remain firmly within the philosophical tradition.
How very British of you John. You don’t find that level of philistinism within the working class of France and Spain etc. I don’t know how or why such anti-intellectualism started in this country but it has long outstayed its welcome.
Perhaps you should change your pub James – such conversations are ‘de rigueur’ in the pubs where I drink. Leaving it to others to figure it out can be very dodgy. The mind/reality duality is one of the oldest philosophical questions and deserves some consideration. We all have consciousness and it is not unreasonable to inquire as to its nature.
L Bird really does live in his own delusional world. Comrades here have debated with him ‘ad nauseam’ but he has no skills at debate and merely repeats himself making communication impossible. I certainly do believe that he has had a negative impact on this forum because a collective sigh of frustration bordering on despair goes up when ever one of his posts appear. It’s the same with many social media forums, the Left get animated about the use of plastic straws and identity politics etc. that frankly socialists find infinitely boring. As to how to motivate participation I would like to see more discussion about the articles in the Standard, which compared with other political journals, is brimming with provocative polemical insight.
Toward nightfall he and his sons-in-law part from their families to pass an hour with their American guest. And the talk was of the world, and of man, and of time, and of ideas, as our glasses tinkled over the sea. The railway train waits for no man, and night is at hand. Over the thought of the babblement and rack of the age and the ages, over the talk of the day and the scenes of the evening, arose in my mind one question touching upon the final law of being, for which I would seek answer from this sage. Going down to the depth of language, and rising to the height of emphasis, during an interspace of silence, I interrogated the revolutionist and philosopher in these fateful words, “What is?” And it seemed as though his mind were inverted for a moment while he looked upon the roaring sea in front and the restless multitude upon the beach. “What is?” I had inquired, to which, in deep and solemn tone, he replied: “Struggle!”
At first it seemed as though I had heard the echo of despair; but, peradventure, it was the law of life.
Robbo, Lenin and the Bolsheviks would seem to qualify as ‘fellow travelers’ under your definition since they also had the same goal as us – only it was via a one party dictatorship whose goal was relegated to a far distant future. Many leftists pay lip service to common ownership and democratic control but don’t really ever believe it to be possible.
Blimey, first you accuse us of hostility and now, apparently, we lack basic emotional intelligence. Talk about passive aggressive! I advise you schekn to take your own advice and not be so hostile towards those with whom you disagree. This lengthy debate proves how willing we are to constructively discuss politics with anyone.
The idea that a minority of activists or conscious elite can change capitalism and make it environmentally friendly is the very definition of contemporary idealism and reformism. Why is to disagree with someone an act of hostility? Again why do you continually accuse us of this and not our opponents – we always incur their hostility by challenging liberal leftist shibboleths. Instead of focusing on our short-comings you should be challenging them about their idealist ivory tower hostility towards socialism – after all they have the thousands of supporters and high profile.
Spiritual/mystical/love – these are all concepts of transcendence; they speak of the existence of something vitally important that is not physical. In other words they are ‘unmaterialistic’ like Jung’s ‘collective unconsciousness’ their metaphysics is not empirically based. Such ‘faith’ has been and continues to be one of the most dangerous and historically impotent ideologies that opposes socialism.
This kind of reformism/idealism has built its own enormous and ethereal ivory tower that will not allow them to listen to materialism and socialism. We will never stop trying to communicate to such groups but their inability to comprehend us is somehow our fault? We are the only party that is not waiting for socialism – we work for it 24/7. The thousands of groups like XR just make our job more difficult because they refuse to engage in ‘ productive dialogue’. Save your criticism for them – not us.
schekn itrch – Of course nobody can answer such a question with absolute certainty. What we can use is what Marx called ‘the internal contradictions of capitalism’ as part of a dialectical inquiry into potential futures. Where ever capitalism exists so does the contrast of its promises (ideology) with its reality. In this way the ‘propaganda’ of the media contributes to the consciousness of this – it will always highlight the inconsistency, for instance, of the promises of politicians and their failure to carry them through when in office etc. This can lead to political cynicism and/or populism and contempt for the political establishment – but the dynamic of contradiction is always present and sometimes subverts what those in the media desire (conformity). It is our task to direct this frustration into positive action for socialism. What I’m saying is that the media brainwashing is not monolithic and one way – it very often leads to unintentional consequences. With this in mind there is every reason to believe that socialist consciousness will arise spontaneously within any capitalist context. Since we already exist as a world wide organization there is nothing to prevent such individuals and groups from joining us.
“Despite their concern for the environment these people are not on our side.” – this is exactly the hostility I was talking about, Alan. “These people” are only talking about environmental collapse, and it is entirely possible to join them so that they would be on our side.’
This is a very naive political statement. Firstly it is entirely possible for someone to be environmentally concerned/active and be anti-socialist. You have conceded that many join such pressure groups out of a superficial emotional response to the problems of the world – they are not accessible to rational argument. As Alan has noted as soon as we challenge their liberal/leftist shibboleths (which always, in my experience, accompanies the ideology of such people – there is no such thing as ‘only talking about environmental collapse’) they will manifest intense hostility towards us. Secondly there is the well known and sadly tested phrase: ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Many of the members of XR (like many on the Left) are people of integrity with benign intent but this is no substitute for knowledge of how capitalism really works. Obviously we have no objection to talking with such groups but just occasionally it would be nice if they were to approach us – but this will never happen for the reasons that I’ve outlined above.
