Maths and Cyber-Communism
- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
https://cibcom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Mathematics_to_plan_an_economy_.pdf
I’m sure others will understand the algebra equations a lot better than I do.
Mathematics to plan an economy: an introduction to cyber-socialist calculation
However, it is comforting to know other groups are investigating the Economic Calculation Argument but depressing that Cockshott once again gets cited and not ourselves.
This Spanish group explains that it proposes to abolish money and adopt labor certificates as the unit of remuneration, and from a superficial skim of the paper, they intend also to retain prices and an exchange economy.
Is it worth our more informed members on ECA to establish an exchange with this group?
We should ensure that we appear on their radar.
[Once more RStafford’s Grist has shown its worth]
They sound like ancap wearing a different suit
I am afraid that the credit for spotting this first must go to YMS who started a thread on it a few weeks ago;
Of course, ‘maths’ can help us in our on-going planning for production within a democratic socialist society.
But it’s important to realise that any form of ‘maths’ is itself a socio-historical product, and changes with time and place.
The same applies to ‘logic’, too.
Workers would need to discuss and decide upon which version(s) of ‘maths’ and ‘logic’ would be most suited to their own interests and purposes, before attempting to employ them – that is, ‘theory’ precedes, and informs, ‘practice’. A socialist society would be a democratically determined process, with both theory and practice subject to our wishes.
Their is no form of ‘objective maths’, which supposedly ’emerges’ for us from ‘nature’, which we can just passively follow, by allowing a small minority to determine prior to our political actions.
This will, of course, require mass understanding of the different forms of ‘maths’ and ‘logic’, their origins, histories, development, and by WHOM and WHY those contrasting social products were produced. Part of our task is developing such understanding amongst the working class.
Those wanting to leave ‘maths’ to the ‘experts’ are on the wrong political and philosophical road.
My apologies for the duplication.
My memory must be going.
But I wonder since the YMS posting has anybody endeavoured to contact and interact with this group.
LBird: Workers would need to discuss and decide upon which version(s) of ‘maths’ and ‘logic’ would be most suited to their own interests and purposes, before attempting to employ them
And, after due deliberation, people may decide to reject Bird’s prescription and accept maths and logic as objectively given.
LBird: Those wanting to leave ‘maths’ to the ‘experts’ are on the wrong political and philosophical road.
If only LBird would stop giving his ‘expert’ advice about what people in a post-capitalist society can and cannot do.
Lew wrote: “…maths and logic as objectively given.”
The beliefs that you espouse have been comprehensively questioned since the late 19th century, before the SPGB was formed, and during the 20th century have been comprehensively destroyed.
Maths and logic change. There are no ‘objects’ determining maths and logic. ‘Objects’ are, as Marx argued, socially produced (as physics has since confirmed), and so we can change them – objects, maths, logic, and physics.
‘Lew wrote: “…maths and logic as objectively given.”’
No, I wrote that in the post-capitalist future “people may decide to reject Bird’s prescription and accept maths and logic as objectively given.”
Once again Bird dodges the issue. For while he is happy for truth to be democratically decided in the future, what he says now must be objectively true. Otherwise what he says is meaningless. This is the paradox of the “post-truth” (or post-modernist) position.
In the interests of ‘mass understanding’ of the ‘origin, history, development, and by WHOM and WHY’ of ‘non-objective’ mathematics.
Take Number Theory…
Pythagorean triples (3, 4, 5), (5, 12, 13),… were known in the Old Babylonian Empire, in Middle Kingdom Egypt, in 5th century BCE Greece (Pythagoras) and in 1st century BCE China.
Oxford/Cambridge mathematician Andrew Wiles recently proved a mathematical theorem proposed by lawyer Pierre de Fermat (17th century France) that
Theorem: “There are no analogs of Pythagorean triples in [integer] powers higher than 2.”
[Abel Prize: https://youtu.be/cWKAzX5U85Q%5D
Challenge…
Please identify a recognised form, or preferably forms, of mathematics that you would ban by reason of ‘mass understanding’ of ‘origin, history, development, and by WHOM and WHY’?
Lew wrote: “…must be objectively true.”
Who made this claim, Lew? I didn’t.
twc wrote “…mathematics that you would ban…”.
Who made this claim, twc? I didn’t.
Really, lads, if you want to debate politics, you have to debate with what your opponent argues, rather than make up stories, and then argue with those self-made stories.
What’s the point of having a site dedicated to politics, presumably to win people over to your views, when you can’t debate with criticisms made of your beliefs? Your arguing with ideas no-one holds is completely pointless.
Whereas my arguing with your ideas allows me a focus for my reading and development, which is why I continue to criticise your beliefs.
Lew wrote: “…must be objectively true.”
Who made this claim, Lew? I didn’t.
I made the claim, which I think the full post above makes clear.
Lew admits writing: “…accept maths and logic as objectively given.”
How does the ‘object’ ‘give’ to you, Lew?
This claim means that the ‘object’ is active, and you are passive.
And passive ‘acceptance’ of socio-historical products like ‘maths and logic’ would mean that you accept what an elite minority have produced, in their own interests and for their own purposes.
What are the politics and philosophy behind passive acceptance by the majority of the beliefs of a small minority? It sounds like religion or conservativism (or those ‘scientists’ espousing either or both, in favour of their own elite beliefs).
On the contrary, democratic communists and Marxists would stress the need for the majority to become active in all areas of social production, and help to change those social products in favour of our interests and purposes. Science, maths, logic, objects, have to be produced to create our socialist world. We can change our world.
LBird: ‘Lew admits writing: “…accept maths and logic as objectively given.”’
For the third time, I wrote that in the post-capitalist future “people may decide to reject Bird’s prescription and accept maths and logic as objectively given.”
I’m finished with this nonsense. I had thought Bird had given an undertaking not to keep hijacking threads.
I’m trying to discuss the philosophy of maths with you, Lew.
If you think that’s ‘nonsense’, fair enough, but don’t pretend that your apparent inability to discuss the topic of this thread is caused by me.
I’m trying to find out why you think that it’s possible that in a socialist society (which can only exist after a mass, democratic, active movement has built it) ‘people may decide to … accept maths and logic as objectively given’.
The existence of socialism would be evidence that ‘people’ had freely chosen to socially produce their own objects, including maths and logic.
If you adhere to an ideology that ‘maths and logic’ will determine ‘people’ and their ‘objects’, just say so.
But if you admit this, it’s the end for any form of ‘socialism’ based upon democratic mass activity, and will be the result of an elite party who’ll claim to be ‘building socialism’ FOR the masses.
It’s Leninism, Lew.
Indeed, Cyber-Leninism.
L Bird- “ Really, lads, if you want to debate politics, you have to debate with what your opponent argues, rather than make up stories, and then argue with those self-made stories.”
So presumably, in your view only males will be involved in political debate and your proposed voting process, a curious democracy you put forward!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.