Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marx wrote:Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?
Penguin edition has second picturing as "depicting" it's worth noting that here Marx is not saying defining, delineating, adumbrating, decining or determining: describing is an incomplete verb, this means the paragraph above is not necessarily exhaustive.Now, there is a further question: why was it Marx: "therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him." because people were treating a philosopher he criticised 30 years ago as a "dead dog", was he trolling them? Or was he giving due credit: this is the section of text that leads to Hegel being "the first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."So, to read the whole text, Marx is saying he has been misunderstood, and some readers feel he has presented his case in a German Idealistic (i.e. Hegelian way), but, his method is the opposite of Hegel's but Marx is, as it were, standing on the shoulders of giants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38787061Hamon: game on.
BBC wrote:He has experienced a surge in popularity from a range of progressive plans, including a proposal for a universal monthly income for all citizens.https://www.channel4.com/news/inside-the-battle-for-mosulCredit to Channel Four for producing this film, and at least breaking the silence: obviously, it's an embedded piece (lots of pictures of relieved civilians, especially children, but that woman in the houselooks abjectly terrified), but it's a picture of what's going on in Mosul.But, for reference, imagine a similar peice embedded with the Syrian Arab army.
Quote:Let the state compete with big business, let the people vote with the money in their pockets. Spend your money on state produced goods and/or services and see the profits be churned back into the peoples pockets via free further education, improveThe problem is entirely political: if the state were actively harming the profits of the capitalist class, they would start organising to remove that obstacle: unless we're consciously moving to abolish buying and selling, and determined to carry out common ownership, they'll just reverse the state ownership. If we are aimed at the abolition of buying and selling, then why bother competing at that very game? The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
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.
