Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just a quick Charlie Bomb I was thinking of throwing in :
Quote:Sense-perception (see Feuerbach) must be the basis of all science. Only when it proceeds from sense-perception in the two-fold form of sensuous consciousness and sensuous need – is it true science. All history is the history of preparing and developing “man” to become the object of sensuous consciousness, and turning the requirements of “man as man” into his needs. History itself is a real part of natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
I don't think we have Piketty per se to thanks for that data (although I gather his conclusion is low growth is likely to be a feature of capitalism for sometime), I just drew back to him since the thread is ostensibly about his data.
Quote:Productivity is even more significant than GDP per capita because without growth employers can’t increase wages.And herein the pernicious lie, and (in line with what Piketty has been saying) the problem for reformists. It's easy to give away wages when productivity is rising, especially as the increase in wages will not be the same as the total increase in productivity.
and while Israel, strangely, gets all the headline:http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/07/refugees-living-a-nightmare-in-northern-pakistan/
Quote:[Internall Displaced Persons] have been streaming in since the military operation began on Jun. 15, reaching close to a million by mid-July, officials here say. So far, aid has come in the form of food rations and medical supplies for the wounded, as well as those left dehydrated by the scorching 45-degree heat.Pakistani generals are claiming no civilians killed:http://www.criticalthreats.org/pakistan/jan-gauging-success-nwa-operation-july-25-2014This may, though, be the old trick of labelling everyone killed a terrorist.This is just a coincidence of live fire, there are other hotspots like Israel/Palestine with sporadic slaughter as a continuing feature, and these do not get half an inch as much coverage. Anyone remember the fate of the Tamil Tigers?
This article if fascinating:http://theconversation.com/my-time-in-israeli-defence-force-tells-me-the-level-of-casualties-in-gaza-is-avoidable-30133Although the call is, ultimately, for a more refined butchery (changes to the rules of engagement) it comes from an authoritative source.
Quote:There’s no reason to think the Israelis couldn’t change their rules, though. We have international conventions banning, for instance, the use of chemical weapons in war, so it is possible, I believe, to also prohibit the use of heavy artillery, big bombs and cruel procedures in densely populated areas such as the Gaza Strip. After all, it is also in Israel’s interest, as the horrific pictures coming out of the Gaza Strip ruin the country’s already tarnished reputation.He notes that the IDF are dropping 250-1,000 kg bombs on Gaza. Last I checked, the payload of the rockets Hamas are chucking out are about 10kg (in ethical terms, neither here nor there, but the different is a brick wall is likely to protect you from a 90 kilo bomb at about 10 metres). As Wikipedia notes the Hamas rockets cost about €500 each to make, so just by launching them, and forcing Israel to spend millions shooting them down, they are inflicting a significant cost on Israel. Such is the harsh logic of war.Thus, the article's suggestion that the bombing campaign is about trying to rive a wedge between Hamas and the population of Gaza is interesting. That would mean Israel reckons the cost of this offensive is less than the drain of fighting off Hamas' rockets.
Well, it's a different communications branch, butt here is something called "Costly signalling theory" (it's related to the article I posted at the beginning), which basically says that talk is cheap, so human groups have come up with energy expensive ways of demonstrating loyalty and communicative truthfulness. For example, people who attend church every week: they may be screaming hypocrits deep down, but if after may years of attending, they have invested so much in their church that it would be difficult for them to act in a way that would invalidate what that attendenace signals about them.Thuswise, for party members, we suddenly ask people to actively state, through writing or speech, their agreement with the party case. This is more costly than siomply filling in a membership form and ticking a box. We attach a value to membership (and to being able to at least explain the party case). Many years ago Armando Iannucci on one of his satirical shows managed to get Darth Vader and a Man in HIs Pants to join the Conservative Party: opportunism sets the bar very low.As a party, we forge intensive and strong links btween ourselves, because we're small and likely to be drowned out in the noise of other less rigorous parties.
