#16441
It'd be awesome if that was some sort of budding movement back toward socialism but tbh I'd also be very happy if that's just what Russian sovereign citizens are
#16442
smells a lot like our sovereign citizens

e gosh dern it thirdplace got me with the snipe
#16443
i read "marxism and the philosophy of science" by helena sheehan and i posted a review on goodreads but i figure i can post it here too:

This book was helpful and interesting but not nearly as much as i had hoped. It gives a broad overview, of varying length and detail, of seemingly every "marxist" (broadly defined) the author could (or wanted to) find that had at some point stated some opinion on the question of science. I'll start with the positives. It was relatively thorough; i learned a great deal about many marxists that i wouldn't have thought to look into before, and i have a lot to follow up on after reading this. I can imagine that this book would be especially valuable to "academic marxists" or those in academia (presumably STS in articular) who are interested in dialoguing with the Big Names in academic marxism, such as lukacs and gramsci (negri etc obv came to prominence after the book was written).

Another positive point is that i got the sense that the author has a keen sense of some of the important strengths that marxism/dialectical materialism brings to an understanding of science, especially science considered as a social project. it describes matter and human society and labor in a dynamic back-and-forth where each is altered by the other, in ways that are organized but not determined. the "dialectic" here describes human labor arranging the material world in ways guided by human social structures, and the results of this labor is that society itself is changed.

it provides an intellectual tradition that neatly avoids many of the pitfalls and false dilemmas of present in science studies, from logical positivism to mechanistic materialism to the various strands of idealism that together rend the STS community in cyclical Science Wars.

Sadly, promoting the utility of marxism as a tool for scholars working in science studies and the history of science is really where the authors vision ends. the author appears to be wholly uninterested in that fundamental tenet of marxism, that philosophy is only valuable to the extent that it helps to organize us to work towards a better, communist society. in fact, many of book's subjects were heavily and directly involved in socialist organizing in addition to their philosophical works. this is generally treated by the author as some kind of incursion on the much more crucial task of putting pen to paper and producing Good Philosophy, and figures who are crucial to the latter 20th century Theory circles like gramsci and lukacs have remarkably inordinate amount of space devoted to their contributions to marxist science philosophy, which frankly seemed to range from bizarrely awful to totally mediocre despite the author's obvious fascination with them. other authors who are rightfully given a decent amount of time and space (non-soviets, like bernal and haldane) are given due credit for being totally on the ball as far as science goes but given presented as having an ambiguous record whenever they are deemed too Stalinist for the author's taste. the author's presentation of soviet philosophy of science was alright up until the death of lenin where it took an entirely predictable nosedive and went on for over 50 pages about the Dangers of Stalinism and Lysenkoism, which not only contained very little that was not the mandatory anticommunist talking points about cults of personality and the dangers of Evil People In Charge. this was especially disappointing not only because it had nothing of note to say about the period beyond bizarre psychologizations about the evils of stalin, but also because it was a period that (as far as i can tell, this book certainly didn't enlighten me) did a lot to set the stage for the soviet tradition in applied mathematics and physics which diverged dramatically from the tradition in the west, taking as fundamental problems that were marginalized as "applied math" in the west, which went down a rabbit hole of ever-expanding abstract construction (which have value and merit, but are certainly more removed from practical problems). the echoes of this split are still felt very keenly in physics and mathematics: dynamics systems, classical mechanics, physics, PDEs and functional analysis all carry a heavy debt to soviet scientists and it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the social conditions that led to this profusion of work. indeed it would have been really interesting to see an ostensible marxist describe the stalin era in terms of social relations instead of personal manias but even that was apparently too much to ask.

overall it was a neat book but i diagnose the author with acute Trotskyism.
#16444
I hope so but this just sounds like a more correct attempt at a sovereign citizen movement.
#16445
c_man thanks for the review. one thing that i see often, wondering if any of the noted marxists saw it too, is about how science truly follows labor. like, a new labor is invented, then scientists observe it, and then it is rationalized. common ideology has it the opposite way. like i forget why but i was reading about John Wallis who regarded mathematics as a mechanic's art, you know, in the era of automatons and early industry, preceding F=ma, concepts of torque and momenta. and gibbs'/carnot's rationalizations of thermodynamics came long after the steam engine and watts' mining pumps. the time-order sometimes goes the other way, but not that often (i can think of, the bernoulli beam equation allowing the construction of the eiffel tower, and then skyscrapers). this actually came up last night, i am writing a CAD program based in topology, and found the concept of the sheaf, and the connection/map/morphism, which i am pretty sure i'd already programmed but gave different names... studying this now... like how much of post-war topology exists to anticipate/rationalize CAD? the discussions i was reading about in a book on topos are like debates about the calculation order of essential CAD elements... edit: or shit, Exact Constraint theory is literally by an engineer working/repairing the film production line at kodak, to analyze the degrees of freedom in a flexible sheet. guess i'm asking if the *order* of science, going new labors and *then* written textbooks, is discussed w/ examples. base superstructure yada yada cuz it isn't just TV and religion

