Why communism is the future - theory

[matevz91]

Dear revleft members!

For years now I have been living under pressure by those, who sincerely think, that communism is conservative, that there is no place in the future for such a backward ideology like it or other leftist "shit", as they name it.

Well, they have met the wrong guy. For months I have been thinking about this and finally I wrote this theory,article or whatever it is (check the PDF attachment).

a) I do not want to explain here, what it is about. Those of you who are sincerely interested into the connection between communism and human future are kindly invited to read my theory in whole (the PDF).

b) I would also like to warn you - due to laws of writing about the future, my theory is completely abstract. Those of you who are afraid of abstractness should run away :)

Main thesis: "One can destroy communism by destroying humanity. One can destroy humanity by preventing it from reaching the level of communism."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Actually, I am not posting my theory here just for you to read it, I want you to help me. I need people, who would criticise it, both in positive and negative way, I need people who would cooperate with me and write additional sections or who would check the grammar (I do not speak English native).

I am the author of this theory, but I want to release it into the public, so that it can be developed further and that other co-theories can be based on it or to rival it.

Do you want to work with me? PM me!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those who do not want to work with me and who just want to criticize, go away. I have put my whole hart into this text and I have made great effort to preserve simplicity, abstractness and relativity. Nothing is worse than writing about the future.

This theory is currently in 0.31 beta phase.

[Nox]

I'll throw in my two cents and say it was a good read :)

[matevz91]

I'll throw in my two cents and say it was a good read :)

:cool: Do you think that there is something missing? Or something is wrong? Write here. If it is something more specific, you can contribute. This theory is not just mine. It is in the public domain. Do you see the title page? There is place for at least 20 co-authors, so do not hesitate!

And yes, grammar needs to be checked :):blushing:

[Lanky Wanker]

Hell yeah, someone who wants to actually do something. I'm at school atm so I'll give it a proper read when I get home. I'm no grammar nazi (or grammar commie?) but I usually cringe at most people's basic grammar mistakes, so maybe I could help with that a bit.

[matevz91]

Thank you for you will to help me. Join me on this forum, created specially for my theory:

http://is-communism-the-future.forums-free.com -> I already posted instructions for you in one of the subforums.

I know that it is not much, but it is a start. It is also home for the The Communist BOINC team.

[robbo203]

I have to confess that i merely skimmed through your peice as I am pressed for time. I may therefore be quite incorrect in saying that nowhere did you actually define what you mean by communism. Do you take it for granted that people understand what is meant by it and that that understanding tallies with yours? I would be wary in that case. It depends on who your target readership is

You make some interesting observations on complexity, HOD etc but dont really flesh the connection between these and the nature of communism itself. I would also incidentally steer clear of mathematising complex concepts, personally.

As I say, this might be a bit of an unfair assessment given my cursory reading but dont let that put you off. Good luck with developing the argument



o

[Zukunftsmusik]

I didn't get all that math-stuff. I'm not that into math and logic. But apart from that, i think it was interesting. Though I must say I (partially at least) agree with robbo203 that you have a quite vague definition of communism. I mean, it's more than just HOD, unless you see worker's control of the means of production as human development. And that is of course fair to say.

One thing I have a problem with, though, is your rule number one:
"The transition from an egocentric to an open humankind and communism
depend on each other. Either both of them happen, or none of them."

Why? Why does an egocentric humankind necessarily lead to an open one? It could lead to a more egocentric humankind for example. I don't see how "either both of them happen, or none of them". Could you explain why you say this, please?

EDIT: And yes I would be glad to help if I can contribute with anything. Will probably join that forum of yours.

[Zealot]

I read through it and i'll work on the grammatical mistakes tomorrow. But you lost me on all of those equations comrade, I don't really like mathematics :p. So maybe you could simplify that somehow, but here are some of my thoughts.

If you are targeting non-communists then an explanation should be given of:

-What we believe
-Why we believe it
-Socialism
-Communism

Some other things I think should be elaborated on:

-Why communism is the highest stage of mankind
-How communism will lead the way to a world of new possibilities
-In rule 3 you claim that communism can develop alongside egocentrism (which you said was impossible in rule 1) if HOD is high enough, but wouldn't a high HOD necessarily mean that egocentrism was abolished?
-How dangers can trigger a rise in HOD.

Lastly, how are we to agree on the definition of what a high HOD is and how high would it need to be for a communist revolution? Cappies might claim that we are currently in a higher stage of HOD without communism, which could break the theory.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I went through and tried to find the grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as put suggested editing for everything I found wrong.

For reference, never begin a sentence with the word "but" and the opposite of "egocentric" is "altruistic"

have a look at my suggestions, if you have any questions feel free to ask.


:) Hope this helps:)



PAGE 3:

Lastly, please, refrain from sending me spam or un-polite emails, because I gave my whole hart into this text and it is not fair, if somebody attacks you just because he does not understand or hates your text out of any reason.

Edit:
Lastly please, refrain from sending me spam or impolite emails, because I put my whole heart into this text. It is unfair that somebody attacks you just because he or she does not understand or hates your text out of any reason.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
PAGE 5:

Communism lowers the complexity of our world, thus makes us able to perceive the outside world much more realistically, in a much more open and complex way. Communism thus makes us far more open and acceptable to the outside world, it transforms our way of thinking from an egocentric to a more open way of thinking. Until we reach the state of communism, we will largely live in a egocentric world, where we most of our time spend on our own problems, complexes, relations, where we base everything on our
own knowledge, stereotypes, dogmas and deceptions.

Edit:
Communism lowers the complexity of our world, thus making us able to perceive the outside world much more realistically, in a much more open way. Communism thus makes us far more open and acceptable to the outside world, it transforms our way of thinking from an egocentric to a altruistic way of thinking. Until we reach the state of communism, we will largely live in a egocentric world, where we will spend most of our time on our own problems and relations. Where we base everything on our own knowledge, stereotypes, dogmas and deceptions.

__________________________________________________ ______________

"This man is preoccupied with thoughts about his everyday problems and thus he does not see the squirrels on the trees, deers on the elds, beautiful nature, bear behind him, . . . This man sees, but is blind. That is, unfortunately, the state of humankind in a pre-communist society."

Edit:
This man is preoccupied with thoughts about his own everyday problems and thus he does not see the squirrels in the trees, deers in the fields, the beautiful scenery, or the bear behind him. This man Sees it, but is blind. That is unfortunately, the state of humankind in a pre-communist society.
__________________________________________________ _____________

At the end, would a communist society lead us to the state of codependency? If I am honest, a man from a pre-communist society, if forced to live in a communist society, would eventually start to suer from codependency. Why is therefore the man from a communist society so different from the man from a pre-communist society?