Well, the point of mentioning the model, was how it shows, in part, how ideas diffuse through a society, and how part of that diffusion isn't always abstract ratiocination, but sometimes pro-social behaviours. the trick is to get the pro-social behaviours to swing in our direction, so that people will begin to caolesce behind socialist ideas.For example, if Noam Chomsky suddenly joined the WSPUS we'd suddenly have a flood of applicants. this would be no bad thing, if we assume Chomsky were an honest applicant. We'd screen further applicants to check that they were honest, and probably exclude a lot, but we'd still grow the mass of our fringe fairly rapidly, especially those who would want to pose as cool and radical. This isn't, though, a model of party growth, but of processing and reacting to news, I just think it helps us think about how our ideas impact on community groups and spread through them.
Indeed, the movement into the party, I'm sure as we become more hegemonic various Christian, Jewish and Islamic Socialist societies will spring up around us, and fair play to them, but not this party. We do ask people to vote for us, but we jkust want to warn them to be sure they know what they are voting for. Building a few strong links is better at the moment than many weak links.
SocialistPunk wrote:Could this relate to socialists with spiritual beliefs?No, cause we don't want people with spiritual beliefs to have a vote in the party.The interesting question is how an opinion spreads along a population. Stating 'we don't want your vote' foregrounds the issue of ideas, separates us from reformist groups and vote grubbers, and helps us as a tiny minority mark out a clear space: after all, the various pro-capitalist social networks already exist and need dismantling. I'll just add, this isn't a numbers game, we're discussing building links, and powerful links, which is different from mere nose counting.
Could have sworn I replied to this with two points:1) Party members are the blue sky thinkers, it's imjportant to have clarity and cohesion of message.2) Even if a joiner is broadly in agreement but has some quibbles over some parts of party policy, asking them to indicate agreement is encouraging a "pro-social(ist)" lie, that, again helps the network to grow.
LBird wrote:Can't you and YMS address some of Rovelli's concerns?Well, I don't see anything that exciting in Rovelli. If we have to redefine truth as 'to the best of our knowledge' we're not really changing much in the way we approach or deal with that knowledge. It is knowledge we can treat as if true.Back to the Law analogy. In court, juries are asked to be certain whether a person is guilty or not. They are not asked to pronounce upon the truth of the charge, and what happened, just guilty or not guilty (or proven & not proven in Scotland (lets ignore the not guilty abberation)). They are asked to be sure.I am sure that information cannot travel at a speed faster than light. I am sure that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I am sure that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I could be disabused of this certainty, but as a being that must exist within the world — and, more importantly, act within it — I must continue with my certainty until given good reason to change my mind. I am perfectly satisfied with 'To the best of our knowledge', that is still a high bar.Lets not forget that Real just means 'Royal' and true just means "loyal". So, I am happy that reality will be defined by collective democratic and free authority as long as they remain loyal.
5,000 hours on architecture, on physics, on chemistry, on art, literature, music: if, of course, I so choose to do so. Not everyone will put in the time, and not everyone needs to put in the time. Of course, those that care will make up their own minds (that will happen whether or not there is a vote). Irrespective of the numbers, you'll need to make available material for the 1,000 hourers as well as the 5,000, 10,000 and 50,000 hourers.Frankly, I'd prefer juries over voting, as a more sensible course, backed up by open debate. Between us, together, we'll be able to manage society collectively, that doesn't mean I personally will need to know how many nuts there are in a widget thrashing machine.
Oh, and yes, I agree, specialists must explain themselves, that is vitally important, but some things can't be understood without specialist training, that takes time, too. So some people will have 5,000 hours of practice in science, some people will have less than a 1,000, each needs to have material available to their understanding, and say, local libraries will stock material for the 1,000 hour folk, while university libraries will have texts for the 10,000 hour folk (the print runs for them will be less).
All a vote can tell us is what the majority agree is the case, not what is the case. So a motion "The socialist party believes" is true because the socialist party, as a body corporate would have a majority that agrees a particular case. Voting on whther thre is gravity or not is fairly pointless. It wouldn't change the minds of the anti-gravity crowd. I'd be against universities taking positions, rather than letting rsearchers just get on with saying what they want.he democratic input would come in at the publication stage, in publishing and dissemination and in what gets prominance in the attention economy (attention being a still scarce product, due to the finitude of human life).I agree, there must be debate, dissent and criticism, and I don't think those should be closed down by an artificial vote. Reality will be created by our common efforts, but our common efforts as freely associating individuals in discourse.
