[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 There is another option.  What if the you had an individual centric decision making process in the WWW.  everone gets their own personal sphere of influence that intersects with others for decision making.  Basically what we have in face to face in person exchanges and decision making in a small community seems the idea, but scaled up.  There's several forms of government and busines and economic power and decision making solutions that to some degree distribute decision making power in a dynamic ever changing fashion.or so it seems to me.  and more relevant to the discussion at hand, perhaps something like this is what is intended by the great hall of unicentric decision making.  Just consider the great decision making body to be made up of everybody to various degrees on various decisions and it exists in information space on the web for convenient worldwide access or in other forms offline with slower speed. Or so it seems to me.  but then I don't debate authorities, I debate ideas as I understand them so maybe I'm missing your point or rhetoric style.  Good day to you, and thanks for the intellectually worthy read of the thread so far.  Lots of great thinking to read from you SPGB group.  I forgot how much I missed intellectuals and deep thinkers since I've been spending more time fighting low intellegence GMO and Monsanto trolls on social media lately. 

Yeah, in your example, the WWW is the 'uni'.Thanks for your tribute to the SPGB site.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

an introduction to fuzzy logic on youtube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r804UF8Ia4cI have not read the book you mention but it is of interest to me and this conversation.  I think the video primer I linked to is a good summary of my understanding of the fuzzy logic princples.  can you confirm for me the book is consistent with this video and the video is a fair and worthy summary of the science?

I've had a quick look at this video, and it's a useful introduction to the subject of 'degrees of truth', 'truth' as a sliding scale, 'truth', as not a boolean 'true or false'. 'Truth' is a judgement by people.Only a vote by humans can determine 'truth-for-them'. There is no 'Truth' simply waiting to be 'discovered' by a 'disinterested academic elite'.'Truth' is a product of 'power'.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I have not read the book you mention but it is of interest to me and this conversation.  I think the video primer I linked to is a good summary of my understanding of the fuzzy logic princples. 

The key political point being made here, Steve, is that 'logic' is a social product, and various 'logics' have been produced, including 'classical/traditional' and 'n-valued'.mod1 is using the usual conservative political trick to pretend that 'logic' is actually 'Logic', so that mod1's political logic is pretended to be 'Objective' and 'The Truth' and 'Eternal', and so can't be argued with.Within socialism, it would require a democratic vote by the producers to determine which 'logic' is employed in any intended social process of theory and practice, which produces social knowledge.So, 'logic' is not an ahistoric, asocial, 'truthful' process, which any individual or elite can simply use outside of the democratic control of the producers, but is an integral part of a political process.Any attempt to appeal to 'Logic' is a conservative political act, intended to hide its own ideological beliefs, and to denigrate the political stance towards which it is aimed.That is, one ideology's 'logic' is another's 'illogic', and vice versa. We must consciously choose our 'logic', and be aware of the political implications of our particular choice of a 'logic'.

[LBird]

Matt wrote:

Unicentric = Having a single centre.Polycentric = Having many centres.

Perhaps you're missing the point, Matt. I'm sure we all know the difference between 'uni' and 'poly' as words. It's the political meaning that you seem to have missed.'Uni' = 'democracy', whereas 'Poly' = 'individual'.robbo is a 'poly' individualist, whereas Democratic Communists are 'uni' democrats.This is a question of 'power' – 'power' is either a collective phenomenon ('uni', centralised upon a social decision-making process, in which individuals participate and then obey) or 'power' is an individual phenomenon ('poly', decentralised amongst individuals, who can ignore other individuals).Socialism requires collective decision-making, not 7 billion decisions which ignore each other.I'm a democrat, whereas robbo is an individualist – that's why we disagree. This is a debate about where 'power' will lie within Socialism/Communism – distributed amongst 7 billion biological and sovereign individuals, or with a collective World Socialism where democracy is sovereign.

[LBird]

If anyone can translate the political meaning of robbo's post, I'd be obliged to the translator.

[LBird]

Well, Capitalist Pig, it seems that I'm about to employ you as a sock-puppet-by-proxy. Since the rules don't allow sock-puppets, and yet when I keep answering certain posters who keep asking the same political questions, and yet I, and I alone, get banned, I'm forced to answer those political questions, but to pretend to address them to an entirely new poster, who is new to these debates, and thus it is legitimate for me to say the same thing for the thousandth time.So, CP, you're now my sock-puppet-by-proxy! I hope you'll accept your new critical role in the proceedings – if you don't, let me know, and I'll publicly apologise to you, and try to find a new technique to prevent my silencing.Here goes!CP, you'll notice a poster named robbo203, who pretends to be a democrat, but is actually an individualist. robbo wants 'socialism' to be the realisation of the bourgeois myth of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any political control, which would obviously be the case with a society which insists upon democratic production.robbo's chosen political method to denigrate 'democracy' is to equate it with 'centralisation'. Thus:

robbo203 wrote:

Clearly L Bird supports this totalitarian and ultra-centralised mode of decision-making.

