Darwinism and Historical Materialism

[ComradeRed]

I've been reading some websites on mathematical and computational evolution, and found that evolution can be put in the form of an algorithm that has a striking resemblance to historical materialism! Observe the premises of the algorithm:
We have a population of "creatures".
Their "DNA" is the instructions on how to build a creature.
They are not all identical, but rather there is a diversity of DNA.
Each represents a way of solving a problem or problems.

The actual knity-grity details of the algorithm are explained in steps (naturally): Each creature has to solve some problem or problems.
The creature's "fitness" is rated according to this test.
The fittest get to reproduce.
Reproduction involves constructing a new creature from their DNA.
Crucially, some change in the DNA must be possible, otherwise no new solutions can arise.
One of the major sources of change is sex (we mix up the DNA of two successful creatures to make a new one).
Another source of change is simply small mutations of the DNA.
The less fit simply don't reproduce.
The new population of creatures arises from the fittest old ones and so, statistically, are more like the fitter end of the previous population.
The old population (fit and unfit alike) die to make way for the new.
The new population is diverse itself, and is tested in its turn, and so on.

If we think of creatures as classes...capitalists, feudal lord, workers, etc. History seems to follow logically from this algorithm.

The fitness would be dependent on the environmental conditions, a parallel to action and material conditions.

Material conditions would be affected by the ability to produce, exchange, the quantity therein, etc.

Does this seem too far fetched, or is there some sort of a connection?

[redstar2000]

I like it!

Thinking of types of class societies as a population of competing organisms in a Darwinist "universe".

Successful class societies reproduce themselves and spread; unsuccessful class societies go extinct.

I'm not sure that this analogy could be of much practical use; but it might be interesting to set up a computer "model" and "see what happens".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeRed]

This can be applied much further than it appears :) it can be applied to historical materialism, viz. the material conditions. These are just some thoughts I had, the more mathematical aspects have been omitted for simplicity's sake.

From Preface To A Contribution To A Critique Of Political Economy

Originally posted by Marx
The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production[...]. The mode of material productions is caused by, and creates new, material conditions.

The labor, instruments of production, and raw materials are all intricate details in the process which must NOT be generalized.

It is significant that Japan is an island with very little natural iron ore. The "natural conditions" are signinficant for the "Genesis" of society and the superstructure.

The problem is to reference to these things without addressing them directly. It would be a very tedious task to document every commodity ever known to man :o

Instead, we can simply use math to do this :D

I won't get into the technical details too much, as I am still working on it, but it seems that the material conditions are the product of the relations of production (this can be a mathematical relationship, i.e. a function). With the correct variables defined, the rest is a cakewalk.

The next "problem" is that historical materialism is a causal structure - there are material conditions and humans act on them. Causality is one of the more interesting aspects of math. However, from here it looks as though Game Theory can take care of it.

But this raises another question - what are the "rules" to the "game" of history? They evolve, of course, with time and the material conditions...in feudalism, it was against the rules to work without the "will of God". Now we know better.

This would mean that there are teams which "compete" in a sort of "super"-game, whose rules are determined by the material conditions. This would determine who has more "points", and those with the most points are the "kings of the hill".

Playing the game is simply class struggle, based on the "fitness" to produce and sell commodities. When one team is winning, less players would need to play...permitting time to rebuild the superstructure, the beliefs of the game, etc.

Very curious how this is all so evolutionary in character.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Add to it this idea....


Originally posted by Comrade Raf
There is ample evidence that suggests evolutionay changes in DNA do not follow a linear path. They have been found to occur "in spurts"; usually "triggered" by a major environmental event, catastrophe, etc..

I do think that much more studies will need to be done before this discovery can be recognised as an actual evolutionary change in human DNA.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292010230 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45520&view=findpost&p=1292010230)

....and I think you have a really interesting theory.

Like class society, evolution could happen in "revolutionary spurts". We develop a fantastic new technology, this in turn puts pressure on the existing class society, leading to a revolution and then perhaps an evolutionary change in the human species.

That would be really amazing. Plus, think how baffled "right-wingers" would be when you answered their assertions about "human nature" with this. :)

[ComradeRed]

What's more amazing is that the "revolutionary progression" of the means of production can be modelled rather acurately!

Now those of you who don't know math must be saying "Yeah, big whoop!"

Yes, big whoop indeed! The side effect of using this math is that it tells us precisely when the epoch will begin to assymptotically reach zero in its change of production output (i.e. it tells us when there are new changes a-comin'!).

This would tell us, in turn, when capitalism should begin to show signs of decay(!!!).

It's remarkable stuff to think about.

[Monty Cantsin]

Comrade red - first of the phycohistorians :P

edit:The problem is there’s so many variables meaning that any calculations would be of sceptical accuracy and once we predict something a tread it’s easier to change it.

I can see elements of economic irrationality in modern capitalism but I don’t know when it will become threatening to capitalism’s existence. Seeing as capitalism seems to benefit from destruction- innovative destruction as an Austrian economist one termed it.

it's interesting none the less.

[PRC-UTE]

'Remarkable' is an understatement. I'd like to learn more about this, great stuff.

[ComradeRed]

I'll have to start writing more about this without it being a mathematical paper.

The problem is that there is a certain amount of effeciency to any epoch. Feudalism could produce only so much before capitalim offered a better route.

Capitalism is going to face a similiar challenge. It can produce only so much to make a profit. The less it produces, the more profit, and the growing unrest.

As a matter of fact, I've read that China and India are the biggest researchers in the world for applied nanotechnology. They seek to eliminate energy and food problems in their respective nations. This is exactly what Marx spoke of.

Capitalism is planting the seeds of its own demise.
===========
For those who want to learn about the mathematical details, you should learn about elementary calculus (derivatives, simple integrals, and points of inflection), then catastrophe theory (this may require some knowledge of topology, depending on how you learn it), and chaos theory (maybe).

[ComradeRed]

The problem is there’s so many variables meaning that any calculations would be of sceptical accuracy and once we predict something a tread it’s easier to change it. It appears this way at first! However, the point that I am making is that there is a limit, a physical limit, to the amount that can be produced while a profit is being made and there is a working class.

There is no need to get into human behavior, etc. Thus the number of variables drastically decrease to only a few!

The only assumptions that I make is that change is constant, there will always be "new ways" to produce commodities in class society; propertied classes need profit, if not to live off of for themselves then for the company to grow; there is class antagonism within every production process, so the possibility of a new mode of production is there (regardless of how miniscule it may appear).

