Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:LBird wrote:I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.
Unfortunately it seems no one else shares this opion.
No, they don't do they.Ah well, there you go.
Nonetheless, despite this impasse, in my estimation some valuable lessons have been learnt from this discussion so far. And lets not forget the challenges highlighted during this discussion still remain and they are not going to go away.This being the case, during this pause, it would be really helpful for us newbies if the main contributors post a list of what they think are the lessons they have drawn from this discussion so far.
LBird wrote:When the SPGB gain a majority in parliament, they are going to disband parliament and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, to legitimise "Workers' Power", aren't they? So that all the current state organs obey orders given by the Councils?There you go again projecting current terminology onto the future society and in the process causing confusion. I suggest before you go any further you read our pamphlet 'What's wrong in using parliament' so you digest and understand where we are coming from in reference to the revolutionary process and the decision making process in socialism in particular.Of course scientific decisions of importance will be taken up by the community, but for the general community to deal with scientific opinion and expect them to vote on it is not a practical proposition for them or the scientific community. Indeed, if this thread is anything to go by – which is riddled with opinion – it would be a great turnoff for the electorate and inevitably lead to a minority deciding which opinion holds water. Which is elitism, which we are all trying to avoid – including YMS.Democracy can be a two edged sword so can we try and keep the discussion focused on the thread title before we start dipping our toes in the decision making process for scientific progress and action. There is a specific thread for this type of discussion.
rodshaw wrote:Imagine it’s this time next year. The revolution has happened and the new socialist world is a week old. What will you be doing? What will you no longer be doing? Apart from the street parties, what visible signs will there be of the new society?Writing my resignation to the party.Doing the weekly shopping.No rush hour, no school runs, half empty shops of goods and people, not so many planes flying overhead, monuments being torn down, countless community meetings taking place, splashes of colour and works of art everywhere, empty spaces being turned into community gardens.That's just for starters.
I'll never forget the time I was on the platform at Speakers Corner and receiving a battering from the organised hecklers, who had obviously spotted a wet behind the ears naive new speaker from the SPGB who had no idea on how to deal with the absurd questions coming from all directions in a crowd of about 200.After about 45 minutes of organised mayhem and with no liquid refreshments to hand or any party member to take over I was starting to feel the strain. To my relief I spotted Larry walking past the outside of the crowd and shouted over to attract his attention. To my dismay he glanced over, smiled, and walked on. As if to say 'Hard luck, get on with it'! You can guess my thoughts at the time.Larry, was the only speaker I knew of who frothed at the mouth when on the platform. And when you asked him a question it was wise to stand to one side before he replied.
So far there are not many protesters. 250 in Cardiff and about 350 in Newport. I assume the 'lockdowns' with limited access to the assembly point is putting people off demonstrating.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:LBird wrote:What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.It depends on how you personally select and classify "the best minds on offer". Not that it matters in this discussion for its not about individualism or personality, but the selection and classification of terms and their meaning so that a theory of Science for Communists becomes the accepted democratic tool for the workers of today and the citizens of tomorrow.
[my bold]I couldn't put it better myself, Brian.I might be missing something out, or I might be able to express myself better, and I'm sure what I'm saying is only food-for-thought to stimulate a debate between workers who say they aim to build for Communism, but at least I'm trying to contribute to what you've said, above. You'd think that more comrades would be at least intrigued by a suggestion for democracy in science, and that they'd think that there might be something to Marx's aim to 'unify science', that's worth discussing.As to 'the best minds on offer', I can only judge by those who post on this thread, and, quite frankly, DJP and ALB have been, at least recently, the only ones who are contributing, and even that has been mostly negative in tone. Some others have asked some relevent questions, but then not returned to the discussion when I've given answers.
Glad you put the key part in bold but unsure you understand its implications and consequences in respect of projecting terms like "workers control" to describe the decision making process of direct participatory democracy in the future. Quite frankly they don't mix and only cause confusion when this discussion in particular is demanding by default that the selection and classification of the terms used and their meaning are precise and concise so any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be responded to in a language the majority of us can understand in relation to socialism.And so far this is rarely occurring! By the majority I am of course referring to those like myself who are following this discussion not just because we are "intrigued" but also interested how we can ensure that socialism safeguards against a technocracy or the re-appearance of a class society by democratic methods. That aside and to stay on thread: the reason imo why this thread is only attracting relatively few posters is not because its a very difficult subject matter to get to grips with – we are used to that and we'll get there – but when we apply critical thinking and requests for explanations to your posts your frustration seems to get the better of you and your style of response is off putting and conflict ridden.As socialists we seek cooperation and not conflict with all like minded workers in discussing any subject relevant to the class struggle and socialism. Nevertheless, our participation in such discussions is dependant on the use of non-violent communication, no name calling and that our critiques of some of the terms used and their meanings are seen and understood as the responses we have come to expect from our opponents. In this battle for ideas its essential we tackle this particular issue of selection, classification, terms and meanings by seemingly posing the negative when in actual fact we are reaching out in a comradely fashion for a positive response and further clarification so that any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be explained and put in a language which the majority of us can understand.The truth of the matter is if you are unable to convince socialists you are unlikely to convince other members of the working class that your theory merits consideration for the present and the future.
