Revolutionary Hope - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14846209
Decky wrote:Ask a Dutchman or someone from Norfolk.

<sigh> That absurd, disingenuous equivocation fallacy again....

They have never produced any land because that is logically impossible. People can build up or dry out land that is underwater, making it more usable, but they cannot create land. Just think for a moment about the "examples" you have offered. They were only able to dry out that pre-existing land because there was so very little water sitting on top of it. The land had to already be there, and be unusually suited to being dried out, or they couldn't have done anything to "produce land."

GET IT??
#14846215
Pants-of-dog wrote:This post also contains no argument whatsoever and also has nothing to do with what I posted.

Ah, now I see: it is a self-referent sentence. Sorry, assuming honesty on the other side is my chronic error.
Please explain what was factually incorrect about what I argued.

My post did contain arguments -- facts and logic that supported my position -- and was clearly a responsive rejoinder to what you posted.
#14846234
You just did it again, TTP. Telling everyone how awesome your previous post was is not an argument. Stop patting yourself on the back.

Discuss what I argued about diverse groups in a society or kindly ignore me.
#14846423
Pants-of-dog wrote:You just did it again, TTP. Telling everyone how awesome your previous post was is not an argument.

That's not what I did. I identified the fact that my post contained arguments, a fact you denied when you urged other readers to ignore my posts -- presumably because they are invariably so much more interesting, informative, articulate, well reasoned, and entertaining than yours (sorry, couldn't help myself).
Stop patting yourself on the back.

It's hard to be humble when the opposition is so unworthy.
Discuss what I argued about diverse groups in a society or kindly ignore me.

If you are going to make gratuitous and baseless attacks against me because my contributions to these discussions are so much more valuable than yours (dang, there I go again...), it is a little strange to then ask me to ignore you. See how that works?
By Sivad
#14846764
Truth To Power wrote:It's not metaphysical in the least. It's a plain, self-evident, indisputable fact of objective physical reality that materials removed from nature and made into capital no longer exist as something nature provided, but locations on the earth's solid surface cannot be removed from nature, and will always exist as something nature provided.


I'm sorry but that's not intuitively obvious for me. You're arguing metaphysics here and I don't bother with metaphysical disputes. Metaphysics is just unprovable assertions based on subjective intuitions which can be denied or contradicted as easily as they're forwarded.

It's not clear that anyone has any more right or claim to any piece of the world than anyone else regardless of configuration or disposition, and that ambiguity invalidates appeals to metaphysical principles within the public sphere. Metaphysics is where honest rational discourse ends and politics begins.

We can be reasonable and charitable with each other and try to work out an arrangement that's good for everyone, or we can be assholes and wage war and politics against each other to the bitter end, it's all up to us.
#14846900
Sivad wrote:I'm sorry but that's not intuitively obvious for me.

Yes, of course it is. You have just decided not to know it because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
You're arguing metaphysics here

No. It's a physical fact.
and I don't bother with metaphysical disputes.

No. You refuse to know a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
Metaphysics is just unprovable assertions based on subjective intuitions which can be denied or contradicted as easily as they're forwarded.

Which does not describe anything I have said.
It's not clear that anyone has any more right or claim to any piece of the world than anyone else regardless of configuration or disposition,

Yes, of course it is. If I pick a wild apple, it is clear that I have more right and claim to it than someone who did not pick it.
and that ambiguity invalidates appeals to metaphysical principles within the public sphere. Metaphysics is where honest rational discourse ends and politics begins.

Please identify the statement of metaphysical principle you imagine I have made.
We can be reasonable and charitable with each other and try to work out an arrangement that's good for everyone,

Which would be having property rights in the fruits of our labor, but not in what nature provided for everyone equally.
or we can be assholes and wage war and politics against each other to the bitter end.

Which would be capitalism or socialism. Are you really unable to understand the difference between picking a wild apple and on that basis claiming it is yours exclusively, and picking a wild apple and on that basis claiming the tree is yours exclusively? REALLY???
By Sivad
#14846944
"If I pick a wild apple, it is clear that I have more right and claim to it than someone who did not pick it."

That's a metaphysical claim right there, picking the apple doesn't somehow endow you with a natural right of exclusive ownership. If there are plenty of apples and apples are easy to come by nobody is going to object to you "claiming" it, but if there's three starving people and one apple I don't see how it would be reasonable for you to claim exclusive right to the last apple because you picked it or found it or whatever. And I don't see how the other two people would be in any way obligated to accept that claim.

"Please identify the statement of metaphysical principle you imagine I have made."