Now, I haven't had my coffee, so this may be a very VERY rough explanation ahead.

A certain mode of production has only so much to offer. There is a certain point when feudalism cannot become more effecient; its output falls, unemployment grows, quality declines, etc. This can be determined as the point of inflection.

However, that means that it will increase again in the future if we use this mathematical tool. Thus we have a problem.

Or do we? In the early, middle, and (a good majority of the) late periods of a mode of production witness growth in the material goods. This can be seen as an inverted function f(x)=x^-1. The x axis being time, the quantity of additional goods produced declines.

It is assymptotic to zero!!!

Now where does this leave room for revolution? Simple, there are always people who attempt a revolutionary mode of production; there is always push for a revolutionary mode of production. There is always class struggle. This is taken into account several ways.

First, the number of "revolutionary" people vary depending on the struggle. If the revolutionary side is losing the struggle, then more people will be on the reactionary side. People flock to whoever appears to be winning.

Second, the attempts of the revolutionary mode of production is constant. There are elements of feudalism in modern capitalism, because the upper classes benefit more. In Ancient Rome and Greece there were capitalists, who lived quite well for their time. However, these are too few and too spread out. There is only challenge to the current mode of production iff the difference in output (the asymptotic function) for the current production process and the previous one is greater than the revolutionary output from the previous (reactionary) production process' output.

In other words, we have two functions of time: f(t) (the current mode of production output change) and g(t) (the revolutionary mode of output). If f(t)-f(t-1)>g(t)-f(t-1) (i.e. f(t)>g(t)), then the current mode of production is still superior to the revolutionary mode of production. When g(t)>f(t) there are elements of revolution in the air.

Take for example the French Revolution (of 1789). The output didn't really change under the feudal first and second estate's watch; but there were elements of the bourgeoisie in the Third Estate who did have a superior output in quantity and quality. This was one of the major material conditions.

I need to go, but I will continue this later...

[bed_of_nails]

How does humanity before the knowledge of other, competing "strands of DNA" fit into this in your eyes?

It would seem that societal class evolves independently of the other cultures around it if unknown, though the knowledge of other societies can "stimulate" the society in question to "evolve" in either a negative or positive manner.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:25 AM
I like it!

Thinking of types of class societies as a population of competing organisms in a Darwinist "universe".

Successful class societies reproduce themselves and spread; unsuccessful class societies go extinct.
That's not a new idea; anthropologist Marvin Harris even uses this theory to explain the frequency of certain kinds of rules and social practices in pre-civilized tribes - those that didn't have 'em were outcompeted by other tribes. It probably has some merit in his version.

You might consider, though: maybe social evolution has a "Lamarckian" component as well, or some other elements besides the Darwinian. It had to be proved, not just assumed, that Lamarck was wrong about biological evolution.

ComradeRed:

It is significant that Japan is an island with very little natural iron ore. The "natural conditions" are signinficant for the "Genesis" of society and the superstructure.

While Britain is an island with a great deal of iron ore. But in both cases, the island developed capitalism more rapidly than the nearby mainland - mineral resources don't seem to be the reason why. Economic relations with other countries, maybe? Development of the world market?

Japan's lack of mineral resources do have a lot to do with its situation going into WWII, of course...but you said "genesis" which makes me think origins of capitalism.

Or how about Japan's current stagnation. Is that due to a lack of mineral resources? Those could be imported. Maybe it has to do with the world market, the limited size of Japan's internal market, the obsolete methods of production in many smaller companies, anti-competitive business practices, the aging of its population and its restrictive immigration policies, monopolization of land ownership and inflated real estate prices....the fact Japan never really had a bourgeois-democratic revolution?

And revolutions don't happen simply when a mode of production hits its limit: other factors, including wars and political systems, are involved. This can be seen as some incidental shock hitting a system already become unstable, of course; but it remains true that revolutions historically are correlated with these shocks hitting - some historians have argued that crop failures and climatic shifts have preceded many historic revolutions....in any simple and primarily economic model, you'd probably have to model this as a random element if at all.

Bottom line: it remains to be seen how well the functioning of a model resembles the functioning of the real world. Of course, if it doesn't do so well, the assumptions can be tweaked.

[bed_of_nails]

While Britain is an island with a great deal of iron ore. But in both cases, the island developed capitalism more rapidly than the nearby mainland - mineral resources don't seem to be the reason why. Economic relations with other countries, maybe? Development of the world market?

Japan's lack of mineral resources do have a lot to do with its situation going into WWII, of course...but you said "genesis" which makes me think origins of capitalism.

Japan took to capitalism so quickly most likely because of the lack of resources. The Japanese were coming out of isolation and saw the lack of things they had to offer material-wise so they took to marketing ideas and inventions.

Actually, I have never heard of any natural resource being exported from Japan. Does anyone know of any?

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:59 AM

While Britain is an island with a great deal of iron ore. But in both cases, the island developed capitalism more rapidly than the nearby mainland - mineral resources don't seem to be the reason why. Economic relations with other countries, maybe? Development of the world market?

Japan's lack of mineral resources do have a lot to do with its situation going into WWII, of course...but you said "genesis" which makes me think origins of capitalism.

Japan took to capitalism so quickly most likely because of the lack of resources. The Japanese were coming out of isolation and saw the lack of things they had to offer material-wise so they took to marketing ideas and inventions.

Actually, I have never heard of any natural resource being exported from Japan. Does anyone know of any?
If there are any, I'd expect them to be of a very small quantity when compared to the world average. Japan's focus in the decades following WWII has been, because of the lack of abundant natural resources, "human resources" - knowlege, ideas, innovations, etc.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by STI+Jan 30 2006, 07:23 PM--> (STI @ Jan 30 2006, 07:23 PM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 12:59 AM

While Britain is an island with a great deal of iron ore. But in both cases, the island developed capitalism more rapidly than the nearby mainland - mineral resources don't seem to be the reason why. Economic relations with other countries, maybe? Development of the world market?

Japan's lack of mineral resources do have a lot to do with its situation going into WWII, of course...but you said "genesis" which makes me think origins of capitalism.

Japan took to capitalism so quickly most likely because of the lack of resources. The Japanese were coming out of isolation and saw the lack of things they had to offer material-wise so they took to marketing ideas and inventions.