Edited by toyotathon ()

#16446
Im not sure how much the actual history of CAD is involved with the development of topology, i think many of the concepts such as sheaf, morphism, etc, predate CAD software but i think putting them to good use there is a really interesting goal!
#16447

toyotathon posted:

c_man thanks for the review. one thing that i see often, wondering if any of the noted marxists saw it too, is about how science truly follows labor. like, a new labor is invented, then scientists observe it, and then it is rationalized. common ideology has it the opposite way.



not a work of marxism but Morris Kline's "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" really sells the point that even mathematics, often held to be "pure" logic, is better regarded as an empirical discipline, with its most enduring developments being those that followed (or underwent reciprocal refinement through) practice

further, it's a field that has sometimes grown along irrational dimensions through academic politics, false proofs, and operations that are accepted to "just work" even if not rigorously founded or theorized. it more or less tracks with the development of other scientific fields, in that sense

Edited by Constantignoble ()

#16448
on page 308 or whatever of materialism and empirocriticism lenin calls out mathematicians for forgetting that matter exists and for reducing reality to equations "matter disapears, only equations remain"; thus vindicating my belief that modern maths is bullshit; - id recomend Mituo Taketani's Dialectics of nature - on quantum mechanics where he owns formal logic for removing the transformative element from mathematics and turning it into bullshit like AB = (is the same as) C rather than AB -> (transforms into) C and dunking on set theory (dude went to prison for writing a quantum mechanics paper lol); anyway, im pretty good at maths and quantum mechanics now, not good enough to own your all yet so see you in another month i guess, laters
#16449
I think Helena Sheehan has abandoned Trotskyism for pure reformism at this stage, which is doesn't surprise me given what you say about her book c_man. Inevitable result of rejecting Marxism as praxis I suppose. She fell hard for Syriza and has been advocating for Irish left unity on a Syriza model since, even despite Syriza crashing and burning
#16450
well the book was written in 1993. also every single leftist in the british isles is all in on labour right now (at least, the ones that aren't trying to keep out immigrants), especially all of the ones who were pointing and laughing at syriza, so its hardly surprising
#16451
hahahaha jesus christ notice me senpai fuck all yall and let me finish my degree in peace
#16452
make adult education and adult literacy a real thing
#16453
i have to be like pau gasol or chris bosh
#16454
get nukes off this planet, for good
#16455
and everybody read fucking settlers
#16456
spread like a prairie fire and don't burn out
#16457
this patreon shit is a joke. organize your workplace, it's a long slow process, one that involves tons of close personal meetings that you have to stay strong for
#16458
if you're nervous remember that mao quote about the solar system not mattering
#16459
seo fuckups
#16460
am i "political" now?

look up the blekingegade group
#16461
i'm like marc rudin
#16462
Are you having a mental health crisis? Or just drunk/high?
#16463
the latter i think
#16464
What are you two mormons, 195 fucking years old? a poster can't just be high as hell? Good gravy
#16465
nah man im just worried about my health. i carry a heavy head usually because i'm always on the brink of failure
#16466
i keep reading david graeber essay collections i've already read. i am in california hanging out w my girlfriend while working remotely and it kicks ass
#16467

Bablu posted:

nah man im just worried about my health. i carry a heavy head usually because i'm always on the brink of failure


if it's any consolation i did think you were just high. feel better soon mate

#16468

lenochodek posted:

ne1 read the new china book from mobo gao? https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745399812/constructing-china/


update: i read this one and its really good, with a really critical look into the "democracy thesis advocates" and contradictory neo-enlightenment concepts in post mao chinese and western discourse, a bunch of sources used to deconstruct various myths from both western warmongers and pro capitalist chinese intellectuals and political elites (fyi his opinion on whether xi is just more of the same is that "the jury's still out" while cautiously appreciating anti corruption measures and a new willingness to face the first 30 years of the prc in a way that deng and successors were not willing to)

#16469
post ebook in pdf forum?
#16470

Parenti posted:

That article is so full of shit. Yeah, I go to bat for Mélenchon


the other day i saw a british labour writer who seems to be big on the idea that democracy means control over the economy which includes the labour market therefore you need to have controls on immigration. and he quoted some melenchon stuff at me, maybe wrongly. made it sound like his position was close to bernie's, which is be nice to existing immigrants and increase quotas but keep the border regime in place. not sure you'll ever get better than that from the bourgeois-nationalist left.

