Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lbird,not sarcasm: an expression of irritation of having to treat every five second sentence on an internet discussion as having the precision of a carefully thought out essay. I used word that, if I'd put more effort in, I wouldn't have, but they were good enough, and I appologise for "Bucket of Cod" "Ha'peth of tobacco" would have been more apposite.
LBird wrote:Why not 'simplify' it to "idealism-materialism"?I dunno, I suppose because in the 30 seconds I took to type the post, those were the words that occurred to me.
LBird wrote:According to Pannekoek, the 'laws of nature' are a human construct, and so would 'vary' with the society that constructs them.Light in Andromeda travels at 299,792,458kps, we know this because if it doesn't our constructed models don't work.Anyway, i appologise for saying "laws of nature" I meant "buckets of cod".
LBird,It's materialism simplified to one sentence for the benefit of simpification. I'd suggest in contains/encapsulates the extrapolations you note (If necesary). It would be as much to assert that the laws of nature are invariant with regards to location. Same thing said with other words.Anyway, I appeal to authority:
Wikipedia wrote:In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action.Que j'ai dit.
The SPGB is a materialist organisation, we don't require members to have an in depth understanding of evolutionary theory, but we do expect materialism, the basic principle that the world is explicable in terms of observable phenomena, and that we don't need to ascribe events to supernatural forces. The account of evolution (more accurately speciation through the modification of inherited characteristics by natural selection) works without preying in aid any transcendent entity (nor aliens). It enjoys the consensual support of biologists, and there is no serious scientific challenger to that model.The point of materialism is that we understand human agency can change the world. If a nebulous transcendent entity could interfere and turn off gravity tomorrow, then we needn't bother, we can just pray to it.
robbo203 wrote:A state entails guns – yes certainly – and all the other stuff you mention. But guns dont necessarily entail a state – anymore than a peice of machinery necessarily entails "capital". The "state" and "capital" are only phenomena that happen under certain socio-economic conditions i.e. the state implies the existence of class relations. No classes means no stateGuns are a necessary, but not sufficient condition of statedom. However, I'd suggest that even if the wages system were abolished, and an autonomous organised military force existed, it would shortly reconstitute itself as anew ruling class. It isn't just symbollic, it is necessary to physiocally take and hold the mechanisms of state.
Quote:So I would fundamentally question your claim that Capitalism's historic response in the face of its "apparent eminent abolition" has been to fight . We have never ever been in this situation. Not even remotely.Oh, but we have. From Russia to Chile the capitalists *believed* they were about to be abolished. Hence why I said apparent.
This just seems to be the latest in populsit tit-for-tat political fights. thailand, ukrain, Egypt: both sides can bring out the streets and mobilise their votes (although in Egypt and Thailand there is a split between urban and rural that underlies the main action, Ukraine has an industrial/mining basis in the West, which helps explain some of the differences as well). Obviously, I'd prefer street protest (albeit with sporadic killings) to Syrian style civil war, and it does show how the elites are having to find popular support. The interesting thing seems to be an absence of a specifically working class voice.
LBird,I did once upset an anarchist leaning member (who has since gone off to be a vicar(!!!)) by talking about democratic control of the police. And I still think that an early step would be to remove the quasi military structure of police and introduce more democracy into their structures, as part of the capture of state power. I still, also, think, we might end up putting police on the picket lines.To keep the scabs out, obviously.
Lbird wrote:Well, since I think that there will be a multiplicity of 'workers' parties' organised around different theories and assumptions about various policies, I don't see them as 'the same thing' as workers' councils.You get much the same thing at a Labour CLP meeting, different factions meet and fight. The point/forum at which the different strands come together and acknowledge their belonging to a common movement is the point we can talk about the party/councils. Fetishising workers councils is as sensible as fetishising the chairs in the meeting hall, they're just how it's happened sometimes. The point is that the working class will need a democratic forum in which to organise. Within that, I would also note that local councils and other elective bodies would do just as nicely, except they can't be as exclusive. 'Worker' isn't a definite category on which to base a franchise, so we will continue to need universal suffrage and the free association of self-identified workers to ifnluence it.
Robin,the state, in the form of communication nodes; command and control points; files, records, archives, procedures and the like, is a very real Thing. Oh, and guns. Lots of guns. I for one am allergic to dying of typhoid on the morning after the revolution.Capitalism has a past record of continuing in the face of it's apparent imminent abolition: the historic response has been to fight. Just as the Southern Slave owners, faced with their imminent doom chose one of the bloodiest wars in history as an option.