Actually, I have never heard of any natural resource being exported from Japan. Does anyone know of any?
If there are any, I'd expect them to be of a very small quantity when compared to the world average. Japan's focus in the decades following WWII has been, because of the lack of abundant natural resources, "human resources" - knowlege, ideas, innovations, etc. [/b]
Because Japan has specialized in the usage of human resources, it has excelled at it. Combating capitalism in Japan is going to possibly be harder than doing so in the US. The Japanese are extremely formal and concerned with hierarchy.

Its really quite depressing to listen to someone talk about the life of a Japanese worker. It seems even more redundant than the average workers life.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+--> (bed_of_nails) How does humanity before the knowledge of other, competing "strands of DNA" fit into this in your eyes?[/b] This is more along the lines of class struggle.

Let me first confess that I am no biologist (:o); however, the biology that I have learned has been primarily through mathematical biology. That's "good enough" I suppose.

At any rate, the reason why creatures evolve is based on the environmental conditions. Those which are able to benefit from the changing conditions live to reproduce.

(Curiously, this is partially true in class society. It could explain the reason why there are still elements of feudalism and despotism in capitalism.)

Engels remarks in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific that

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. (emphasis added).

The production of the means to support human life is directly related to the ability to produce, the effeciency of said production, and the amount of labor requisite for a sizeable output.

For example feudalism required large quantities of labor to produce very little! Capitalism changed all of this.

Class antagonisms caused this change. It was essentially the history of Europe from 1500 to 1700.

Of course we can't say "exactly" how a culture will react to having a lack of this or that resource. We can, however, say that because of that material conditioning it will react in certain ways (e.g. uber-imperialistic tendencies) to acquire them (if they are something like iron); this, of course, appears when there is modernization of the mode of production (switching from a "lower" mode to a "higher" one).


Originally posted by [email protected]

While Britain is an island with a great deal of iron ore. But in both cases, the island developed capitalism more rapidly than the nearby mainland - mineral resources don't seem to be the reason why. Ah, but Britain had no concern to acquire iron while it was industrializing in the 1700-1800s. Its main concern was to make and sell textiles.

This was the "fuel" for their economic wildfire.

Actually, come to think of it, mineral resources alone don't really cause imperial expansion. It is raw materials (rather, the lack thereof) which causes them.

Britain had very little sources for cotton. It was simply a "blessing" that the colonies came around to provide such raw materials as sugar, cotton, lumber, etc.

And when America broke away, in under 15 years (or so) Britain had acquired Egypt - one of the world's largest suppliers of cotton!



Japan's lack of mineral resources do have a lot to do with its situation going into WWII, of course...but you said "genesis" which makes me think origins of capitalism. Why, yes, that is exactly how I meant it. In under forty years (if my history doesn't fail me), the Japanese had invaded Korea.

This was an unprecedented record for imperialist nations to get "up and running" in such a short period of time.

However, it was necessary for Japan to continue to industrialize to get more iron and coal. Without either of these, there would have been a stagnation (maybe even reaction) against the industrialization effort caused by the West.



Or how about Japan's current stagnation. Is that due to a lack of mineral resources? Those could be imported. Maybe it has to do with the world market, the limited size of Japan's internal market, the obsolete methods of production in many smaller companies, anti-competitive business practices, the aging of its population and its restrictive immigration policies, monopolization of land ownership and inflated real estate prices....the fact Japan never really had a bourgeois-democratic revolution? What's really interesting about Japan is that they never really ceased being occupied by the U$. They don't really have a standing army (from the treaty signed by the U$ at the surrendering of Japan in World War 2).

These current conditions are certainly explanations of current material phenomenon. However, how can you explain Japan's industrialization by the current practices of Japan?


bed_of_nails

Because Japan has specialized in the usage of human resources, it has excelled at it. Combating capitalism in Japan is going to possibly be harder than doing so in the US. The Japanese are extremely formal and concerned with hierarchy.

Its really quite depressing to listen to someone talk about the life of a Japanese worker. It seems even more redundant than the average workers life. What I expect is that there would be a different sort of class struggle in Japan. Remember: just because class struggle takes one form in one nation does not mean it will look the same way everywhere.

As a matter of fact I'd be willing to wager that Japan will be one of the first nations to become communist. The point is to "get rid" of the working class - bourgeois dichotomy.

It's doing that right now. No one in Japan wants to be a worker. Thus there is a serious problem with the employment aspect. The response is to replace the workers by "humanoid robots" (or so sayeth The Economist).

What would be the consequences? For one, it would show an entirely new aspect to class society (if you could consider it still class society). There would be no workers, but there would still be "work" to be done.

By no means is this socialism, but is it really "capitalism"?

If so, it would be on its death bed :lol:

A "promising sign" nonetheless of what the future may hold in storage...

[bed_of_nails]

This is more along the lines of class struggle.

Let me first confess that I am no biologist (); however, the biology that I have learned has been primarily through mathematical biology. That's "good enough" I suppose.

At any rate, the reason why creatures evolve is based on the environmental conditions. Those which are able to benefit from the changing conditions live to reproduce.

(Curiously, this is partially true in class society. It could explain the reason why there are still elements of feudalism and despotism in capitalism.)

Engels remarks in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific that

I like your response, and find this discussion to be particularly enthralling.

What is mathematical biology? I have never heard of it before.

Your reasoning behind creatures adapting better to their environment before eachother is sound, and I like how you have approached this.

Isnt it interesting how groups of people work together similar to cells in a larger organism?

It makes me wonder if every universe is merely an atom of some single-celled life-form :lol:

[ComradeRed]

What is mathematical biology? I have never heard of it before.
Well, first of all, mathematicians (in grad school and beyond) have to write about new and "exciting" things. What could be more exciting than biology? :lol:

But it is true that a lot of mathematicians, when writing their thesis, begin by saying "Crap! What am I going to write about?!" There is very little to do if one chooses to write a "traditional" thesis (come up with some needlessly complicated formula to "prove" or "disprove" something as simple as the squareroot of 4, or 1+1=?).

Some have gone into Economics (I am looking into some of this, some are unique, others are a waste of time), most have popularly gone into physics ("Mathematical physics" - my "home turf" :D). About three have gone into biology and created "computational evolution", and other such things.

It is basically "the mathematical formulation of biology".



Your reasoning behind creatures adapting better to their environment before eachother is sound, and I like how you have approached this.

Isnt it interesting how groups of people work together similar to cells in a larger organism? Well, people in (the ruling class of) class society act more like a malignant cancerous tumor than a cooperative organ.