"If you dig ore out of the ground and make it into a tool, which is then rightly your property, the ore is no longer there as something nature provided"

Any understanding of property or rights beyond social construction is inherently metaphysical.


"Which would be having property rights in the fruits of our labor, but not in what nature provided for everyone equally."

That's an empirical question, and it's all that should really matter. We have no way of knowing what is right and proper according to nature or nature's God so we have to go with what's in our best common interests. If that's capitalism or geolibertarianism then so be it, but if there's a better way then those systems are just illegitimate.

"Are you really unable to understand the difference between picking a wild apple and on that basis claiming it is yours exclusively, and picking a wild apple and on that basis claiming the tree is yours exclusively? REALLY???"

Really. I don't believe there are such things as absolute, unconditional rights of ownership so all property claims have to be justified on some reasonable grounds before I'm willing to abide by them. I don't think other people owe me the apple or the tree, or anything at all in fact. Only a mass of very confused and mixed up people would accept an arbitrary property regime that wasn't in their own broad common interest. The capitalist class is very good at identifying, protecting, and advancing their interests, the working class is not.
Last edited by Sivad on 27 Sep 2017 21:45, edited 1 time in total.
#14847137
Sivad wrote:"If I pick a wild apple, it is clear that I have more right and claim to it than someone who did not pick it."

That's a metaphysical claim right there,



It's not metaphysical. It is a physical fact that when I pick the apple, it is in my hand, in my possession, and if anyone else took it, they would be physically depriving me of something I would otherwise have. That is the fundamental essence of rights violation.
picking the apple doesn't somehow endow you with a natural right of exclusive ownership.

Yes, it does, as explained above. The facts of objective physical reality place the product of my labor literally in my hands.
If there are plenty of apples and apples are easy to come by nobody is going to object to you "claiming" it,

That is the assumed situation. Apple trees typically have lots of apples on them, it's just a matter of making the effort to pick one.
but if there's three starving people and one apple I don't see how it would be reasonable for you to claim exclusive right to the last apple because you picked it or found it or whatever.

Right, but that's a materially different situation. If more than one person wants to use a natural opportunity, and someone is excluded, then the one who excludes others owes them just compensation for depriving them of it. So unless they just agree to share it, the three starving people looking up at the last apple on the tree have to find a way for the one who picks and eats the apple to compensate the others who don't get it. A fair way would be bidding: whoever will give the others the most consideration -- maybe some nuts or berries, etc. -- in return for not being able to pick the apple gets to pick and eat it.

There is an additional problem that arises when resources are considered common ("The Tragedy of the Commons"): there is an incentive to exploit and privatize them in a way that makes everyone worse off. The people who want the apples will tend to pick them too early, in order not to lose their chance at their share. Managing the commons to maximize productive private use is in society's best interest.
And I don't see how the other two people would be in any way obligated to accept that claim.

If the apple picker has picked an apple the others didn't know about, couldn't reach, expressed no interest in, etc., they are obligated to respect the picker's property right because it is in the interest of all to encourage wealth production. It gets the incentives right. The thief who would take the apple from its owner harms not just the picker, but everyone else in the community, including himself, because people who don't have secure property rights in the fruits of their labor won't produce as much, leading to general scarcity.
"Please identify the statement of metaphysical principle you imagine I have made."

"If you dig ore out of the ground and make it into a tool, which is then rightly your property, the ore is no longer there as something nature provided"

Any understanding of property or rights beyond social construction is inherently metaphysical.

No. Social construction is just an evolved approximation of what is right as a matter of empirical, physical fact. Sometimes evolution gets things right, sometimes it leads to a dead end. Because we have knowledge of biology, economics, psychology, etc. that blind evolution might not account for, we can improve on the rights various cultures have evolved.
"Which would be having property rights in the fruits of our labor, but not in what nature provided for everyone equally."

That's an empirical question, and it's all that should really matter.

Bingo. But it is a very complex empirical question that can't be settled except by running the experiment on real societies in real time, and might not give the same answer under all conditions. That's a wasteful trial-and-error model of institutional design that our modern scientific understanding of human behavior can improve on very substantially a priori.
We have no way of knowing what is right and proper according to nature or nature's God so we have to go with what's in our best common interests.

As best we can understand them. Right. What's right according to nature is what survives and replicates in the evolutionary arena. We can't know a priori what that is, but we can make some pretty good guesses, especially as to what it is not.
If that's capitalism or geolibertarianism then so be it, but if there's a better way then those systems are just illegitimate.