Edit:
In the end, would a communist society lead us to the state of codependency? If a man from a pre-communist society, if forced to live in a communist society, he would eventually become codependent. Therefore, Why is the man from a communist society so different from the man from a pre-communist society?

__________________________________________________ ______________

PAGE 6:

When the humankind develops, HOD gets bigger. If we visualise communism as a stage of human evolution, which is above all other stages humankind has reached so far, that means that HOD in a communist society is much bigger than HOD in pre-communist societies. The poor man from a pre-communist society would therefore be on a much lower level of evolution (and therefore from a society with much lower HOD). Level of evolution of his society would make it diffcult for him to adopt to a society with much bigger HOD (think about thousands or even millions of years of difference, if he took a time machine to travel to a communist society). But remember, HOD is just a generalisation.

Edit:

As humankind develops, the HOD gets bigger. If we visualize communism as a stage of human evolution that is above all other stages humankind has reached so far, that means that HOD in a communist society is much bigger than HOD in pre-communist societies. The poor man from a pre-communist society would therefore be on a much lower level of evolution (and therefore from a society with much lower HOD). Level of evolution of his society would make it difficult for him to adapt to a society with much a bigger HOD (if he took a time machine to travel to a communist society, there could be a massive gap in time ). But remember, HOD is just a generalization.

__________________________________________________ _____________

"Opening of the humankind to the outside world in a communist society is therefore strongly connected to a rise in HOD. With this transition we open ourselves in much greater way to the nature, universe, other universes, things that we before considered paranormal,. . .At the end, the evolution to a communist society will actually open us to ourselves."

Edit:
Therefore , the opening of humankind to the outside world in a communist society is strongly connected to a rise in HOD. With this transition we open ourselves in much greater way to nature, the universe, other universes,and things that we before considered paranormal It the end, evolution into a communist society will actually open us to ourselves.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Writing about human evolution and the transition from an
egocentric to an open humankind is good, poetic and all, but what if this never happens? What if something terrible happens to humankind before the transition and it disappears before it even reaches the level of HOD needed? The state of communism will then never be achieved and this proves the first part of my main point: "To destroy communism, one must destroy humanity. . . ".

Edit:

Writing about human evolution and the transition from an
egocentric to an open humankind is good and poetic. However, what if this never happens? What if something terrible happens to humankind before the transition and it disappears before it even reaches the level of HOD needed? The state of communism will then never be achieved and this proves the first part of my statement: "To destroy communism, one must destroy humanity. . . ".

__________________________________________________ _______________
If we try to forget about this terrible possibility, one big question remains: "If communism lies in our future, when will it be real, and not just an ideal of an pre-communist society?". The next section will try to answer that very same question.

Edit:
If we try to forget about this terrible possibility, one big question remains: "If communism lies in our future, when will it be real, and not just an ideal of a pre-communist society?". This next section will try to answer that very question.

__________________________________________________ ________

PAGE 7:

In the previous section I raised the question on when the communism actually becomes part of the reality. Answering that very same question is not an easy task, because no definite and straightforward answers can be given. In situations like this, mankind turned to the past, analysed it and made predictions based on the results of those analyses.Edit:
In the previous section I raised the question on when will communism actually become part of reality. Answering that very question is not an easy task, because no definite and straightforward answers can be given. In situations like this mankind turned to the past, analyze it and made predictions based on the results of those analyses.

__________________________________________________ ______


But is there anything in the past, that can help us to answer this question? My answer: no. Past is a rich treasury of experiences and a poor announcer of the future. The more we go into the future, the wider the gap is between what we predicted from the analyses of the past and what is real. Relativity is all we have and we have to know, how to use it in order to try to predict the future.

Edit:
Is there anything in the past that can help us to answer this question? My answer is: "No, There is not.". The past is a rich treasury of experiences and a poor announcer of the future. The more we go into the future, the wider the gap is between what we predicted from the analyses of the past and what is real. Relativity is all we have and we have to know how to use it in order to try to predict the future.

__________________________________________________ ________

The transition from an egocentric to an open humankind and communism
depend on each other. Either both of them happen, or none of them.

Edit: The transition from an egocentric to an altruistic state of mind, and communism depend on each other. Either both of them happen, or none of them.
__________________________________________________ _______

Communism before the transition from an egocentric to an open humankind is doomed to fail. The only exception to this rule is when the HOD is high enough for the humankind to enter the state of communism before the mentioned transition. In that case, the transition takes place after reaching the state of communism.Edit:
Communism before the transition from an egocentric to an altruistic way of thinking is doomed to fail. The only exception to this rule is when the HOD is high enough for humankind to enter the state of communism before the mentioned transition. In that case, the transition takes place after reaching the state of communism.
__________________________________________________ _______________
The meere danger of an apocalypse or anything of that kind can trigger a raise in the value of HOD and a transition from an egocentric to an open humankind as a consequence. Because of the rules 1 and 2, humanity can then enter the state of communism. The exception from the rule 3 can alter the order of consequences, but the outcome will be the same.

Edit:
The mere danger of an apocalypse or anything of that kind, as a consequence can trigger a rise in the value of HOD and a transition from an egocentric to an altruistic mode of thinking. Because of rules 1 and 2, humanity can then enter the state of communism. The exception from rule 3 can alter the order of consequences, but the outcome will be the same.

__________________________________________________ ________________

Transition is here the transition from an egocentric to an open humankind, as everywhere in the text.

Edit:
Transition as presented here is the transition from an egocentric to an open humankind, as everywhere in the text.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Humanity does not need apocalypses or other critical events to advance into communism. Humanity can trigger the consequences, mentioned in the rule 4, on its own. Special cases to the rule 4 include astonishing discoveries of humanity, like contacting an alien civilisation or other paranormal entities, giant leaps in science, paranormal becoming normal, . . . . Those special events would eventually shake, if not ruin, the foundations on which our society is based, and would therefore cause similar consequences to those mentioned in the rule 4.


Edit:
Humanity does not need an apocalypse or other critical events to advance into communism. Humanity can trigger the consequences (mentioned in rule 4) on its own. Special cases to rule 4 include: astonishing discoveries for humanity, like contacting an alien civilisation or other paranormal entities, giant leaps in science, or the paranormal becoming normal. These special events would eventually shake (if not ruin) the foundations on which our society is based and would therefore cause similar consequences to those mentioned in rule 4.

