Re: A second WAS [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society ? [Philosophical Investigation]
- From: Adam Moran <adam diamat.org.uk>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:41:48 +0000
Hi,
Niall Douglas wrote:
On 8 Feb 2004 at 2:37, Adam Moran wrote:
I suspect / theorise that some of the self / other descriptive
techniques ... views of the world, so to speak ... are flawed if
adopted on mass.
Most ideas become flawed when adopted en mass unless they make use of
the need of systems to grow. For example if communism had enshrined a
dynamic constantly changing worldview at its heart, it would like
have succeeded (of course it wouldn't be communism anymore).
One thing very good about capitalism is that it rewards taking risk.
It's very risky to change or even often to suggest change because
people don't like change. But boy has a lot of change in the world's
population occurred primarily because of capitalism (many complain of
its culturally homogenising effect, but an ecosystem thrives not only
from diversity but also from /coupling/ between the diverse
elements).
I am unsure of how Marx thought a communist mode of production would
work; I've been trying to get my head around it. He'd moved to Paris to
witness the almost spontaneous community in 1848 and was just trying to
get his own head around all the stuff that was breaking out, I guess.
Before then, I don't know whether he would have called himself a
communist, in fact I seem to remember that he wrote against them in a
funny kind of a way. He was more interested in trying to stir things up
in Prussia after he'd not got the job he wanted at a university ... or
something. [smile]
Well Marx / Engels certainly got their act together in Paris ... i dunno
whether it was the feeling of emancipation they must have felt in that
brief and somewhat limited autonomy, oder, but that's when they started
publishing their more coherent stuff.
Anyway it was picked up and re-purposed and used by all species of
groups to their own telos; most of these started off with high ambitions
but were just subsumed by the same old same-old. What happened in Russia
in 1907 was to a certain extent a precursor and model to 1917. I think
its clear from what Lenin wrote that he meant to enforce a new mode of
production based on common wealth. May be it would have gone another way
if Germany hadn't been split. (Alive Rosa roo - A valentine to you).
Germany was far more industrialised; Russia was in a predominantly
agrarian-feudal system and it was just too much to turn around. Dunno
... I heard this stuff mainly on picket-lines ... maybe these are are
just malformed memories of other malformed memories.
The rest can be picked from school books; well, maybe not any more but
this is how I heard it ... an attempt at new mode of production in
Russia based on the commune model; no money / joint decisions and the
associated phenomena of voluntary hard work. Strange how this phenomena
lasted many years after Russia was subsumed by the same old same-old. I
remember questioning my old man who was on piece-work at the time about
the Stakhanovite year and the legendary rates of production; he just
laughed and said "same old, same-old" ... and how can you argue with a
man whose shoveled shit for fifty years non-stop ? [laugh]
Sure people worked hard at the beginning ... who wouldn't if you had a
chance for a different way of being ... but it was easily subsumed
because of its hierarchical structure by the same old same-old. The
world turned on Russia and the structure built by Lenin for perhaps a
greater intention was refactored by others into a Shakespearean tragedy.
I take the point - ideas become flawed when adopted en mass unless they
make use of the need of systems to grow - what is required is *Feedback*.
I spent a lot of time reading after being accused, as it felt to me, of
being a philosopher - that's not what I'm into and i took it as an
insult ... i didn't really know what this list was about, except i read
the term self-unfolding and thought "Where all going to have some fun
now !" [grin]
Anyway I thought I'd found a pattern and conceptulised it into another
pattern - an hierarchical categorisation system of Genera / Species ...
how many dimensions has this pattern - duh ... sorry folks ... I was in
a hurry to give you all the present.
The 'Cigar' in this game goes to the one / many of us who can *Present
the Telos* - by this I mean figure out a method of explaining to
everyone else what is happening in and around us.
I've tried to get there (in a Wittgenstein sense) with my atomics but i
know i'm very far behind anything substantial and I'm happy to play this
open handed. I started off at Aristotle for what I thought were obvious
reasons and was somewhat amazed at the lack of contradictory response.
"I must be on to something" I thought - that's how it works on most of
the email lists I'm on - "Well I'll just keep playing the same card
until a better one turns up. [grin]"
Negri turned up once or twice which got me thinking "yeah ... they're on
to something ... he talks the Aristotelean talk ... Telos one thing,
telos the other, telos the same old story ... the same old same old
story. [grin]"
... Anyway to cut to the chase and lighten up the mood a bit around
here, I'm going to drop my atom *I* and state of the *We* idea ... is
bad an loses territory won by the meteors ... At the same time I'll drop
some more sources:
dialectics
----------
http://www.groucho-marx.com/
atomics
-------
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node139.html
Special Relativity
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/ch05.htm
Chapter Two: The Qualities of the Atom
http://www.cleanforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=35
" • Only introduces universal metaphors of form, space and time. "
... and out of this reading it made a lot of sense to use the meteors of
Epicurus and the lyrics of the *Bunnymen*
--
stay tuned for the *Cure* - we are going to have some fun now ! [laugh]
--
tranquillo
cigar - very phallic [smile]
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/