Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If they were carbon based aliens then to achieve the requisite technology to get here they would already have gone through capitalism and their visit to Scotland would hold no surprises – assuming that the process of historical materialism is universal as the original post implies. If this is so then, obviously, there could be no chance of 'imposing' socialism.
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/
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?
There's no reason to believe that Leninists are any closer to socialist consciousness than your average liberal or conservative.
I don't know why you're using the print version above – complete with A4 cropping marks!? Use the online version I sent you.
This is quite interesting on Adam Smith and his views on the 'free market': http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052ln55
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.
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?
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.
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?