__________________________________________________ ________________

PAGE 8

"Raising HOD artificially would not necessary instantly bring the humankind
into the state of communism. As stated in the rule 2, bigger values of HOD only mean that the probability of humanity being in communism is higher, but not fully certain. Those "gray areas", where HOD is big and humanity is still not in the state of communism, are called socialism. Socialism therefore marks the period of the humankind, where HOD is relatively high, but not high enough for communism."


Edit:
Raising HOD artificially would not necessarily instantly bring humankind into the state of communism. As stated in rule 2, bigger values of HOD only mean that the probability of humanity being in communism is higher, but not fully certain. Those "gray areas", where HOD is big and humanity is still not in the state of communism, are called socialism. Socialism therefore marks the period of time, where HOD is relatively high, but not high enough for communism.

__________________________________________________ _______________

PAGE 10

"This raises some dilemas:"

Edit:
"dilemas" = dilemmas

__________________________________________________ _______________

Let us talk some more about the complexity itself. The second point ( "The ultimate purpose of communism is to simplify our world.") states that communism lowers the complexity of our world, and in the paragraph following this point I explained, that communism takes complexity from the humankind in order for it to be more prepared tothe complexity of the outside world. Let us clarify this.

Edit:
Let us talk some more about the complexity itself. The second point ("The ultimate purpose of communism is to simplify our world.") states that communism lowers the complexity of our world, and in the paragraph following this point I explained that communism takes complexity from humankind in order for us to be more prepared for the complexity of the outside world. Let us clarify this.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Therefore, communism makes humankind able to perceive much greater and much more complex environments, worlds, . . . from what it was able to perceive in a pre-communist state. It is therefore safe to say:Edit:

Therefore, communism makes humankind able to perceive much greater and much more complex environments and worlds which it was unable to perceive in a pre-communist state. It is therefore safe to say:
__________________________________________________ _______________


a) We have to fight for a more humane humanity, fight to free it from the unnecessary dogmatism (in the form of capital and other exploitations), ght for the perseverance of nature . . .

b) We should introduce socialism to the people as the most progressive and humane road into the future

Edit:
a) We have to fight for a more humane humanity, fight to free it from the unnecessary dogmatism (in the form of capital and other exploitations), and fight for the perseverance of nature .

b) We should introduce socialism to the people as the most progressive and humane road into the future

__________________________________________________ _______________

We communists should not care just for those who are poor or without work, but for everyone and everything. We should care for all people, no matter their race, color of their skin, nationality, culture, faith or other personal properties and belongings, all animals and the nature around us, Our battlegrounds should not be confined just to media, companies and parliaments, but should include all places, where people or other living beings suer or are in danger, where people are educated or treated, . . . . These places include hospitals, animal shelters, places of natural disasters, everywhere, where we can help humanity or nature. We communists should be the first to respond to desperate calls for help in natural disasters, criminal, simply everywhere, where help is needed, and we should be the last to leave the victims. Road to minds of people goes through media, but road to the harts of people goes through actions. Humanity is the core of communism, and we, communists, should not keep this to ourselves. Instead, we should make it clear to everybody and leave no room for other, more negative, interpretations.

EDIT:
We communists should not care just for those who are poor or without work, but for everyone and everything. We should care for all people, no matter their race, nationality, culture, faith or other personal properties and belongings, all of the animals and the nature around us. Our battlegrounds should not be confined just to the media, the companies and parliaments, but should include all places where people or other living beings suffer or are in danger or where people are educated or treated. These places include hospitals, animal shelters, places of natural disasters, and anywhere else where we can help humanity or nature. We communists should be the first to respond to desperate calls for help in natural disasters, crimes, and anywhere else where help may be needed and we should be the last to leave the victims. The road to the minds of people is through the media, but the road to the hearts of people goes through our actions. Humanity is the core of communism and we as communists should not keep this to ourselves. Instead, we should make our goals clear to everybody and leave no room for other, more negative, interpretations.

__________________________________________________ _______________

At least, this is my position when it comes to communism. With this section, I proved the second part of the main point "To destroy humanity, one must prevent it from reaching the stage of communism."


Edit:
This is my position when it comes to communism. With this section, I proved the second part of my statement, "To destroy humanity, one must prevent it from reaching the stage of communism."

__________________________________________________ _______________


PAGE 12:


Finally, our journey through the (possible) future of humankind and communism came to an end. I hope that you learned something along the way, even if you did not like the theory. I may be wrong and things may not turn out the way I have written, but one thing is sure; communism is far from being dead and in the future, humanity will be faced with a ultimate choice: to lower its complexity or to be extinct. Lowering the
complexity literally means progressing up to the state of communism. Do you still think that communism is conservative?


Edit:
Now, our journey through the (possible) future of humankind and communism comes to an end. I hope that you learned something along the way, even if you did not like the theory.
I may be wrong and things may not turn out the way that I have written, but one thing is sure; communism is far from being dead and in the future, humanity will be faced with a ultimate choice: lower our complexity or become extinct. Lowering the complexity literally means progressing up to the state of communism. Do you still think that communism is conservative?

[Zealot]

Ok so I tried to fix the mistakes, no doubt I missed some, and reworded things that i felt didn't sound right. If I butchered what you were trying to convey then add it back in. Not sure how to edit .pdf so i edited the .txt file instead.

[matevz91]

I responded to each and everyone of those who already posted on this thread. Thank you for your responses and work!

For those who still do not know, if you have any comments, suggestions, own theories or just want to work with me on how humanity will develope in the far future (from now into the future for thousands or even millions of years), join my "work" forum on http://is-communism-the-future.forums-free.com/.

Yours,

Matevz91

btw. Exoprism stated that cappies might state that HOD today is very high and we are still not in communism. Well, I hope that no such cappies will ever bother arguing with me. HOD today is still near infinium (near 0). My theory talks about the far future, where HOD is so high that cappies find themselves non-existened :)

[matevz91]

0.20 beta version is finally out! Some of your comments (and from other sources) were "digested" and grammar is "wanna be corrected". Grab the PDF.

[MarxSchmarx]

Look, get to the point will you? Highlight briefly:

1. Why your ideas merit a claim to novelty
2. Why you are convinced no body else in the 200+ history of this movement has come up with a similar solution
3. Why you think other Revlefters should eschew their as yet unread segments of Trotsky/Pannakoek/Luxemburg/Mao etc... for your attachment
4. Examples from IRL struggles that inform your formulations

If you require an attachment to fully respond then you have already lost me.

