DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:If we had any suspicion about any applicant's 'credentials' then clearly it would be infinitely advisable and far, far simpler not to admit them in the first place. Those of us who've been around for more than a few years know that it's become virtually impossible to expel anyone from the party…
Actually I agree. The EC does have the right to veto membership applications, precisely for reasons such as this. But as we don't check peoples criminal records, and I don't think we should, I'm not sure how we would know…
SocialistPunk wrote:I'm asking about what would the Party response be to having unsavoury characters in its ranks.I think we should burn them at the stake until they repent, and then drown them for good measure.In all seriousness you know the answer already. If someones actions are deemed detrimental to the interests of the party then charges can be bought and they can be expelled from the party. We have the democratic framework to deal with these things…
SocialistPunk wrote:So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer?I'm surprised an ex member is asking this. We don't have any policies save the democratic replacement of capitalism with socialism. Such issues would be dealt with democratically by society, it is not our place to dictate.
LBird wrote:Sounds like a rejection of science, and a return to empiricism!Sounds like a storm in a teacup to me!
LBird wrote:World revolution? Isn't that what your 'focus' is upon?Sometimes.About five minutes ago my focus was on "how to make a cup of tea". Das Kapital was of no use to me then…
LBird wrote:Do you assume that both bourgeois thinkers and socialist thinkers are of equal worth to workers?Depends on what they are thinking about..
LBird wrote:what 'bunch of theories' do you use to understand the world?All of them, but probably not all of them at the same time depending on what it is I'm focusing on…
LBird wrote:There must be a 'unifying' theory behind the 'bunch'.Why presume that? There's no good reason to really think there is, look into all the recent work on cognitive biases…www.youarenotsosmart.com
LBird wrote:So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.Of course it does. But I'd call that a theory or a bunch of theories, not an ideology.
I do not have an ideology. To me, and most other people, "ideology" does not mean what you use it to mean. I have many theories however, one being that nobody really knows what "matter" is and that nobody can do.Another theory I have is that we do not experience the world as it is but instead a recreation of it created by our brains.Another theory I have is that this recreation is shaped by the fact that we are not isolated brains but brains living in a sea of other brains..Another theory I have is that a world exists outside of me, existed before me and will exist after I am gone and that this world is material / physical in nature. i.e there is no supernatural spiritual dimension.How long do you want me to go on?…FWIW There's an interesting looking article on Marxism and CR is Capital and Class number 68 which I'm about to go through..
There's a short podcast to do with this book here:http://philosophybites.com/2014/08/jennifer-nagel-on-intuitions-about-knowledge.html
LBird wrote:They think: 'Surely the material tells us 'what it is'?' and 'Matter precedes ideas' and so they don't have to actively think, critically and creatively about 'what the material is', and that this thinking can change, and so the 'material' changes for us. The 'materialists' believe that they have access to the 'material', which remains fixed, as does 'knowledge' of it.I don't think anyone has been defending this position, apart from the strawmen created by your own imagination..
LBird wrote:Why not compare what Archer says about 'criteria of existence' with what stanford says about both these criteria and others that they can think of?Because all I have read about Critical Realism over the last 18 months or so does not make me think that doing so would be the most productive way to use my time or money right now. If you think that CR is such a good thing, and want to persuade us of it, then this would be something for you to do…
There are no right or wrong definitions only inconsistent uses of them. When I say "realism" and you say "realism" it seems we are referring to different concepts. So like I said if you want to talk about what "realism" means in the context of "critical realism" I suggest starting a new thread, something useful may come out of it who knows
LBird wrote:If you want to know what 'realism' means, why not ask comrades their opinion, and then think about it, rather than posting an uncriticised link?Well if you want to discuss Critical Realism, (which seems to be different from Realism as generally concieved) and it looks like you want to discuss nothing else, perhaps start a new thread. This quote from Bhakshar would be a good starting point..
Bhakshar wrote:The model of the society/person connection I am proposing could be summarized as follows: people do not create society. For it always pre-exists them and is a necessary condition for their activity. Rather, society must be regarded as an ensemble of structures, practices and conventions which individuals reproduce or transform, but which would not exist unless they did so. Society does not exist independently of human activity (the error of reification). But it is not the product of i.e. (the error of voluntarism).
