stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:]Nothing mystical there. No occult forces at work. Nothing occult at all.
Actually, what’s fascinating about Dietzgen for me is that his vision/philosophy is precisely mystical – if you’d told me that the quote you posted was by a Buddhist, I would not have batted an eyelid. What I mean is that Dietzgen (and modern science) share a broad vision of reality that is similar in many respects to that which has been put forward by “mystics” for thousands of years. So yes, it is mystical, but it’s also true. As for occult forces, what could be more occult and mystical than Newton’s force of gravity?
Yes, I’m well aware of Chris Knight’s criticisms (together we interviewed Chomsky for Radical Anthropology journal, http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/Journal.html), but I’m no longer convinced that the criticisms are even relevant to Chomsky’s concerns. Basically, Knight is asking what social conditions are necessary before we might expect language to evolve, given current sociobiological theories. Chomsky says, well, we know next to nothing about that, beyond speculation. It doesn’t impact on Chomsky’s concerns, which is, as he says in New Scientist, constructing theories that might tell us something nontrivial about the genetic predisposition for langauge and how it works.
Scientists use many and varied methods: yes, exactly: “The only method of investigation is to look hard at a serious problem and try to get some ideas as to what might be the explanation for it, meanwhile keeping an open mind about all sorts of other possibilities.”I read the interview, but don’t see what you mean about it demonstrating a closed mind. Which bit did you have in mind?
The only scientific methodology you’ll ever need:“Now, as for dialectical materialism, in my view this is a rather obscure notion … It is clear that people do use the word ‘dialectic’ as if they understood it, but I personally have never understood it. In fact, my own feeling is that it is a kind of ritual term which people use when they are talking about situations of conflict and so on. Personally, I do not find it a very useful idea… As for my own methods of investigation, I do not really have any. The only method of investigation is to look hard at a serious problem and try to get some ideas as to what might be the explanation for it, meanwhile keeping an open mind about all sorts of other possibilities. Well, that is not a method. It is just being reasonable, and so far as I know, that is the only way to deal with any problem, whether it is a problem in your work as a quantum physicist or whatever.”
@ALB: You’re asking me what the magic answer is, but there isn’t one. Favourite quote of mine:”There are no magic answers, no miraculous methods to overcome the problems we face, just the familiar ones: honest search for understanding, education, organization, action that raises the cost of state violence for its perpetrators or that lays the basis for institutional change, and the kind of commitment that will persist despite the temptations of disillusionment, despite many failures and only limited successes, inspired by the hope of a brighter future.”Is there a need in this for a group of people to put forward the bigger picture? Sure, of course. I just don’t understand why that group of people must also snipe at those whose work makes the development of the bigger picture possible.
This is a good short piece on dialectics, inspired in part, so the author told me, by his reading of an SPGB pamphlet on the subject:http://kenmacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/from-unidentified-flying-objects-to.html
The distinction made between everyday struggles by ordinary people trying to make their lives better or less bad under capitalism (good) and political reformism (bad) doesn’t make any sense. To take the example used before, it would mean supporting people taking over ununsed buildings and squatting them, but opposing groups campaigning to prevent the criminalisation of squatting (to take a live issue). In cases like this, socialists shouldn’t let their principles get in the way of doing the right thing. As for “support”, it’s surely simply a matter of solidarity – socialists work in solidarity with working class people to protect and advance our class and human interests. I don’t see what meaning ‘socialist consciousness’ has outside of feelings of solidarity and contributing to actions that build it. It’s what I meant ages ago when I said that there’s very much more socialist consciousness outside of the party than there is (sadly) inside it.
Alan, you need to learn to be briefer, no one’s going to read all that. As for criticisms of Occupy that strike me as fair, informed, sympathetic – all the things it needs to be to be worth a shite, here’s one that struck a chord with me:http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2012/01/occupy-movement-londonAll the best
PS I repeat my question: why are you demanding that the Occupy movement achieve in a few months what the SPGB (and the left and socialist movement more generally) has failed to achieve in over 100 years?
Hi Alan, I refer you to Old Grey’s answer above. And yes, you’re right, I think “the goal is nothing, the movement everything” is a reasonable summary of the current state of play. That’s important. We can talk about goals while we’re moving. If we’re not moving, talk about goals is pointless, in fact boring. On tax dodgers, I refer you to the reply I gave some messages ago. Interesting video:http://studiooccupy.org/#!/media/10319Cheers
@DJP: As far as I know (and it’s hard to keep up, so I might be wrong, it might be easier, like Gnome, just to not bother trying to keep up at all and just pretend knowledge), all Occupy groups practice open membership and consensus (or modified consensus), and so therefore experience all the strengths and positives in this, and also the weaknesses and negatives. Perhaps the fact that Occupy is a “collection of disparate and independent groups” is also in some sense a strength. See, for example, Paul Mason’s new book.@TheOldGreyWhistle: It’s nice to hear some sense on here. Totally agree with you comrade.@alanjohnstone: “The question is – should such acts be given uncritical support ?”That is NOT the question. No one is asking that question for the simple reason that everyone already knows the answer.”But does it offer an accurate description of the workings of capitalism and does it advance the case for socialism ?”Why are you demanding that Occupy achieve in a few months what the SPGB has not managed to achieve in over 100 years? The SPGB’s descriptions of the workings of capitalism are not accurate, merely roughly true, and it has not advanced the case for socialism one inch (or at least, not one inch beyond that achieved by 1,000 other groups). SPGB members are far too quick to point out the “illusions” held by others. Why behold you the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?
Interesting, thanks, perhaps send your comments in as a letter? I’m not sure Ticktin can be quite so easily dismissed, but only because people I know, like and respect (non-trotskyists, genuine communists) take him seriously. But I’ve not investigated enough to comment. To be fair to him, he does say, doesn’t he, that the USSR was not capitalist, only to say that it was much worse than that, ie, didn’t reach the level of progress of capitalism?
@Gnome: Gnome’s list of reforms is not taken from Occupy Wall Street, and no such list of demands has won wide approval (or been voted on by General Assemblies) either in Occupy Wall Street itself or more generally. You need to actually read what you Google, Gnome. Even a brief glimpse at Wikipedia would have put you on the right lines. But there you go: the only people who find what they’re looking for are the people looking for fault.
I don’t see what’s patronising about compassion, and it’s precisly the “illusions” we are discussing. They don’t seem like illusions to me. What the last century (or certainly the past few decades) has shown is the extreme danger that lies in wait for those who abandon the pursuit of reform and progress.
If the movement succeeds in (to use just a few examples of ongoing and partially successful efforts) forcing Greek bondholders rather than state social spending to take the brunt of losses, or preventing the British government forcing the unemployed into unpaid work and privatising and slashing NHS spending, or preventing the banning of collective bargaining rights in America, and so and so on, then I can’t see that time has been wasted. To return to the original point, would it be a good thing (ie, not a waste of time) if these protestors succeeded in reducing tax avoidance among corporations and rich individuals, and hence (if forced) reducing the impact of social spending cuts? How can any socialist, or indeed anyone with compassion for the poorest people in our country, or the vaguest awareness of self-interest as workers, answer no?