[matevz91]

Look, get to the point will you? Highlight briefly:

1. Why your ideas merit a claim to novelty
2. Why you are convinced no body else in the 200+ history of this movement has come up with a similar solution
3. Why you think other Revlefters should eschew their as yet unread segments of Trotsky/Pannakoek/Luxemburg/Mao etc... for your attachment
4. Examples from IRL struggles that inform your formulations

If you require an attachment to fully respond then you have already lost me.

I will try to be short and as clear as possible.

1. The new thing about my ideas is that I came up with a time-invariant purpose of communism and used it to show, that humanity will eventually reach communism (that communism is a stage of evolution), which will show itself in the far future of humanity. And I emphasize: time-invariant. You can think about thousands or even millions of years, it simply should not matter. If it does, I have made a bad job.

2. I am not convinced. Actually, I hope that somebody in the past has already though about it in such a time frame as I did, and not just in the 200+ years in the past, but 2500+ years in the past.

3. They should not. My theory does not go against any communist theories (or at least I planned not to go against them, if you happen to have second thoughts, that means I have made a bad job). Have you actually read it? What in it would make fellow Revlefters eschew their as yet unread segments of their beloved authors?

4. :thumbup: Omg the whole humanity is "my" IRL struggle :). (if IRL means in-real-life). Anybody who asks me such a question clearly hasn`t read it or has read it and understood nothing.

I hope that this satisfies your questions.:unsure:

[CommunityBeliever]

Dear matevz91, I have read your article. My response is given.


Please note, that this article does not go into details of time-space continuum and thus complicating my theory. To be on the simple and safe side, I will just use the "normal" one-dimensional time.Cut this paragraph out.

1) You don't need to describe what you are not going to talk about.

2) This doesn't fit in with the rest of the article.

3) Nobody outside of spacetime is going to read this article, so you can be pretty sure that all your readers understand the basic details of spacetime.


Communism lowers the complexity of our worldQualify this statement as communism lowers the social complexity of its subject conditions.

Evolution is a sequence of increasingly complex forms arising from a simple foundation, like the way we evolve increasingly complex natural numbers ℕ from the foundational value of zero. As such, since world communism is a higher stage of evolution relative to contemporary society, it increases the net complexity of our world.


As we have learned in the introduction, HOD stands for Human Overall Development and it is a real number from on interval (0,1).1) You never said in the introduction that HOD is a real number ℝ, in the interval (0,1), so that should be changed.

2) What is the purpose of declaring that it is a real number ℝ? Couldn't you just state that it is quantitative? The problem is that when you bring in real numbers you bring in the question of Turing-uncomputable numbers, which are most of ℝ and it is unclear how such a number could ever apply to reality unless there is some sort of definable material indeterminism.

3) What exactly is HOD? You haven't provided us with a clue as to what it means, how it could be measured, or why it is in the interval (0,1).

4) Without a definition of the term "HOD", any relation of it to reality, or to real systems like communism, is essentially meaningless. If you want an actual measurable description of a societies state consider using the Kardashev scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) which specifically measures societies based upon their overall power usage. Currently that would be ~15 terrawatts or type 0.72 society.


The transition from a pre-communist to a communist society is connected with a positive differentiation of HODWithout communicating a definition of HOD to the reader whatever relation of it to communism you are trying to communicate is also meaningless.


To destroy communism, one must destroy humanityThere is no communism to destroy in the first place, so all you are destroying by destroying humanity is our potential to reach communism. As such, all you have done is use word jugglery to prove a pointless tautology.

You could just as well say that to destroy the potential of humanity to discover pink unicorns one must first destroy humanity. Both statements are totally pointless. Besides you still haven't provided a definition of communism.


To destroy humanity, one must prevent it from reaching the stage of communism.Humanity can be destroyed after communism arises by any number of things, e.g a large asteroid impact.


Parameters of this function are: HOD and time (t). Why HOD and time, and not some other parameters? Because this function reports the overall complexity of a particular society, which has its own (value of) HOD. Perhaps one society can have the same (value of) HOD multiple times, therefore time (t) is also needed to identify particular occurrence of this HOD (value) within the timeline of this society. Isn't HOD a time dependent value? If so, why do you need to present both HOD and time as parameters?


\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{F}(HOD,t)1) Is HOD supposed to be constant well time changes? I don't understand. Please clearly define HOD.

2) Do you believe that some kind of omega point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point) results from that limit?


humankind can also lower its state, which means that it also has the ability to degrade from a communist society back to a pre-communist society. Humankind has lowered its state of development many times in the past, e.g during the dark ages, so theoretically humanity could devolve from communism to some sort of pre-communism.


The new thing about my ideas is that I came up with a time-invariant purpose of communism and used it to show, that humanity will eventually reach communism (that communism is a stage of evolution), which will show itself in the far future of humanity.The idea that communism is somehow our "destiny" is anti-Marxist and anti-materialist. The only way will reach communism is if we fight for it, not if we waiting for it to come about as part of some kind of "destiny."

[matevz91]

Please note, that this article does not go into details of time-space continuum and thus complicating my theory. To be on the simple and safe side, I will just use the "normal" one-dimensional time.


Cut this paragraph out. --> It was already done in 0.20 beta


Communism lowers the complexity of our world


Qualify this statement as communism lowers the social complexity of its subject conditions.

--> That was exactly what I meant. Would a simple change into "Communism lowers the complexity of human society" be fine?


Evolution is a sequence of increasingly complex forms arising from a simple foundation, like the way we evolve increasingly complex natural numbers ℕ from the foundational value of zero. As such, since world communism is a higher stage of evolution relative to contemporary society, it increases the net complexity of our world.

--> Response to your observation is already given on the bottom of page 10. Communism decreases complexity of human society and increases our capacity to perceive the complexity of the world we live in. Therefore, a communist world is way more complex than a pre-communist world, so there is no contradiction to your observation of evolution.


As we have learned in the introduction, HOD stands for Human Overall Development and it is a real number from on interval (0,1).


1) You never said in the introduction that HOD is a real number ℝ, in the interval (0,1), so that should be changed.

2) What is the purpose of declaring that it is a real number ℝ? Couldn't you just state that it is quantitative? The problem is that when you bring in real numbers you bring in the question of Turing-uncomputable numbers, which are most of ℝ and it is unclear how such a number could ever apply to reality unless there is some sort of definable material indeterminism.

3) What exactly is HOD? You haven't provided us with a clue as to what it means, how it could be measured, or why it is in the interval (0,1).