It is much more beneficial for those in the bourgeois classes to simply take resources at the expense of others. It is likewise more beneficial for those cancerous tumors to ceaselessly reproduce. It's "in their DNA" :lol:

I must confess how disappointed I am with the inability to show how damn well this works mathematically (from the mathematician's perspective, it is elegant and quite beautiful if I say so myself :P). However, it has "done its task" and that's something I can settle for.

I really should finish my mathematical "dirty work" before I do anything else. How this plays out should be rather interesting.

[bed_of_nails]

Well, people in (the ruling class of) class society act more like a malignant cancerous tumor than a cooperative organ.

It is much more beneficial for those in the bourgeois classes to simply take resources at the expense of others. It is likewise more beneficial for those cancerous tumors to ceaselessly reproduce. It's "in their DNA"

I like to think of them as the parasites in this symbiosis :lol:

I am assuming you are a mathematician. Where are you going and is this your dissertation's subject?


I must confess how disappointed I am with the inability to show how damn well this works mathematically (from the mathematician's perspective, it is elegant and quite beautiful if I say so myself ). However, it has "done its task" and that's something I can settle for.

I really should finish my mathematical "dirty work" before I do anything else. How this plays out should be rather interesting.

Why are you incapable of showing it? I am not versed at all in what is required to become a mathematician, but I assume you had an equation of some sort to inspire this idea.

[ComradeRed]

The forum's BB code is incapable of handling anything beyond algebra (even then, it has trouble!).

I'm kind of "in between" theses, as they say; and I am a theoretical physicist, my speciality is "canonical" quantum gravity (which is the attempt to take quantum theory and Einstein's general relativity and somehow mash them together). The problem is that I am halfway through a sort of research paper, when this hit me. But I just thought of a way to prove the Uncertainty principle as satisfying this obscure relativistic principle (something I needed really badly!). So I am torn!

I would be using diagrams and equations like the ones shown here (http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/catastrophe.html), (here's an intro (http://home.swipnet.se/~w-48087/faglar/materialmapp/menymapp/metatheory.html) to the catastrophe theory), and pretty much abuse everything discussed in this (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/CalculusandAnalysis.html) portion of "mathworld".

So, I figure, I'll just write a .pdf file that will include all the needlessly complicated math (since most of those who want to read it have access to a printer somehow). But I'm just too impatient :D

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:54 PM
Actually, come to think of it, mineral resources alone don't really cause imperial expansion. It is raw materials (rather, the lack thereof) which causes them.
So you're talking about causes of colonial expansion? That wasn't clear earlier.

My point, basically, is that's one of a great many factors in the development of capitalism. I'd say it's one of several factors in colonial expansion, too....consider the fact there's little direct colonialism today although the need for raw materials hasn't ended.

A lack of direct colonies didn't stop Germany's industrial development...and not because it had every raw material it needed at home, either. It was, on the other hand, a problem for Germany's military capabilites. (Couldn't acquire materials from overseas in wartime.)

A number of smaller capitalist countries could also be pointed to.

The more I think about it, the more I think colonial expansion isn't a requirement for the development of commercial or industrial capitalism. The world market is.


They don't really have a standing army (from the treaty signed by the U$ at the surrendering of Japan in World War 2).

Actually, they have one of the world's largest military budgets, in a ballpark with anyone but the U.S. It's just called the "Self-Defense Forces." An army by any other name....

And it's beginning to deploy abroad, which it didn't do for a long time post-WWII.

[ComradeRed]

Well, the development of capitalism is pretty well documented in Marx's Das Kapital. It is, in my opinion, necessary for the capitalist mode of production to consolidate and determine what is needed; in the cases of Britain, Japan, etc. they needed particular resources to expand into a fully functional capitalist society.

Though there were alternatives that the capitalists did not see (e.g. Japan could have imported raw materials rather than becoming an imperialist state, etc.).

However, there is a general outline that inludes, if you wish to word it in such a way, the "world market".

[Neto]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+Jan 28 2006, 07:22 PM--> (ComradeRed @ Jan 28 2006, 07:22 PM)The actual knity-grity details of the algorithm are explained in steps (naturally):

1. Each creature has to solve some problem or problems.
2. The creature's "fitness" is rated according to this test.
3. The fittest get to reproduce.
4. Reproduction involves constructing a new creature from their DNA.
5. Crucially, some change in the DNA must be possible, otherwise no new solutions can arise.
6. One of the major sources of change is sex (we mix up the DNA of two successful creatures to make a new one).
7. Another source of change is simply small mutations of the DNA.
8. The less fit simply don't reproduce.
9. The new population of creatures arises from the fittest old ones and so, statistically, are more like the fitter end of the previous population.
10. The old population (fit and unfit alike) die to make way for the new.
11. The new population is diverse itself, and is tested in its turn, and so on.[/b]

In artificial intelligence, there is a popular optimization method called 'Genetic Algorithms' that imitates evolution. It works pretty much in the same way that Darwinist evolution works, and very similar to the algorithm you described.

A population of 'individuals' is generated.

Each individual in the population is evaluated through a fitness function, and the fittest ones are selected.

Pairs of individuals cross with each other, mixing their genetic material and breeding new individuals.

Some individuals occasionally mutate, and these mutations are propagated to future generations.


The last three steps in this sequence is repeated for however many iterations are necessary (or possible) and the resulting best individual is the solution.



Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:25 PM
Thinking of types of class societies as a population of competing organisms in a Darwinist "universe".

Successful class societies reproduce themselves and spread; unsuccessful class societies go extinct.

I have done some work on GA and I might attempt to implement this idea of the individuals being class societies. However, I would need help from those people with a lot of knowledge about the details how each particular class society behaves. The most difficult parts would be the individual representation and the fitness function. That is, how do you represent and evaluate a class society? The better the representation and fitness function, the better this algorithm does.

Anyhow, any ideas are appreciated.


[email protected] 29 2006, 03:25 PM
I'm not sure that this analogy could be of much practical use; but it might be interesting to set up a computer "model" and "see what happens".
It would be interesting. Who knows? Maybe communism will be the solution. :P

[ComradeRed]

The difficulty (from the mathematical perspective) is defining the "fitness function". It seems like it would have to be an evolutionary system of functions...when certain material conditions are "met", then certain mechanisms are operated.

The problem is that there needs to be a way to incorporate new mechanisms that are more effecient than pre-existing ones.

Of course, this is from my perspective as a physicist that it "must" be this way. The universe is essentially a computer with "evolving circuitry", the problem: how to model this!