#16471

getfiscal posted:

Parenti posted:

That article is so full of shit. Yeah, I go to bat for Mélenchon

the other day i saw a british labour writer who seems to be big on the idea that democracy means control over the economy which includes the labour market therefore you need to have controls on immigration. and he quoted some melenchon stuff at me, maybe wrongly. made it sound like his position was close to bernie's, which is be nice to existing immigrants and increase quotas but keep the border regime in place. not sure you'll ever get better than that from the bourgeois-nationalist left.



mélenchon does, unfortunately, believe in borders. but he's talked about scaling back the border regime in some places of his program, stuff like this:

refuser la militarisation de la politique de contrôle des flux migratoires
-94 L'Avenir en Commun



and

Renforcer les moyens civils de sauvetage en mer Méditerranée pour éviter les milliers de noyés
-ibid



also

En finir avec le placement en centre de rétention d’enfants, même accompagnés de leurs parents
-ibid



who was the british writer, by the way; i only go on twitter on tuesdays now

Edited by Parenti ()

#16472

Parenti posted:

i only go on twitter on tuesdays now




ah, another observer of Toilet Tuesday. greetings.

#16473
i have been re-reading elementary principles of philosophy by politzer, and i have to say i now think it has some serious issues which i either ignored or worse, agreed with without considering scientifically in the past.

statement 1: at time (t) 1 i thought it was very good, and now at t2 (t1 + 2 years) i now think it is weak in a number of areas, even considering its time of publishing

statement 2: at t1 i thought i was smart, but actually was stupid. (empirically verifiable via my posts)

statement 3: between t1 and t2 I have become more knowledgeable about marxism, philosophy, ancient history, physics, reality, matter, materialism, history of religion and theology, what passes for communist practice (please consult my communist newspaper sales record)

unverifiable hypothesis: therefor i am somewhat smarter now

statement 4: i am still a marxist and a materialist, though far less mechanical (personal opinion of self)

tentative conclusion: i only thought the book free from issues because i was stupid
#16474
amber a'lee frost wrote an article recently for the biffler that was like, stop pretending it's a difficult choice, just support bernie or get out of the way. so the baffler bigwigs see this and take it down because they are a non-profit foundation and shouldn't endorse candidates. even from the standpoint of bourgeois legality this is of course a bit silly, especially within the context of a world where you can get tax deductions for donating to like an israeli bullet fund or something. jacobin picked up the article and support for bernie presumably surged. anyway i thought it was a good piece of evidence for our long-standing posting jihad against the beffler, and conec tells me they didn't even give her a subscription yet. this is like when someone was rude to you at a party and then you see four years later that they were arrested for passing bad checks or some other novelty crime.
#16475
Note that the essay contest only happened because a barfler editor apparently lurked rhizzone but was afraid to identify themselves as being aware of it. If one of those bowtied margarine pats was hip enough to read rhizzone, presumably a large fraction of jacobin editors, dsa members, faculty in most poli sci departments, and so forth are, at least tangentially, aware of rhizzone but afraid to acknowledge this. This likely indicates that the swampman brand is famous and that many will be surprised at how packed to the rafters is my funeral.
#16476
observers will watch your funeral's crowd like kremlinwatchers to determine the "rhizzone power rankings for 2069"
#16477
I like to think about your funeral too. and how it will be crowded with like, completely bought-out liberal celebrities, and mayors who are also their city's biggest landlord, and they'll be reading lots of your old tweets out of context to make it seem like you were all about friendship and harmony rather than immediate, dispassionate bloodletting by rioters
#16478
i started reading "the left hand of darkness"
#16479

tears posted:

i have been re-reading elementary principles of philosophy by politzer, and i have to say i now think it has some serious issues which i either ignored or worse, agreed with without considering scientifically in the past.

statement 1: at time (t) 1 i thought it was very good, and now at t2 (t1 + 2 years) i now think it is weak in a number of areas, even considering its time of publishing

statement 2: at t1 i thought i was smart, but actually was stupid. (empirically verifiable via my posts)

statement 3: between t1 and t2 I have become more knowledgeable about marxism, philosophy, ancient history, physics, reality, matter, materialism, history of religion and theology, what passes for communist practice (please consult my communist newspaper sales record)

unverifiable hypothesis: therefor i am somewhat smarter now

statement 4: i am still a marxist and a materialist, though far less mechanical (personal opinion of self)

tentative conclusion: i only thought the book free from issues because i was stupid



if you want to write something serious about this i will put it up on the Extras page of EPoP

#16480
reading about erik olin wright, wtf is analytical marxism. and if you die as an academic do colleagues write your eulogy about themselves? counted 50+ first-person pronouns, liberalometer absolutely blaring