4) Without a definition of the term "HOD", any relation of it to reality, or to real systems like communism, is essentially meaningless. If you want an actual measurable description of a societies state consider using the Kardashev scale which specifically measures societies based upon their overall power usage. Currently that would be ~15 terrawatts or type 0.72 society.


1) In 0.20 beta, that is already changed.

2) One can change it to a rational number without any harm. Will do it.

3+4) On page 4 (0.20 beta) it states:

"HOD1 := Human Overall Development, a real number between 0 and 1, where 0
is the infinium = inf(HOD) and 1 supremum = sup(HOD). Today we are still near
0 (infinium)."

A footnote extends this definition even further - "Social, spiritual and moral development, . . . , everything that defines us as intelligent beings. The
ultimate state of the conscious and subconscious development of humanity."

Clearly, I wanted the HOD to be as abstract as possible. Kardashev scale is not enough, because "The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring an advanced civilization's level of technological advancement." - I wanted to go further than just technological advance. HOD encompasses our technological advance, as it encompasses our moral, spiritual,.. advance.
How would you define total human development at certain point time? I saw no other possibility than a totally abstract HOD. I think that every deviation from abstracteness would be harmful.


To destroy communism, one must destroy humanity

There is no communism to destroy in the first place, so all you are destroying by destroying humanity is our potential to reach communism. As such, all you have done is use word jugglery to prove a pointless tautology.

You could just as well say that to destroy the potential of humanity to discover pink unicorns one must first destroy humanity. Both statements are totally pointless. Besides you still haven't provided a definition of communism.

This is actually a implication --> if one destroys communism (which means, if one makes humanity forget about communism and its ideas), then he has also destroyed humanity (which kind of implicates that communism is the core of humanity).

A definition of communism is provided the "Communism, when?" section, while the announcemt of the definition of communism is given in the foreword.
Providing a clear (non abstract) definition of communism when talking about the future is as silly as my "pointless tautology", because the meaning of communism will change many times in the future.


To destroy humanity, one must prevent it from reaching the stage of communism.

Humanity can be destroyed after communism arises by any number of things, e.g a large asteroid impact.

Humanity can also be destroyed by a large nuclear cow :) Here I mentioned only one possible way to destroy humanity, which does not exclude all others, no matter whether they take place before communism or after it.



Parameters of this function are: HOD and time (t). Why HOD and time, and not some other parameters? Because this function reports the overall complexity of a particular society, which has its own (value of) HOD. Perhaps one society can have the same (value of) HOD multiple times, therefore time (t) is also needed to identify particular occurrence of this HOD (value) within the timeline of this society.


Isn't HOD a time dependent value? If so, why do you need to present both HOD and time as parameters?

Yes, HOD is a time dependent value. Answer to your question is given on page 9: "Perhaps one society can have the same (value of) HOD multiple times, therefore time (t) is also needed to identify particular occurrences of this HOD (value) within the timeline of this society."

Furthermore, this goes in par with your other comments which follow.


\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{F}(HOD,t)


1) Is HOD supposed to be constant well time changes? I don't understand. Please clearly define HOD.
2) Do you believe that some kind of omega point results from that limit?

Answer to 1) is already given on page 9: this is true for a case study of how HOD developes in a particular possible timeline. Read more: "But we are not interested into a particular case study. We are more interested into the `local transitional periods`..." That means, we examine all possible times in all possible case studies for possible "advances" into communism.

2) Yes, as given in the definition of HOD, sup(HOD) = omega point


humankind can also lower its state, which means that it also has the ability to degrade from a communist society back to a pre-communist society.


Humankind has lowered its state of development many times in the past, e.g during the dark ages, so theoretically humanity could devolve from communism to some sort of pre-communism.

Your observation was already answered on page 10:a) "There can be ∞ (or א) of such vectors HODt for each timeline. Does this mean
that humankind can reach the state of Communism ∞-times in a timeline?
b) How does question a) impact our understanding of the way HOD is changing?" and the text bellow...


The idea that communism is somehow our "destiny" is anti-Marxist and anti-materialist. The only way will reach communism is if we fight for it, not if we waiting for it to come about as part of some kind of "destiny."

:D Your "observation" is partly adressed on page 11: "Throughout this paper I tried to convince you that Communism is our ”destiny”; another
phase in the history of humanity. But what, then, is the purpose of we communists
today? Based on what I wrote here, we could simply lean back and wait for Communism
to appear. Is this really the right way to achieve Communism?"

My answer to your question, whether communism is our destiny or not, I say yes. I hope, that you agree with me, because if not, why should we even fight for it, if we will never reach it, our destiny? We should fight for it, as I stated on page 10. My theory does not render present fight for communism useless, on contrary, it gives us something to fight for. If we just wait for communism, we might as well wait for it for millions of years and never achieve it.

Your observation that my theory implicates that we should lean back and "enjoy the ride" is grossly wrong. In postulate 6 I was talking about raising the HOD artificialy... that should ring the bell in the heads of those who think that my theory propagates laziness and "doing nothing".

If you still think that my theory is against the everyday struggle for communism, it is either me, who failed at explanations, or you. My theory gives communists hope, that communism will come, it is only uppon us, our actions and changes, for how long we will have to wait for it.

[CommunityBeliever]

Dear matevz91, your "0.20 beta" is not on this site. Furthermore, keeping communism and HOD as "abstract" concepts doesn't help matters much. As such, I consider what you are writing to essentially be abstract nonsense. Nonetheless, good luck and have fun with it.

[matevz91]

Dear matevz91, your "0.20 beta" is not on this site. Furthermore, keeping communism and HOD as "abstract" concepts doesn't help matters much. As such, I consider what you are writing to essentially be abstract nonsense. Nonetheless, good luck and have fun with it.

0.20 beta is posted somewhere in between of this thread. I will move it now to the first post.

Anyway, I know that this is "abstract nonsense". I have written it to show people what role communism would have in the (far) future.

To be honest, any work about the future is nonsense. The more you go into the future, the more is your work nonsense. And also, the more you go into the future, the more you should write in a abstract way. Any non-abstractness results in further deviations from will-be-reality.
The concept is what matters, not the details, when writing about the future.

Anyway, thank you for wishing me good luck. You showed me some really interesting points and I am grateful for that.:thumbup1:

Since you are a scientist, and I am on the road of becoming one, I also wish you luck in your future work and research!

[MarxSchmarx]

I will try to be short and as clear as possible.

