I think any decent definition of 'universe' would involve it being a closed system. If not, it is at best part of some larger structure, just part of a universe. — noAxioms

I think that begs the question.

Though to be fair to you -- to say the universe is a closed system is more or less to affirm the conservation laws are true and applicable to all that we can observe and make inferences about.

A physical coin flip (like Pachinko) should be a reasonably deterministic process. If all state is known to enough precision, the outcome is computable. Still, classical physics is not empirically deterministic, as illustrated by things like Norton's dome. This does not falsify ontic deterministic interpretations, which give cause to all events. — noAxioms

It doesn't falsify it, but I have to begin to wonder what this ontic determinism is -- if it's not empirically determined it can't be falsified.

So why believe it?

That mirrors my experience with anarchist spaces. Disputes, yes -- violence? No. It's all handled by talking through it with everyone. (EDIT: I ought mention that "violence" means "killing, or trying to kill, in order to reach a political objective" -- sometimes disruptive individuals have to be dealt with. But at most what I've seen there is removal from the premises by a group carrying out the disruptive individual. No death, or imprisonment)

What's a better or worse simplification shouldn't be an emotional question, so apologies for my part for that. — boethius

S'all good. I could have been less snarky and more friendly. But no need to apologize for expressing peevishness; we understand one another better through it.

These themes also highlight the focus in anarchism of individual example. Being willing to be the first one to refuse military service on moral grounds (and so be immediately executed) is just as, if not more, important to the anarchist movement as writing a book or being involved in party politics in one way or another. Likewise being willing to be the first one to not beat your children to see what happens, put the hypotheses that they will literally go insane to the test. — boethius

That's a good point. A fellow worker noted to me the importance of the IWW could be seen by its continual involvement in new issues that then became normal. That it wasn't the number of shops organized or membership numbers but the overall effect and continual vigilance at being at the front of positive social change that made it important.

OK I think I've figured it out -- if you've ever just "felt suspicious" of an idea in a philosophical text I think that's it because I can't really pin something down in the text. And I probably "feel suspicious" just because I've thought about happiness a lot in my own thoughts so it's harder for me to disentangle my thinking on the topic because of emotional attachment to it, on a philosophical level.

Oh, sorry. Anarchists.

Oh, for sure.

Bad actors abound.

But just to warn you, it is fairly popular in my experience in this subgroup.

For lack of a better term "identity politics" is largely viewed favorably by anarchists I've worked with.

From a theoretical standpoint it makes a lot of sense, though. Racism is a hierarchy where white people are held as higher than black people. Patriarch is a hierarchy where men are held as higher than women. And all the other -ism's mostly follow that same pattern.

And, really, it's not like it's backed up by nothing. Minority issues are nothing new, they've just been rebranded as "woke", somehow. There are statistics about violence against minorities and all the rest we can go into if we're wondering if there's something objective about these stances, or if they're just ways of identifying one's tribe.

But generally anarchists have soft hearts for the lesser, and so such language isn't hard to pass muster among anarchists insofar that it looks like the oppression they're used to seeing everywhere.

Yup. That's a true description of the big picture in various attempts.

Also, if it wasn't clear, do not read Robert's Rules of Order unless you want to kill your desire to learn anything ever(at least at first -- it's a much later book if you're still interested in further study). It's important, but damn parliamentary procedure is a snoozer to read.

:rofl: Well that's reassuring...

Okiedoke. Then it's just a wondering on my part where I'm not fully following everything.

Would there be no central government at all then? It has been stated earlier, and I read it in The Conquest of Bread yesterday, that there would still be federation between these small groups. As such how would that happen? — unimportant

In the ideal there would be no central government at all. Federations could exist in various ways but they wouldn't be run by officers who are elected to the position for a set term, but rather it would just be someone's job to serve as a communication network.

So in our municipalities you have some representative that you can appeal to in the event that you have some political interest in the business of the city. Were a city run anarchically rather than going to a representative who would then bring whatever case they deem worthy of bringing before the officers of the city you would bring the proposal to the decision making body, and you would advocate for it.

The extremely exciting part of this is learning parliametary procedure through the thrilling epic known as Robert's Rules of Order, in terms of a practical blueprint for making collective decisions.

Basically there wouldn't be representatives, and what representatives do in our society would be all of our responsibility. How we go about that will be up to us, but there are previous ways of collective debate we can riff from and modify to suit the needs of a particular collective.

Also, I tried starting ND today.

I can see what you mean @Jamal about how the difficulty has gone up a few notches. I've had to reread several sentences just due to the sheer number of pronouns, and the parts that I've understood so far are only because we've gone over them in the lectures prior -- so I'm glad we started with something to at least give me some footholds into the material!

