Wez

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 516 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Pathfinders: The Opposite of Binary Oppositions #133026
    Wez
    Participant

    I realize that this is a waste of time (and off subject) but this 'might' be of interest to L Bird as it tells the story of the divergence between science and the bourgeoisie. More often than not these days science confronts bourgeois ideology rather than supports it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

    in reply to: Server outage #133002
    Wez
    Participant

    I keep misreading this as 'server outrage'!

    in reply to: Marx and Automation #128700
    Wez
    Participant

    The lion of Marxism has always been pestered by the flies of anarchism.

    in reply to: Pathfinders: The Opposite of Binary Oppositions #133013
    Wez
    Participant

    I believe the very first writing (discovered in Mesopotamia) was a form of accounting (digitally) and this predates the arrival of the bourgeoisie by some millenia. Marx often uses the dialectical process of quantity transforming into a quality – such as when money becomes capital. Is this an example of the digital being converted into the analogue?

    in reply to: Tankie critiques of the SPGB #132938
    Wez
    Participant

    They're all equally devoted to authoritarianism.

    in reply to: Tankie critiques of the SPGB #132937
    Wez
    Participant

    There's no reason to believe that Leninists are any closer to socialist consciousness than your average liberal or conservative.

    in reply to: Radio Imagine #120130
    Wez
    Participant

    Live broadcasting from HQ on the internet with a link from our website might be worth a thought.

    in reply to: April 2018 Socialist Standard #132356
    Wez
    Participant

    I don't know why you're using the print version above – complete with A4 cropping marks!? Use the online version I sent you. 

    in reply to: BBC Balance #124419
    Wez
    Participant

    This is quite interesting on Adam Smith and his views on the 'free market': http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052ln55

    in reply to: Marx and dialectic #124035
    Wez
    Participant

    I can see it would be pointless in continuing a debate with you Ms. Lichtenstein as you are contemptuous of any ideas you don't agree with. This forum is a strange place. I've been informed here that Marx was not a materialist and now that he was not a philosopher – it's like a parallel universe. At least the old boy would be pleased that we're still talking about him – whatever he was or was not. I still believe that without Kant and Hegel there would be no Marx and that politics is a synthesis of economics, history, science and philosophy. I take my leave of you before the moderator gets me.

    in reply to: Marx and dialectic #124029
    Wez
    Participant

    We started out by talking about Marx and philosophy and now we've been switched to Marx and dialectic. My post about bolshevism was a response to Ms Licthenstein's website which suggests they had something to offer in that original debate. She asked me why the compartentalising of intellectual Endeavour was 'so heinous'. I just think that specialisms sometimes mask the truth that a wider multi disciplined approach can reveal. Such a division of intellectual labour always strikes me as rather 'bourgeois' and unhelpful – Ollman has interesting thoughts on this – courtesy of a dialectical approach. Why, Ms Licthenstein, do you have such contempt for philosophy? Surely it's just one of a number of approaches to life's challenges?

    in reply to: Marx and dialectic #124020
    Wez
    Participant

    I've never really understood why intelligent people have any interest in the works of Lenin or Trotsky. The Bolsheviks were political opportunists who, when not persecuting workers, spent their time justifying their coup d'etat as some kind of socialist revolution. Their theoretical works offer nothing to the traditions of socialism and their actions have only served the purpose of alienating the working class from socialism. Unfortunately because of the anniversary this year of this non-event we'll have to endure endless coverage of this anti working class movement that ended in an historical dead-end – yawn.

    in reply to: Marx and dialectic #124014
    Wez
    Participant

    There you go again: 'Marx's 'dialectical method' is what we would now call 'Historical Materialism', which is a scientific theory, not a philosophy' – compartmentalising intellectual endeavor. It's very old school to believe in such divisions and although Engels made a big fuss about the 'scientific method' I don't believe Marx really shared his enthusiasm even 'back in the day'. Anyways we have moved on and recognise the ideological element within every discipline. As for Mr. Ollman's 'opinion' (you, in contrast, do not admit that your ideas are also 'your opinion') I can say that his work gave me a better understanding of Marx. By the way, why do you end your posts with 'The emancipation of the working class will be the act of the workers themselves'? Does this imply you have an elitist belief that 'workers' can never achieve the intellectual level of philosophy? 

    in reply to: Marx and dialectic #124012
    Wez
    Participant

    I don't think that debating which intellectual division of labour Marx did or did not belong to is helpful; he contributed to all of them. As for Ms Lichtenstein's ' dialectics detox programme' I can only respond with a quote from Bertell Ollman:  'All of Marx's theories have been shaped by his dialectical outlook and its accompanying categories, and it is only by grasping dialectics that these theories can be properly understood, evaluated, and put to use.' 

    in reply to: Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology #123922
    Wez
    Participant

    I found Bertell Ollman's book 'Dance of the Dialectic' particularly helpful with aspects of Marx's epistemology.

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 516 total)