1. The new thing about my ideas is that I came up with a time-invariant purpose of communism and used it to show, that humanity will eventually reach communism (that communism is a stage of evolution), which will show itself in the far future of humanity. And I emphasize: time-invariant. You can think about thousands or even millions of years, it simply should not matter. If it does, I have made a bad job.


It strikes me that this is like saying given an infinite amount of time an infinite number of monkeys typing away at an infinite number of type-writers, eventually one of them will produce the corpus of Shakespeare. Moreover, I have a hard time seeing how any attempt to remove human agency for our movement is a good step forward.


2. I am not convinced. Actually, I hope that somebody in the past has already though about it in such a time frame as I did, and not just in the 200+ years in the past, but 2500+ years in the past.

I see. Which raises the question, why should some revlefter not just study the past rather than what you have to say?


3. They should not. My theory does not go against any communist theories (or at least I planned not to go against them, if you happen to have second thoughts, that means I have made a bad job). Have you actually read it? What in it would make fellow Revlefters eschew their as yet unread segments of their beloved authors?


First, no, I have not read it. I, and I imagine many others here, generally take a very tl;dr attitude to most things that are on the internet unless the author can provide a compelling reason to take a closer look in the first paragraph or they are a well-established poster with a history of making insightful comments. Which leads to my point - my time is limited, other user's times are limited, why wouldn't that time be better spent reading Luxemburg or Lenin?


4. :thumbup: Omg the whole humanity is "my" IRL struggle :). (if IRL means in-real-life). Anybody who asks me such a question clearly hasn`t read it or has read it and understood nothing.

Again, no, I haven't read your attachment and your answers aren't quite convincing enough as to why I should. If anything, I worry that you have come up with some sort of abstraction that removes human volition altogether. And this is a perfectly fair reading of your summaries so far. So, again, why should I spend my time reading through something which, by your admission, has likely already been said somewhere in the past 2500 years, seems to assert a variant of the monkeys producing shakespeare argument, and which at best does not seem rooted in praxis.



I hope that this satisfies your questions.:unsure:

I will confess that it has, but it has unfortunately nudged me away from wanting to read it.

Indeed, it may be that in your attachment is some really substantive insight that forces me to reimagine my analysis. But, I must say, in perusing this thread I do not get that impression.

[matevz91]

I will confess that it has, but it has unfortunately nudged me away from wanting to read it.

Indeed, it may be that in your attachment is some really substantive insight that forces me to reimagine my analysis. But, I must say, in perusing this thread I do not get that impression.

My answer is plain and simple. Stay away from it as far as you can, there is nothing for you in here. After all, it bites!

Is your time precious? Then why is not mine? Why should I answer your questions if you did not even bother to read what I have written???
Perhaps I live in another universe, where we can take time for such things, or I am a wizard and I can stretch my free time for 1 hour per day, so that I can read other people`s works. And I do have a busy schedule!
If your time is REALLY so precious, then why do you even bother reading this thread? No one with sane mind will write future of humanity&communism, because everybody who has a certain level of common knowledge knows, that this cannot be done, except perhaps abstractly! And I am sure that you have no time for abstractness.

If I have no time to read other`s works, I simply do not go questioning authors why they think their work is so perfect, why I should read it, I am busy anyway, their work is stupid and there is no reason to read it, my time is precious, their explanations are stupid, classics are better, etc. What??

Perhaps you will someday post something on your own and I will go by and harass you with such stupidities? :thumbdown:^2

[MarxSchmarx]

My answer is plain and simple. Stay away from it as far as you can, there is nothing for you in here. After all, it bites!

Is your time precious? Then why is not mine? Why should I answer your questions if you did not even bother to read what I have written???
Perhaps I live in another universe, where we can take time for such things, or I am a wizard and I can stretch my free time for 1 hour per day, so that I can read other people`s works. And I do have a busy schedule!
If your time is REALLY so precious, then why do you even bother reading this thread? No one with sane mind will write future of humanity&communism, because everybody who has a certain level of common knowledge knows, that this cannot be done, except perhaps abstractly! And I am sure that you have no time for abstractness.

If I have no time to read other`s works, I simply do not go questioning authors why they think their work is so perfect, why I should read it, I am busy anyway, their work is stupid and there is no reason to read it, my time is precious, their explanations are stupid, classics are better, etc. What??

Perhaps you will someday post something on your own and I will go by and harass you with such stupidities? :thumbdown:^2

Don't get so upset.

Look, I mean well. Concision never hurt anybody; if you really, really think otherwise, perhaps you should submit your insights for a scholarly publication to a major university press with a vague cover letter and a somewhat uninspiring abstract and see if it gets accepted at a halfway decent place. Even 90% of the stuff they publish isn't worth reading IMO, but if your writings get that far, so long as they advance the cause I'll be willing to give them the time of day.

Absent that, come on, think about it. What are the odds of a brilliant idea being posted on an obscure internet forum by an author who can't even succinctly convey why their idea merits a closer look by someone still as relatively sympathetic to all things leftist-anti-capitalist as myself?

Short of that, insights, especially on an internet forum like revleft, come in bits and pieces, not grand earth shattering monographs.

As far as your ad hominems go, I've tried to keep my posts heregenerally succinct, my (admittedly limited, I am not a genius) insights in bite-size pieces restricted to relatively mild claims. and have refrained from sending huge documents. And frankly I think after 2500+ posts I'm comfortable with the comments and outlook I've provided.

Anyway, I'm here to learn, not to preach. The best I hope for is to challenge those more insightful than me (perhaps you are among them, I don't know as I haven't ready your piece but thusfar I am not really losing sleep over not having read your attachment) to figure out a way to end capitalism. So it's unlikely you'll ever find me in a position where I have to expound my grand theories.

[matevz91]

Look, I described my theory pretty well in one sentence: "The new thing about my ideas is that I came up with a time-invariant purpose of communism and used it to show, that humanity will eventually reach communism (that communism is a stage of evolution)". No great knowledge is hidden behind it, just some mathematics. One cannot learn anything about how capitalism would go in it, except that it will die out on itself.
That is why I have been so upset. You want me to say to you something that my theory is not without even reading it? :) Perhaps this should be moved into philosophy?


Don't get so upset.

Look, I mean well. Concision never hurt anybody; if you really, really think otherwise, perhaps you should submit your insights for a scholarly publication to a major university press with a vague cover letter and a somewhat uninspiring abstract and see if it gets accepted at a halfway decent place. Even 90% of the stuff they publish isn't worth reading IMO, but if your writings get that far, so long as they advance the cause I'll be willing to give them the time of day.