LBird wrote:What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.It depends on how you personally select and classify "the best minds on offer". Not that it matters in this discussion for its not about individualism or personality, but the selection and classification of terms and their meaning so that a theory of Science for Communists becomes the accepted democratic tool for the workers of today and the citizens of tomorrow.
rodshaw wrote:Were / are the Weidberg family capitalists, or have I got that wrong?Correct. Larry made umbrellas. Not sure how many he employed.
DJP wrote:ALB wrote:Actually, I agree with the substance of this, i.e (1) that Marx won't have held that everything is material or physical and (2) that material and ideas have the same status. In which case the argument would seem to be about what to call this view, which I'm sure could be eventually settled.I agree with both points one and two.The answer as to "what to call this view" is still materialism though, after all Marx said quite plainly "I am a materialist".Materialism doesn't mean that everything is material but that everything is material or depends on or arises out of the material.We don't need a new term since no one still subscribes to the "crude materialism" that Marx (and Engels) criticized.
I have to disagree which is why I've suggested making a distinction between CR and 'Critical Materialism'. Agreed that a materialistic way of thinking can lead to applying critical thinking but like you and others have exemplified time and again the actual reponse elicited depends on a variance of a conflicting set of interests: from the methodology applied, to which side you bread is buttered, to citations of opposing views.Whereas if the term 'Critical Materialism' is adopted it (1) It makes these variances an established part of the methodology applied, and until the respondent declares and understands their specific interest the reader is left in no doubt that its suspect or contaminated by capitalist ideology or non-science. (Which to some extent explains why LBird is so impatient and frustrated with our responses). (2) It takes Marx and materialism a stage further in identifying a unity of purpose between science and social science. For by default the whole subject is under constant review, assessment and re-assessment.This is going to run and run and we have yet to establish a sound terms of reference.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:And there lies the problem of confusion with you and Bhaskar…But my tag is not Bhaskar, but LBird, so why not engage with what the self-proclaimed Communist and admirer of the SPGB's commitment to democracy, who has been attempting to discuss this for a year, LBird, has to say, and forget Bhaskar, for now?Why the obsession with people I quote, in support of some things I say, rather than engaging with me, and what I say?I'm trying to help (god knows, I've tried) comrades to avoid most of the complexity, and get a hook into what I think would benefit workers in their relationship with science.Believe me, buying Bhaskar's A Realist Theory of Science is not the easiest route. Some discussion first would be immeasurably helpful, for those new to philosophy of science.Plus, most of what Bhaskar writes is similar to Marx: not in its politics, but in its opaqueness, so I don't understand most of what either of them say. That's why I want to discuss, and not merely regurgitate "the words of the Masters".[edit] Plus, DJP has form with the diversionary method. He's used it before (the issues of 'physicalism' and 'mind' spring to mind), so it's not limited to 'Bhaskar'.
Your tag may well be LBird but nevertheless by trying to claim ownership on 'Critical Realism' you are inevitably going to come under attack from Bhaskar supporters and also the scientific community for deliberately confusing the debate.Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you intend doing what Marx done with Hegle – and Descartes – with both Bhaskar and the scientific method by putting them right side up e.g. I am therefore I think. Which in my estimation does not make Marx an idealist-materialist as you are claiming but a materialist.So why not just ditch CR and call it Critical Materialism?By the way as you may have guessed I'm new to the philosophy of science but keen to learn where science is going wrong in your estimation. So if you can convince me you are at least halfway there."Every beginning is difficult" Marx: Capital.
LBird wrote:DJP’s constantly used diversionary tactic of posting ‘links and videos’ without comment, either of the political content of the ‘links and videos’ themselves or of my original posts to which the ‘links and videos’ are an obfuscating response, is well known. This particular diversionary tactic is in addition to those that I listed at post #442.There have been some perfunctory comments about the Bhaskar video, but no attempts whatsoever to discuss my outline of CR, given in post #398. Not least, because I have serious disagreements with Bhaskar, but DJP seems to think an uncommented link is sufficient response to my extended attempt to explain some aspects of CR.And there lies the problem of confusion with you and Bhaskar using the same term to describe opposite theories. What is the point of competing over a description/name when you have the opportunity here to come up with a brand new description/name which is not contaminated by obselete philosphy? Surely you have enough on your plate already without causing further conflict over what is a true description and meaning of a term?One would have thought that if you were aware of Bhaskar you would have made every attempt to distance yourself from any possibility of obfuscation cropping up?
