Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:"Conference believes that there is no working class issue at stake in the forthcoming EU referendum and instructs the EC to ensure that the Party campaigns for a write-in vote for 'World Socialism'."
That is the motion submitted by NLB to conference this year. Whilst the freedom of movement for EU workers is an increase in our freedom, it only extends to the EU's boundaries, and doesn't represent an increase in freedom for workers in Asia or Africa, and this is a worldscale question. But it'll be nice t debate it out at conference.The question is should we registeras a for/against campaign?
For the record, I note Lbird dodged the point about huimans creating history, but not in conditions of their own choosing. If truth is based on consensus, then necessarily, humans create their conditions. Lbird cannot continue to argue for this position and continue laying any claim to a Marxian perspective. no bad thing, but it should clear up the debate. Lbirde's continuous attempt to separate Marx and Engels breaks down at the point of the joint authorship of the German Ideology.
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:…but her position is in fact an entirely idealist one, in as much as she separates the object from the thought.We're getting down to the epistemological basics, here.Materialism = objectivism (it separates 'material object' from 'conscious subject');Idealism = subjectivism (it separates 'conscious subject' from 'material object');
Nope, Materialism posits that the world is made of matter, idealism that the world is made of ideas, dualism says matter and ideas are separate. The mechanical materialists would say that ideas are pale shadows, reflections, or even illusions that don't exist. Cultural materialists (or historical materialists) would say that ideas exist, as material processes, which can be subject to investigation and analysis.
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:The whole point of MKarx is that as we act in the world, we change the world, but it also changes and acts upon us. We are inextricably parts of a process.Yes, you're spot on.Since 'we are inextricably', which "inextricably we's" social ideas do you employ during your social process to understand reality, YMS?I'm a Democratic Communist. I'm inextricably a part of a social process of understanding our physical and social world. Unity of subject and object, idealism-materialism, Marx's social theory and practice.
Here we come to the nub, Lbird is opbsessed with the nonsen term 'Idealist-Materialist'. It could as easily be called 'fish cake materialism' for all the difference it makes, tyhis is just egoising. There is no disagreement of substance, just a hobby horse beinmg ridden into the ground.
LBird wrote:If 'matter' determines, 'what exists' determines, capitalism determines… and never us class conscious workers.This doesn't hold, for several reasons.1) The class conscious working class are part of capitalism, and its determinations.2) It assumes capitalism is static, and not itself constantly changing.3) What exists is also what is becoming as well as what has been.
The problem for Lbird is this classic principle of Marxism: humans make history, but not in conditions of their own choosing. (I'm paraphrasing slightly, if memory serves). What Lbird advocates, is that humans can choose their own conditions.Now, to return to hunter gatherers and food, she is right that humans have to think before they act, and that thinking is an integral and essential patr pof acting, but her position is in fact an entirely idealist one, in as much as she separates the object from the thought. Hunter gatherers cannot conceive of foods they have never encountered (or, at least, are not extrapolations or analogues of existing foods – nor can we neither, but we do have a wider range to imagine from). Nor can they conceive of production lines, tractors, etc. The thought of the food is inextricably linked to the object of food and the process of obtaining it. The whole point of MKarx is that as we act in the world, we change the world, but it also changes and acts upon us. We are inextricably parts of a process.
LBird wrote:For humans, they have to think first, what to eat. They produce their food, even by hunting and gathering, for the social band.The RM-ers would have us believe that the active pies thrust themselves into our passive mouths… after they've consulted with the active rocks first, of course…Marx was an Idealist-Materialist.A|Znd thinking is a material process of chemicals and electrons in a brain. And, of course, since thinking occurs in language which comes from without the individual, it is cultural material processes that do the thinking. The whole world is an ongoing process and movement of which we are only part, but the world exists before we do. Maybe cultural materialism is the term you're looking for…
Kline wrote:All such institutions are social; all are established and maintained by concerted human purpose, intelligence, inventiveness, and conscientiousness (all of which, needless to say, may be present in more or less adequate forms). There is nothing peculiarly material (physical) – or material (biological) or material (sensuous/sensual) – about any of this.Except the activity of humans, the fact that humans require material equipment to thinhk and communicate, and all humans exist in the physical world.
Lbird wrote:Perhaps it’s even clearer to argue that by ‘material/economic’ Marx meant ‘human production’ (as opposed to the ‘god’s production’ of the Idealists), that is, social activities which require ‘theory and practice’ (ie., ideas and labour), which is thus ‘ideal-material’, not merely ‘material’.Yes, Marx was distinguishing against idealism, the notion that nothing exists except ideas. He also notes, that to even have ideas, humans have to eat, first, and that their minds come with bodies attached.
Actually, Tristan's minutes were not transcripts, and so, IIRC, included some phrases that being 'near verbatim' had an out of context meaning, or slight re-phrasings. We don't need transcripts of the entire tedious discussion, salient points raised, and decisions made will do.
Argh, no. Minutes are minutes because they are minute. They are not transcripts, nor shoulod they be, they are a record of what happened (or what should have happened), decisions made and significant points raised/made. Transcripts are a poor information resource, since you need to read the whole damn thing. They are time intensive to create. Recordings are fine, if we really want that. Yes, we could include some element of skyping, there's nothing against it, but our experience is technology defeats.
We have had onine special party meetings, and branch polls exist as an option for taking action, as do branch resolution to the EC, Party Poll and calls for a special conference. Also, there's nothign to stop a branch sending a scircular/statement to ADM.
Vin wrote:and if he did?Then we would urge the working class to muster to our banner to defeat him, and if the workers supported Farage (and he could not rule without them), then we would continue to organise for socialism.Don't forget, our comrades in the 6 counties did exactly that, and got fire bombed for their pains.
Vin wrote:Fair enough but we should be clear that we prefer Corbyn to Farage but we don't endorse him.Otherwise it is hypocriticalIn as much as Farage does not represent an imminant threat to political democracy, we don't prefer Corbyn to him. That eitehr of them would have to govern within the constraints of the balance of class power and the needs of the capitalist system, we don't have a preference between them. Yes, the mood music they bring is impotrant, but they would both have to do much the same thing. Our preference is for support for the socialist party.
The Ultra Left (CWO, ICC, etc.) don't attend anti-fash marches. The Far Left might. If the Ultra left do show, it's only as a 'intervention'.It's not hyopcritical to recognise that here is a lesser evil (recognition does not imply endorsement). It's not hypocritical to hold that political democracy is an essential prerequisite for socialist revolution, and to recognise that its forceful attainment is sometimes necessary.Our 'anti-fascism' and defence of democracy in the UK takes the form of calling for participation in in and a vote for the Socialist Party, on the grounds that any pro-capitalist party must inevitably work against democracy (like Syriza) when faced with the demands of that system.On Syria, I'd suggest first and foremost our position is anything that brings the swiftest end to the fighting and minimises the loss of workers lives, irrespective of the political outcomes; and, further, practical solidarity with refugees, who are workers in struggle with various states.
As a member of NE branch, your branch should meet before ADM to discuss the agenda, and mandate a delgeate, said delegate would normally report back after ADM, and then (staff and time allowing) the report opf proceedings will become available also to be discussed at your branch.
The 2006 conference resolution can't be said to apply retrospectively, if SS decided to contest they could cause a mess, the text and performance of the talk is copyright the estate of E Hardcastle, irrespective of where the talk took place. Without express or implied agreement to the contrary that holds.