I think that I have greater chance of success in my country, though. Actually, I am not sure I am willing to take it this far. As CommunityBeliever put it, it is too abstract.


Absent that, come on, think about it. What are the odds of a brilliant idea being posted on an obscure internet forum by an author who can't even succinctly convey why their idea merits a closer look by someone still as relatively sympathetic to all things leftist-anti-capitalist as myself?

1. Odds are small for people like Žižek, but not for those like the rest of us. I have seen many good works posted on forums, for example on the IBM Power forum.

2. I described you what it is. What do you want more?



Anyway, I'm here to learn, not to preach. The best I hope for is to challenge those more insightful than me (perhaps you are among them, I don't know as I haven't ready your piece but thusfar I am not really losing sleep over not having read your attachment) to figure out a way to end capitalism. So it's unlikely you'll ever find me in a position where I have to expound my grand theories.

I am pretty sure that after this, you won`t learn anything from me. Not because it is that bad, but because you will never read it.

[matevz91]

New version of the theory is out:

Get it at https://rapidshare.com/files/959777161/WCITF_beta_031.pdf
or click on the attachment to this post.

[MarxSchmarx]

ok i finally decided to take a look at your tldr pdf file and i guess i can say I respect anybody who takes the time to put their arguments in latex.

Let me begin by outlining what I think you get right.

-Characterizing HOD as a scalar is an OK first step and a fair simplification.
-the call for "simplification" has some superficial resemblance to the second law of thermal dynamics, and this I think is perhaps an angle that hasn't been explored in terms of social organization
-I congratulate you on considering the possibility of a "higher-stage" than communism, to your credit this is further than most will go and is to some degree internally consistent.

Now let me cover things that I think need improving.

Whilst I don't know a lot about psychology and the like, I find the postulates somewhat unconvincing and the modeling exercise a little nonsensical, with all due respect.

Let me start with the postulates. First, your postulates are decrees by fiat and there is no empirical evidence presented for any of them. Communism is not geometry, these are not self-evident truths. Nor are you merely specifying definitions, you are making claims about the way the world works which means you need to do a much, much better job justifying them.

Now to your model. THe core of the problem is that your simplifications, which are the strengths of this, are also its weaknesses. They are nothing more than reminiscent of the kind of speculative philosophy engaged in by bourgeois economists who assume perfect information and a completely efficient market - that is, your simplifying assumptions are so strong that even if your model were a reasonable first step (and I am not at all convinced it is) I would not for a second think that you have shown anything that a plithy verbal argument could not have represented.

The restriction to the rationals is absurd. There are plenty of social phenomena that scale to irrational numbers like ln(whatever).

- You assume ergodicity at the top of page 9 but fail to prove it.

- RElatedly, you are applying a small step perturbation approach to assess the behavior of the model F(HOD,t) around a LOCAL minimum or maximum. Nothing is said about whether this is a global maxima/minima, and simply assuming it is thus would be unpersuasive.

- You do not justify the use of a deterministic model.

- (a) second paragraph page 10 is an example of circular logic. If d(HOD) < 0 then this contradicts the "postulate" that the transition to communism means d(HOD) > 0. Therefor d(HOD) cannot be < 0.

- The treatment of social complexity is shallow at best and obfuscatory at worse. I would add that it is not in the least bit persuasive and shows no indication that the authors have given any thought to the volumnious literature on how to quantify and analyze "complexity" in human societies.

Finally, among the weakest argument is your essay is essentially ontological and has the same logical structure as Christians use to prove god - that is, if there is a higher being than god that doesn't require any additional logical assumptions (analogous to your stuff about complexity), then that being is god. Therefore god is the highest being. You use essentially this exact same argument on pg. 10.

On the whole I am sorry this sounds so caustic but I must say my earlier skepticism of your grandiose claims is thoroughly vindicated. Hopefully this will spur you and your co-authors to improve your presentation.

[matevz91]

Wonderful reply! Thank you!

Even though I am preocuppied by the work for the university, I will print this out, next to my theory, go to the library/online and study your remarks (and Community Believers).
Can I PM you should I have further questions? <--MarxSchmarx

[matevz91]

Addition to the previous post: The main problem of this theory is the fact that it is written upon imagination, not knowledge.

[El Louton]

Link won't load...

[matevz91]

This one: https://rapidshare.com/files/9597771...F_beta_031.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?https://rapidshare.com/files/959777161/WCITF_beta_031.pdf) ? I also attached the PDF to the thread and one of my last replies.

look for 0.31 beta version, not 0.20 beta (although they are not that different).

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade matevz91 - apoligies for the belated reply. I agree that having as many people as possible, perhaps even people outside of the political/economics faculty having a look would strengthen this.

And please feel free to PM me any time. On the whole I think you are on a right track, so I would encourage you to pursue this further. I also realize that it is still very much a work in progress, so I would definitely continue working on honing your arguments, making sure your logic checks out, etc...

Also, I am curious (you can answer here or in a PM if you are more comfortable) to what extent have you and your collaborators on this looked into the existing literature on analytical marxism and some of the Japanese Marxist scholars who sought to develop a quantitative theory of marxian economic development? The reason I raise these is that I think it would be very useful to distinguish your insights from what has already been done, and place your work in the broader context of these kinds of systemtic analyses.

In solidarity,
MS

[matevz91]

Comrade matevz91 - apoligies for the belated reply. I agree that having as many people as possible, perhaps even people outside of the political/economics faculty having a look would strengthen this.

And please feel free to PM me any time. On the whole I think you are on a right track, so I would encourage you to pursue this further. I also realize that it is still very much a work in progress, so I would definitely continue working on honing your arguments, making sure your logic checks out, etc...

Also, I am curious (you can answer here or in a PM if you are more comfortable) to what extent have you and your collaborators on this looked into the existing literature on analytical marxism and some of the Japanese Marxist scholars who sought to develop a quantitative theory of marxian economic development? The reason I raise these is that I think it would be very useful to distinguish your insights from what has already been done, and place your work in the broader context of these kinds of systemtic analyses.

In solidarity,
MS

Dear MarxSchmarx,

you do not need to apologize. Your reply showed me that this way of doing things is not the right one, while at the same time you told me that our work has not been for nothing, that there are also good ideas within it.

As I wrote, the main problem of this theory is the fact that it is written upon imagination, not knowledge. I used laws of thermodynamics (as you noticed), but that is actually it, when it comes to using real life scientific knowledge.