I agree. And the jury is still out on that question. For example, Islam seems to be a very successful memetic system, probably because it is totally devoted to its own spread, and disregards the welfare of its individual adherents. Maybe that is ultimately going to be the successful -- in the Darwinian sense -- cultural model; though I have my doubts, as it is in terminal conflict with science and modernity. But although capitalism is clearly the most successful economic system tried to date, I think there are very good a priori reasons -- economic, psychological, anthropological, historical -- to think a geoist or geolibertarian model would work best in the long run, and I have given them. The problem is to get people who are accustomed to other models to try it, just as the problem with science and reason is to get people who are accustomed to relying on faith to try them.
"Are you really unable to understand the difference between picking a wild apple and on that basis claiming it is yours exclusively, and picking a wild apple and on that basis claiming the tree is yours exclusively? REALLY???"

Really. I don't believe there are such things as absolute, unconditional rights of ownership so all property claims have to be justified on some reasonable grounds before I'm willing to abide by them.

What is unreasonable about objective physical reality's decision to place the product in the producer's hands?
I don't think other people owe me the apple or the tree, or anything at all in fact.

I think other people owe both of us respect for our rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor, as that is in their best interest as well as ours.
Only a mass of very confused and mixed up people would accept an arbitrary property regime that wasn't in their own broad common interest.

I'm not at all sure of that. Maybe people are just ignorant or lack imagination, because history is certainly replete with examples of peoples who did exactly that even when it was OBVIOUSLY robbing, enslaving and killing them: not just slavery, but landowning, IP monopolies, private banksters' money issuance, socialism, etc.
The capitalist class is very good at identifying, protecting, and advancing their interests, the working class is not.

Right, as proved by their preference for capitalism or even socialism over liberty, justice, and truth. But at least they are smart enough to prefer capitalism to socialism.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#14936269
I think more important than hope, I think I've taken the view that solidarity is the important foundation to a working class movement. It presumably would be the basis of hope in people feeling strengthened by solidarity and in a better position to see themselves able to achieve things rather than crushed.

Solidarity means giving support to a stranger on their own terms; so solidarity differs from community because it is extended to strangers, and differs from philanthropy because it is given on the stranger’s own terms, not that of the giver.

Solidarity is the fundamental ethic of the workers’ movement, obliging workers to support the struggles of all other oppressed people.

Solidarity was introduced into the English language as a translation from the French at the Chartist Convention in 1848 and was popularised by the Chartist Ernest Jones in the “People's Paper.” From the founding Congress of the First International in 1864 it was adopted as the central ethic of the International and concept spread across Europe and the world through the solidarity actions of the International.

The relation of solidarity contrasts with competition between workers, which is the natural condition of the labour market. Thus solidarity only arises through the active construction of a social movement, particularly the trade union movement, not spontaneously, from the conditions of capitalist exploitation.

In particular, solidarity is necessary for the functioning of large cities where we routinely share our lives with strangers.

The importance of solidarity is that it forms the basis for trust. Trust is required by individuals to participate in a single system of activity or “subject,” be that a social movement, professional association or urban neighbourhood. Trust is the rational expectation of the cooperation of others. So in order to create the basis for the strengthening of a new radical subjectivity, trust is required. Trust in business is based on honesty; trust in struggle is based on solidarity. So solidarity is the fundamental relation which underpins the relation between radical subjects (not founded on wealth), and is the basis for the formation of new, voluntary social ties (not founded on tradition – family, locality, religion, ethnicity, etc.).

Trust and solidarity are relationships which are underpinned by certain virtues; to acquire a virtue, one must go through the relevant life-experiences. Since solidarity is necessary for the survival of the working class, and is practiced by working-class organisations, being a proletarian entails developing the virtue of solidarity. Social cohesion and trust are being eradicated by the conditions of modernity; solidarity is the only means of restoring this loss. It is the basic pre-condition not only for social progress, but for any kind of viable urban life today, outside of a fortified village.

Certain experiences are deemed necessary for successful development. Respect and esteem are the aspects of relationships in which subjects relate to each other externally. Self-respect and self-esteem grow from the weak bonds operative in the world market. They are compatible with life in an atomised society which lacks any social cohesion, while giving great scope for libertarian freedom. Solidarity, however, springs from the need to combat the effects of the loss of social cohesion and provide a real basis for mutual trust and self-confidence, for which external relation is insufficient: mutuality, or “mutual inclusion,” is required.

