Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:To avoid dismissing socialism as a distant future prospect, we must be prepared to think in terms of present institutions being immediately taken over for use by a socialist society. This includes present council and government offices and lines of communication, international bodies such as the United Nations, local community organisations such as housing co-operatives or even tenants' associations, and, perhaps most important of all, companies…Clearly, we must consider in greater detail how the transition can be made from the present dictatorship of the boardroom, to the democratic control of society.
http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/04/will-socialism-be-centralised-1983.htmlJust when and in what form does this debate that Clifford suggests is essential take place. In all the environmental and public health questions, do we wait only until the day after the revolution to address them or is it valid to begin the debate now and offer the socialist solutions in advance of Day 1 of socialism.Surely the more socialists there are and the more socialists inhabiting ever more of the spheres of society, they will be making the proposals and putting forward solutions in their unions, in their professional bodies. Building socialism starts before socialism arrives with actual plans and the networks that will carry it out
Frankly Alan, and thankfully, due to the prominence of the contradictions within capitalism, debate and discussion on the form of future socialist society is taking place right now. Admittedly this discourse is on a small scale and speculative but nevertheless encouraging in that its agreed the tools for a production for use and free access society are readily available within capitalism but require various tweeks so they become fit for purpose and illustrative of good practice in standards and performance for socialist society.One notable example of this occurring is in the social housing sector where the advent of Housing Quality Standards (HQS) has meant the introduction of Planned Maintenance Projects/Programes has made the industry heavily reliant on informatics and project management so the refurbishment is carried out on time and to specification.I'm talking here about huge investments in current social housing stock which in many instances are no longer attracting tenants due to the economic factors linked to: unemployment; lack of services; competition from the private sector; poor performing estates; and anti-social behaviour. Obviously, the overall picture across the UK is patchy to say the least with some areas more affected than others.Nonetheless, these factors aside the HQS is illustrative of what is required to improve housing stock within capitalism. When the profit motive is ditched a more sensible picture comes to light. For instance: instead of tens of thousands of houses under the control of a local authority, or housing association; housing in socialism would be more manageable by restricting the number of houses to ten thousand in a designated area per housing association; and that particular housing association would be managed by local people.It also goes without saying the present HQS would be replaced by a criteria (SocialistHQS) where sub-standard work and materials is not on the agenda.
Young Master Smeet wrote:At the end of the film High-rise there is a quote that sounds like it is Margaret Thatcher, i doubted it's authenticity, since it used the term 'state capitalism' and I thought if Thatcher had ever uttered those words, we and any state-caps would have had them rammed down our throats. But it seems she did say it, and it's a good quote:Quote:There is only one economic system in the world, and that is capitalism. The difference lies in whether the capital is in the hands of the State or whether the greater part of it is in the hands of people outside of State control. Where there is State capitalism there will never be political freedom. Where there is private capitalism there may not be political freedom, but there cannot be political freedom without it.If I remember correctly when she became Prime Minister she went even further during her and Regans' negotiations with Gobachov when she said 'We recognise your society is a state capitalist society and that ;;;;; ….'
ALB wrote:Just bought something from the local cornershop for £1.29. I don't normally give to charity but faced with two charity boxes decided to give the 1p to the blind rather the Battersea Dogs Home, to help with the white sticks the Tories are planning to tick awayNot sure whether the dogs for the blind are presently calculated to be an aid.
ALB wrote:Looks like they've overdone being nasty this time. Cuts were always necessary from a capitalist point of view, but they decided to concentrate them on people below pension age on the cynical ground that more old people vote for them. Nice to see them come unstuck over this.Which leaves them with the problem of 'what do we do next' in order to cut spending? They've tried tax credits and that failed, the recent budget attack on PIP has also failed dramatically. Does this mean they have little choice other than an early attack on pensioners, albeit those 'better off pensioners'?If they do that before the referendum they would not only lose the referendum but also the next election. But can they afford to wait until after the referendum when the debt interest will continue to rise?Yes like YMS said previously the maintenance of the working class has become a massive burden for the capitalist class and there don't seem to be any solution for them. Which reminds me the Romans were faced with a similar problem.
