tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post4878705948664646536..comments2024-01-13T02:28:25.074-04:00Comments on Physicists of the Caribbean: Everything Is AwfulRhysyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-44262901851841265362017-06-20T06:37:46.589-04:002017-06-20T06:37:46.589-04:00Fair enough. Still, I seriously doubt "the ...Fair enough. Still, I seriously doubt "the widespread understanding of the terms" would be at all accurate (most nobody knows anything about 'historical materialism' for instance) and I don't think left criticism of Corbyn can seriously be couched in terms of communism vs socialism. <br /><br />I have to say I agree with Jonathan Pie on Corbyn. Absent Corbyn Labour would still be tarnished as the NuLabour of Iraq and Blair. That poison has been removed (without a schism) which should please the moderates too as it opens up space for a more centrist Labour leader. That would likely have been impossible without Corbyn imo. <br /><br />Anyway, cheers for replies. I originally came to read the Feynman/falsifiability article, thanks for that (and the rest). Take care, comrade. ;)the_last_name_leftnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-60927497761356230492017-06-14T02:09:48.592-04:002017-06-14T02:09:48.592-04:00You're correct in that my definitions lack the...You're correct in that my definitions lack theoretical rigour. As I said, they are only my own (i.e. opinion) personal loose definitions. Perhaps there are better words that mean what I want to say. However, I do think they agree with the widespread understanding of the terms, I don't think I'm using particularly unconventional or novel definitions - and there most certainly is a very clear distinction between socialist and communist societies in practise if not in strict theoretical terms. I rather agree with Jonathan Pie on this, even if I disagree about Corbyn.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-9DdzBwo_wRhysyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-74453483552265491122017-06-13T19:49:54.400-04:002017-06-13T19:49:54.400-04:00I'm sympathetic to your politics but on this I...I'm sympathetic to your politics but on this I don't recognise what you say - it doesn't seem rooted in the history and discourse of socialism. And as a matter of fact, presently there aren't any non-state alternatives to the benefits system, for instance, or the Inland Revenue, or the Army, or whatever......and it's hard to see how there could be. Anarcho-capitalists would argue otherwise, but that distinguishes them, not socialists or communists. <br /><br />In Marxism, socialism is a precursor to communism, as feudalism was a precursor to capitalism. Marx said very little about what communism might be because he didn't know anything much about it. Communism was the supposed destination of socialism, not an alternative or variation. It was a supposed later (r)evolution of socialism. <br /><br />SFAIK there is nothing in Marxism that makes the distinction about "choice" over "government-run services". <br /><br />In 1918 the Labour Party adopted Clause 4, recognised at the time and since as the Party's declaration of socialism, based on a principle of **the common ownership of the means of production**.<br /><br />Clause IV:<br />"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."<br /><br />There is nothing about "choice" and non-state provision in there. Nor is there in the Communist Manifesto, or anything else in the Marxist lexicon.<br /><br />Your criticism of Corbyn might be legitimate, but not in the language of "socialism" versus "communism". It just doesn't tarry with socialist intellectual history. And if it isn't Marx's "communism" you are speaking of, then whose, and what is it? <br /><br />Arguably Corbyn falls short of offering socialism let alone communism. "The common ownership of the means of production" is socialism from a reformist Labour party. It certainly isn't communism (which presupposes socialism anyway).<br /><br />Yet Corbyn isn't even offering "common ownership of the means of production" let alone is he leading the dictatorship of the proletariat. He's a reformist social democrat, and that's his offer - he's not offering socialism let alone communism. <br /><br />In short, I don't think your distinction exists (re socialism and communism). But your criticism of Corbyn might be legitimate using different language and concepts. the_last_name_leftnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-55158209016946003292017-06-13T07:57:58.673-04:002017-06-13T07:57:58.673-04:00I loosely define the difference to be one of choic...I loosely define the difference to be one of choice. In a socialist society everyone gets the choice to use government-run services but can opt for others if they wish. In a communist system there isn't any choice; the state controls everything rather than providing alternatives.Rhysyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-24933670802887809382017-06-13T07:22:43.213-04:002017-06-13T07:22:43.213-04:00Your basic distinction seems to be between "s...Your basic distinction seems to be between "socialism" and "communism".<br /><br />What do you mean by these terms that makes them so different? the_last_name_leftnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-91967533294729136392017-06-12T07:05:18.053-04:002017-06-12T07:05:18.053-04:00Couldn't disagree more with your stance on Cor...Couldn't disagree more with your stance on Corbyn,but your right, we are utterly screwed with whomever is leading the tory co-alition,( even the murdock papers have turned against her) and now we are in bed with the DUP? I don't think this is an outcome anyone would want,loOK at their stances of abortion, gay marriage ect, they are basically the republican party on steroids. So much for strong and stable, weak and wobbly more like,we'll get royaly screwed with any Brexit deals with this govt in charge. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14536399226895385243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-70712562270032280222017-06-09T15:07:16.545-04:002017-06-09T15:07:16.545-04:00This was probably about the best result that could...This was probably about the best result that could have happened. But a few more Tory losses would have made things a lot more interesting.Rhysyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13219113442790412792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996609237882090723.post-66676655541815268802017-06-09T12:17:08.201-04:002017-06-09T12:17:08.201-04:00A minority government can be a good thing in times...A minority government can be a good thing in times of poor leadership. Any day a politician gets taken down a peg is a good day.Kevin Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13248351248128447563noreply@blogger.com