But I think overall there is a general pattern that we can look at. I'm too physically exhausted to get into details, but there would be a need to have a way to affect the class struggle, consciousness, etc.

[Severian]

I deleted a flame post which attempted to derail the thread, and some follow-up posts which unintentionally contributed to the derail.


Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 03:17 PM
Though there were alternatives that the capitalists did not see (e.g. Japan could have imported raw materials rather than becoming an imperialist state, etc.).
Then again, maybe they didn't have an alternative - they developed capitalism before any nearby country, so where were they going to import large quantities of iron and coal? Precapitalist societies aren't geared to trade on such a scale (by definition.)

Early capitalist colonialism, possibly, could be seen in part as a way of accelerating the development of (a dependent form of) capitalism.


However, there is a general outline that inludes, if you wish to word it in such a way, the "world market".

That would seem important it you're going to model the emergence of capitalism. I mean, why did capitalism emerge in Europe first? Not because it was the most developed society before that. On the contrary, it existed on the fringes of a more advanced civilization, up until the early modern period.

The world market was key.

Hm. Are you talking about the emergence of capitalism, or the Industrial Revolution?

I don't want to discourage you or anything; this sounds like an interesting experiment. It just seems to me it's has to be far more complicated than the models a physicist would need.

Heck, you can count the different kinds of quarks without taking your shoes off.

[JC1]

I deleted a flame post which attempted to derail the thread, and some follow-up posts which unintentionally contributed to the derail.


I thought what war womrade White was a contribution.

[ComradeRed]

Then again, maybe they didn't have an alternative - they developed capitalism before any nearby country, so where were they going to import large quantities of iron and coal? Precapitalist societies aren't geared to trade on such a scale (by definition.)

Early capitalist colonialism, possibly, could be seen in part as a way of accelerating the development of (a dependent form of) capitalism. I've been playing with this in my mind as well. The latter statement, at least.

Could it be that imperialism was not the "highest stage of capitalism" but simply sowing the seeds of its own demise? By spreading capitalism (or, at least, manhandling it onto precapitalist societies), this was perhaps the worst thing to do to a capitalist. True, it acts as a "catalyst" for profits.

What happens next? The "good times" never stop? No, there is something else.

The markets saturate, and a crisis occurs. Of course, if it is something minor (a saturated napkin market, or whatnot), it only clogs capitalism for a brief moment (a "sputter").

This leads to unemployment, less consumption, less sales, and so on. IF it is a serious enough crisis, which it rarely is.

However, I digress slightly. Colonialism is simply spreading out the cottage industry. Rather than have the Europeans/Americans do it, they forced precapitalists to do it. This artificial "forced" societies to Westernize (either as colonies or in defense against Imperialism, e.g. Ethiopia).

I think, though, we are talking about the same thing with different titles of the phenomenon.



That would seem important it you're going to model the emergence of capitalism. I mean, why did capitalism emerge in Europe first? Not because it was the most developed society before that. On the contrary, it existed on the fringes of a more advanced civilization, up until the early modern period. Well, what I am getting at is what are the material conditions in society? That is my ultimate question.

What are the material conditions which caused event P to occur? What were the material conditions formed by P? Was there any other possibility? How could we model this? Can it be quantified? Is it qualitative? If so could we use some advanced algebra or analysis on it? And so forth.

What's even more interesting is: what if we consider social reality as an evolving, causal network? To bring it to a non-mathematical example, is social reality like a computer with evolving circuitry? If so, are there causes to certain patterns of evolution? Do these causes evolve? Does the evolution of the machine evolve? If so what controls this? And what would control that? And so forth.

To me, it is extremely fascinating. I think it is perhaps the more scientific approach as well; speaking from the mathematical-physics perspective.



Hm. Are you talking about the emergence of capitalism, or the Industrial Revolution? Could one have caused the other? Think about it, has there been a capitalist society that has not had an industrial revolution (or any form of industrialization)?

I am not speaking of the genesis of capitalism, however. I am speaking about the implementation of capitalism.

This is, of course, through the various methods of the past ("traditional" industrialization, colonialization, "supervized" industrialization, Leninism, etc.).



I don't want to discourage you or anything; this sounds like an interesting experiment. It just seems to me it's has to be far more complicated than the models a physicist would need. Nonsense! Criticism is a promising sign of a really good experiment! Or, on the other hand, a really bad one too! :lol:

But it is when the details have to be cemented out. The problem, of course, is to find a way to program the math that would be used into this (if we were going my rather mathematically esoteric route). I would have no clue where to begin :o

On the other hand, I do know some biologists on this board who would probably be more than willing to lend a hand.

However, computer models can do some really significant things. If there is a finite number of variables (even if this number increments or decrements), it can be modelled. If you can see it, think it, explain it, then it can be modelled. ;)

In summary... Details need to be hammered out;
Model needs to be created (albeit a heuristic one to build the finished one from);
Minor details like population reproduction, death, life expectancy, etc. need to be hammered out;
Material "causality" needs formalization;
It all should be done within February at most!

[Floyce White]

Severian: "I deleted a flame post which attempted to derail the thread, and some follow-up posts which unintentionally contributed to the derail."

Rather than wait and see where I was going with it. Did you even bother to read the post I referred to where I warned ComradeRed not to pursue graviton research because I had already solved the problem he's working on and I know that it has an immediate application in weapons? Yes? No? Do you presume that workers are stupid and need you to control how they phrase things? You already know that I oppose the "material conditions for communism" premise of the argument--isn't your deletion of my post itself an attempt to derail the thread? Won't your explanation be yet another distraction from the thread?

Well then, explain yourself.

[ComradeRed]

Floyce White, you do realize there is no such thing as a graviton, right? And even if one were to construct a weapon with this nonexistent particle, how much energy would be needed? You would have better luck using that energy to create matter! What nonsense!

[STI]

Floyce, I read the post before it got deleted, and if you wanted it to "go somewhere", you could have made it do so within that post directly, or you could just do it now.

But, as it stood, your post was empty and snarky. I don't blame Sev for deleting it.

Remember, there's nothing stopping you from actually making your point now.

[Floyce White]

ComradeRed: "Floyce White, you do realize there is no such thing as a graviton, right?"

As I said, I've already solved this problem. You're the one who's fishing. If you can't understand the immense danger from a particle-wave that can travel through the Earth, you aren't as smart as you think.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:31 PM
I think, though, we are talking about the same thing with different titles of the phenomenon.
As far as this post, probably. I don't have any major criticism of anything in it, other than the terminology.

