Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Perhaps I need telling: the SPGB is not a Communist organisation. Then it will be shown quite clearly that I’m the ‘naïve innocent abroad’, and should go back to my books and playing alone with my intellectual ‘mud pies’, and leave the world of politics to adults, like Vin.Vin wrote:But, LBird, what is 'mud'? What are 'pies'?
Well, what a polite person you are to know LBird
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.In the interests of trying to promote a little harmonious discussion, here is the basic definition of ideology.i·de·ol·o·gy[ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]NOUN [PLURAL I·DE·OL·O·GIES.]1.the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.2.such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.3.theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature Of course if anyone wants to they can seek out long academic tracts on the philosophical nature of ideology, but there is little point in doing so unless confusion is your goal.
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.
LBird Why should forum members take you serious and engage in discussion when you come out with a load of vile remarks about them when you get frustrated and can't hide you ignorance? I am not the only forum member you have attacked on this forum. I have been nothing but polite to you even though your posts are full off confusing nonsense and you are unable to present a cogent point of view. If you cannot defend your position on this forum why not go back and argue with the Leninists, they are as confused as yourself
SocialistPunk wrote:I've no idea what went wrong with my post in terms of its layout. I tried to edit it to know avail.Yeah, it looks like nonsense, like an LBird post lol
SocialistPunk, post #34, wrote:Of course if anyone wants to they can seek out long academic tracts on the philosophical nature of ideology, but there is little point in doing so unless confusion is your goal.'Confusion is your goal'? Could be the name of a socialist band!
SocialistPunk wrote:Why keep it simple YMS, when obfuscation is so much more helpful?Yeah, it does begin to look like this, doesn't it, SP? Confusion and obfuscation as a deliberate policy.As if the philosophy of science isn't confusing and obfuscatory enough, already!
LBird wrote:'Confusion is your goal'? Could be the name of a socialist band!Change the 'your' to 'my' and adopt it as your pseudonym
Just done a bit of searching and as I suspected the word Creed is more commonly used to refer to an American rock band that are often considered to be a pro christian band .Generaly the meaning of the word is associalted with religious doctrine although it does cover the realm of political belief etc.There is also the fictional character Apollo Creed from the Rocky films played by the actor Carl Weathers.But if we try hard enough I'm sure we can complicate matters further.The word is derived from the latin credo, "I believe". Now I could be wrong on this one but I dont think they had Fascism, Communism, Marx or even capitalism in mind, way back over a thousand years ago.So I sugest in the interests of simplicity, and I know some people look down their noses at such a suggestion, we use the word ideology to refer to political belief etc and the word creed to refer to religious belief etc.If we all agree (democratically of course) to stick to some basics maybe a productive discussion can be had.
SocialistPunk wrote:So I sugest in the interests of simplicity, and I know some people look down their noses at such a suggestion, we use the word ideology to refer to political belief etc and the word creed to refer to religious belief etc.If we all agree (democratically of course) to stick to some basics maybe a productive discussion can be had.It all depends on what comrades think that the 'basics' are.I've presumed, on all threads that I've entered, that I'm discussing with Communists, and that the word 'ideology' would be totally unproblematic, as would 'class', 'ruling ideas', 'Marxism', etc.If other comrades are seriously suggesting we should begin with an overview of political events and ideas since the French Revolution, or are still at the developmental stage of needing to be convinced of the case for Communism, then I don't think that what this thread set out to do is possible.
I’ve had a little think about this issue, and perhaps the best approach is to just start with some basic ideas, and some basic questions, and see if we can generate enough understanding and consensus to keep taking things forward.I’ll try to avoid philosophers, books, concepts, links and ‘evidence’ (for now, at least), and attempt a few simple steps.If this method doesn’t prove to work, because comrades want proper ‘evidence’ for my necessary assertions at this point, I’ll abandon it, and we can try some other way.Does this sound feasible, to everyone?
LBird wrote:Does this sound feasible, to everyone?I have no intention of entering intto a discussion with an individual who becomes nasty, sarcastic and derogatory when he feels he is cornered. Besides you havent got a fucking clue
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.