Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

bolshiebhoy said:
On the contrary Marx's method in Kapital was explicitly the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.
Click to expand...

Wrong way around bolshie. He begins with the most minute 'barnacle' like aspect of capitalism possible, the commodity, and unravels the rest from there.

But I was thinking of this, when I replied to you:

‘When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions that arise from the observation of the historical development of men. Viewed apart from real history, these abstractions have in themselves no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly trimming the epochs of history .’ (German Ideology 48)

You do agree though, with my understanding of your position? You quietly acknowledge Martin did wrong, but history requires the SWP not to admit it?
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Sorry Oisin but you've just described at best the Analytical Marxist approach to social science and at worst simple empiricism. On the contrary Marx's method in Kapital was explicitly the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. There are no pure facts free from theoretical trappings. As you harked back to when we were younger I'm pretty sure I first read about that in a chapter in the Prof's Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, it was a slap in the face for me at the time because I was studying philosophy of science which in these islands is dominated by empiricism and the whole point about Marx, which you seem to have missed judging by your outline of Marxist methodology above, is that he breaks with that 'from the facts up' approach. In the specific case of the current crisis the opposition's obsession with 'new conditions and changed facts about the modern world' is eclectic and empiricist in as much as it doesn't try to understand those facts as part of a larger whole by applying the theoretical models developed by the IS Tradition. Unfortunately much of the opposition seem to think that classic marxist approach is so boring and 80's. Their rejection of that doesn't actually lead to original Marxist thinking , it just leads to in the extreme , the random accumulation of facts that Seymour articles represent.
Click to expand...
Bolshie, surely Marx's method was more dialectical (a word which I have become suspicious of lately, but it'll do for now) ie from the abstract to the concrete and also from the concrete to to the abstract. Anyway, I hope you're not applying what you take to be Marx's methodology in the rape case. If so, it would sound dangerously like Rhetta's "judging" of Smith from the "standpoint of the proletariat" (abstract to concrete) . Tell me it ain't so.
 
SLK said:
Why?
Click to expand...
seemed an honest attempt at at re-examining the IS tradition for a neo-liberal age. I honestly don't think that the intersectionalist nonsense is as dominant as people think it is - its jst the only thing that marks the ISN out from other groups at the mo. There are some really good people in it - both old and re-invigorated. Some bollocks too, of course, but it is at least starting to ask some of the right questions.
 
love detective said:
What utter nonsense - you're conflating Marx's method of exposition/presentation with the method of enquiry

While Capital itself as a book is presented in the form of a journey from the abstract to the concrete - the method of inquiry is a much more richer, iterative and dialectical process

The first step is the observation of the concrete and the appropriation of the material in detail

The next step sees that material used to develop first simple abstract concepts and then on to more complex/richer concepts to establish a 'totality of thoughts', it's the logical construction of the essence and the interconnected organic whole, i.e. the understanding of the inner connections and them as a totality

Then the logical process continues, but not in terms of essence, but in terms of how that essence appears, how to explain that appearance and the various forms in which the essence is manifested, and indeed how that totality of that essence must appear

Next it's time to relate the concepts that have been generated to the real concrete world, the testing stage so to speak. Here is when the 'concept of the real' and the 'concrete in the mind' (i.e. the last two steps) is reconciled to the real objective concrete, which is also a return to the starting point and the point of departure again as the process goes on and on.

View attachment 45253

As Marx himself says:-

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.
Click to expand...
1) I was going to make the same crucial point about the difference btwn. the the work of inquiry & the work that results in the presentation of an argument. The Grundrisse Introduction makes that plain, as does the Contribution to a Critique of P/E 2 years later, & your quote (Postface to 2nd German edn. of Capital, vol.1, 1873).

2) The work of inquiry is continually iterative, as you importantly pointed out, trying to make sense of both the everyday descriptions we have of the world & trying to note what changes are happening in the natural & social worlds, identifying both their necessary & contingent aspects.

3) It's why the Czechoslovak Karel Kosík spoke of the pseudo-concrete to describe where we all start from in our hazy way, making it more concrete, more adequate (in what we think & are able to communicate about it) as we improve our knowledge.

4) To avoid any mystical connotation it should be pointed out that talk of essence, what is essential to an entity, is simply its nature, its necessary way(s) of being-becoming, what it always does, somewhat misleadingly termed its mechanisms. Other forces at work, other powers & susceptibilities, be they necessary ones or contingent ones, may overcome a particular combination of necessary forces. An obvious example is the rate of profit, some forces come together to reduce the rate of profit but others act to raise it.

5) It's important to note the modesty of knowledge-workers, collectively we may eventually judge our knowledge to be false (it is fallible), but we can improve it (we are corrigible).
 
