Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
OED wrote:Idealism: Philos. Any of various views according to which reality is ultimately in some sense mental or mind-dependent; any of various views according to which the objects of knowledge or perception are ideas (in various senses: see idea n.); more generally, any view opposed to some form of realism or materialism.Materialism: Philos. The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications; (more narrowly) the theory or belief that mental phenomena are nothing more than, or are wholly caused by, the operation of material or physical agencies.Dualism:Philos. The doctrine that mind and matter exist as distinct entities; opposed to idealism and materialism.Lbird wrote:Any worker I'm speaking to in the future will be told that the SPGB does not want democratic methods to be adopted by the proletariat in its control of the means of production (which includes, obviously, science)
And if you direct them to this discussion, they will see members of the party committed to democratic control of the means of production, and to the democratic organisation of science, and they will wonder why you are saying something that is untrue (even more, they might question how you know what the SP stands for, since by your own light, without a democratic vote, you cannot have any knowledge).I am indeed arguing for democracy within society and science. So it would be untrue for you to tell any workers that you meet the contrary. And I'm sure you would not want to say untrue things to the class.At a philosophical level, never mind the practical, one question you have run away from is what happens to truth prior to a vote. Necessarilly, the new propositions to be adopted will be moved by a minority (and how are they convinced to even begin proposing new theses?) that will become the majority. Democracy does not resolve the epistemological question, there must always be a point at which the minority is right against the majority.
SP,What the party poll said was, in effect, that conference is to be obeyed, Conference has since changed its instructions. Nothing untoward there. If the party poll had said "the form of name shall be the Fishcakes Party" then we'd need a party poll to change the name (or form of name), as it is it said "please abide by a conference decision". A little lawyerly, I know. Some people may care, many do not.
The party is made up of proletarians standing under a musty banner. We are members of the working, class, part of the working class movement, inextricably, and addressing ourelves to the working class as a whole. We organise ourselves separately from reformist movements for clarity of ideas, and to enable us to be an exclusively working class orientated organisation. I'm prepared to say we disagree with Chuck on this one. Our interests are not different from the working class' but certainly different from other working class parties that are not socialist.
But you don't. Whenever you're met with an objection, or a proposition, you just pick up the ball or resort to ad hominem. In fact, ad hominem is your default position, you ignore the words and play (what you imagine to be) the man.If everytime someone asks you what you mean by democracy and science you accuse them of being conservatives calling for practical examples, you don't help us understand what you're saying. AFAICS we simply don't understand what you're trying to say. tehre's clearly something useful there, but it's not coming across.AFAICS your 'Idealism-Materialism' neologism is just exactly what I understand by materialism, I just don't use the same, slightly otiose, name for it.
I have to say I have never actually read Engels on science, I'm basing my contribution to this debate almost entirely on The German Ideology and the description of materialism there, and Theses on Feuerbach (plus a bit of general philosophy I've picked up off the floor).I mean, also, I don't disagree with the philosophical principle of democratic organisation of science (indeed, that's what I've been arguing for), our disagreements are entirely practical (theory and practice anyone?) AFAICS.Personally, by the way, i have debated with free marketees, and found the process useful. The whole point of debate is to start from a point of disagreement. But then, you don't seem to believ in debate, do you?
We don't idolise Marx & Engels,the above is a tactical suggestion, we've chosen different tactics, we are decidedly partyists, in preference to the tyranny of structurlessness and also our specific focus upon the conscious acceptance of socialist ideas.
Short answer, IIRC the party poll itself merely affirmed that the cofnerence result should be enforced, rather than affirming an express policy. Teh second answer is that since the mebers who wanted to go to the wall over the issue have all left, and the majority never don't give a damn about the name. Who, after all, cares about what the name on the the Head Office Feaces is?
Because our enemies could vote maliciously, and choosig the worst candidates, or even worse, voting to cause confusion. We can hold our committee members to account, and our fellow members if they behave in such a way as to disrupt the objects of the party: we can't expell non-members.
Open primaries are a terrible idea, they are a form of state assimilation of political parties, that removes control of the party from an active membership and hands it over to a bureaucratic elite (also, in the states, a party has to qualify for registration for primaries). Also, the issue of avoiding spoiler votes raises its head. Tories could vote and select terrible candidates. We have the membership test and formal membership for a reason: accountability. We want to know that the people taking decisions for our organisation know what it stands for, and share the essential ideas that we exist to promote.
The Morning Star have been wetting themselves over the Kurdish Republic of Rojava:http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-8069-Kurds-keep-resisting-Isis-attack-on-Rojava#.VDPiD9jgdhc
As I said, it can't occur on a ballot paper (and I don't agree it's always likely to occur generally). Socialist Pubnk is right, we have to read the motion in such a way as to make it effective.
To take a comparative method:An Animist society might well just (reasonably, and scientifically) believe that the sea moves through the instigatioin of people (and lets rememebr, animals are people here) since people make things happen. they're just invisible people we call spirits. All they know is sometimes they get angry, and need to be placated.A theistic society, being more hierarchical, believes that a king has ruled, and the seas move according to his will. We can discover the mind of this king/god through what the sea does.An inductive society, perhaps more sea faring than the others, observes that the tides are usually high or low at a certain point in the calendar, or when a certain star is in the sky at sunset (stone age polynesian island tribes could do this).A scientific society would apply the inductive knowledge of tide times hitherto, and could add in knowledge of gravity and motion, and say that by predicting the motions of the moon we can calculate the axial tilt of the earth and it's effect on the fluid dynamics of the oceans (also with regard to proximity to the sun and the relative expansion of the water as it heats and cools). That is, applying theory proven in other areas to make predictions regarding the tides. Adding in the effect of wind (calculated from astronomy and meteorology) we could predict freak flooding. Maybe, even further, such a society might build on reclaimed land, and might need to predict the effects of reclamation on the volume and height of water in an estuary (as in London).
Yes, science is human activity, but reality exists, and determines (even if only in the sense of putting a boundary to) what we can say about it. (A statement like that, I'd have thought, is epistemology, btw, that's what I thought I was discussing).So, in an epistemological vein, can we vote to stop the tides? It's a simple case, maybe you could use it to illustrate what you're trying to convey to us.
Grammar is important in philosophy, and critical realism is a species of realism much as historical materialism is a species of materialism: they share the essential features of their genus. Humans produce their enviornment, but not in conditions of their own choosing. the only way we can shape our discourse of the world is by the facts that we cannot ignore. We cannot vote the tides to turn.If there is an exterior world then ultimately, it determines what we can say about it, whether one person says a thing or a thousand. It is possible to be right against the party.
Just a thought, but without a conference resolution I don't think "Of Great britain" can appear on a logo. the extant resolution is to prefer "The Socialist Party" where confusion isn unklikely to occur. Since a logo is used on all occasions, I think that applies, and, specifically, as the Millies can't contest elections as the Socialist Party, on a ballot paper we have to prefer the non-Great Britain version.
