DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ollman also felt the need to deflate ‘dialectics’ of the magical thinking and mysticism that it became associated with:
“Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves as an all-purpose explanation; nor does it provide a formula that enables us to prove or predict anything; nor is it the motor force of history. The dialectic, as such, explains nothing, proves nothing, predicts nothing, and causes nothing to happen” (Dance of the Dialectic, pg 12)
“Dialectics” is just a word that has become overinflated. I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about being “for” or “against” it.
It just refers to a movement or development of something through the pull and push of opposing forces or arguments.
For example, the writings of Plato are “dialectical” in that they take the form of a dialogue, with the arguments developing through the exchanges of the characters.
In Capital (page 102 Penguin edition) Marx says that his method of *presentation* is dialectical, meaning that it is presented as an unfolding and development of relations.
He also says that the way he conducted his research was different. That is, he had to gather and analyse material by reading classical political economy, government reports, and newspaper articles etc. Only after the material was gathered could he begin to work out the connections and relations between it all.
This Facebook post highlights an interesting section of Trump’s speech where he outlines his reasoning for persuing tariffs.
https://www.facebook.com/1122868148/posts/10234800853378739/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v
“If you’ve not seen it, then, to a certain extent, here, chapter starting on page 116?”
Thanks this looks interesting
“Would the situation have changed much since Robert Michels wrote his book on political parties, based mainly on the SPD”
Yes, there could be some relevant material in this. Will have to get a copy and look through.
In the writings of Kautsky he thinks that working-class participation in parliamentary politics would have a ‘prefigurative’ effect, to use some of today’s parlance. I just wanted to see to what extent this actually follows through to the internal structure of the SDP and USPD.
Incidentally, I’m wanting to find the same kind of information about the Canadian ‘impossibilist’ parties too.
Was just scanning through and saw this.
“The working class cannot be “better off”. They can either be slaves or free.”
I think the SPGB has been using radical republican tropes all the way through it’s existence, even if it may not have consciously labelled them as such.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/young-harry/1953/workers_betteroff.htm
Robin, perhaps it would have been better to use a source other than the Daily Mail? You know the mods at Wikipedia have disallowed it due to its regular unreliability.
With regards to ‘lesser evil’ voting. Yes, I agree if this is something that is pursued all the time, it will lead to a gradual drift away from what you want. But in politics context is everything. Suggesting that a course of action should be followed all the time, regardless of context, is just moralism. I think this is as close as you can get to a context where there clearly was a greater evil. And now democracy (which is essential for the achievement of socialism) in the US *is* under threat.
If you’re looking for an aphorism, how about; “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.
It’s hardly a secret that “socialism” or “communism” can mean something other than state control or nationalism. If the only people that knew this were the 10 members of the socialist party we may as well give up.
“I’m still sticking with my original bet of Trump (and possibly Musk) not lasting the first year in office.”
Ok. Through what mechanisms do you see them leaving or being forced to leave?
Why the mismatch? Clickbait. They want as many people to click on the video as possible, probably because they are looking to make money out of it. If you get enough views YouTube gives you a share of the advertising revenue.
The comment accuses them of using an AI large language model to write a summary from which they base their episode, instead of reading the texts themselves. No idea if the claim is true or not.
There’s a good video explaining how these things work here:
https://aeon.co/videos/why-large-language-models-are-mysterious-even-to-their-creators
Edit: listening to it the voices don’t sound quite right, so the audio could be AI generated too. The actual words are very cliche and generic which is a giveaway.
Thanks for posting that. Macnair’s articles on that website about “socialism and civic republicanism” and ‘possibilism’ are also interesting.
Macnair writes:
“This is not exactly an argument for taking the academic civic republicans seriously. But it is an argument for taking seriously the republican heritage of our own movement: for using an improved understanding of the republican tradition – into which the academics (and particularly the historians) provide an imperfect route – as part of the necessary process of renewing Marxism in the aftermath of Stalinism.”
It seems he is still under the influence of an unmurdered idol. If the the republican influence on Marx is central, then this gives us another way of illustrating how the work of Lenin was antithetical to it, even before the Bolsheviks came to power.
Depends on what the good is, if domestic producers can produce it at all, and by how much and what speed production could be increased.
“A hundred years ago, the Frenchman Charles Fourier, one of the first great prophets of socialist ideals, wrote these memorable words: In any society, the degree of female emancipation is the natural measure of the general emancipation.”