I wanted to comment on this from earlier:

Well, people in (the ruling class of) class society act more like a malignant cancerous tumor than a cooperative organ.

Not really - the capitalists have a role in relation to production, and historically they contributed greatly to the expansion of production. Even though they don't work themselves.

Now the Soviet nomenklatura, that was a cancer.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)
As I said, I've already solved this problem. You're the one who's fishing. If you can't understand the immense danger from a particle-wave that can travel through the Earth, you aren't as smart as you think.[/b] Look, in the case of the collapse of a star into a supermassive black hole, there would be barely enough energy from the gravitons to experience a few centimeters of motion! This is, of course, through the gravitational wave.

Now, I am assuming the star was not one planck volume but the size of our sun or larger. That means there would be approximately enough energy to power 10^30 times the power the earth consumes! Where the hell is this going to come from?

Why, you have a better chance building a "freeze thrower" to "instantly" make ice cubes the size of a human body :lol:

It's impractical. But hey, I'm a physicist, what do I know of physics? :lol:


Severian

Not really - the capitalists have a role in relation to production, and historically they contributed greatly to the expansion of production. Even though they don't work themselves. Cancerous cells themselves, from my understanding, do not "function" like normal cells. Capitalists do not function like "normal" workers. Instead both cancer and capitalists consume at the cost of the industrious element in the system.

In both cases, the cancer and the capitalist, there is expansion. Whether it is good or not (e.g. imperialism and colonialism) is another matter.

Capitalists "do" something, just as cancer cells "do" something; it's just what they are "doing" is immesirating the workers.

[Floyce White]

I notice that Severian can't defend his moral turpitude, and that ComradeRed did not disagree with Severian deciding for him what he (and we) would discuss. Telling.

ComradeRed: "That means there would be approximately enough energy to power 10^30 times the power the Earth consumes!"

I don't think I have to worry about you doing any weapons research.

Why don't we get back to the premise of the posts you used to start this thread: that there is a "material condition for communism." The premise is false, so your outline of how to defend it is false. As I put it:

"The failures of previous communist uprisings were not--as socialists suggest--that the upper class did not create the proper conditions. Their failures were in trying to use forms of rule to end rule. Form and substance are the external and internal characteristics of the same process." (Communism Means Communes (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A18).)

You may also want to read the earlier article in the series What Is Communism and How Can We Achieve It? (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A13).

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)
I don't think I have to worry about you doing any weapons research.[/b] Maybe you should do some research on this stuff before you get these ideas of yours. There is no such thing as an "antigravity" device, "time-travel", or the "boogey man". Likewise gravitons (if they really exist) are extremely weak. It would be far more effecient to use gluons or electromagnetism for a weapon ;)


Why don't we get back to the premise of the posts you used to start this thread: that there is a "material condition for communism." The premise is false, so your outline of how to defend it is false. What a great blunder I have made! No, obviously you are correct: material conditions affect nothing! How could Marx be so blind?!

I repeat myself:

ComradeRed
Well, what I am getting at is what are the material conditions in society? That is my ultimate question.

What are the material conditions which caused event P to occur? What were the material conditions formed by P? Was there any other possibility? How could we model this? Can it be quantified? Is it qualitative? If so could we use some advanced algebra or analysis on it? And so forth.

What's even more interesting is: what if we consider social reality as an evolving, causal network? To bring it to a non-mathematical example, is social reality like a computer with evolving circuitry? If so, are there causes to certain patterns of evolution? Do these causes evolve? Does the evolution of the machine evolve? If so what controls this? And what would control that? And so forth.

Do you really believe that capitalism will live on indefinately? There is, after all, "no material conditions for communism" -- pure idealism alone must make it work. I find this troubling, particularly because there is no sound mathematical reasoning or even math to back it up!

It would be like listening to the hobo on the side of the road telling "the world" that the "apocolypse" is coming :lol: Obviously the mere thought of this "genius" will "make it so".

[Floyce White]

ComradeRed: "There is no such thing as an 'antigravity' device, 'time-travel,' or the 'boogey man.'"

Ridicule? How unworthy!

ComradeRed: "What a great blunder I have made!"

You should get used to saying this. Get a sheet of poster paper and put it on your wall.

The life of a man is saying to a woman "I'm wrong. I'm sorry Honey." The man is always wrong.

The life of a communist is saying to workers "I've made many mistakes and admit it. I could be wrong now." The communist knows that correctness is partial and temporary.

You're a clever guy. So am I. So are lots of other people. Don't try to match wits with everyone. You'll just humiliate yourself.

ComradeRed: "There is, after all, 'no material conditions for communism'--pure idealism alone must make it work."

The only "material condition" for class struggle and class revolt is the existence of class society. But we know that the assertion of "material conditions for communism" isn't some dummied-down question of "do people exist?" If anything, the "material conditions for communism" hypothesis is idealism, since it means whatever "material" and whatever "conditions" you want it to mean.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Floyce White
If anything, the "material conditions for communism" hypothesis is idealism, since it means whatever "material" and whatever "conditions" you want it to mean.

We have empirically observed the correlation between the means of production and the relations of production in the past.

Water power = hydraulic despotism

Windmills = feudalism

Steam engines = capitalism

??? = communism

That is unacceptably crude and inadequate...no question about it.

One of the central themes in this thread is to talk about how we might improve on this.

I understand that you think this a "fool's errand"...most people at the moment would probably agree with you.

However, there are those stages that new ideas must pass through...

1. It can't be done.

2. Maybe it could be done but it's not worth doing.

3. I thought it was a great idea from the very beginning.

:lol:

I think placing the whole Marxist paradigm on a firm mathematical foundation would be earth-shaking in its implications and repercussions!

Not because everyone would be able to "follow the math"...but because those who could would know that what we have now -- capitalism -- is doomed.

And they would tell people...changing the whole way that everyone looked at things.

For the most part in a revolutionary direction.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Floyce White]

redstar2000: "...Steam engines = capitalism..."

You've been reading Ernest Mandel.

redstar2000: "That is unacceptably crude and inadequate...no question about it."

Crude now. You'll get more refined as you get into it. I went through the mathematics of economics in the '80s. Been there--done that. It doesn't tell you anything about communism.

redstar2000: "I understand that you think this a 'fool's errand'...most people at the moment would probably agree with you."

