Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A Tory wrote:Above all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His manifestations of life – even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others – are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man’s individual and species-life are not different, however much – and this is inevitable – the mode of existence of the individual is a more particular or more general mode of the life of the species, or the life of the species is a more particular or more general individual life.[…]Man, much as he may therefore be a particular individual (and it is precisely his particularity which makes him an individual, and a real individual social being), is just as much the totality – the ideal totality – the subjective existence of imagined and experienced society for itself; just as he exists also in the real world both as awareness and real enjoyment of social existence, and as a totality of human manifestation of life.
Expell that man from the party!
OK, lets try this.Socialism is a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all: one for all and all for one, as some dumb ass put it. Another reformulation is to state that the objective of a socialist society will be to produce well rounded human beings, individuals who are ends in themselves and not a means to an end.In order to develop, and be free human beings, we will need to co-operate, since we can only be as free as were are produced to be (or, which is the same thing, as free as we can help each other to be). Another way of saying this, is that a given individual can only be free by helping others to be free. This is the underpinning of the concept of from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.The person with the best information regarding an individuals capacities is themselves (what might be a comfortable jog for some might be unendurable agnony for otehrs, I cannot measure another's pain). That is not to say there isn't a role for democracy in co-ordinating and organising the discussion of needds and abilities, but its role is to facilitate not dictate. The ends of producing humans describes (and circumscribes) the need for socialist democracy.This means socialism is an ongoing dialogue between flesh and blood human beings, not abstractions like 'society'.So, only the Tory party can deliver the abolition fo the wages system and real socialism. Hail David Cameron. Sorry. That slipped out. *wanders off twirling moustache*
Rule 1 wrote:Upon acceptance by the EC an applicant shall be deemed a member as from the date of enrolment by the Branch.Branch Standing Order 23 wrote:23. If quorum has not been met by the end of the day, the Secretary may post a further call with an extended deadline. Those members who are present may begin an inquorate meeting whose actions must be ratified once the meeting reaches quorum, or failing this at the next quorate meeting.So far as I can tell, there is no issue here, an inquorate branch meeting ratified an applicants membership, which has been approved by the EC, said member shall be deemed to have been a member from the point of acceptance by the branch (not of the EC's acceptance). The inquoracy is a matter for the branch, not for the EC considering a membership application.I recall my union branch functioning inquorately for years, as did Central London Branch, whilst it is good to seek quorum, sometimes we have to acft without it or face organisation paralysis: and in this case admitting a new member was a means by which inquoracy could be overcome, which is the objective. I suspect the EC will just re-affirm their September decision, and until then the new member should be counted as a member of the branch.
The only way for me to be free is through democracy, and so I remain committed to democracy. However, per the 6th Form saw, if I was democratically voted to death, I would decline, gracefully.Anyway, we've established that we can't all be involved in science, and that people have different abilities in science. So, lets go for it: we can't all do the same experiement, can we? Your turn.
Certainly not all members. Some members will be unable, as you indicate, to take part. Some will be babies, some will be senile or have some other mental illness or disability. So that's "all" knocked into a cocked hat.From each according to their abilities (and who knows better than myself what I can and cannot do?) to each according to their needs (and again, who knows better?) in a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.Your turn. We can't all do the same experiment, can we?
In a communist society, knowledge will be produced by members of that society, and there will be equal access to the resources of society to produce that knowledge, and people will contribute according to their abilities. Since those resources will be commonly owned, the only way they can be administered is democratically.Your turn. We can't all do the same experiment, can we?
I think we're both asking the same question here. Who produces the scientific knowledge (science = reliable organised knowledge)? We can't all do the same experiment, can we?Anyway, my answer is society. Your turn.
And no answer to my basic point, we ca't all perform experiments/research, and so will have to sit in judgement of the work of others…
Well, it all follows from the basic premise that we can't all do the experiements/teorising/reading, etc., so the rest of us are going to have to rely on testimony and evidence. And the evidence that will convince one person is the evidence that will convince a million.TBH, I am more concerned with interest than power, not being an anarchist and all.
I think I've previously mentioned Condorcet's Jury Theorem, and also raised the fact that if presented with honest evidence of technical experts a democratic body would agree with the proposition put before them. I've also suggested that the shortening of the working week would provide us with more time to study science and thinking. All I've objected to, as such is the voting part, which seems redundant. My objection, is that it's time wasting and unnecessary.
Indeed, and Einstein couldn't have begun to formulate the theory of relativity without non-Euclidean geometry and the mathematics of Gauss, riemann et al. By the same measure, Paul Dirac deduced the existence of anti-matter purely through mathematics (entirely by theory, without practice. Oh dear). That was later confirmed by experiment, as was relativity, else we'd not have mobile phones.Anyway:
Quote:Abstraction is mrelty a process of focussing attention upon one or another of th many universals that are around us. Galileo, for instance, focussed on the speed of a falling object and gave little attention to the endless other properties it might have — who owns it, where it came from, what it snmells like, what colour it is, how old it is, and so on. This focussing of attention, however, does not create any new thing which was not there before. It does not generate any mere 'object of thought'. Rather, it perrmits us to notice one of the many things that are there before us and that would have happened whether we noticed it or not.Science and necessity / John Bigelow & Robert Pargetter. CUP 1990.Put another way, if the consensus gentium trolled up to a beach and voted for the tide to halt, would they end up looking like a bunch of Cnuts?
Eee, ecky thump, at death Hyndman was worthWealth at death £237 10s. 0d.(Oxford Dictionary of National Biography)(Marx had about the same amount, Engels and William Morris had much more).
Ah, the wisdom of the BLF speaks…http://kmflett.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/john-wisden-karl-marx-h-m-hyndman-and-brighton-beyond-a-boundary/
Quote:It would of course be pure historical speculation to argue that Marx, John Wisden and H M Hyndman could have bumped into each other on Brighton seafront in the 1860s, and Marx certainly knew nothing of cricket.Indeed, what do they know of cricket who only cricket know?
Shirley, in democracy a minority can produce the truth: since democracy means the right of minorities to strive to become majorities, a minority position will become a majority position eventually? And all propositions emanate from a minority, since democracy means anyone can propose a motion?And lets not forget, that critical realism, as a realism still posits an external world which constrains, at the miniumum truth claims and commits us to some element of correpondence theory after all, any truth claim that doesn't correspond (to even a minimal extent) with external reality cannot be legitimate.