LBird wrote:That is, that the SPGB thinks that 'parliament' within a capitalist economy can be controlled by the proletariat.Of course the Parliament can be controlled by the proletariat, we only need to win the elections. Whether that parliament could do anything other than govern, ultimately, in the interests of capital, is another thing (and let's recall that web are discussing a non-revolutionary situation in which the working class lacks the strength to overthrow capital). That doesn't mean that we can't open the books, put secret diplomacy to one side and dismantle the anti-democratic parts of the state and make life generally harder for the capitalist class to exert their influence except openly.I'm giving my own opinion, but one which I don't think is entirely without the scope of the party's agreed position.As to worker's councils, I think the revolutionary political party and workers councils are the same thing, but using different words and looked at with eyes asquint.
LBird wrote:I don't recognise this scenario, YMS, as any sort of revolutionary situation.I've no intention of allowing the CBI to exist, never mind to negotiate with it! Or 'to govern within the limits of capitalism'!No money, no market. Production and distribution on the basis of need. What's the problem?Yes, that's right, that's a non-revolutionary situation, where the revolutionary parts of the working class are in the minority, but still able to exercise decisive control of the levers of state machienry whether in localities or nationally by a technical quirk of the electoral system.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority). Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.I should add, of course, that the situation could arise where the working class collectively and as a whole consciously deals with the capitalist class as a whiole, through some formal mechanism. Not corporatism, but an open line of division say, between the democratic socialist majority's delegates and the CBI.
From looking at RT, and listening to the UK press, I think a partition of Ukraine is the desired outcome from both Russia (which would effectively get Crimea back through a puppet state which it might absorb at some point) and from Germany. The press seem very keen to talk up the geographical spread of the protests, particularly RT, which keeps hammering home that the protests are in the west of Ukraine.
I must be missing something here.1) The socialist party achieves political majority within the working class.2) The working class achieves political power.3) The organised working class, using political power, works to abolish capitalism.Now, if only for a few days, hours or nano-seconds, the political preponderance of the working class will exist within capitalism.Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority). Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.For example, in the UK, I'd imagine any "socialist" administration that, say, won a parliamentary majority with 25% of th vote to do such things as (at least have referendums proposing to) abolish the Monarchy, House of Lordsa and Prime Minister and introduce annual Parliaments, elected office for important positions (Chief Exec of the NHS, BBC, etc.), etc.
As Fred said in 1845:
Freddy wrote:Democracy nowadays is communism. Any other democracy can only still, exist in the heads of theoretical visionaries who are not concerned with real events, in whose view it is not the men and the circumstances that develop the principles but the principles develop of themselves. Democracy has become the proletarian principle, the principle of the masses. The masses may be more or less clear about this, the only correct meaning of democracy, but all have at least an obscure feeling that social equality of rights is implicit in democracy. The democratic masses can be safely included in any calculation of the strength of the communist forces. And if the proletarian parties of the different nations unite they will be quite right to inscribe the word “Democracy” on their banners, since, except for those who do not count, all European democrats in 1846 are more or less Communists at heart.We can contrast this to David Cameron's recent conversion to Communism (Sandbags for free, money for flood defences no object), just because some floods happened where the Tories need votes.The effect of a growing socialist movement would be the advance and entrenchment of democracy (the big constitutional questions that traditional leftists eschew in favour of 'bread and butter' questions).So, even if we achieve a local majority before we can effectively organise to abolish teh wages system, we can extend democracy in the meantime.
Two new stories on this theme:http://theconversation.com/what-to-expect-from-dysons-new-robotics-lab-23054
Quote:The Dyson lab won’t bring us Rosie the Robot Maid any time soon but this investment could open the way for a new generation of single-purpose intelligent domestic appliances. It could bring us the robot vacuum that can clean around your complicated media centre and perhaps even something that can tidy up a child’s bedroom without putting everything in the wrong place. That’s a pretty enticing prospect for most parents.andhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nuclear-fusion-hits-energy-milestone-1.2534140
Quote:Now, researchers at the National Ignition Facility of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the U.S. announce that they managed to use lasers to compress fuel made from two heavier forms of hydrogen enough to kick off a nuclear fusion reaction. And for the first time, the reaction managed to generate more energy than was absorbed by the fuel from the lasers."That's a major turning point in our minds," said Omar Hurricane, lead author of a paper describing the results, published in Nature today.However, he was quick to point out that because the fuel absorbed only a small amount of the energy from the lasers, there is still far more energy put into the entire process than comes out.That is partly because the fuel did not reach ignition — the point at which the reaction becomes self-sustaining and energy production increases dramatically.