You have a talent for concision. :up: — Jamal

Thanks :)

I find myself conflicted often with his various remarks on happiness, and ideology, and especially the use of the term "bleating" -- reminds me of Nietzsche's disdain for the herd.

There's part of me that agrees a lot with him on happiness in that there is nothing shallow or deep about happiness -- but I'd say the same of suffering and melancholy and pain. And I like his approach because I get the sense that the essence of something comes forth through this back-and-forth process -- but there's still this element of desire as a lack that I generally think is a common but wrong way to think on happiness since I don't think happiness is something that even can be fulfilled or pursued so much as worked towards by stopping doing what we think will make us happy and starting doing what will actually make us happy. But that's not as tragic as Adorno's philosophy :D

:up: Sounds good. You got outvoted @hypericin :D

I will submit something. I suggest we post them to the main forum, maybe with a prefix like [PF Essay]. They are topical, after all! — hypericin

The plan as I understand it is to post them in the Phil. Writing Activity 2025 subforum, whose contents appear on the front page. I'm good with adding a PF Essay tag in addition to the title of the paper so that it's easily discernable without clicking on the sub-forum, though clicking on the sub-forum ought to filter out for the essays alone if that's what someone wants to focus on.

It's a good line. I hadn't heard it before. And it's good to set against the impression that anarchism is ... kinda boring. — Jamal

:rofl:

Hey, I don't know what's wrong with the rest of the world but reading old translations of 150 year old political theory is :fire: -- keeps me up all night.

Easy. The whole thing says that for a closed system, the system (described by one wave function) evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, which is a fully deterministic equation.

Non-deterministic interpretations involve what Einstein apparently detested: the rolling of dice. A good deal of interpretations involve this. — noAxioms

Yes -- but maybe Einstein was wrong.

Is the whole universe rightly described as a closed system?

With all due respect, you are ignorant of anything else as far as first hand experience. And that is a fact. — Outlander

So how can you claim:

5,000 years of recorded human history where wars are waged and the stronger or larger force takes and destroys from the weaker or smaller force is an "assumption?" — Outlander

Unless you have first hand experience of 5000 years? Or is recorded history enough?

Something I found interesting in this lecture is the connection of speculation to depth, and thereby speculation to the appearance/essence distinction. Part of me wonders if it is better to read it as "essence" since he makes the remark about how Marx was enough of a Hegelian to maintain essence in his philosophy, but I'm not sure. Either way I can see avoiding debates on essentialism is a good idea :D -- I'm just thinking out loud on how to interpret him.

So a quick summary as I understand it: Philosophy is resistance to the facts as they appear. It engages in speculation in order to probe the depths of the phenomena, and while Adorno emphasizes that this is never a complete process it's something that philosophy must do in order to obtain depth, or even be a worthwhile philosophy. He makes some notes about how there's a false depth which is bound up with suffering such that expressions of happiness are taken as a mark of shallowness, and Adorno notes how this is to miss depth for what depth is about. Depth expresses human suffering rather than says "I am suffering, so I am wise" -- analogy to the artists who give impressions, and thereby were more metaphysical painters than the ones who painted explicit scenes of people "touching the source".

:up: Cool.

Just wanted to make sure it's a bit of an analogy to the Big Picture -- something like a negotiated middle for people trying to do anarchist things in a world dominated by states.

:up:

Yup. That's one way to think on it. Though one can be part of a housing or grocery co-op without being an anarchist, of course, these are some real examples that give an idea of how it works. (for instance, a co-op could be owned by everyone but still run on hierarchical principles of hiring workers that work for the co-op, which would be a hierarchical social relationship and so not really in accord with the whole idea)

After I'm done with this lecture I'm going to skim over Adorno's notes for lectures 11-25 and bring things up here if I find them interesting. What I won't be doing do is reading "The Theory of Intellectual Experience," which is printed first alongside the notes to lectures 11-25, and then in full in an Appendix, because this is just the introduction to ND, and we'll be coming to that very soon. — Jamal

Cool.

It was my understanding that we'd be switching over to ND after Lecture 10.

Trade unions organize the workers at a place not owned by the workers, whereas a workers collective owns the place and runs it in accord with whatever decision-making process they set up.

Though you could also have a union-collective -- a union run in accord with those same principles, rather than the usual method of organization.

I would be terrified if the lowest common denominator were making decisions. Look at the Trump situation.