Further problems noted here: https://www.publictechnology.net/articles/features/universal-credit-will-full-flowering-ever-see-light-day
Tim Kilgallon wrote:IDS – In Deep ShitNot deep enough by a long shot. His resignation is potraying a man of principles. However I suspect he's been looking for a way out for sometime with the evidence building up that Universal Credit is unlikely to work as expected. Just too many complexities for one computer to handle all the changes in circumstances for those on benefit.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.No, I am not arguing that 'inorganic nature' is 'isolated in the mind'.
ALB actually wrote:The confusion arises over the different usages of the term phenomena. Pannekoek used it in same sense as LB's "inorganic nature", i.e the world out there, the "externality from consciousness" that provides the material out of which the human mind produces "mental constructs". LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.I don't think you realise the huge concession you have made to "materialism" with your concept of "inorganic nature" as an "externality for consciousness" that is not "isolated in the mind". The difference between your "inorganic nature" and "matter" is only a matter of terminology. You too are separating "being" ("inorganic nature") from "consciousness".If you want to call yourself an "inorganic naturist" that's ok as long as the definitions are clear, but personally I still prefer "materialist" despite its range of meanings.
What's the betting that the wordsmith will try to twist himself out of this conundrum by resorting to a connotation?
Vin wrote:Beats me me why we take him serious. He talks bollocks.Such arguments have to be taken seriously by socialists, otherwise we would be failing to expose them for what they are – utter nonsense. Not entirely bollocks, for he is correct when it comes to the class ideology of scientific theories. But by lumping them all together under capitalist ideology, and then stipulating that truth can be established by the global vote he got lost under the weight of his own confusion and lack of understanding the limits of democracy. And like DaveB and YMS said, he failed to make the differentation (I called it distinctions way back).I said on the old thread of Science and communism that it seemed he was advocating a whole new scientific methodology which would be established by the non-scientific community. With all societies being composed of specialists and generalists such a theory would have not found universal acceptance and like Robbo said repeatably – totally impractical.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:…we make the rocks talk…Yes, the 'active side' is us, not 'matter'.
Brian wrote:But what intigues me is that you purposely avoid accepting the dictum of, 'I am therefore I think' in fear I suspect of consciously admitting that without matter thinking is a non-entity.I don't know where you've got this from, Brian.Besides the obvious bourgeois phrasing of your dictum (surely socialists should be saying 'we', rather than 'I'?), I keep stressing Marx's 'theory and practice' (idealism-materialism).I suspect the Engelsist ideology that you hold, but seem to be unaware of, which tells you that there are only two alternatives, materialism and idealism, leads you to always see only a dichotomy, and since Marx stresses 'theory and practice' (which requires both ideas (consciousness) and inorganic nature), you have to ignore this and categorise any talk of 'ideas' as idealism.The unity of 'being and consciousness' is the basis of Marx's philosophy. And 'consciousness' is the 'active side', not Engels' notion of 'matter'.
Wow if indeed it is the case you accept the dictum, 'I am therefore I think' how does this square with your other dictum and insistence for 'theory and practice'? It seems like Lenin you want the penny and the bun by insisting that the manufacture of ideas (bound up in the various theories) precedes the practice?Like I point out below its the 'practical observations' resulting from the chemical soup – the interaction – of the various components of matter which generates the formulation of ideas and theory."It seems to me you are forgetting that it takes the trigger(s) of human matter interacting with the properties of organic and non-organic matter to produce human consciousness,which is just a chemical soup of energy transforming our senses into practical observations from which we can produce a theory and a social product."I agree that ideas are a set of notions, whereas idealism is a set of beliefs. There is however, undoubtedly an amalgam between materialism and ideas but not between materialism and idealism. Which brings me to the point that you insist on calling your theory a combination of idealism and materialism, or materialism and idealism.No wonder your theory is confusing to say the least!