Solidarity, is characteristic in its proper sense only of modernity, in which the family becomes less important as a site for the building of trust and self-confidence, and one must continuously deal with strangers. This is a world in which a person must be willing to take a risk to help a complete stranger, and when in need, one looks to the solidarity of strangers for support. Solidarity differs from religious kindness (as exhibited by the priest in Les Miserables) because it has a secular basis rather than being aimed at pleasing God; solidarity differs from philanthropy in that solidarity means supporting the project of the subject receiving aid, rather than drawing them into one’s own project.

And I am persuaded by Blunden's view that it is also best suited in progressing on a political terrain of alliance politics.
Let us suppose that we have an abstract Notion: collaborate while respecting the different norms and values of the others; arrive at joint decisions through consensus decision-making and keep our promises. I sum up this relation with the maxim: “What we do is decided by you and me.”

What do we do about the fact that millions of people do not share the common objective and some people, the most powerful, actively oppose the shared objective? The millions of people who are not political radicals, not professional agitators with strange pre-occupations remote from everyday life?

The point is, that this problem of the ethic of collaboration, which arises in concrete form in alliance politics, is universalisable to society at large.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15040519
And my latest shift instead from the more sociological is to psychology of emotions such that we can better understand the drive of an individual.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/ch07.htm
We must now take the final step in the analysis of the internal planes of verbal thinking. Thought is not the last of these planes. It is not born of other thoughts. Thought has its origins in the motivating sphere of consciousness, a sphere that includes our inclinations and needs, our interests and impulses, and our affect and emotion. The affective and volitional tendency stands behind thought. Only here do we find the answer to the final “why” in the analysis of thinking. We have compared thought to a hovering cloud that gushes a shower of words. To extend this analogy, we must compare the motivation of thought to the wind that puts the cloud in motion. A true and complex understanding of another’s thought becomes possible only when we discover its real, affective-volitional basis. The motives that lead to the emergence of thought and direct its flow can be illustrated through the example we used earlier, that of discovering the subtext through the specific interpretation of a given role. Stanislavskii teaches that behind each of a character’s lines there stands a desire that is directed toward the realization of a definite volitional task. What is recreated here through the method of specific interpretation is the initial moment in any act of verbal thinking in living speech.


And this has me now concerned with the work of Spinoza who has many novel perspectives against Descartes dualism.
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2015-06.dir/pdf9UQ7dqv45X.pdf
Vygotsky notes approvingly inextricable connection which Spinoza drew from affects, thought and quality of action: ‘Spinoza…defined affect as that which increases or decreases our body’s ability to act, and that which forces thought to move in a particular direction’ (Vygotsky, 1993, p.234). This is a deeper, more ontologically embedded notion than the simplistic idea that the possibility of free-action depends upon sufficient knowledge. That is to say adequate ideas, understanding and self-determination are party and parcel of each other.

And Lev Vygotsky noted splits within psychology which tend to be the basis of it's historical inadequacies to be realized as a science proper.
As such, I wish to understand Spinoza's philosophy, particular in regard to affects which many interpret in positivist fashion and thus tend to dismiss him crudely.
I think Andy Blunden correctly warns not to swallow Spinoza whole but to try and correctly inherit parts of his work in the project of Cultural Historical Activity Theory.

When we can understand emotions, we can better understand ourselves and others and how we can support others in cultivating their drive towards self-determined ends. Emotions are an integral part of human actions because it is the motive force to do anything and in fact expressive signs help communicate the relationship between our internal motive and state of things externally.
https://iphras.ru/uplfile/rusph/contents/maidansky_2018-1.pdf
Appetite manifests itself, simultaneously, in corporeal (hunger, sexual desire, etc.) and in mental (conscious desires, cupiditates) affects. Appetitus is the striving to act, and affects are the psychophysical forms that increase or decrease the potential of acting (agendi potentia). Simply speaking, emotions regulate the level of motivation for acting. “Emotion” and “motive” are both derived from the Latin motio, motion. Emotion is a direct and immediate expression of the active need of a living being. Where there is no emotion, there is no motive for action.

The Internalization Theory of Emotions: A Cultural Historical Approach to the Development of Emotions
By Presvias
#15040520
That James Connolly quote in OP is very good, what a brilliant bloke he was.

Certainly very inspirational and successful, along with 'big' jim larkin. The trade union heavyweights of the era eh..them, Debs etc. The forgotten giants of history who brought serious reforms that many take for granted even today...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM He sa[…]

Are the tribal Indians not American citizens to y[…]

"Show me a young conservative, and I'll show[…]

Please quote me where I ad-hom'd him. Here: […]