Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
But how do you know that the distortion you've identified isn't actually a distortion of the truth: that we can know? If every claim about the world is a distotrion then so is the claim that there is a distortion, so claims could be true, except if they were true then that claim would be false, so it wouldn't be a distortion so it would be true. All Yorkshiremen are liars.
*sigh* Interpretation is one thing, but such things as whether Marx did or didn't make a statement is something we can debate without distortion. (By the way, how do you know that there is distortion? I don't think you can know that).By the way, I've forgotten, might you be the same Lbird who is a communist?I'm confident that we have a framework of investigation that allows us to be confident in the information about the world we are capable of producing.
Of course, we don't treat the words of Marx as holy write, if we get dragged into these 'what did they really say' arguments, it's to rebut distortion. We're more interested in the ideas than the man. For example, this morning I've been tracking down this disgusting article by Marx on the Russian Loan it's utterly indefensible, and we wouldn't want to defend it. Marx held many abhorent views with which we fundamentally disagree: it's the ideas we propound.
No, I've shown that I have a position, and opinions, not that i know. I'm interested to see what you're on about. That's what debate is for, to have my positions challenged and tested. Yes, frankly I am suspicious of the whole 'It's all Engels' fault' thing, because it exonerates Marx, and I think they hang together or not at all. They wrote the Holy Family together, and the German Ideology together. yes, we can read the differences between Principles of Communism and the Manifesto to see that Marx seemed to be more theory orientated and what he brought to the relationship, but overall, as can be seen from some letters, I think it's more that their general output got caught up in the intellectual atmosphere of the time (as their own theories would suggest).
I'd like to see that. Although the fact that the theses ends with Chuck announcing the new materialism suggest, er, that he was a materialist…
The question you raise is one of power if some subset of society does the work of producing knowledge, and your claim that democracy is the answer to that power. Yet, whenever challenged about the question of whetehr we can all do the basic production work to get that knowledge, you run away, you don't seem to be able to handle having your ill considered and one dimensional notion of collectivism challenged.I am satisfied that the social production of knowledge occurs through members of society engaging in activities and then discussing them: and that the debate needs to be open ended, transparent and democratic in the fullest sense of being managed by the people in that society themselves. this means people will have different ideas,a nd different quantities of data and abilities to process and deal with that data: indeed, this difference is essential to the process of producing knowledge.In a socialist society, there will be many different ways of doing science, and attempting to understand our worl.
A social individual, alone on their desert island can indeed perform an experiment[*], that much is clear. You'll recall this question arose out of my contention that the democratic polity would be being fed information by science practitioners and would come to the same conclusions as the honest minded practitioners. Or, more tot he point,t aht information is necessarilly (and essentiall) unevenly distributed within society.However:
Quote:Again, is 'knowledge' something static that a person can have, or something that society dynamically produces and constantly changes?This is exactly what I have been arguing for against your undemocratic call for a vote on science. [*]Experiment is meant synechdocally, to stand in for all modes of research, theorising, etc. but expressing the essential point that only one eye at a time can peer down a microscope.
Well, what I ask is: can all of us do the same experiment? Or, must we, as social beings, rely on our fellows to pass us information: preferably in the form of reliable organised knowledge, knowledge which is gathered with an other mind in mind?
Quote:The individual is the social being.I have never talked about isolated individuals. Also
Quote:even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with othersPeople alone on desert islands are social beings! Real,. sensuous human beings, individuals.
A Tory wrote:Above all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His manifestations of life – even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others – are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man’s individual and species-life are not different, however much – and this is inevitable – the mode of existence of the individual is a more particular or more general mode of the life of the species, or the life of the species is a more particular or more general individual life.[…]Man, much as he may therefore be a particular individual (and it is precisely his particularity which makes him an individual, and a real individual social being), is just as much the totality – the ideal totality – the subjective existence of imagined and experienced society for itself; just as he exists also in the real world both as awareness and real enjoyment of social existence, and as a totality of human manifestation of life.Expell that man from the party!
OK, lets try this.Socialism is a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all: one for all and all for one, as some dumb ass put it. Another reformulation is to state that the objective of a socialist society will be to produce well rounded human beings, individuals who are ends in themselves and not a means to an end.In order to develop, and be free human beings, we will need to co-operate, since we can only be as free as were are produced to be (or, which is the same thing, as free as we can help each other to be). Another way of saying this, is that a given individual can only be free by helping others to be free. This is the underpinning of the concept of from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.The person with the best information regarding an individuals capacities is themselves (what might be a comfortable jog for some might be unendurable agnony for otehrs, I cannot measure another's pain). That is not to say there isn't a role for democracy in co-ordinating and organising the discussion of needds and abilities, but its role is to facilitate not dictate. The ends of producing humans describes (and circumscribes) the need for socialist democracy.This means socialism is an ongoing dialogue between flesh and blood human beings, not abstractions like 'society'.So, only the Tory party can deliver the abolition fo the wages system and real socialism. Hail David Cameron. Sorry. That slipped out. *wanders off twirling moustache*
Rule 1 wrote:Upon acceptance by the EC an applicant shall be deemed a member as from the date of enrolment by the Branch.Branch Standing Order 23 wrote:23. If quorum has not been met by the end of the day, the Secretary may post a further call with an extended deadline. Those members who are present may begin an inquorate meeting whose actions must be ratified once the meeting reaches quorum, or failing this at the next quorate meeting.So far as I can tell, there is no issue here, an inquorate branch meeting ratified an applicants membership, which has been approved by the EC, said member shall be deemed to have been a member from the point of acceptance by the branch (not of the EC's acceptance). The inquoracy is a matter for the branch, not for the EC considering a membership application.I recall my union branch functioning inquorately for years, as did Central London Branch, whilst it is good to seek quorum, sometimes we have to acft without it or face organisation paralysis: and in this case admitting a new member was a means by which inquoracy could be overcome, which is the objective. I suspect the EC will just re-affirm their September decision, and until then the new member should be counted as a member of the branch.
The only way for me to be free is through democracy, and so I remain committed to democracy. However, per the 6th Form saw, if I was democratically voted to death, I would decline, gracefully.Anyway, we've established that we can't all be involved in science, and that people have different abilities in science. So, lets go for it: we can't all do the same experiement, can we? Your turn.
Certainly not all members. Some members will be unable, as you indicate, to take part. Some will be babies, some will be senile or have some other mental illness or disability. So that's "all" knocked into a cocked hat.From each according to their abilities (and who knows better than myself what I can and cannot do?) to each according to their needs (and again, who knows better?) in a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.Your turn. We can't all do the same experiment, can we?
