P2P-Foundation

Download

[email protected]

April 2016

10 participants
62 discussions

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] revolution and transition (Was: Re: Lenin as a philosopher by...)
by Michel Bauwens 02 Apr '16

02 Apr '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 4:08 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] revolution and transition (Was: Re: Lenin as a philosopher by...) To: Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> Cc: "networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org" <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org > This part is interesting too: "Several interesting ideas arise from Bogdariov's analysis of revolution; they indicate how far apart Lenin and Bogdanov were in their thinking. To Lenin, a revolutionary situation existed when the ruling class could no longer rule as before, the suffering of the oppressed classes deepened, and the activity of the masses increased. To Bogdanov in contrast, a revolutionary situation came into being when a progressive, ascendant class eclipsed the repressive ruling class. He placed the stress, in other words, on greater capability rather than on Lenin's greater oppression. One implication of Bogdanov's argument is that revolution can be regressive unless the new class is fully prepared to take power. Another implication, which follows from the first, is that educational and cultural tasks should be considered paramount rather than subsidiary. If the proletariat were not fully equipped to take over the management of society from the bourgeoisie, the end result could be disastrous-a general decline and perhaps disintegration rather than the building of a new socialist society. Moreover, if there were a "cultural lag," as Bogdanov surmised there would be, then the problem would become even more acute. In short, Bogdanov sounded a warning that revolution did not automatically mean progress; nor could the success of revolution be limited to the seizure of power and economic change." and the link to the book: http://monoskop.org/images/6/6f/Sochor_Zenovia_Revolution_and_Culture_The_B… Sent from my iPad On 1 apr. 2016, at 18:21, Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: Below is An excpert from Sochor's book's chapter titled as Bogdanivism, where I think she makes a fair and critical judgement, very highly advised read: "Nevertheless, Bogdanov subscribed to the classical Marxian notion that historical development was progressive, punctuated by distinct stages, with revolution occurring at the points of transition.15o Bogdanov visualized the revolutionary process as being something like an ava- lanche: "A revolutionary explosion ... breaks through the internal boundaries of its groupings, blending separated masses into a fighting avalanche."151 In his earlier writings, he described the rise of "spon- taneous thrusts which demolish everything which stands in the way of the developing life"152 Later, he decided there were "turning points" in the course of revolution during which "the tempo changes, as well as the direction and relations of its constituent organizational and dis- organizational processes." A catalyst, or trigger, he argued, may have "a noticeable and even a great influence on the progress of a crisis." During a period of high social tension-a revolutionary situation, for example-the news of isolated acts of violence, if rapidly spread among the masses by verbal or written means, "may serve as grounds [pos- Iuzhit' povodoml for an uprising."153 Ps: Meanwhile, after the bomb-rain in Europe and turkey just turned inward a bit, reading Mach's own work, and Lenin's philosophy handbooks (which is obviously his critic of Mach in order to be able to critique Bogdanov while improving his own vision -seems like it worked as I think his imperialism theory as well as political strategy of 'the weakest link in chain' is heavily indebted to such endevour); so far i can argue that although interesting both the intro to Panekoek's booklet by that guy, or Brandist's book are missing the real point big time. Even Trotsky, Bukharin, and even Lenin's ego seemingly recognized the importance of Bogdanov's vision, it is only today full appreciation of a century old work can be done. I was wondering if anyone knows or can give a clue how and why debate in Italy, in 50s or 60s, on Bogdanov did start and end? Would appreciate a lot if anyone can hint.. Orsan On 17 mrt. 2016, at 17:16, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think that to understand what was going on in between e.g. Lenin and Bogdanov (or Trotsky, for that matter) it's necessary to understand not only the philosophical but also the political, economic and military forces and developments. I don't think I have time for all of that. Got a few productive years left, slowing down every year, gotta focus on the economic. But I'm glad you are getting deeper, and also that you dropped Hebb into your mix. He solves some of the conundrums in the intro to the document you posted. For the rest, I think it's too mechanical to automatically associate a set of ideas with a class because that class used those ideas. That association might damn the ideas, or maybe not. Everything is in flux, all the time. Advanced capitalism developed modes of thought and people and ideas that could supersede it. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: Bob, I might have just been thinking loudly while trying to learn my self, by highlighting the importance of that background you mention; I think it is important for today and in general. Stressing on forgotten precursors, like Bogdanov and Sultan-Galiev, can be instances of excitement, finding out the missing links that helps to re-make the puzzle in order to get an as wholistic as possible view of the passed and passing time. Since they are missing, or lost, links, there can bring about negative things out in light; or they can bring about positive things about those who organized the forgetting process but got lost together with the precursors -at the time of organizing the forgetting :) Like this only 'non polemical' work of Lenin, the philosophy notebooks, parts written in 1910s of the notes are of the work he did not yet understand and grasp at the time of writing Materialism and Empriocriticism; he then goes back to the fundamentals of philosophy and comes back, later this work allows him to establish his own as the best later official Marxism for Russia, later consolidated by Stalin : http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/PNv38.pdf One can see that entire work undertaken by Lenin here, as well as later when to develop the imperialism theory; is triggered and motivated by his will to succeed and overcome the ideas developed by Bogdanov being more influential amongst the leading figures in, around, after the revolution (or Lenin) -philosophically may be not politically. So probably there is no good in comparing the two each other like comparing superman and batman; but highlighting clearly a strong mutual and dialectical influence over one another that was going on; while many other things over many other things were influencing too; these got lost in the mist of the revolutions, wars, and fascisms between 1900s and 1950s. This is another new and important account (by Craig Brandist) of the same story from Lenin's side, yet confirms the importance of the losses: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=b5a67cd7279fe7327d3fbc5ef70c5328 As for this specificity way in which the background is given - in intro to Panekoek's book that dismiss him and Bogdanov before Lenin- also reconfirms this. Conclusion: There are many names/nodes -also to be added- and theanalysis of the ties needs to be made; but in relation to 20cc and 21cc philosophy, science, culture and politics I still think it is key to try to re-make of the holistic view of the below: the Jewish reformism of 19cc and emergence of thinkers, scientists, and politics as Marx and Engel's work, many reform jews from vienna to london has shaken the European landscape; like Marx and Engel's critique of classical political economy and Hegel's idealism; Ostwald, Mach and Avenarius's of critique of Comte and Lock's positivism, the impact of Darwin and Freud; influence of Mach and Ostwald's Energetism on Einstein -and Bohr, on Marginalists like Menger, Walras, Bohm-Bawerk and their attack on value theory; the way Marx and Engels formulates historical materialism and first international is built in interaction and struggle with anarchists like Phroudon, Bakunin; Marxisms involvution via social democracy to reformism role of Lasalle, and Bernstein-Kautsky-Plekhanov line, reaction of Luxembourg and Spartakists; again impact of Mach on Austrian Marxists and Bogdanov's synthesis of Energetism and Materialism in Tektology; its impact on Lenin's thinking and doing; role of Bukharin, Trotsky, Sultan-Galiev who got influenced by Bogdanov and ProletKult; influence of Bogdanov and proletkult in Italy on Gramsci, Borgida, in holland Panekeok, and council communists; interactions with Veblen-Polanyi-Keynes of institutionalism, and Marhall-Coates line of neo-institutionalism, from Popper to Lazlo (and Soros), from Piaget, Hebb and McLullan, to the development of behivoralism, from Bertallanfy and Wiener to Mecy conferences the development of GST and cybernetics, from wars to operation research, from military deception to ICTs, from complex systems and network analysis to TNCs, value chains and global production networks; from financial architecture and neoliberal global governance of transnational and informational capitalism to global imperialist war of terror, and organic crisis; rising fascism and nazizm....and from here to there?) On 16 mrt. 2016, at 22:58, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ok, I just read the introduction. Fascinating! Materialism and Empirio–criticism was an assigned reading in a study group I was in once, a long long time ago, otherwise I probably would not have bothered. I didn't have enough background in philosophy or history to get much out of it at the time, so I appreciated all the background here. What did you get out of it, Orsan? Change your mind about anything? The intro, surprisingly, appears to be written by a Catholic professor of theology, if this is the same person: http://legatus.org/cultivating-the-virtues-of-subsidiarity/ Michel would like that last one. Too bad he unsubscribed... On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: https://libcom.org/files/Pannekoek%20-%20Lenin%20as%20Philosopher.pdf Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Scientific Revolution Type
by Michel Bauwens 02 Apr '16

