Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:Benoît Hamon, the staunchly leftwing outsider who wants to introduce a universal basic income, legalise cannabis and tax robots has topped the poll in the first round of the French Socialist primary race to choose a presidential candidate. He will face the pro-business former prime minister Manuel Valls in a final-round clash between the party’s warring leftwing and free-market factions.
He may have come first in the open round of the Primary, and will have a run-off with Valls to see who gets to be candidate: currently SP are languishing in fifth, but a radical outsider might just enable them to bump up the charts: basically, the betting is the left will have to group round one candidate to try and get into the presidential run-off (probably Macron or Melenchon); but who knows what can happen when a candidate is chosen?
Low on time, here's the Women's Marchs' demands:https://www.womensmarch.com/principles
This is interesteding, ISIS have been using drones, though the MOD cannot bring themselves to use the word:
Quote:During the battle for Mosul, small armed remotely piloted aerial vehicles with grenades have been used by Daesh a number of times to harass Iraqi troops, with reports suggesting they have also been used to target civilian refugees.Also, note, phasing means the transitioon will run across elections, so it's open for future governments to feeze or accelerate as necessary: essentially, this is what we have now, without the appearance of institutional parity via the Burssels machinery.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speechCanada+ it is (or Turkey+), a bespoke trade agreement, presumably after a longer or shorter "phased" transitional plan:
May wrote:But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market.European leaders have said many times that membership means accepting the “4 freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the Single Market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.Fudge wrote:That agreement may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas – on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders – as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years.Presumably Britain will then 'voluntarily' keep adjusting its regulations to match the single market, and the EU will negotiate wth UK before changing anything that will cost trade with Britain.
Fudge wrote:There may be some specific European programmes in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution. But the principle is clear: the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end.Except, every year, Britain will voluntarily pay to join specific programmes: it's like replacing council tax with a series of police and fire charges, the cost and effect is the same, but at least you're no longer paying tax.
Capitalist Pig wrote:what about the rights of the local people to know who is coming into their town or city? their rights do not matter if the majority thinks otherwise?Well, currently no such right exists within a country: for example, there is absolutely nothing to stop Anglophones moving to the Welsh speaking parts of Wales, nor for Welsh speakers colonising a patch of London. I migrated from Yorkshire to London, and no-one could stop me. So, within the UK there are four official languages, and plenty of otehr non-official ones which local authorities take cogniscance of: there's no reason we couldn't expand such and treat the wold as one polity.
Capitalist Pig wrote:I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.Freedom of association is one thing, as is freedom of movement, and freedom of expression. But it can't be common ownership of the world if we have regional owners: but common ownership means common: so not section of the world can dictate in such a way as to effectively deprive another of their share: teh free development of each should be the condition for the free developmen of all. Democracy within common ownership has to be practised in such a way as to support, nurture and continue common ownership.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:but that there is no trace of Hegel or any of his concepts in that summary.Exactly, the St. Peterberg paragraph is silent, entirely silent about Hegel, our dispute is what that silence means.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Hence, we are still waiting for a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" — not a sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't the LTV.It was definitive, as in of giving a definition, if it was partial, incomplete, etc. then it was so in the same manner as the St. Petersberg paragraph. It is the only one you will get out of me, like the St. Petersberg paragraph. What you do with the silences in it, an any legimimate inferences, like the St, Petersberg paragraph, is up to you. You may wish to study the text, and context, around it. "Effort" was not a synonym, nice try, it was an encapsulation."'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."1) No such ideas would not be unique to Hegel, he was only "first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner " (K. Marx).2) The nearness is in my understanding of Hegel and Hegelianism passim, I may be wrong.I reiterate, that I do not need to find any other text by Marx, my evidence is in the Afterword to Capital, the text written by Marx, and you cannot account for Marx' ascribing to Hegel being "first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner", you have tried, weakly, and failed.
OK, we're being dialectical here.Here is the common ground: The "St. Petersberg" Paragraph is the the only published ccount of dialectic by Marx. It is, I believe, common ground, that it is not a complete or definitive statement, but the only one we have. We agree it is silent on Hegel: where we disagree is on what to make of that silence: Young Mistress Lichtenstein maintains that it is exclusory, I maintain that it is simply silence. This is the point at dispute.Now, to rise to a challenge.
