moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:Nevertheless, all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our environmental conditioning.
No, "all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our social conditioning."The use of the term 'environmental' suggests that well-worn word 'material'.Our behaviour is not the product of 'material' conditions.If by 'material' is meant "ideas and nature", then it should be clearly said that one means 'ideal-material', and not 'material'.That is, 'social conditioning' involves 'ideas and nature', not simply physical environment, which is the infamous 'material conditions' that Engels wrote about, as opposed to Marx's 'material production', involving human ideas and natural environment.'Environmental conditioning' is a conservative concept, and is of no use to Communists who wish, through theory and practice, to transform our world.
Final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.
LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.You just can't help yourself, can you, Hud?You feign an 'interest', but won't discuss it.But, in reality, because you can't discuss it, through ignorance, you feel compelled to denigrate my attempts to discuss your philosophy as 'dogmatism'.Why not just say that you don't understand what I'm saying, and so don't feel able to discuss it, rather than pretend to 'have an interest' in your own 'philosophy', of which any criticisms are offhandedly dismissed as 'dogmatism'?Who are you fooling? Not me.
2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Hud955 wrote:LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
ALB wrote:The Minutes of the Outreach Department's meeting on 23 May to review the election campaign are included in the Election Committee's report to the EC on the election that has now been uploaded to the files section of Spintcom. It's Annex 2.Seeing that not all users on here can access the file section of Spintcom can I suggest you make the report into a google doc?
LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:There is no such thing as purely material action for human beings. All human action has ideal content. That can be assumed.Unfortunately, we've been bamboozled since Engels by the term 'material'. Most people actually think that the term means 'material', rather than, as you say, ideal-material. The same has happened to 'concrete'. Most people think it actually means 'physical', rather than ideas and material. So, it's not 'assumed' at all. We need to spell it out, and rescue Marx's ideas about 'material production' meaning human ideas interacting with the 'material substratum', to produce our world, both ideal and material.
Hud955 wrote:I agree with the point, LB. But it is a pedantic one.No, not pedantic, but philosophically vital, one still not understood by even socialists, never mind the mass of workers.
Hud955 wrote:Our case is founded on a class interest…Who or what determines 'class interest'?The Leninists claim that 'matter' does, that they can tell what our 'material interests' are.We, following the point you made above, regarding our class interest as ideal-material, is based upon actively created concepts and practice, rather than passively accepted from the 'material'.
Hud955 wrote:There are no 'proper' or 'correct' positions for the working class – or indeed, for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the claims of authority.But that's an anarchist or individualist belief, Hud.Our authority is class authority, determined by the democratic proletariat.Truth is elected, either by us as a whole, or by the bourgeoisie as an elite. Though, they pretend to be told by 'matter' itself. That's where the Leninists get their views from.
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Ozymandias wrote:I think it's about the only thing that cunt Lenin said that was right. It probably will take 500 years for workers to achieve class consciousness at the rate things are going.But he was wrong about Trades union consciousness because clearly they can no longer achieve even that.1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
alanjjohnstone wrote:How did the Outsource meeting go?How many turned up?Briefly because i know a full report will be getting made, what was the overall conclusion about standing 10 candidates? Did the people at the meeting consider our vote and media exposure worth the cost and energy and recommend repeating the venture?The meeting was very productive and the agenda covered all the issues and problems encountered during the campaign. We resolved some of them but there are further issues to discuss on the subject of 'Key messages and communication strategy' I've suggested to Rob Cox that he create a new thread here on that subject so all users can make a contribution.In the meantime it would be appreciated if all party members and supporters contact others to get on the new thread for contributions. We want plenty of discussion before ADM takes place.About 12-13 attended.
SocialistPunk wrote:We have gone off topic a fair bit, but it's an interesting and worthy discussion. Any one any idea if there is a thread that we could take this over to? Or is a new one required?There probably is a thread but seeing the disagreement seems to be over 'the necessity for quantifying support for socialism' I strongly suggest you start a new thread on that theme.
SocialistPunk wrote:I see your trying to wind me up Gnome, my dear. Trying to get me to post something inflammatory. All I'll say is that you obviously have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, so you just keep on posting the same quote by me that wasn't even a position I hold, simply a "what if", a "what would you say to that" scenario.Here it is in it's full context.SocialistPunk wrote:If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?And your reply.
Gnome wrote:Accepting that achieving socialism requires majority understanding and the ballot is the surest way of confirming that is what has happened, why then would "the people" instead embark on a certain course of mass suicide by confronting the state machine with force when they could gain control of it peacefully? Whatever the outcome would be in the wake of this romantic and dangerous nonsense one thing is definite; it wouldn't be socialism.Wow! I was only positing a "what if" scenario that you decided to inflate way out of context, but you've made a concrete statement (my bold ) that confirms your "If it it aint SPGB, it aint socialism" attitude, I detected previously.That if a messy, ie violent, revolution did take place, but was successful in achieving a global society of common ownership and democratic control, you would view the outcome as unsocialist, just because it didn't go your way.I know the SPGB/WSM believe in using existing democratic structures, where possible, to achieve socialism but I didn't think them so rigid in that stance as to reject socialism should it come about via a different route. Perhaps you're in the wrong political party? And still unable to discuss the pros and cons of using the state for social organisation I mentioned earlier (#61).
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
SocialistPunk wrote:I see your trying to wind me up Gnome, my dear. Trying to get me to post something inflammatory. All I'll say is that you obviously have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, so you just keep on posting the same quote by me that wasn't even a position I hold, simply a "what if", a "what would you say to that" scenario.Here it is in it's full context.SocialistPunk wrote:If a socialist revolution kicked off this year and the people decided to use force, and it succeeded, ushering in a new age of common ownership and democratic control by the people for the people. Would you stubbornly stand there stamping your feet, saying that it wasn't socialism because it didn't happen the way the SPGB said it should?And your reply.
Gnome wrote:Accepting that achieving socialism requires majority understanding and the ballot is the surest way of confirming that is what has happened, why then would "the people" instead embark on a certain course of mass suicide by confronting the state machine with force when they could gain control of it peacefully? Whatever the outcome would be in the wake of this romantic and dangerous nonsense one thing is definite; it wouldn't be socialism.Wow! I was only positing a "what if" scenario that you decided to inflate way out of context, but you've made a concrete statement (my bold ) that confirms your "If it it aint SPGB, it aint socialism" attitude, I detected previously.That if a messy, ie violent, revolution did take place, but was successful in achieving a global society of common ownership and democratic control, you would view the outcome as unsocialist, just because it didn't go your way.I know the SPGB/WSM believe in using existing democratic structures, where possible, to achieve socialism but I didn't think them so rigid in that stance as to reject socialism should it come about via a different route. Perhaps you're in the wrong political party? And still unable to discuss the pros and cons of using the state for social organisation I mentioned earlier (#61).
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