[my bold]robbo pretends that 'democracy' leads to 'centralisation', by which he means 'totalitarian' (a concept employed by post-war Cold War warriors, but we'll let that pass).Any Democratic Communist would of course reply that 'democracy' does imply 'centralisation'. There has to be a central location, at which is based a central organisation that obeys the orders of the voters. The losing voters then obey the orders of the 'central' majority.We can see this in practice in the parish, village, town, city, regional and national elections of even bourgeois democracy.The 'parish' democracy is centralised upon the 'parish hall', at which a central bureaucracy counts the votes and announces the results of the democratic vote, taken by all the parish residents. Of course, the central parish bureaucracy is also elected using democratic methods. And so on, for all levels, from parish to national. The new feature of democratic World Socialism will be a central 'World Hall'.This, robbo insists, is 'totalitarian', and a blight upon the 'freedom of individuals' to insist that votes are 'decentralised'.In robbo's parish polity, each individual vote will be taken in an individual cottage, far away from the 'Totalitarian Parish Dictatorship', and each voter will announce their individual political decision, far away from the 'Totalitarian Parish Hall Bureacracy' (ie. the elected Mrs. Smith, Mr. Jones and Ms. Brzozowski – of course, known as the 'Evil Troika' in robbo's world).So, CP, you can now understand politically why robbo has to equate 'democracy' with 'totalitarian centralisation', to help protect and cover up his own bourgeois individualist politics, while still claiming to be a 'socialist'.I hope my hand up your metaphorical arse, as my sock-puppet-by-proxy, didn't hurt too much, CP! If it did, perhaps I can introduce you next time to the benefits of a little 'proletarian grease'?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

In short all decisions – important and unimportant – will be voted on by the community.  That's a logical fallacy.

Who (or what) determines 'important and unimportant', if not the democratic producers, in your version of 'socialism'?Your 'logic' is a political logic, within which the use of the concept of 'logic' is pretended to be a non-political, objective, asocial, ahistoric 'logic', which any individual (or an elite) can employ, outside of the interests, purposes and plans of the majority.Thus, from the perspective of Democratic Communism, it's your logic that is a 'logical fallacy'.Of course, also, from your elitist perspective of the political rule of the powerful specialists, the despised and powerless 'generalists' will have to bow down before the 'logical fallacy' of your own elite production.You pretend that 'logic' is outside of 'politics'.I don't. Only the democratic producers within socialism can determine their 'logic' and their 'fallacies'. There is no academic elite which has a 'special consciousness', which ensures that they, and they alone, have access to 'Logic'.'Logic' is a powerful social product, and must be under the political control of all society, within a democratic society like socialism.In fact, we could call your version of 'logic'… Leninist Logic.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

hi Lbiiiiiiiird. you are awesome

Thanks for your appreciation, CP!Though, you should remember, that I'm criticising the SPGB from the political position of Democratic Communism, which is, I think, the opposite pole from your views.On the other threads, where you've challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.Most obviously, I'm not a supporter of 'bourgeois individualism', but of collective, democratic, social production, which includes the production of politics, laws, morals, laws of physics, logic, maths, truth and 'individuals'. These are all social products, and my political position is that Communism/Socialism equates to the democratic control of their production.Clearly, some here, claiming to be 'socialists', are actually politically closer to your 'individualism', than to my Democratic Communism.In fact, you're probably a better candidate for membership of the SPGB than I am!

[LBird]

Bergman, p.2, wrote:

"All traditional logic," wrote the philosopher Betrand Russell, "habitually assumes that precise symbols are being employed. It is therefore not applicable to this terrestrial life, but only to an imagined celestial existence."

[my bold]Merrie Bergman (2008) An Introduction to Many-Valued and Fuzzy Logic Cambridge University Press

mod1 wrote:

Alas your closed mind wont accept or acknowledge this logic.

You're right, I don't accept 'this logic' of yours, which is an ideological logic, a political logic, which you (perhaps unknowingly) pretend comes from the Planet Logic, a supposedly 'Objective' source, which we humans can't argue with.That's what an open-minded worker argues to a closed-minded moderator.All 'logic' is a social and ideological product, which we can change. Just like maths and physics.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Did I mention that you get on my t*ts

'Repetition', surely, mods?!

[LBird]

mod1 wrote:

We are only stating a fact that like all human concepts democracy will have its limitations in practice.