YMS on the Labour Theory of Value wrote:The value of market goods is based on the amount of human effort it takes to replace them. The source of profits is the difference between the amount of effort involved in replacing goods, and the cost of buying the type of skills involved in replacing them. Not all of that effort can be realised in money termsThere, the labour theory of value.So, back to Marx, he was addressing the appearance of Hegelianism within his works (or alleged Hegelianism): hence why he follows the St. Petersberg paragraph with an analysis of why he may have used Hegelian terminology, a disclaimer that his method is the opposite of Hegel's, and an an acknowldgement that Hegel was "first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" .I do not need to find anotehr statement by Marx, nor am I looking for one, the words in the current one are enough to back up my argument. I think the silence is non-exhaustive, I think the St. petersberg paragraph (for exanmple) does not discuss what the underlying laws of development are, or how they work, but it does claim"Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. " which is as near Hegelian as I need.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:But, this is the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx ever published and endorsed, so, unless you can find another passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Postface, it stands as a definitive statement of what he called 'my method'.Indeed. And? There is nothing in that passage that excludes the notion that Hegel was first to generally and consciously describe that dialectic.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:In order to justify any such move you would have to locate that missing passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Postface, that tells us Hegel was still an influence on his 'method'. Since you haven't managed to find it (I suspect you haven't even looked for it!), it isn't.Not only have I not looked for it, I have no intention of looking for it, nor any need: since my argument does not rely upon any such fanciful document, but upon the words Marx put on the page.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Well, you do ignore it (and its significance), since you keep forgetting what Marx called it.What was that, again?Oh yes: he called it 'the dialectic method', even though Hegel can't be found in it anywhere.But that doesn't mean anything, especially as he adds Hegel immediately afterwards, he adds Hegel to someone else's summary. I could write a definiive description of the Labour Theory of Value without once mentioning Marx, what would that prove? What we can say is Marx acknowledges he uses the dialectic, that Hegel's method is not his, that Hegel distorted the dialectic.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:YMS wrote:"The absence of Hegel from a passage written by someone else is not a strong indicator of Marx's views of the matter, the fact that he glossed the quotation of someone else's opinions with a discussion of Hegel's rational Kernel suggests he is at least adding to that someone else's idea, that quote by another writer, that was not Marx's own opinion, that he didn't write, that originated from someone else, another person's idea, writing about Marx, not Hegel."That would have been a good point had Marx not called that summary "the dialectic method". Since he did, it isn't.
Ah, but this is the key, describing someone else's description of the the dialectic as such does not necessarily imply that he considered this the definitive definition (if he did, why didn't he say that? A good hermeneutic method is to consider how else a text could be structured or phrased). He says the St. Petersberg reviewer was describing the dialectic, and then goes on to gloss how Hegel was the "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. " from whose work one may "discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell" but who had mystified the dialectic.We're back to the co-operative principle: why say these things, if they add no meaning to the preceeding paragraph.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:It is even less sensible ignoring Marx's own description of that summary as "the dialectic method", despite the fact that it contained no trace of Hegel whatsoever.See you again soon, where I have no doubt that I will have to make the very same points, yet again.Ok, as many as it takes…But I don't ignore that paragraph, the absence of Hegel from someone else's description of the dialectic does not imply neccessarily that Marx considered he needed to be absent. That Marx then introduces Hegel suggests that he felt Hegel needed to be added. That Marx considered the dialectic existed pre-and-sapearate from Hegel's writings does not mean that he did not ascribe to him the position of being the first to generally and consciously describe it.
The context is Marx correcting the misappreenhsions about his work:
Marx wrote:That the method employed in “Das Kapital” has been little understood, is shown by the various conceptions, contradictory one to another, that have been formed of it.Marx wrote:The European Messenger of St. Petersburg in an article dealing exclusively with the method of “Das Kapital” (May number, 1872, pp. 427-436), finds my method of inquiry severely realistic, but my method of presentation, unfortunately, German-dialectical.Marx wrote:I cannot answer the writer better than by aid of a few extracts from his own criticismMarx wrote:Whilst the writer pictures what *he takes* to be actually my methodThe writer in St. Petersberg, generously, has misunderstood Marx, and rather than the severe realism described, Marx has actually used a dialectical method. (note the whilst).The absence of Hegel from a passage written by someone else is not a strong indicator of Marx's views of the matter, the fact that he glossed the quotation of someone else's opinions with a discussion of Hegel's rational Kernel suggests he is at least adding to that someone else's idea, that quote by another writer, that was not Marx's own opinion, that he didn't write, that originated from someone else, another person's idea, writing about Marx, not Hegel.That gloss, using human wrds, which ascribes to Hegel the privilige of being the first, not to originate the dialectic, but "first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" albeit wrongly, in a mystified form that contains a rational kernel.It's hardly a sensible method to ascribe more meaning to a paragraph simply because it comes first within a text, especially a developing argument.I really cannot remember what we discussed in 2013.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-against-daeshActually, this is the updating news feed, with more up-to-date info. Obviously, the wording is propagandistic (note how often they mention 'carefully' in the text). Interesting to note 1,350 personnel committed to the fight against Deash, I wonder if that includes ground crew?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-forces-air-strikes-in-iraq-monthly-listThis is a useful list, detailing the activities of the UK Airforce in Iraq & Syria.For example:
1st November wrote:Tornados patrolled north of Mosul where they supported advancing Kurdish forces. A Paveway IV guided bomb destroyed a Daesh heavy machine-gun position when it opened fire on the Peshmerga, while an Enhanced Paveway II demolished a building in which a light machine-gun was sited. Meanwhile, to the south-east of the city, a Reaper provided further close air support to Iraqi troops. It conducted Hellfire attacks on a mortar team who were spotted firing, and two groups of terrorists, including individuals with rocket-propelled grenades. The Reaper also directed a successful coalition air attack onto a number of terrorists defending a trench network.Capitalist Pig wrote:YMS- that is your idea of how it should be but what if a majority of people think otherwise? that they should control the flow of immigration and not allow open borders.If the majority of people in the world wanted to create borders, they could, and nothing would stop them. What couldn't happen would be for a group of people in a small area to declare themselves a local majority, and close off the border that way, that would, in effect, be steeling…