02 Apr '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bob Reuschlein <bobreuschlein(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 2:25 PM Subject: Scientific Revolution Type To: Link to send or tweet to others: https://bobreuschlein.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/scientific-revolution-type/ Scientific Revolution Type By Professor Robert Reuschlein *Trans-Disciplinary Revolution * The very expression “thinking outside the box” suggests that people get caught up in narrow minded boxes and can’t see outside their disciplinary frameworks. I was recently accused of “methodological ambiguity” by someone who clearly doesn’t understand engineering. Engineering and construction use whatever methods work in a variety of juxtapositions to put together a useful whole. It is not surprising that those of the social sciences would interpret this process as methodological ambiguity, having little familiarity with the engineering sciences. Bringing a combination of hard sciences and social sciences from nine basic fields of study allows one to see beyond the narrowness of specialties to the broader truths around them. My nine fields are math, wargaming, science, engineering, accounting, business, politics, peace economics, and global warming. Only this way leads to true paradigm shifts as certain frames test better than others. Point number 7 in the next list is crucial to understanding this point. *10 Scientific Revolution Facts* This is mainly a book review by Robert Reuschlein of: *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* by Thomas Kuhn (1962, 1972) #1. Kuhn defines a scientific revolution as a paradigm shift in a scientific field. #2. Paradigm shifts change the worldview in a field of science. (Kuhn) #3. Kuhn is a historian of science and works primarily in the physical sciences. #4. Kuhn says a new theory “requires the reconstruction of prior theory and re-evaluation of prior fact, an intrinsically revolutionary process that is seldom completed by a single” person “and never overnight.” #5. “History suggests that the road to a firm research consensus is very arduous.” (Kuhn) #6. “it remains an open question what parts of social science have yet acquired such paradigms at all.” (Kuhn) #7. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant. As a result, early fact-gathering is a far more nearly random activity than the one that subsequent scientific development makes familiar.” (Kuhn) #8 “Therefore, at times of revolution, when the normal-scientific tradition changes, the scientists perception of his environment must be re-educated – in some familiar situations he” or she “must learn to see a new gestalt.” (Kuhn) #9 “schools guided by different paradigms are always slightly at cross-purposes.” (Kuhn) #10 “what a person sees depends both on what a person looks at and also upon what a person’s previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him or her to see.” (Kuhn) *10 Truths About Research* #1. Military Research is often too military specific to give any civilian benefit to the economy. New areas of research bring the greatest results, but much military research improves on existing ideas without creating anything truly new. #2. Military Research is often too top secret to benefit from normal academic testing in conferences. Without the widespread dissemination of ideas, serendipity cannot happen. #3. Much of mainstream research money goes to follow on research rather than truly original research. Grants are awarded for research desired by the grantee, not necessarily for new innovations that have no obvious benefactor at first, but often change the world. #4. Most of the greatest innovations come from the little person not from major research institutions. Like many others, Steve Jobs started out in a garage. #5. Independent researchers are often looked down upon by the snobs in leading academic institutions. Colleagues have recommended I present my ideas to various UW Madison forums, but with Madison the 9th ranked city in snobbery, it’s hard to get recognition as an independent researcher. #6. Large corporations can buy up inventions that they don’t want to compete with. Such as the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” about California in the nineties. #7. Large corporations can use the legal system to bankrupt the small inventor. This one was brought up as a major cause by a presenter on patent process information. #8. Large corporations can use government restrictions to block progress of the small inventor. My personal experience in the small dry cleaner industry up against big oil shows that suspected cancer causing perclorethylene has 300 times tighter restrictions than known carcinogen in oil, benzene. #9. Large research institutions can ignore research too far outside the mainstream. As a colleague of mine has said, 2% improvement makes you a great researcher, but 3% improvement means you are a nut job. #10. Peer reviewed research limitations can stop small inventors from following their best instincts. Imagine if Jesus had to have approval of the Sanhedrin to preach: that would have ended it right there. Example of a paradigm shift: Fall of empire, driven by diverting resources from productivity to the military, affects everything from politics to crime to health as social decay follows economic decay. https://www.academia.edu/4044446/EMPIRE_ECONOMICS_Peer_Review_AWARD Facts documenting this paradigm shift: 13 key statistics and the one liner descriptions that sum them up on one page. https://www.academia.edu/4044456/SUMMARY_Military_DisEconomics_HighAccuracy… Here is the 11 page heart of the real model that is the “Proof of Peace Economics”: Far from “cherry picking” this includes all 380 numbers in the 64 year US economic model. https://www.academia.edu/7632773/PROOF_of_Peace_Economics_11_pages_1986 Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2016 Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin CONTACT: bobreuschlein(a)gmail.com 608-230-6640, INFO: www.realeconomy.com -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0