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:It seems to me you are forgetting that it takes the trigger(s) of human matter interacting with the properties of organic and non-organic matter to produce human consciousness, which is just a chemical soup of energy transforming our senses into practical observations from which we can produce a theory and a social product.Brian, you seem to be confusing the historical emergence of consciousness from inorganic nature, with the process of social cognition between consciousness and inorganic nature.Further, your use of the noun 'matter', as Kline points out, stems from Engels' usage (and the other 'materialists'), not from Marx's.Matter is not the 'trigger', as the materialists hold: this would make 'matter' the 'active side', which Marx denies, when he argues that consciousness is the active side, as for the idealists.Criticism of what exists is the 'trigger'. That's why Marx calls Capital a 'critique', not a 'material trigger'.
I said "trigger(s) of human matter" not trigger. There is more than one component of human matter which triggers human consciousness and ideas. And there's more than one component of organic and non-organic matter which triggers human consciousness. In the sense that we can see the organic grow and evolve and also determine the properties of the in-organic to establish their usefulness in social production and broaden our understanding of evolution. Indeed in this sense we make the rocks talk by cracking their code of atomic structure and sub-structure for our benefit.All this discovery by science is of course not entirely free of its class ideology. But what intigues me is that you purposely avoid accepting the dictum of, 'I am therefore I think' in fear I suspect of consciously admitting that without matter thinking is a non-entity.
LBird wrote:No-one argues that ideas spring from no-where.The idealists argue that ideas spring from divine consciousness.The materialists argue that ideas spring from matter (no consciousness involved).The idealist-materialists (Marx's misnamed 'materialism') argue that ideas spring from human consciousness.So, what ideology do you follow (whether aware of it or not)?You say ' "aware" resulting from experience and observation': this is 'materialism', or, in modern terms, 'induction'.'Experience and observation' are not the source of 'awareness', according to Marx, but 'theory and practice' is.It seems to me you are forgetting that it takes the trigger(s) of human matter interacting with the properties of organic and non-organic matter to produce human consciousness, which is just a chemical soup of energy transforming our senses into practical observations from which we can produce a theory and a social product.Like Tim mentioned earlier our materialism stems from the dictum, 'I am therefore I think' – which you failed to respond to – in short humans must have something to think about e.g. matter in all its knowable forms. Without matter ideas and theory have no substance to latch onto and no visible human consciousness to put into practice.Of course ideas spring from human consciousness, however without the triggers of matter we are just another in-organic blob.
Vin wrote:rodshaw wrote:Therefore (and you can call me picky if you like), humans are a different kind of matter from rocks, a kind which embodies creativity.but matter neverthelessThe point being that matter creates. Basic preimise of MCH
Technically correct, but let's not forget that only some matter consciously reproduces the means to change and alter the immediate environment through creative production.
ALB wrote:Sounds like a complete spectrum of the possible votes: Yes, No, Don't Vote and Cast a Write-In Vote (for Socialism). But what is the "Republican Socialist Alliance" ? A one-man show?Nonetheless, we don't want to miss the opportunity to cover this event. Can we get a further speaker along to the next one?
ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:I vaguely recall a long time ago DannyL when he was a regular orator at Hyde Park becoming involved with some radical Muslims speakers there and the idea of a formal debate was raised…and we shit our pants – so to speak – scared that the debate would become a physical confrontation and HO would be damaged and no more was said about the possibility.I'm no sure about that anecdote. We have confronted radical Islamists in debate, at various universities in the 1990s. I recall the late Eddie Grant saying after he had done one that the last time he had seen an audience segregated into men and women at a meeting was at a synagogue. At one anti-war demonstration in Hyde Park our stall happened to be next to a radical Islamist one. The young people (men) of Bangladeshi origin were fascinated to hear the atheist case presented. They had never met one before. The perils of living in a secular society, nothing of course compared to the perils of an atheist living in ISIS-land.
I also debated with radical muslims during the war in Bosnia.