Then again maybe if it was on a smaller scale it would not be like that? For example like decision making in small towns rather than the lumbering hive mind you might see on a place like reddit. — unimportant

Yeah, think of it like a municipality -- but rather than voting on representatives to vote for what to do everyone represents themselves and can speak on what to do. I've heard this described as the "spokes and wheel" model of organization: where working groups are organized in accord with a central working group which deals with communications between working groups.

Or, if you'd like, think of it as a team at your workplace -- but rather than having a boss all the workers set the rules for the workplace. This would be a workers collective.

But, really, I'd emphasize doing some of the readings rather than listening to me. You'll get ideas of your own that way and the theorists explain themselves in better detail than these little maps I'm trying to make :)

Maybe in an anarchist state you would not longer have such idiots which is just a product of the diseased capitalist system. Not that I am proposing an old boy's club either but how does one ward against the least qualified person having as much say as the most qualified?

You don't. The premise is that everyone has not just the opportunity to grow, but everyone is fundamentally equal in a political manner.

Example an anti-science climate change denier having as much say on policy as a career climate scientist?

Isn't this the case in our present day democracies?

What keeps them in check there is that there are representatives which do the voting for them, and there's a decision-making process in place that is democratic.

The anarchist wouldn't want to deprive the idiot of their rights -- generally speaking anarchists have a generally optimistic view of human nature, and given time the idiot will either prove the collective wrong or will come around to seeing that it was right or will move onto another collective.

Heh, yeah we don't need to simplify to that point. I think we basically agree -- I was just peeved you'd say that no one would ever say such and such, and so asked you to provide something similar that might be better. But it's no worries now, and it doesn't really matter.

how do anarchists propose to manage things like law enforcement, healthcare and the like if there is no government or is there government just only local government so it would be just all grass roots, cottage industry type of companies locally for all human public services? — unimportant

Different ways, depending on the particular anarchist you're talking to. Some general themes that emerge are an emphasis on horizontal decision making and a minimization of hierarchies in our day-to-day decisions. The basic unit of society for an anarchist is the collective, in terms of the day-to-day(individuals are just as important in this notion of collective -- there's a unity between the two such that the individual is respected within the collective). One joins a collective and shares the benefits of cooperation with its members while negotaiting with other collectives. Some collectives proposed are industrial-wide unions ran on syndicalist lines, some collectives are worker or housing coops, some are political working groups, some are bikeshares, some are childcare shares....

A major difference between how our world operates and that world operates is that there's not really a person in charge which takes on the responsibility for a task. It's the collective's responsibility, which includes every individual within the collective. Horizontal decision-making usually involves consensus-building among the group until agreement is reached by the collective, and its this willing agreement which is meant to keep things running smoothly -- since everyone genuinely agreed to such-and-such they act in concert together for the benefits of collective activity.

This demonstrates the difference I was alluding to, and you've already pinpointed as a difference -- the way anarchists speak about nature differs dramatically from the way Marxists speak about nature. I'm not speaking here in terms of which is better than what, but only trying to lay out conceptual distinctions to differentiate, and do so in a manner that's user-friendly, though accurate.

For Marx "the economy" is very much in the human realm of things, to the point that our very being is defined by the process of production.

But anarchists tend to see it in a wider sense, as embedded within an ecology, and tend to have more respect for nature than Marxists do, who are certainly part of the industrial revolution. This is because of their universal stance against hierarchies, be they socially constructed or imposed on other living creatures.

Nature is something to be exploited for human ends, in a Marxist philosophy. It's part of the Enlightenment inheritance. Further, hierarchy is a useful means to an end which the Marxist will not shun.

Yup. That's Marx/Proudhon(EDIT:Bakunin) are also a great place for getting an understanding of the distinction.

I can think of nitpicks, but I can't see how what I said is at odds with this.

Also, is that the shortest version you got? :D

OK, this demonstrates a good theoretical difference -- something for philosophy.

I'm gathering that you're speaking from the anarchists perspective in this. In which case "the economic system" does not mean the same as it does in Marx -- whose goals are also clear in a desire to change the means of production in order to change society.

Yes to who owns what -- but the idea really is that the state would wither away once classes were abolished. And so we'll get later adaptations of Marxism which are more nationalist in character, which justify hierarchies, and so forth, on the basis that it's overthrowing the capitalist mode of production, the real Big Bad.

So, yes, there will be differences along the way. And they will be important at times.

One of them here being even an understanding of what constitutes "the economy", since it seems you're in favor of some kind of anarcho-primitivism, given your comment that hunger will teach people to garden

****
But just for a moment try to crystalize what you understand of both philosophies into a single sentence. What would you say rather than what I've said? Try to simplify it, rather than cover every nuance through several paragraphs.