Before your reply I actually viewed my theory just as something that can be played with (as CommunityBeliever noticed). Your reply opened my eyes and I decided to forget this theory and to try to write a real scientific one.

But there is a problem:

I am a student of computer science and mathematics and thus I do not have much time to study something as broad as economics, sociology,... .
I would like to limit myself to areas which directly impact my theory.

Idea of a plan:
0. Ask people in the known to provide me with ideas in which direction to study, where to get research material etc
1. Get research material (complexity of human society, ...)
2. Study the research material, try to achieve at least basic understanding of topics in question
3. extract usable ideas from current theory
4. use (laws of thermodynamics + usable ideas from the current theory+ ?) to create a model of a theory
5. use all knowledge gained to readjust the model where needed
6. proceed to writing the theory

i. Try to adjust actions above so that they do not disturb my work at the university and other activities (the biggest challenge)

As you can see, no real research has been done and this definitely should change.
I really want to do it, I just fear that I do not have enough knowledge and experiences to do it on my own and because of that I appreciate every help I get, every criticism, every suggestions where to look for new informations etc.

[MarxSchmarx]

Dear MarxSchmarx,

you do not need to apologize. Your reply showed me that this way of doing things is not the right one, while at the same time you told me that our work has not been for nothing, that there are also good ideas within it.

As I wrote, the main problem of this theory is the fact that it is written upon imagination, not knowledge. I used laws of thermodynamics (as you noticed), but that is actually it, when it comes to using real life scientific knowledge.

Before your reply I actually viewed my theory just as something that can be played with (as CommunityBeliever noticed). Your reply opened my eyes and I decided to forget this theory and to try to write a real scientific one.

But there is a problem:

I am a student of computer science and mathematics and thus I do not have much time to study something as broad as economics, sociology,... .
I would like to limit myself to areas which directly impact my theory.

Idea of a plan:
0. Ask people in the known to provide me with ideas in which direction to study, where to get research material etc
1. Get research material (complexity of human society, ...)
2. Study the research material, try to achieve at least basic understanding of topics in question
3. extract usable ideas from current theory
4. use (laws of thermodynamics + usable ideas from the current theory+ ?) to create a model of a theory
5. use all knowledge gained to readjust the model where needed
6. proceed to writing the theory

i. Try to adjust actions above so that they do not disturb my work at the university and other activities (the biggest challenge)

As you can see, no real research has been done and this definitely should change.
I really want to do it, I just fear that I do not have enough knowledge and experiences to do it on my own and because of that I appreciate every help I get, every criticism, every suggestions where to look for new informations etc.

Comrade Matevz91:

I think that if your background is in Computer Science/Informatics and Mathematics, you really, REALLY should study two lines of research - the Analytical Marxism school that mostly came out of America and to some extent the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism
and the Japanese Marxists such as Okishio and Itoh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobuo_Okishio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makoto_Itoh

I think this will get you through goals 1-4 at least.

Both groups made serious attempts at attempting to reformulate a lot of Marx's basic ideas, including the eventual transition from Socialism, into somethin much more systematic and scientific. I think you and your co-workers are working in this tradition, I commend you for it, and I think the key is to not repeat the mistakes of the older generations. Therefore, I thoroughly encourage you to review what you can of their works. I myself have been involved in these kinds of study groups and we have been able to poke holes in the arguments of analytical economists, it has certainly been of considerable benefit to specify precisely where we thought mis-steps occurred

I agree that the biggest challenge is to attempt to apply these analyses to the real world. I think your group or a group that is similarly deeply involved in the intricacies of analytical Marxism or the like is perhaps uniquely positioned to do that. I have, in fact, long felt that a group of ambitious, intelligent young scholarly minds can potentially erect the theoretical foundation for a socialist future, much in the way 19th century aeronautics erected a future for powered flight. Literally, the sky is the limit for the likes of your group.

In Solidarity,
MS

[matevz91]

Comrade Matevz91:

I think that if your background is in Computer Science/Informatics and Mathematics, you really, REALLY should study two lines of research - the Analytical Marxism school that mostly came out of America and to some extent the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism
and the Japanese Marxists such as Okishio and Itoh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobuo_Okishio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makoto_Itoh

I think this will get you through goals 1-4 at least.

Both groups made serious attempts at attempting to reformulate a lot of Marx's basic ideas, including the eventual transition from Socialism, into somethin much more systematic and scientific. I think you and your co-workers are working in this tradition, I commend you for it, and I think the key is to not repeat the mistakes of the older generations. Therefore, I thoroughly encourage you to review what you can of their works. I myself have been involved in these kinds of study groups and we have been able to poke holes in the arguments of analytical economists, it has certainly been of considerable benefit to specify precisely where we thought mis-steps occurred

I agree that the biggest challenge is to attempt to apply these analyses to the real world. I think your group or a group that is similarly deeply involved in the intricacies of analytical Marxism or the like is perhaps uniquely positioned to do that. I have, in fact, long felt that a group of ambitious, intelligent young scholarly minds can potentially erect the theoretical foundation for a socialist future, much in the way 19th century aeronautics erected a future for powered flight. Literally, the sky is the limit for the likes of your group.

In Solidarity,
MS

I ordered the book: Analytical Marxism (Studies in Marxism and Social Theory) and decided to wait when it comes to Japanese Marxists. My first goal is to grasp Analytical Marxism.

About my "group", all of those who helped me come from revleft. I was thinking about creating a study group here on RL (instead of a external forum), where others could join and help with the development and study.

Anyway, what about the research into complexity of society? Do you know any good resources on this (preferably a PDF, not a book).

Thank you for your time and good will to help me!

[MarxSchmarx]

No problem. I think you will find much in analytical marxism that will help inform your thinking about this. I also think something like Revleft is ideal for having a public profile of the ongoing developments, revisions, etc... to your thoughts. For example, in code development there are platforms that let people track changes to the code, start branches, etc... No reason why a work of theory can't get something like that done.

As to the issues of complexity in society, I think this is definitely worth reading if you haven't read it already:

http://magister.msk.ru/library/tolstoy/wp/wp16eng.htm

It really poses the fundamental question that I think informs the discipline in too many ways to emphasize.

These ideas have been rediscovered. So have a look through this webpage for the modern takes:

http://reality.media.mit.edu/complex.php

A a good place to keep afloat of the literature is:
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html

And also maybe start with this?
esa.abstractbook.net/abstractPDF.php?aID=410



If your school has a subscription, I am sure the Annual Reviews of Psychology anthropology or Economics or sociology has an article about this stuff as well