Pathfinders: The Opposite of Binary Oppositions
- This topic has 24 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
An interesting use of the digital/analogue dualism to describe capitalism. In physics they still seek a 'unified theory' that will give us a quatum (digital) description of gravity. The graviton, however, seems as elusive as ever and the small (quatum) and large (general relativity) seem to resist synthesis as do the worlds of analogue and digital. Perhaps they await the synthesis (revolution) that will resolve the ultimate duality of capitalism and socialism?
Another comment sent to Head Office by a reader:
Quote:I haven't seen a lot of letters/feedback in the Standard in recent times, but I thought the June Pathfinders article was excellent, thought-provoking.The writer makes his points well. Never thought of it that way, analogue human beings trying to be digital.Humans are analogue.'Digital' is a social product of the bourgeoisie. It follows from their attempt to 'mathematise nature'. This reduces our product 'organic nature' to a 'countable' world of discrete individual bits, an ideology which reflects the 'individualist' world of the bourgeoisie.'Value' is a case in point. The bourgeoisie want 'value' to be 'countable' for individuals, so they can individually determine the 'value' of a commodity. 'Value' for them is 'digital', and 'in' the commodity.For Marx, 'value' was analogue, and is 'in' the social production process. That's why an individual can't determine what the 'value' of a commodity is. The 'market' is a bluff.Bourgeois physics is another example of the 'digitising' of our world. Unfortunately, the 18th century 'materialists' who follow Engels, also do this, and pretend that a special group of elite academics have a 'special consciousness' that workers don't have, which allows these 'Specialists' to 'count the really-existing digits'. Whilst 'digits' are believed to 'exist', we can't vote on them.'Digits' do not 'exist' until we create them – they are 'digits-for-us', and we can change them.Any 'unified theory' within physics will involve humanity – the very place which 'materialists' insist must be ignored, because 'nature' supposedly exists in-itself, outside of our social production of 'it'.PS. A very interesting article, the best that I've read in the Socialist Standard.
LBird wrote:Humans are analogue.'Digital' is a social product of the bourgeoisie. It follows from their attempt to 'mathematise nature'. This reduces our product 'organic nature' to a 'countable' world of discrete individual bits, an ideology which reflects the 'individualist' world of the bourgeoisie.PS. A very interesting article, the best that I've read in the Socialist Standard.I beg to differ. 'Digital' is an economic product of capitalism. The bourgeoisie produce nothing other than fulfilling the role of being the personification of capital.
I believe the very first writing (discovered in Mesopotamia) was a form of accounting (digitally) and this predates the arrival of the bourgeoisie by some millenia. Marx often uses the dialectical process of quantity transforming into a quality – such as when money becomes capital. Is this an example of the digital being converted into the analogue?
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:Humans are analogue.'Digital' is a social product of the bourgeoisie. It follows from their attempt to 'mathematise nature'. This reduces our product 'organic nature' to a 'countable' world of discrete individual bits, an ideology which reflects the 'individualist' world of the bourgeoisie.PS. A very interesting article, the best that I've read in the Socialist Standard.I beg to differ. 'Digital' is an economic product of capitalism. The bourgeoisie produce nothing other than fulfilling the role of being the personification of capital.
You would 'differ', Brian, because you're a 'materialist', and don't agree with Marx's ideology of 'social production', within which humanity is the 'active side'.For your ideology, humans are the passive side, who merely 'personify' external influences, and 'fulfil roles' not of their own creation.Thus, as Marx warned, you are forced to divide society into two parts – one of 'Specialists', who do provide the 'active side', and one of 'Generalists', who you tell that they must remain a 'passive' mob, and so are not allowed to democratically participate in humanity's creation of its world. 'Materialism' is a product of class society, and you're on the side of the exploiters – though, of course, you're not conscious of that political fact, although it's obvious to any democratic revolutionary.
Wez wrote:I believe the very first writing (discovered in Mesopotamia) was a form of accounting (digitally) and this predates the arrival of the bourgeoisie by some millenia.Class society predates the bourgeoisie, Wez.So, as you say, 'digital' is a social product, but the interests and purposes of 'digital' are socio-historical, and thus we can change them. 'Digits' don't pre-exist our creation of them. There are no 'digits' simply sitting 'out there', passively awaiting our 'discovery' of 'digits-in-themselves'.