'Fact', eh?How did you create that, prior to its production by the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat?'Limitations', eh?So, you're putting limits on the social theory and practice of the 'r, cc p'? Nice that you, as a member of the elite, already know our limits.

mod1 wrote:

Each community will follow a formula which suits it best.

Hmmm… 'community', eh?No mention of 'workers', 'producers' or, indeed, 'World Socialism'…… just  'each community'. Could be argued by any conservative nationalist.

mod1 wrote:

Presently, the SPGB are only sketching out and suggesting the democratic framework as a possibility not a probability.

By Christ, we're getting some revelatory political statements today!!!'Democracy' is 'only a possibility'! Once again, it's nice that the elite you represent even deign to consider it as a 'possibility'. I tug my forelock to you, in gratitude!

mod1 wrote:

For the simple fact is we don't know how the concept will work out in practice.

[my bold]'We', eh?Well, the 'we' that this worker belongs to, does have some inkling of how what you're suggesting 'will work out in practice'.So, who's your 'we', mod1?

mod1 wrote:

Alas your closed mind wont accept or acknowledge this logic.

Ahhhh… at last… the eternal 'Logic', the Absolute, the unchanging God, which you know, but we workers don't. 'Logic', the close cousin of 'Matter', no doubt.And I've got a 'closed mind'?You could try studying logic, maths, physics, history, politics, sociology, mod1, but I suspect that you're the one with a closed mind.As an aside, which 'logic'? Classical, three-valued or n-valued?You know, I started these exchanges with the SPGB thinking that its members actually read about what they pontificate upon, but it's becoming ever clearer that you've no idea whatsoever, about Marx, democracy, revolution, class consciousness, epistemology, logic, maths, physics…

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I must admit I find the thought that they might be a product of you and I's social interaction a fairly uncomfortable concept

Yeah, Tim, revolutionary ideas are an 'uncomfortable concept', especially for the ideological conservatives who wish to preserve 'what exists', and deny humanity's ability to alter the status quo, or to build a world to the liking of the majority, or to allow democratic methods into 'pure, unadulterated, disinterested science' (TM, Bourgeois Social Productions, Est. 1660).Perhaps the SPGB is a lover of 'comfortable concepts', eh? Perhaps you are in your spiritual home?Ooohhh… wash my mouth out! Your material home.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

It will come as no surprise L Bird, that you have a tendency to get on my t*ts, but never the less, a genuine warm welcome back.

But, are your 't*ts' a material tendency, or simply an ideal in your individual brain, or a social product of our interaction?Thanks for your kind… nay, even comradely, words.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/03/historical-materialism-versus-historical-conceptualism/

I've had a brief skim of the article, alan, and this stood out:

Quote:

Therefore, materiality; i.e., material reality, is the product of consciousness;

This is an idealist ideological statement.Its opposite, which Religious Materialists like you would argue for, would be:

Quote:

Therefore, consciousness; i.e., conscious reality, is the product of material;

Of course, Marx subscribes to neither of these.Marx would argue that 'social reality' is a product of 'social theory and practice'. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who saw humanity as the creator of its world. Not 'god' (consciousness, ideal) nor 'matter' (rocks, material), but social labour, human activity, theory and practice.We create our 'rocks-for-us'. We are our own creator. That's why we can change our creation, rather than just simply contemplate 'matter' and worship the divine. We create time and space, and the laws of physics, as Pannekoek argued.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on this article but i think it may arouse some interest from others and perhaps LBird might be provoked by it.Mostly it is based on Thomas Kuhn, if the citations is to go by, who i have never read.

Well, I have read Kuhn, and Lakatos, Feyerabend… and dozens of others, so my 'interest' doesn't need to be 'provoked'.

ajj wrote:

One thing that i noticed was: 

Quote:

but revolution, contrary to Marx, can be both corporeal and incorporeal, mental and physical, material and immaterial, meant to establish a new set of governing concepts and ideas over another set, which ultimately organize productive forces and relations of production, both mental and physical, into new social formations and new ways of thinking.

I thought that ideas (incorporeal/mental/immaterial) did take on a life of their own and became a material condition. Surely, Marx didn't overlook when religious beliefs which were perhaps based on materialism at first, transcended their origins and became a cause in themselves. I think the article presents Marx as very determinist and perhaps because of the intellectual needs of his time he did over-emphasise the economic and material ( i am sure there is a quote from Engels conceding this)

We've been over this dozens of times, and I've specifically answered your own questions on this subject, so I don't think me engaging further on this thread will be much use.Short version: your own ideology, alan, of 'Religious Materialism', which you refuse to openly acknowledge, is shaping your views about these issues.Only once you acknowledge your own ideology, will you be able to understand your own ideological statements, above, like about the relationship between 'ideas' and 'material'.

[Author]

Posts