stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The debate between Diamond and some anthropologists is clearly a technical, specialist one, and I have no dog in the fight. All I know for a fact is that Diamond is a wonderful and important writer. He tries to paint the big picture – any painting of that is bound to fall foul of the odd specialist every now and then. It doesn't really do all that much damage to the majesty of the painting.I'm glad Robin agrees with the point I made though – it is, as he says, hardly novel or profound, and obviously true. To what extent such behaviours can be put down to our genes is debateable and unsolved, but it would be very surprising indeed if there weren't some genetic component. We are chimpanzees, after all, not angels.
Brian's great, and a lovely guy – well worth reading. (I hope my recommendation doesn't reduce his sales.)
I have not followed all of what looked like a mostly pointless debate on this thread, but I am interested in the ostensible subject matter, and thought this link might be of interest – it's Jared Diamond defending his recent (and brilliant) book on the subject:http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Rousseau_Revisited.htmlRegardless of the facts in the debate about hunter gatherers, I would have thought that the merest introspection would reveal that human beings are naturally capable of and indeed delight in the most grotesque violence and stupidity (as well as kindness and intelligence). If introspection won't do it, just look at the contributions to this forum (including mine)!
The job of Marxists is to save capitalism:http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/yanis-varoufakis-how-i-became-an-erratic-marxist
I hope it's obvious that was a joke (considering myself a Marxist of sorts). Anyway, only dropped by to see what you were saying about Syriza, and I leave suitably impressed (with caveats).Toodle pip
Adam's certainly right about one thing: being a Marxist means contemporary affairs need never make a fool of you. A little dialectic will always get you out of trouble.
A very interesting discussion and fascinating links, thanks all. I'm surprised that a more positive point hasn't been made wrung out of the affair (unless I missed it). Syriza, within barely a few years, went from being a tiny group of Marxist misfits to winning power, using entirely democratic means. No one thought this at all likely, including (probably) everyone on this forum, the mainstream press and the well-funded and informed think tanks they rely on, and no doubt Syriza themselves. But they did it.It seems they won support partly by promising to do something about the horrific situation in Greece, partly through solidarity work with those suffering. Obviously this isn't the same as trying to win support for a longer term change without prospect of near-term success ("Socialism"). But still, it does in some ways at least back up the SPGB's case, and will no doubt continue to back it up as it fails to live up to the high (reformist) expectations of the people who voted for it. That it will achieve *nothing* to alleviate the suffering of the Greek people ("reformism doesn't work"), however, is almost certain to be proved entirely wrong. If "history" won't convince you of the folly of this argument, perhaps contemporary affairs will.All the bestStuart
ALB is I think spot on with regards to Ukip and Tusc (see other thread). Indeed, Ukip have in recent times started to spout some Old Labour rhetoric, so they must realise this too. It seems they're trying to marry up the appeal of both nationalism and socialism. They should have called themselves the National Socialist Party from the off to tap into this historically powerful idea.He misses the mark, though, with his swipes at Left Unity. One may with equal justice sneer at the "World Socialist Movement" or "Socialist Party of Great Britain" for being nothing of the sort. Left Unity is the Ukip of the left in aspiration, not in reality, as everyone in it is only too painfully aware. Though I think you're right in saying that the post is increasingly being filled by the Greens.
An alternative historyEngels: I've had an idea, Charlie old boy, that we should engage with this "political economy", perhaps read the books to see if there's anything to be learned, anything that might be useful for the socialist movement. Apparently these books are the high point of the development of a scientific understanding of the economy.Marx: Ha ha ha! What a waste of time. Don't you know political economy is ideological through and through? Nothing to be learnt there.Engels: It is of course ideological, but might we not have something to learn from it anyway? They have after all worked hard to understand the subject they're writing about, they are, are they not, clever men?Marx: Pah! What absolute rot. They're complete dicks. I approach the question as a Communist. So what I do is I read every sentence of the book with my ideological perspective, and if you do that, you quickly see that it's barely worth reading past the first chapter. I disagree with every sentence! It's not quite how I'd say it, you see. I've no idea what these books say, but I do know that it's what we all know anyway. Have we not eyes to see for ourselves? Engels: Hmmm…Marx: What's more, have you seen what political conclusions they come to? I can't possibly agree with that, and that's what they're pushing. It would have been better if they hadn't bothered with their stupid books. I'd much prefer it if we skipped history and politics altogether and just came out and said straight what we want, which is for everything to be lovely instantly.Engels: And you think this will be useful knowledge for the socialist movement?Marx: It's the only knowledge worth having! Why waste your time with all this academic twaddle and guff when we can just educate workers by presenting them directly with pretty pictures of the future?Engels: Hmmm. Well at least I won't have to support you while you spend years in the British Library then, so that's good. Beer?Marx: Beer! No no no, I've got this truckload of leaflets to hand out explaining my ideology to anyone who will listen. Coming?Engels: Hmm. I really must find some new friends…
One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFN
LBird: that's not critical thinking, it's blockheadedness. You'll never learn anything new if you don't first empty your cup. Read it as a totally gullible fool, a sycophant, a dupe. Then you'll absorb the ideas that are actually there rather than the ones you first thought of.
PS Not the forum for it, but since it was raised, Alan was wrong that I wanted to give party funds to Occupy London. I proposed a motion, seconded by another member, that we donate branch funds to our local Occupy camp, ie, the one in Birmingham. To the enormous credit of some branch members, this was only narrowly defeated. If you want to pick up the witch hunt, you might like to talk to current Birmingham branch members.
I'm sure Alan is a good trade unionist and nice to his dog and all, but while reading the book again today I was angered yet again by his attitude – all too common in the party and the culture generally sadly. As I read the book, I realise that actually I have not yet been nearly "sycophantic" enough – Piketty's book is such a colossal achievement – as YMS says, it's as if someone had provided a book demonstrating once and for all and beyond much debating that climate change is real and deadly and we'd better do something about it quick. I'd go as far as to say that, of all the tons of stuff I've read over the years on economics, I could have just saved myself the bother and waited for this wonderful book.I was also reading the other day that this is much the view of the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, published in one of the world's premier intellectual journals. But I expect Alan will see through such fraud in a flash.As for LBird, what could be more tedious and pointless than going through the book with a fine-tooth comb pointing out that Piketty's ideological assumptions aren't exactly yours? Write your own damn book!By the way, if anyone's on Twitter, I've been summarising the book as best I can while I read, which might be of interest to anyone who feels they might possibly have anything left to learn in this life. I'm at @leftunityleam.Cheers
"Although i prefer to see myself as the boy who pointed at the emperor with no clothes on."I know you do, that's what's so sad and pathetic! There's a thread discussing an important new book, and all you want to do is point and laugh and say how you've seen through it all, even though you've never read it and have no intention of doing so. And this is the man who would turn up to Occupy with a "truckload of leaflets" to educate people! Very sad, very sad. Jack Fitzgerald will be spinning in his grave.