No, I said that arguing that "Leninism isn't Marxism" is a fool's errand.

redstar2000: "I think placing the whole Marxist paradigm on a firm mathematical foundation would be earth-shaking in its implications and repercussions!"

Sounds like neo-classical economics.

At any rate, the premise is false until proven true, and it cannot be proven true. There are no "material conditions for communism" beyond the mere existence of class society.

Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Make a formal, logical proof using ordinary induction and deduction. Do all the details to show how each step produces only such-and-such possible outcomes, and prove and disprove each outcome. You'll find that the premise is flawed because it relies on the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (after, therefore because).

Afterwards, maybe you'll stop assuming that working-class activists must be liars and fools, and that authority figures from capitalist-class family backgrounds could sometimes be "above class."

[ComradeRed]

Crude now. You'll get more refined as you get into it. I went through the mathematics of economics in the '80s. Been there--done that. It doesn't tell you anything about communism.
You've studied mathematical bourgeois economics :o you poor bastard! No one should be even forced to do that.



Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Make a formal, logical proof using ordinary induction and deduction. Do all the details to show how each step produces only such-and-such possible outcomes, and prove and disprove each outcome. You'll find that the premise is flawed because it relies on the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (after, therefore because).


1. ∃A = {A: ∀H_{living}∈A} (given that society is composed of all living humans in society)
2. ∃C = {C: {c_{i,t}}⊆A ∀i,t} (there exists different relationships between the people in society over time)
3. {c_{i,t}}=f_{i}(I,t,T,J) (the relationship for person i is a function of I=how one gets income (exploiter or exploitee), t=time, T=technology, J=job)
4. ∃~f(I,t,T,J)→ ∃~A (if there are no relationships, there is no society)
5. dT≈constant (technological innovation is roughly constant, assumption)
6. {c_{i,t}}≠constant ever (implied, QED)

I think that is the gist of it ;) provided humans exist in societies, of course.

But what if we assumed that technological innovation was constant? What if we were to be "realistic to the core"?

Simple, just make it a function of time and the relationships of people within society through a fourier transform ;) Or if you want an easier job, use the Laplace transform.

[bed_of_nails]

1. ∃A = {A: ∀H_{living}∈A} (given that society is composed of all living humans in society)
2. ∃C = {C: {c_{i,t}}⊆A ∀i,t} (there exists different relationships between the people in society over time)
3. {c_{i,t}}=f_{i}(I,t,T,J) (the relationship for person i is a function of I=how one gets income (exploiter or exploitee), t=time, T=technology, J=job)
4. ∃~f(I,t,T,J)→ ∃~A (if there are no relationships, there is no society)
5. dT≈constant (technological innovation is roughly constant, assumption)
6. {c_{i,t}}≠constant ever (implied, QED)

I should let you know I had enjoyed reading and following your beliefs. Your thoughts make perfect sense, even in a non-mathematical manner. Societies will always evolve into something higher as the means of doing so (technology) evolves.

After reading what I quoted though, I feel required to inform you that there are only 26 known letters in the Roman alphabet. :lol:

[Floyce White]

ComradeRed, that's not a proof of the "material conditions for communism" hypothesis.

By the way, I didn't take college courses in economics. I actually studied it.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by "Floyce White"
ComradeRed, that's not a proof of the "material conditions for communism" hypothesis. Follow it to its logical conclusion: societal relations evolving, technological change is constant, classes are observably asymptotic to zero as technology increases to some finite amount.

Sorry, but "it follows that" classes vanish via harmonics analysis.



After reading what I quoted though, I feel required to inform you that there are only 26 known letters in the Roman alphabet. Not in my alphabet :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Floyce White
Afterwards, maybe you'll stop assuming that working-class activists must be liars and fools...

Some are liars. Some are fools. Some are neither.

Your notion of "communism" ex nihilo strikes me as foolish.


...authority figures from capitalist-class family backgrounds could sometimes be "above class."

It happens...though admittedly it's quite rare. A useful contribution to revolutionary theory might, in principle, come from anyone. What is offered must be evaluated on its own merits...not on "who said it" or what class they came from.


No, I said that arguing that "Leninism isn't Marxism" is a fool's errand.

Here I must regretfully say that you rather definitively place yourself in the category of fool. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Floyce White]

redstar2000: "What is offered must be evaluated on its own merits...not on 'who said it' or what class they came from."

"Who said it" is part of the whole--but I notice that you did not do an evaluation of the merits of the premise of this thread. Let's do that right now.

ComradeRed: "...classes [vanish] as technology increases..."

That assertion was long ago disproven and thoroughly criticized. Apparently you didn't know that.

You failed to verify the premise of your argument. You ended up advocating discredited conclusions.

Actions cause reactions. Actions precede reactions. This is a rule of logic. But a statement is not automatically true just because it is put in the format of action--reaction.

"Bad air causes sickness." Is this true? I could say that horrible chills and fevers are always preceded by exposure to noxious draughts and the vapors from foul dregs. That is an undeniable fact. It is equally undeniable that the recurring sickness of chills and fevers is unheard of far from swamps and bogs. What could be my conclusion? "Good air causes health." (Makes me feel like reading The Virginian.)

"Material conditions precede communism." True. "Material conditions" precede capitalism. "Material conditions" precede feudalism. "Material conditions" precede walking a dog. Little matter that communism, capitalism, feudalism, and walking a dog are themselves "material conditions." They are preceded by other "material conditions" anyway.

"Material conditions cause communism." False. "Communism" means "acts of care and concern for everyone around you." It is a relation between people. Relations between people is a material fact because of physical substance of people and of their doing things together. Communism is the relation between working-class activists. Communism also exists in many aspects of ordinary life. As lower-class people join into determined, conscious struggle, they learn from other communists that they are communists and that they are doing communism. Capitalists oppose the relation of communism with the relation of anti-communism. Capitalists are anti-communists and do anti-communism. Action in the here-and-now is a material fact. Communism in the here-and-now is a material fact. Communism in the here-and-now is the material origin of the communist society of the future. It is the same relation between the same people doing the same and some different actions...later.

"Material conditions" do not cause communism. Communism is itself a "material condition." To assert that "communism" means only "future society" is to make a giant Marx parade balloon out of one of the two definitions of the word, and to jail the other definition of "struggle in the here-and-now." To assert that there need to be SOME OTHER origins of communism is to assert that communism is not today a "material condition." It is to assert that SOME OTHER "material conditions" cause the "future society." What "material conditions" besides the struggle of the poor? The struggle of the rich, of course. "Anti-communism causes communism." This assertion is so ugly that it is usually hidden in wording that "struggle between capitalists and workers causes communism." This half-truth asserts that capitalists are equally responsible for creating communism--that capitalists are a necessary part of causing SOME OTHER "material conditions" for the "future society." It is a petty-capitalist apology for the continued existence of capitalism in the here-and-now. It is a petty-capitalist apology for their intervention into the lower-class movement.