What would you say the difference is, when you keep it simple?

Yeah. Especially not my map, which isn't meant to go into details. If it needs to be said, yes, you'll find a lot of differences along the way -- including once backed by material struggle.

"Takes care of itself" would be a kind of doe-eyed utopianism, which I can see wanting to reject, but the gist of what they care about in your summation is a good starting point, IMO. One focuses on economic exploitation and overcoming that, the other focuses on hierarchical exploitation and overcoming that, and sometimes their endgoals look really similar and you wonder why it is we're fighting, but then that's the nature of politics. And as it turns out the differences are substantive, i.e. difference between building a union vs. building a party, or what-have-you.

Literally no Marxist or anarchist would ever say either of these idiocies. — boethius

There's a thing called "simplification" that we do to get the gist of an idea across. If someone doesn't know what a representative democracy is we don't rush into make sure that someone understands the nuances between a federal or a confederate or a singular state, whether one utilizes a first-past-the-post or other electoral mechanism, etc. You start with Locke, the state of nature, and so forth, and attempt to simplify the complex so that people can branch out on their own.

So marxism the revolution is economic and the rest sorts itself out and anarchism is social structure and the rest sorts itself out? — unimportant

Yup -- that'd be the utopian version of both, but in terms of differentiating them and trying to wrap your mind around it that's a good simplification.

My only comment is the glib observation that in my experince Marxists are less interesting than anarchists. — Tom Storm

Oh, for sure. At least my experience says the same of the modern tendencies, though I've been out of the game so I couldn't say what things are like now now.

But, on the other hand, Marxists did build longer lasting institutions, or at least more of them that had an impact in national affairs. From the anarchist's standpoint that may be a demerit, depending on how idealistic the anarchist is.

I am not someone who believes in utopias or the perfectibility of human beings and I usually find people who see the world as a rigid expression of theory to be dull monomaniacs. But in the current world of plutocracy, I hear my Marxist voices calling.

For myself I just see capitalism as a problem which Marx describes well -- I don't think that politics will end if we manage to create a new socioeconomic way of life, but perhaps the problems of capitalism will wane if done correctly. Similarly so with anarchy -- if we manage to find a way to organize ourselves sans hierarchy I'm certain that politics will continue, that we will continue to have to decide things together and confront challenges and that people will continue to be people for all that. But we may still be better off if we overcome the challenges of hierarchy.

I tend to think of these as central problems that cause a lot of suffering rather than fixalls that bring about a utopia.

Where I think utopian thinking makes sense is in imagining a world we might want to live in. But I don't think it makes sense to base a political philosophy entirely on that world, which is why I like Marxism -- it has a more practical edge to it which allows one to enact the political mechanisms that exist today rather than inventing them wholesale as a counter to the hierarchical systems. The latter are far more like what I'd prefer to live in, but the former tend to fair better against hierarchically organized states since they have no qualms in utilizing hierarchy, which is good at orchestrating people towards winning, if not towards making them happy.

So I feel an attraction to both, and often try to think of blending the two into a coherent political philosophy.

You're not crazy. Many have tried, and you're welcome to too.

What in particular could someone say to you, other than to say "keep going, I'm listening"?

The "correct in its domain of validity, profoundly innovative, immensely influential and has introduced structures of thinking on which we are still building" bit might have less of a rhetorical influence with respect to chemists though.

Roughly, yes.

I love that paper so much.

This is the testament of a man who has lived the sailor’s cycle as it was for centuries: — Ian James Hillyard

Good luck with your memoir. I hope your experience of dying right now isn't you dying right now.

But if so I'd much rather have companions to talk to in that situation, rather than not.

Your emphasis on the sailors life makes me think of Moby Dick. Especially as here you are talking of your memoir.

it's probably important to see that the differences between these two traditions of political thought are about both means and ends. That is, Marxists and anarchists disagree not only about the end goal (although quite often they agree about that, and call it communism), but also, I'd say primarily, about how to get there: can we overthrow the rulers and transition to a communistic society by taking control of the state, using the institutions, hierarchies, and powers of government, police, education, the legal system, etc.—as Marxists usually believe—or does it have to be a ground-up, grassroots revolution, as the anarchists believe. — Jamal

:up:

Means/Ends reasoning definitely differs between the two. I like your notion that communism is the theoretical they aspire towards, but maybe that's just the only idea they relate on, given the differences in material struggle.

A question to keep in mind for myself, then -- I thought of Sartre and Camus, but would defend them as "good" examples of blending the disciplines while keeping them separate too.