alanjjohnstone wrote:When i mentioned internet democracy, i had hoped BrianJ with his extensive first hand knowledge of TZM would offer supportive practical suggestions that we in the WSM could build upon. Perhaps he is reluctant to cover old ground especially when little can be shown for his earlier enthusiasm. I recall TZM brought in processes to enhance communications and reach agreements that we may well appreciate ourselves and follow if we want closer co-operation and co-ordination with the component parts of the WSM in live real time terms. As i suggested we should try things out on trial bsis to see if they work, what snags arise and how those can be resolved.EC meetings have now been conducted via SKYPE so what is the conclusion and what is the next steps to be. I would like non-EC members to have the capability of first observing the proceedings and then with the chair's permission to occasionally enter the discussions when appropriate.If an idea has merit then repetition of it, until it is adopted, is of value …otherwise we would have all given up being socialists a long time ago.Only too glad to cover old ground regarding experimenting with the enhanced communications available on the internet. Using SKYPE is fine for those EC members who don't wish to travel to HO. But for most party members its of no relevance at all due to its limitations on users being a maximum of 24 and the EC having a monopoly on its use. And the same goes for the companion parties.On the other hand if we were to use TEAMSPEAK – like TZM do – not just for EC meetings, but also for Conference and ADM all members of the WSM who have access to a computer and the bandwidth would be in a position to make exactly the same contributions as if they were actually in attendance. For TEAMSPEAK can accommodate up to 250+ users and the functionality also ensures the chair controls the meeting far more effectively than if it was a live meeting where you can have delegates speaking over other delegates.What I would like to see happening is several members getting together and using TEAMSPEAK on a regular basis so they are in a position to explain its advantages to the rest of the party. But lets not forget that SKYPE is also available for use by EC Committees.
Vin Maratty wrote:As this thread was started by LBird , am I the only on who feels uncomfortable about discussing it when he is unable to respond.Perhaps it is only my own personal experience but I can feel his frustration.LBird is on moderation, not suspended, which means he can if he so wishes post here but all his posts are filtered by the moderator.
ALB wrote:I must confess that at one point I thought that the term "critical realism" might be a useful alternative to "dialectical materialism" to describe the theory of understanding/knowledge/science held by Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek and said so in one of the numerous threads we've had on this. It suggests that there is a "real" world that exists outside our minds, with the word "critical" bringing out that the mind places an active role in understanding this outside reality. But now I see it comes associated with a baggage which none of these would accept. So we'll have to stick to "dialectical materialism".In the spirit of keeping this discussion in line with the scientific method it would be helpful if you could describe what this baggage actually consists of.
SB_UK wrote:OK – in summary:Politics – discussion about what is and what isn't moral.Science/Technology – an understanding of reality and a solution to man's technical issues pertaining to living a moral existence.— Both ending — giving way to:Art – living life for exquisite sensory experiences.-*-Now going back to Brian's initial comment – we're looking at a simple evolutionary change in man relating to people acquiring morality (true) as determinant of action.What do we have to do ? Talk sense until all people are united in the single (only) cause of living a meaningful life.At the moment – living life is like waiting for a bus – you can't do anything for the damage that you cause – any and everything undertaken within a global capitalist infrastructure is wrong.In an effort to keep this discussion on track my initial comment touched on the issue of TZM not seeing the necessity for a political challenge to bring about a society based on production for use and free access."I suspect the reason he stood on the Resource Based Economy ticket which TZM advocate was to get free publicity for the idea. Much like us in that respect. However, because TZM are strictly arguing for a change in values to bring about the necessary changes in capitalism they have unfortunately dumped all political dialogue in the waste basket labeled 'party political activity'.Although their members have a free hand to stand in elections they are not encouraged to do so for they see no need for a political challenge being organised by the 99% to bring about a revolutionary transformation in the ownership of the means of living.According to TZM the necessary changes in values are brought about by an evolutionary process and not a revolutionary process. I have yet to figure out how they reached this conclusion when history explains otherwise."The rambling nature of your postings not only illustrate but also confirms that most supporters of TZM fail to understand the revolutionary transformation from one mode of production to another consists of politcal, economic, social and cultural changes in how society produces and distributes human needs. These four factors is part of a process called 'Social Evolution' in the sense of an historical pattern emerging which outlines how this process is completed to bring about the required changes.TZM see no need to include the 'political factor' which means in effect they have decided to ignore any conflict between the state and the majority of society. This functionalist perspective presumes a change in values is all that's required when historically the evidence points in the opposite direction.For the basis of class rule is control of the decision making process aka the state machinery who determines that profit is a priority over human needs.In short: Equality for all requires a political solution and to ignore this you do so at your peril.