Capitalism precedes communism? Yes and no. "Yes" because today's capitalist world society precedes the future communist world society. Capitalism shaped communism--not the other way around. "No" because communism existed as a here-and-now struggle as long as there has been class society. Communism preceded the invention of capitalist social relations. Communism shaped capitalism--not the other way around. This makes perfect sense. Just as a binomial equation can have the two true, real answers of +1 and -1, this logical question can have two equal but opposite answers.

Capitalism causes communism? No. Care and concern for others is natural human socialization. Class society is a violent, anti-social method of interaction. Communism is human nature. Ordinary life is communism except when disrupted by violence. Capitalism is violence. Capitalists do violence. Capitalists are anti-communists. Capitalists repress communism. Capitalism is the temporary condition. Communism existed before, exists during, and will exist after class society.

Communism is a simple truth that is understood and practiced by billions of ordinary people. The development of the workers' solidarity movement is hindered by anti-communist practice and theory, and by anti-communist violence and ideology both within and without. To be a communist is to struggle both against capitalists and to do "struggle within the struggle" against pro-capitalism in the communist political movement. The communist political movement is spontaneously recreated whenever it is destroyed--but not because the ongoing violence of class society causes reaction. Communism is the natural action of people. As long as there is class society and politics, the communist political movement will spontaneously arise.

ComradeRed, the "paradigm" you seek is all around you. It has always been there for you to see. The "breakthrough" is for you to learn what tens of millions of ordinary poor people already know.

"Action causes reaction. Action precedes reaction." This is a logical rule. But it is not the logical rule that applies to the origin and development of communism.

You can draw all the computer graphs you like, and assign the variables any way you like. It may be a good learning exercise about the economics of the suppression of reformism. However, the "material conditions for communism" premise of your exercise is false. Expect all of your conclusions to be false.

[ComradeRed]

That assertion was long ago disproven and thoroughly criticized. Apparently you didn't know that.

You failed to verify the premise of your argument. You ended up advocating discredited conclusions. So technology has absolutely no correlation, nor indeed any trace of causation, with material reality? Really? This is fascinating idealism, perhaps you should discuss this more in Philosophy?

As Marx pointed out long ago in The German Ideology:

The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life. -- emphasis added

The dynamic treatment of what I proved the premises of is called, in the vernecular, "historical materialism". It is a scientific theory, which is quite a bit more than you have.

Here's a little light reading you should consider:

And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. -- emphasis added, again.



Capitalism precedes communism? Yes and no. "Yes" because today's capitalist world society precedes the future communist world society. Capitalism shaped communism--not the other way around. "No" because communism existed as a here-and-now struggle as long as there has been class society. Communism preceded the invention of capitalist social relations. Communism shaped capitalism--not the other way around. This makes perfect sense. Just as a binomial equation can have the two true, real answers of +1 and -1, this logical question can have two equal but opposite answers. For the love of Newton, learn some fucking math! It would be an inequality modelling itself after classical Lorentzian causality!

Once a dialectician, always a living contradiction.

Your chronological thinking is flawed, terribly fallaciously.


"Material conditions cause communism." False. "Communism" means "acts of care and concern for everyone around you." It is a relation between people. Relations between people is a material fact because of physical substance of people and of their doing things together. Communism is the relation between working-class activists. Communism also exists in many aspects of ordinary life. As lower-class people join into determined, conscious struggle, they learn from other communists that they are communists and that they are doing communism. Capitalists oppose the relation of communism with the relation of anti-communism. Capitalists are anti-communists and do anti-communism. Action in the here-and-now is a material fact. Communism in the here-and-now is a material fact. Communism in the here-and-now is the material origin of the communist society of the future. It is the same relation between the same people doing the same and some different actions...later. Read some Marx, learn some logic, then come back and talk to me; until then you don't seem to understand either Marxism or communism, much less a logical proof and inference.

Or consistency for that matter. The rest of your reply seems to be oozing of this dialectical nonsense that has a large number of contradictions (on the other hand you're a good dialectician, I'll give you that).

Sorry, but the rest is not worth my time.

[Floyce White]

That's right. Anything but verify the premise of your argument.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)"Communism" means "acts of care and concern for everyone around you."[/b]

Still banging that tambourine, eh?

Well, you might like these folks...


Progressive Labor Party
Even in our daily lives, we see many examples of "to each according to need" being practiced by working-class people. When someone holds the door open for you, they don't usually say, "Well, you owe me one." Soldiers fight and die, workers go off to work and ruin their health at miserable jobs for their families, parents work their butts off trying to raise their kids properly, neighbors babysit in a crisis -- all this, not expecting to be paid back, but rather for some notion that people working together produces a better world.

http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/commecon.html

Or maybe this fellow...

Marx versus Historical Materialism (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyril_01.htm) by Cyril Smith

A-historical appeals to "communist morality" are far from unprecedented.

Possibly because they not only permit but even encourage an attitude of smug superiority to us "vulgar materialists".

Carry on, then. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Floyce White]

redstar2000: "A-historical appeals to 'communist morality' are far from unprecedented.

"Possibly because they not only permit but even encourage an attitude of smug superiority to us 'vulgar materialists.'"

The communist political movement has come a long way since Marx's day. I don't know why you reject the knowledge that came from the experiences of generations of struggle. The "from each...to each" definition of "communism" is really bad accounting language. It is possible to say it terms that are more meaningful to lower-class people. It is possible to restate it in terms that make workers the subject (the doers) and not the object (the thing that is being done on, such as being accounted for). That is, unless you are asserting that workers don't create communism.

Is there a moral aspect to class struggle? Yes of course. Capitalism is immoral to workers, and communism is immoral to capitalists. Any discussion of the change from capitalism to communism will overlap the discussion of moralities. It is unavoidable. Just because I use phrasing that welcomes moral implications--does not mean that it does not apply to economical and political aspects of the discussion.

ComradeRed: "...learn some f--- math! . . . Read some Marx, learn some logic, then come back and talk to me; until then you don't seem to understand...the rest is not worth my time."

Please do not address me in those terms. I am not your servant.