Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:Engels says that it doesn't.
Engels is dead, he has no opinion of anything.How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What do you think? You're not dead, are you?
The point is the service is currently free at the point of use: whetehr firms are called in to do the work or if it is state directed is neitehr ehre nor there. If capitalists want to rob the tax payer, that's fine, no concern of ours.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/15/crime-terrorism-and-tax-evasion-why-banks-are-waging-war-on-cash?CMP=twt_guPaul mason pedicts the end of cash, as a possible emergency government response to prompt investment:
Quote:Why would a central bank want to eliminate cash? For the same reason as you want to flatten interest rates to zero: to force people to spend or invest their money in the risky activities that revive growth, rather than hoarding it in the safest place.Quite why people wouldn't hoard jewelery and gold is another matter.
Quote:The advantages of a digital-only payment system to the user are clear: you can emerge from the surf in only your bathing shorts and proceed to buy beer, food, or even a small car, providing your balance is positive. The advantages to banks are also clear. Not only can all transactions be charged a fee, but bank runs are eliminated. There can be no repeat of the queues outside Northern Rock, nor of the Greek fiasco last summer, because there will be no ATMs, only a computer spreadsheet moving digital money around. The advantages to governments are also clear: all transactions can be taxed. Capital controls are implicit within the system.Oh, the hilarity, I point out the straw man fallacy, and Lbird responds with: an ad hominem (with a touch of appeal to the gallery). No account for the production of quality within his 'ideology' Whenever I asked Lbird to give an account of his ideas, he responded with what he supposes to be my ideas (or a version of what he supposes to be my ideas), a classic straw man fallacy. he would usually couch that with a reference to Marx (an appeal to authority fallacy). What we are left with no account within his schema for how inorganic and organic nature relate to one another. We know that qualite emerges within 'organic nature', but have no idea is human being/consciousness or labour possess qualities.I think it would be fair to say Lbird can't answer that point.
Quote:for one ideology, 'qualities' are within 'inorganic nature'For that ideology, what role does inorganic nature play in the production of those qualities? Can you explain how these qualities are produced?
Nope, I'm afraid you still haven't explained how inorganic nature relates to human labour.
Quote:For my ideology (Marx's idealism-materialism), 'qualities' are produced by humans, and so are within 'organic nature'.So qualities are produced ex-nihil?
Quote:To me, 'qualities' are 'relations produced', between 'consciousness' and 'being'.Do consciousness and being each have qualities? Or are they undifferentiated?
Quote:What bit is so difficult to understand?How something with qualities can interact with something that has no qualities. Please explain that.
Quote:Which 'piece of logic' would that be, YMS?That if inorganic nature has no qualities, there is no relationship, and for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Why would Marx talk about inorganic nature if the qualities of Labour alone produced organic nature?Lets take Tony:
Quote:For Historical Materialism it is a question of the relationship of our thoughts to the phenomena which we experience as the external world.For those who dabble in English, that sentence can only be read there being pheneomena of experience of the external world.I mean, there is a relationship between a lock and a key, between pencil and paper, but there is no relationship with a void, unless a party brings some qualities that affect, combine with or change the otehr, there is no relationship.I cheerfully accept that humans create their social world, and all things in it, including ideas (which are entirely material from beginning to end); I'm happy to accept thatour ideas come from our being in the universe, and it is our active processes of living in it that produces ideas, but we are limited in what we can do, and our ideas are limited by what we can do.
Relational between what? If there is no quality of nature, there is no relationship.
Quote:No, I keep saying, we produce 'organic nature' from 'inorganic nature', by social theory and practice.If there is no quality to 'inorganic nature' then there is no need for Marx and Pancake to refer to it (a simple textual matter). There is only social theory and practice producing organic nature (or society, for Cakey boy).What I want is for you to respond to this simple peice of logic.
LBird wrote:But, as we have seen with Marx and Pannekoek, 'qualities of natural phenomena' are produced by active humanity. 'Natural qualities' are relational 'qualities', not 'something out there'.Relational between what? If there is no quality of nature, there is no relationship.
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:If there is no difference or quality, then nature does not exist.This is an ideological statement – you wish 'nature' to exist outside of active humanity, whereas Marx and Pannekoek are talking about humans producing their own 'nature'.
Ad hominem and appeal to authority. If there is no quality to nature, then there is no relationship between labour and nature, only relationships between different qualities of labour.Accordng to oyu, nature is a blank slate we can write anything on we want, is that not the case?
Sorry, you're skipping around arguments. We were discussing whether a divine entity is needed to be assumed if there is a nature beyond human experience, and I said such an assumption is not necessary, which it isn't.We were also talking about the differentiation, or qualities of natural phenomena, which may delimit what humans can do, and the phenomena we experience. If there is no difference or quality, then nature does not exist. Maybe you could comment ont he logic of this, without appeal to authority?The object of historical materialism is the human activity in the world, but, as Pannekoek says so well: "spiritual phenomena, sensation, consciousness, ideas, are derived from the [experienced material world]."
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:…mere accdient suffices…Who or what determines what is 'accident'?
No one needs to, excepting that Ockham's razor suggests in the absence of further evidence we can assume accident/randomness.The point of historical materialism is that meaning isn't simply stored in one brain, but is emergent of a whole human process (which is active) and in which ideas of the world are inseperable from the objects of the world, they are not mere reflections but a part of the object and a part of all objects is the lived experience of them. That does not make human culture a blank slate on which we may write what we like, much less the same for nature.