Last edited:
belboid said:
seemed an honest attempt at at re-examining the IS tradition for a neo-liberal age. I honestly don't think that the intersectionalist nonsense is as dominant as people think it is - its jst the only thing that marks the ISN out from other groups at the mo. There are some really good people in it - both old and re-invigorated. Some bollocks too, of course, but it is at least starting to ask some of the right questions.
Click to expand...

Have to say I'm shocked, but also pleased. While I got on well personally with China, I can't stand Seymour and I'm don't know many others. However, there's a conference in January I'm interested in.
 
Vladtheimpaler said:
Look. I'm not a po-faced linguistic idealist & I'm not moralising at you. I've argued long & hard with radical feminists & plenty of nominal socialists too that language doesn't determine structures of oppression - it's the other way around. Words, of course, have no power in themselves & it's silly to fetishise them & take them as indicators of where someone's at politically. However, what's the point in consciously using words you know will offend & alienate people you want to communicate with, however wrong-headed they might be? The fact is a lot of your potential allies will be turned off by that word & won't listen to anything else you say.
Click to expand...

It doesn't alienate people I want to communicate with, only moralistic cunts who like to mimic whatever the US left does (and ignore that while in the US cunt is a gendered insult aimed mainly at women in the UK it just isn't).
 
SLK said:
No, there's a conference of those who left this week in January.
Click to expand...
That doesn't surprise me.

I think peeps outside the ISN should know that unless you are in the right loop you never find out what's going on. Take the last two weeks. Even now the ISN has not said who has left, who has resigned from the Steering Cttee. or from any other post. We have a website, an emailed bulletin, but nothing said. Just a few elliptical, vague articles posted on the site with no informative & clear statements by anyone in the 'discussion' threads. It's worse than Plato's cave. We need an Aristotelian faction in the ISN, some straight talking: grab the essence & get to the heart of things, the root of things, be radical.

Does anyone know who has left? Me Olde? The Principal? Tommy-Tommy?

And SLK, where were the details posted of the Jan conf.?
 
Jara Handala said:
That doesn't surprise me.

I think peeps outside the ISN should know that unless you are in the right loop you never find out what's going on. Take the last two weeks. Even now the ISN has not said who has left, who has resigned from the Steering Cttee. or from any other post. We have a website, an emailed bulletin, but nothing said. Just a few elliptical, vague articles posted on the site with no informative & clear statements by anyone in the 'discussion' threads. It's worse than Plato's cave. We need an Aristotelian faction in the ISN, some straight talking: grab the essence & get to the heart of things, the root of things, be radical.

Does anyone know who has left? Me Olde? The Principal? Tommy-Tommy?

And SLK, where were the details posted of the Jan conf.?
Click to expand...
People should know that whatever the problems with the ISN you got airbrushed out because you're a tedious whingy prick
 
Jara Handala said:
That doesn't surprise me.

I think peeps outside the ISN should know that unless you are in the right loop you never find out what's going on. Take the last two weeks. Even now the ISN has not said who has left, who has resigned from the Steering Cttee. or from any other post. We have a website, an emailed bulletin, but nothing said. Just a few elliptical, vague articles posted on the site with no informative & clear statements by anyone in the 'discussion' threads. It's worse than Plato's cave. We need an Aristotelian faction in the ISN, some straight talking: grab the essence & get to the heart of things, the root of things, be radical.

Does anyone know who has left? Me Olde? The Principal? Tommy-Tommy?

And SLK, where were the details posted of the Jan conf.?
Click to expand...

If I was in the ISN, I would ban you, never talk to you, and use any bureaucratic manoeuvre possible to get you out. You're a total nihilist and a complete waste of time.
 
SLK said:
If I was in the ISN, I would ban you, never talk to you, and use any bureaucratic manoeuvre possible to get you out. You're a total nihilist and a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
Would you please describe how I am nihilistic, as you put it? I find the behaviour of you & the other two incomprehensible & contrary to how professed socialists should behave to one another. These outbursts are irrational, they are unwarranted.
 
Ever wonder why nobody stuck up for your sorry ass in the ISN, Jara? Even the most democracy-mongering group on the left couldn't bother to have any process whatsoever when you got booted. I like the idea of people mimicking the US left (as long as its us and not those other fuckfaces). And as long as I still get to swear and insult people.
 
barney_pig said:
That is a very decisive result - and SWP members are not “sheep”.
Click to expand...
Not literally, no.
"SWP members are not sheep".
eoin_k said:
sheep-voting.jpg




I now have an image of a flock of sheep attending a national conference year after year, where they consistently elect a Central Committee from the slate recommended by their shepherds, which is ridiculous. So, the CC statement does make some sense, but planting that image in people's head doesn't demonstrate the best communication skills. Am I right in thinking that the slate recommended by the majority of the old CC has always been elected? Does anybody know what the largest share of the vote received by an alternative slate has been?
Click to expand...
"
 
