Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, there is plenty of point in doing so, because that definition you give is merely a synopnym for creed, so why not use creed?The OED list four meaningas, two obsolete or rare so:
OED wrote:1. a. (a) The study of ideas; that branch of philosophy or psychology which deals with the origin and nature of ideas. (b) spec. The system introduced by the French philosopher Étienne Condillac (1715–80), according to which all ideas are derived from sensations.4. A systematic scheme of ideas, usually relating to politics, economics, or society and forming the basis of action or policy; a set of beliefs governing conduct. Also: the forming or holding of such a scheme of ideas.But the term also has specific meanings used in marxist terminology, which may require furtehr explication above and beyond the everyday uses.
There's no reason why any socialist should know all about ideology. To be a socialist is to want a system of society based on common ownership and democratic control.I have read hundreds of pages on the question of ideology, and it isn't as clear cut as you seem to suggest.1) A near synonym for creed. ;2)A weltungshaung
) False consciousness. ;4) Unconscious assumptions. ;5) The study of the origin of ideas. ;6) A mind set, or consciousness itself. ;7) Consciously political ;that's seven very different meanings it can hold, from a rough call off the top of my head — compare with the closeness of the varierty of meanings for science, and it's clear that the term ideology is subject to some heavy ideological dispute.And here's why we need to understand Piketty:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28459473
BBC wrote:A wealth tax on people with assets of more than £3m should be imposed, the Green Party says.Setting the tax at 1% to 2% would raise between £21.5bn and £43bn annually from the wealthiest 1% people in the UK, the party, which has one MP, says.Expect Piketty's name to be used in support. Mind, a wealth tax was what Adam Smith advocated, so it's not the most radical thing under the sun. Still, an interesting shift.
LBird,but I have being trying to discuss communism and science. What have you got to say on the matter? What propositions are you putting forward?
LBird,there's a third: that you're not explaining yourself very well. What, exactly, do you want to say about science?
LBird wrote:Another thread gone to the dogs.How so? Is this a response to my post discussing the term science itself?
LBird,it's a lot easier to make your point if you actually make your point.You could have thrown a hundred or so people at me who had something to say about means and ends, including Stalin.As things stand I didn't think your definition of reformist actually covered reformists, since it could include pro-capitalists and conservatives, reformists, at least in our context, are people who either think capitalism can be formed into something different. That doesn't necessarilly imply elitism.
OED wrote:SCIENCE 1 a. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something; knowledge as a personal attribute. Now arch. and rare.1 †b. Theoretical or intellectual understanding, as distinct from moral conviction. Paired or contrasted with conscience. Obs.†2. Knowledge or understanding acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any branch of learning. Also in pl.: (a person's) various kinds of knowledge. Obs. 3 a. A particular area of knowledge or study; a recognized branch of learning; spec. (in the Middle Ages) each of the seven subjects forming the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Cf. art n.1 9a(a). Now arch.3 b. In extended use, denoting a game, sport, or other activity conceived as being similarly organized. Freq. somewhat humorous. Now rare except in noble science n.4 a. Paired or contrasted with art (see art n.1 3a). A discipline, field of study, or activity concerned with theory rather than method, or requiring the knowledge and systematic application of principles, rather than relying on traditional rules, acquired skill, or intuition.4 b. A branch of study that deals with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less comprehended by general laws, and incorporating trustworthy methods (now esp. those involving the scientific method and which incorporate falsifiable hypotheses) for the discovery of new truth in its own domain. 4 c. With of. Denoting the application of scientific methods in a field of study, activity, etc., previously considered open only to theories based on subjective, historical, or undemonstrable abstract criteria. 5 a. The kind of organized knowledge or intellectual activity of which the various branches of learning are examples. In early use, with reference to sense 3a: what is taught in universities or may be learned by study. In later use: scientific disciplines considered collectively, as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation; the collective understanding of scientists. Also with modifying word.5 b. spec. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the physical universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. Also: this as a subject of study or examination. Cf. natural science n.5 c. With the. The scientific principles or processes which govern or underpin a (specified) phenomenon, technology, etc. Also: the scientific research into these principles or processes. Usu. with of or behind.So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much asthe uidea was created with the otehr in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.
LBird,ever heard of James Duff Brown?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duff_Brown
Quote:Reformists can’t imagine everybody having the same say in the production, distribution and consumption of our wealth.This is just blithering nosense. Many "reformists" would say they agree with our ends, but disagree with the means, and believe that piecemeal change can work. Essentially, it is a project management question. They either suggest peice by peice implementation (or parrallel running, in some circumstances) but we suggest a hard change over.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Wasn't Robin Cook removed as foreign minister at the behest of the Israelis for his lack of 100% support for them?Don't know where you've heard that, ISTR he resigned rather than support the Iraq war (and the constant undermining of the "Ethical Foriegn policy") I think we need to be careful, there's a lot of wild rumours and exagerations about Israel, specifically that it punches above its weight in the British Foreign Office (which has traditionally be pro-Arab anyway, if Yes Minister is to be believed. The British establishment control British foriegn policy in the interest of the British ruling class.
http://theconversation.com/labour-takes-baton-from-piketty-as-it-ramps-up-for-election-year-28063This article shows the sort of disconnect thebween the readers (and implementers) of Piketty's book and his policy prescriptions.
Quote:Beyond the popular image, it does not take long to realise that Piketty is no socialist thinker – when asked: “What’s the matter with inequality”, he affirms that inequality per se is not a problem. The issue is rather in the way inequality is becoming blatantly inimical to how the economic system works and is impeding its recovery. I wasn’t sure that the audience at the Class event, filled with progressive thinkers, would agree with such statement – and it got me wondering.[….] The debate at Class found him also proposing new solutions such as share ownership schemes, popular in Germany.But, the imjportant thing to note is that his r>g has shaken the sort of social-democrat thinking that saw micro-economic efficiency leading to economic growth being the solution to poverty (and inequality, perhaps).
What is ideology? As I've said before, I can probably list about six different meanings of the word (without putting much effort in). For instance Althusser maintained that ideology is lived and subjectivity is a méconnaissance, so claims to a communist ideology could only be spurious in such a context where the subject lives in the material reproduction of capitalism.