Wez wrote:Marx often uses the dialectical process of quantity transforming into a quality – such as when money becomes capital. Is this an example of the digital being converted into the analogue?No, Wez, this is an example of 'Engelsism'.'Dialectics' is Marx's notion of human creation, a 'dialogue' between our activity and resistance to that activity.We 'quantify', and we 'qualify'. We are the 'active side'.
SS article by PJS, wrote:Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, there is an ongoing debate among scientists about whether reality is truly digital or analogue.These 'scientists' would need to first explain what their 'reality' is, and what 'it' being 'truly' anything means.If their 'reality' is a 'reality-in-itelf' (that is, a 'reality' outside of (or pre-dating) humanity's activity), then they'd have to explain to us how they themselves can 'actively access' this 'reality', and thus tell us 'passives' whether it is 'truly digital or analogue'.We socialists must take the stance that this 'ongoing debate' is a political debate, and that as such this debate must involve all humanity, and not just an elite of 'scientists'.History teaches us that 'ongoing debates among scientists' are never conducted in our interests, or for our purposes. And 'truth' is always a socio-historical product, that changes. We, as democratic socialists, must argue that 'truth' comes under our political control. Otherwise, the production of 'truth', and its changes, will be under some other elite's political control.
LBird wrote:History teaches us that 'ongoing debates among scientists' are never conducted in our interests, or for our purposes. And 'truth' is always a socio-historical product, that changes. We, as democratic socialists, must argue that 'truth' comes under our political control. Otherwise, the production of 'truth', and its changes, will be under some other elite's political control.Who are "we as democratic socialists" How many people agree with you "that truth should be democratically decided"?And haven't you repeated this 'theory' ad nauseam and on almost every thread on the forum and received numerous replies, particularily from Robbo debunking your theory which was revealed as undemocratic, and centralist . "A Truth that is imposed on all communities around the world by a workers world state? Correct me if that is incorrect?
patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:History teaches us that 'ongoing debates among scientists' are never conducted in our interests, or for our purposes. And 'truth' is always a socio-historical product, that changes. We, as democratic socialists, must argue that 'truth' comes under our political control. Otherwise, the production of 'truth', and its changes, will be under some other elite's political control.Who are "we as democratic socialists" How many people agree with you "that truth should be democratically decided"?
Well, I'm assuming that 'we' includes me, you, and the other posters who are members/sympathisers of the SPGB.If you (or the others) are not 'democratic socialists', why not just say so?Or if you define 'democratic socialism' to not include 'democratic production of ideas', why not just say so?As you say, if no-one at all agrees with me, why don't they spell out their political alternative to 'democratic truth production'?So, the ball's in your court, pat.
patreilly wrote:And haven't you repeated this 'theory' ad nauseam and on almost every thread on the forum and received numerous replies, particularily from Robbo debunking your theory which was revealed as undemocratic, and centralist . "A Truth that is imposed on all communities around the world by a workers world state? Correct me if that is incorrect?But all these 'replies' rely upon a different ideology to 'democratic socialism', so they can't 'debunk' this theory.Simply calling 'democratic truth production' 'undemocratic and centralist' is merely playing with words and avoiding the political issues and questions raised by the debate.It seems that you're adopting the same method as the other 'materialists': damning your political opponents by lies.I've never argued for 'a workers world state' – you've just made that up, to avoid answering the political question of "who (or what) determines 'truth' ?".And who or what are 'all' these 'communities' that would not be controlled by the 'democratic socialists', who would be the overwhelming majority during a political revolution to create 'democratic socialism'?So, your ideology is incorrect, and I've politically corrected you, pat.If you disagree with 'democratic socialism', who do you think will create our truth? It's a political question, about the power to determine, and all 'materialists' without fail always ignore this political question.I'm extremely confident that you won't make my last statement untrue, pat.Simply because 'materialists' can't refute this political statement without undermining their own belief in 'objective matter' (which is their 'god', and in which they have undying faith). When confronted with the choice between 'the democratic, revolutionary, class conscious proletariat' and 'matter', they always choose 'matter'. It's the 18th century way!
LBird wrote:I've never argued for 'a workers world state' –Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers. Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites' or even workers disagree and decide their own truth?
patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:I've never argued for 'a workers world state' –Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.
I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).
patreilly wrote:Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites' or even workers disagree and decide their own truth?'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
LBird wrote:patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:I've never argued for 'a workers world state' –Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.
I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).
patreilly wrote:Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites' or even workers disagree and decide their own truth?'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.
Praying the same rosary again? You do not learn the lesson
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.