SpackleFrog said:
SWPers all over the country demonstrate some very different attitudes to TUSC as you well know - in 2010 I asked some local SWPers if they would support a TUSC campaign in the town where I was at the time. They didn't know what it was, and when I told them they weren't interested. Many SWP members are totally uninterested in electoral politics or in TUSC.
Click to expand...
Human beings are totally uninterested in TUSC, you mean. Hundreds of elections and an average of seven votes. A total waste of precious resources, and the only reason it continues to 'exist' is to satisfy the egos of the SP leadership.
 
benedict said:
Studied a bit of philosophy of science myself, Bolshie, and I'm pretty sure empiricism is not conventionally defined as failure to apply the theoretical models of the IS tradition. Don't think Marx was using those models either. This is just barren dogmatism.
Click to expand...
Oh dear talk about not addressing what someone actually said. Empiricism is pretending you don't have a theoretical framework and imagining you're just about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts. That's never true and as I was addressing someone in the IS tradition and was talking about people in that tradition then yes that would be the theoretical framework that was relevant. I do however realise that Marx hadn't heard of Cliff, thanks for that. The longer this crisis has gone on the less anyone outside the SWP seems to want to even try and understand what 'loyalists' are saying, let alone address it properly. I understand that's cause you all think the game is up, those of us on this side are all evil rape apologists and generally nasty people who are headed for sectarian isolation and so we don't need even addressing properly. Which is totally fine online and it's not as if we're not used to being hated by all sorts of people but I seriously don't think that approach is going to wash in day to day work in the real world.
 
killer b said:
i don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that TUSC is an utter waste of time tbf.
Click to expand...

Bit of a stretch to suggest that it's about massaging the SP Leadership's egos though, especiaLLy with the 7 votes etc - if it was just about the SP standing they'd stand as sociaList aLternative, as they have in Coventry for fuck knows how Long - that's why I'm curious as to who this new poster is.
 
richwill72 said:
Human beings are totally uninterested in TUSC, you mean. Hundreds of elections and an average of seven votes. A total waste of precious resources, and the only reason it continues to 'exist' is to satisfy the egos of the SP leadership.
Click to expand...

Hi new poster person. No, the results aren't spectacular and very few people have heard of TUSC, but that wasn't what was being discussed.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Oh dear talk about not addressing what someone actually said. Empiricism is pretending you don't have a theoretical framework and imagining you're just about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts. That's never true and as I was addressing someone in the IS tradition and was talking about people in that tradition then yes that would be the theoretical framework that was relevant. I do however realise that Marx hadn't heard of Cliff, thanks for that. The longer this crisis has gone on the less anyone outside the SWP seems to want to even try and understand what 'loyalists' are saying, let alone address it properly. I understand that's cause you all think the game is up, those of us on this side are all evil rape apologists and generally nasty people who are headed for sectarian isolation and so we don't need even addressing properly. Which is totally fine online and it's not as if we're not used to being hated by all sorts of people but I seriously don't think that approach is going to wash in day to day work in the real world.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're rape apologists. I think you're rape deniers.
 
Oisin123 said:
Wrong way around bolshie. He begins with the most minute 'barnacle' like aspect of capitalism possible, the commodity, and unravels the rest from there.

But I was thinking of this, when I replied to you:

‘When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions that arise from the observation of the historical development of men. Viewed apart from real history, these abstractions have in themselves no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly trimming the epochs of history .’ (German Ideology 48)

You do agree though, with my understanding of your position? You quietly acknowledge Martin did wrong, but history requires the SWP not to admit it?
Click to expand...
Totally agree with that passage from the GI and yes empty abstractions need to be made concrete and that's what Kapital is all about but his starting point is the abstractions, is a theoretical stance, he knows you can never operate without one. But I guess this thread isn't the place to address this stuff fully :)

On your question no I really don't think that's what's going on (shock I know!) There are people who seem committed to the belief he could have done no wrong. I don't understand them despite having been a huge admirer of him myself. Surely the official position is clear enough, if he hadn't gone and left he would have a real case to answer, there is some damning stuff that needed answering. Mind you he would get a chance to answer it as well which is where the cc statement is totally right. But no nobody is above any process and nobody is worth this crisis. But as I've tried to argue, maybe not convincingly for anyone here, but I have tried, I don't accept that the crisis is only about what went on between three people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ElizabethofYork
Men’s violence against women and girls is a national emergency
34 35 36 37 38
Replies
1K
Views
44K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
S
Tory songs and bands
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
210
Views
10K
Wilf
Wilf
W
all these “So and so’s time is up” threads.
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
wow
W
J
To save the UK economy this is what Sunak and Hunt should be doing
Replies
18
Views
1K
bimble
bimble
Back
Top Bottom